Origin of morality

[Solitary]

"Simply being primed with science-related thoughts increased a) adherence to moral norms, b) real-life future altruistic intentions, and c) altruistic behavior towards an anonymous other. The conceptual association between science and morality appears strong."
 
This short quote is reeking of something us philosophers call "cognitive bias". In other words, it's pretty much the same thing religio-tards do. Here's how it works...

The pastor associates Jesus with happy feelings, and have the person go into a self-induced alpha state (look it up). After a while, the person goes into the alpha state on his own when he talks about Jesus. (this is mainly why religious people are always smiling, they're getting endorphins from the alpha state.)

Well, I hate to be the one to tell you, but nonbelievers do the EXACT SAME THING when they talk about science. I call it science worshiping.

The quote from the video basically tells you this is going on when they use the words 'primed' and 'thoughts'.

The test subjects were giving happier answers because they were high on jesus science.
Besides, here's another study that says nonbelievers are simply more compassionate by nature – effectively negating the whole 'science morality' study!

http://www.livescience.com/20005-atheis ... ssion.html

Something interesting... Take a look at the reporters in the video. Watch how they start smiling and look like they are feeling good while they talk about this.

The second beef I have with this whole false scientific study, is that ANYTHING SUBJECTIVE HAS NO BUSINESS BEING THERE!

Just like math doesn't make us moral, neither does science. Math and science are both based on OBJECTIVE testing, evidence, provability, etc, etc, etc. There is no place for anything subjective, or emotional, or moral, or happy or sad.

We should do the same experiment they did in the video, but 'prime' the participants with thoughts of addition or multiplication.

I bet we wind up with the same results.

I mean, really, people? You science worshipers don't even know the difference between morals and ethics!
Take a look at the video and comment. Do you agree with them? Why?

   [youtube:r406yrbs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjo7Eekv6Io[/youtube:r406yrbs]    Solitary

[You Only Live Once]

I can't really help answer your question as I have questions myself about what morality actually is and what it all contains. I have always assumed to be a "moral" person all that was required was to treat your fellow man with respect. By respecting your fellow man you pretty much accumulate all of those silly long drawn out commandments into one simple guideline. Now in the religious aspect of morality I am completely baffled. They tell you not to kill or wish ill will on your neighbour except for the part where "God"  in the first half of the bible does quite a sum of killing himself so I guess it's ok to kill and harm people when your God?

[GurrenLagann]

I do always love the whole "Obviously an objective morality is grounded in God's essential nature" assertion. Strangely, moral philosophers don't tend to - ever - postulate that. Almost as if it were a claim without merit or use. Figure that one out.

[ApostateLois]

Morality is grounded in the character and nature of God, the creator, Himself.

No, it is grounded in a basic human desire to not have other people hurt them or mess with their shit. If I don't want you to steal my stuff, I should probably not try to steal your stuff, because that would tend to piss you off. You might send your bigger, stronger relatives to beat the crap out of me, too, and I sure don't want that. Plus, I know how I would feel to have my stuff stolen, and can use my sense of empathy to figure out that you would feel the same way. So, yeah, not gonna steal your stuff.

[Bobbotov]

I think it is absurd that the question of what is moral could be  based on the fact that a human invention called God was created to convince humans they they cannot know what it is without that God. It is preposterous on a grand scale.

[Colanth]

Plus, I know how I would feel to have my stuff stolen, and can use my sense of empathy to figure out that you would feel the same way. So, yeah, not gonna steal your stuff.

That assumes that you have a sense of empathy.  I'm beginning to suspect that religion is a sign of a defective empathic sense (among other things).  How many times have you seen the Christian assertion that without fear of God, Christians would be terribly immoral people?  (Or maybe the sense of empathy just gets warped, at an early age, into a fear of some bigger guy?)

[gomtuu77]

Morality is grounded in the character and nature of God, the creator, Himself.

Irrelevant.

Even if this is the case, and morality has an objective standard, it is irrelevant due to the fact that no one knows this objective standard and lives by a set of subjective rules. We should base our knowledge on what can be observed and interacted with rather than an idea that is proposed to beyond the realm of human understanding and will never be able to be understood.

No, all your statement does is say that we should not strive to understand morality scientifically because it transcends the realm of science (and therefor reality insofar as we know it). Just like the Earth and the Sun, the fact that the world is round or the evolution of man your statement says that we should not question, only obey. And just like the theories before, piece by piece we are discovering that god is an irrelevant character in the equation. Your book has a poor track record of explaining how reality works and I see little reason to believe it got this one right either.

Are you saying that people don't follow any objective standard at all, or are you saying that the standard is too imperfectly followed for it to be appropriately considered an objective standard that all people have access to?

