Kindest Regards, Caimanson!
By natural you mean animal in general or do you include "natural" humans as well?
Gosh, just thought of the 'civilised' baby disposal by the Spartans.
Good question, and one that would serve us well as we continue. Generally, I do think in terms of "animal morality" when I use the term *natural* in this context. As for Sparta...see how we cannot make absolute statements regarding morality? But then, this is no small wonder, it is a struggle in anthropology as a whole...one deals with generalities in the face of many exceptions. But the entire premise of taking morality back into a *natural / animal* model was to see if there was merit to some religious teachings that promote the merit in *nature.* It is very difficult when in a modern moral context, to try to understand a natural moral model because it seems so alien and counter-intuitive.
I never suggested that human morality was the same as a mystical or enlightened love!
Nor did I. I do think love plays a crucial role, but it is quite distinct from morality. I just haven't figured out the relationship between love and morality, let alone logic. I add logic here in reference to earlier comment, and because logic is counter-intuitive to love on frequent occasion.
What I mean is that gradually, the rulers and leaders of those primitive societies realised that it was convenient to have these laws and morals. Partly out of awareness and partly out of pragmatism, for the preservation of the group and perhaps to increase their power and control.
And I don't think it is any different today for small or big groups of any kind.
Just my opinion.
Well, we have the dawn of history; the fertile crescent of Mesopotamia and the wide-spread adoption of the agrarian lifestyle in combination with some of the earliest walled fortifications, the learning of war as an art, the development of the wheel and working of metals, and the first written languages (cuneiform). And it was from this basis that the first written codified moral laws were written: the Code of Hammurabi.
Prior to this, during pre-historic time (before writing), we can only guess by various artifacts. So while your points about power, pragmatism and preservation are pretty well founded by *historic" bases, it is conjecture when applied to pre-history. And I think, if we can use shamanic and tribal examples from today as any kind of corollary, that this is a very western view that is foreign to the tribal social structures of pre-history. Not counting, what effect did agriculture have on the human psyche? Grain is *not* a normal diet, evolutionarily speaking, for humans. So it is justifiable to hold the neolithic mind to a different standard than our own.
Having said this, it is still quite curious why the extended and uniform effort to reach towards some Divine element, if no Divine element exists?
Of course there is also room for those early religious people that through their spiritual experiences had "revelation" of what is good.
Those people probably had more time to stand back and reflect than the average ruler.
Perhaps. Yet, acknowledgement of "spiritual experiences" almost precludes any real semblence of atheism, does it not? Acknowledgement of spirit almost de facto rules for G-d, does it not?
That is the interesting thing for me, what kind of morals are we talking about, the selfless unconditional love of the mystic, or the more down to earth sense of what is good?
You raise a further distinction I had not earlier considered. How would you distinguish between the two kinds of morality?
Kindest Regards, Eudaimonist!
If the atheist takes the view that life is an end-in-itself, then the reason to live a happy, full life, to pursue dreams, and all that, is precisely to accomplish this goal. Life is both the means and the reward.
Very well, and I did respond to this general point already earlier. If you are content with this summation in accord with your heart and mind, more power to ya! I simply find more circumstantial evidence to support my belief that there is something out there, the IS. Whether or not it is the Christian concept of G-d, I often wonder, no doubt to the chagrin of my fellows. I certainly do not view G-d, as bb puts it, as some old grey beard sitting on a cloud hurling thunderbolts at whoever displeases Him. Nor likewise some aged tites in the sky either, hurling whatever temper tantrum at whoever displeases Her. I *do* think that the general Christian depiction of G-d is overly simplistic. I also think that none of the world faiths do much better in this regard, that G-d is simply too big for a human mind to completely fathom. Yet, all of these religions *point to* what IS. And, in my assessment after long years of diligent searching, I have concluded that G-d IS. Can I prove it? No. It is merely the weight of circumstantial evidence bearing on my critical processes.
I don't think a morality gene is likely to be found. Genes that program/influence human minds to percieve cheating, killing tribe members, etc as 'bad' may have been selected for, in the same sense that genes that encourage staying put while predators abound would be selected against. Something relatively simple like that strikes me as likely.
Perhaps, but I am inclined to go with the genome researchers on matters concerning the genome. People like Francis Collins. Seems I recall Mr. Collins stating emphatically and for the record, that there were no *behavior* genes as such. What I alluded to with epigenetics, which I only recently learned of, is that it is within that realm that behaviors can be shown to affect multiple generations following. Say, for example, alcoholism; one alky in the family can trigger similar behavior for several generations. Perhaps, in a tribal / family way, there is some merit to your point about moral behavior being passed on through some mechanism not unlike epigenetics.