I would submit that you can both observe and interact with similar behaviors all around the world, which at the very least, imply an objective standard.  For example, the overwhelming majority of all people and cultures have decried and condemned the following to one degree or another:

The unjustified taking of innocent human life
Stealing the property of others
Having an inordinate envious desire for things that do not belong to you
Cheating on your wife
Being a liar
Dishonoring your parents (family)

There are significant differences in exactly how these things play out from one culture to another, but this has less to do with the moral law's absence and more to do with other phenomenon.  For example, the extent to which a person, group, or society understands the moral law and how it should be applied can vary.  Our free will and socializations can also affect the behavior that results from our knowledge and understanding of the moral law and its proper application.

The bottom line is that most of this particular difficulty has to do with a confusion between fact and value, what is and what ought to be.  What people do is subject to change, but what they ought to do is not.  There is a difference between sociology and morality.  Sociology is "descriptive", but morality is "prescriptive".  These are qualitatively different.  Be careful not to confuse the changing factual situation (e.g. the 1860's treatment of blacks in America) with the unchanging moral duty (e.g. treating all mankind as equals before God).

Getting back to what I was discussing earlier, there is also a confusion regarding the difference between the moral values and factual understandings.  In other words, there is a difference between an absolute moral value and the changing understanding of how that value is properly applied.  For example, it was once the case that witches were sentenced as murderers, but now they are not.  What changed was not the moral principle that murder is wrong.  Rather, our understanding changed about whether witches really murder people by their curses.  One's factual understanding of a moral situation is relative, but the moral values involved in the situation are not.  I hope that makes sense to you.

I hope this was at least somewhat helpful.

[MrsSassyPants]

I don't know much, but I do know that some of the most immoral people I have met....were at a church

[gomtuu77]

I don't know much, but I do know that some of the most immoral people I have met....were at a church

Of this, I have no doubt.

In one sense, it makes sense, since church is really only meant for the deeply immoral sinner.

In another sense, it's sad, since those who regularly assemble to worship and learn about their creator are called to lives of holiness & righteousness.

This is specifically why it's important, for the believer, to maintain a focus on Jesus Christ.  Human beings will always disappoint you, if given the chance.  And the faith any one person has is only as good as the object in which it is place.  When you put in human beings and their behavior, you're likely to come away with a bad taste in your mouth almost every time.

That's not an excuse.  It's just the reality.

[Poison Tree]

Are you saying that people don't follow any objective standard at all, [. . .]  For example, the overwhelming majority of all people and cultures have decried and condemned the following to one degree or another:

What do you actually mean when you say "objective"?
Is near universality sufficient to establish some moral as "objective"?

[Graceless]

I find that the vast majority of all moral codes boil down to "promote happiness and wellbeing for yourself and others, while avoiding unhappiness for yourself and others." All of the specific rules that we think to be just derive from this general rule. Don't lie, because lying causes unhappiness and mistrust in the long term. Don't covet, because it will make you discontented. Don't murder, because it will truncate a potentially happy and productive life.

Even arbitrary religious rules can boil down to this principle if we look at them from the superstitious perspective of their framers. Don't blaspheme, because if you do god will punish you and make you unhappy. Don't suffer a witch to live, because she will bring harm upon the whole community. Sacrifice livestock to god so that he'll smile upon your endeavors and make your life fulfilling.

So I just cut out all the extraneous rules, and derive my idea of the most moral behavior in a given situation from that behavior's probable effect on people's happiness and wellbeing. It works rather well, and comes free of most moral dilemmas; after all, when you only have one principle, how can your principles come into conflict?

[gomtuu77]

Are you saying that people don't follow any objective standard at all, [. . .]  For example, the overwhelming majority of all people and cultures have decried and condemned the following to one degree or another:

What do you actually mean when you say "objective"?
Is near universality sufficient to establish some moral as "objective"?

Independent & non-contingent.  

It's nearness to universality is likely more a reflection of the sociology or descriptive behavior relative to the moral law than it is on the moral law itself.  Having said that, it can still certainly be an indicator as to its objective nature.  It just doesn't necessarily "establish" it.  Were morality non-objective or subjective, we would expect significantly more divergence that we either see or have seen.  Instead, we find a lot of the same basic moral notions that extend through time.

[Poison Tree]

Are you saying that people don't follow any objective standard at all, [. . .]  For example, the overwhelming majority of all people and cultures have decried and condemned the following to one degree or another:

What do you actually mean when you say "objective"?
Is near universality sufficient to establish some moral as "objective"?

Independent & non-contingent.  

Independent of or to what?

[ApostateLois]

In one sense, it makes sense, since church is really only meant for the deeply immoral sinner.

Believing in God and Jesus, worshiping them at church, getting saved and baptized and born again...none of these make the slightest difference in the behavior and morals of most people. You can't tell the difference between a Christian and anyone else just by observing their behavior. There are men who are the very paragon of good behavior on Sundays and at Wednesday night Bible Study, but the rest of the time they beat their wives and kids, cheat on their tax returns, or are rotten jerks in the workplace. If we cannot trust church-goers to set the example for the rest of humanity, then why should people bother going to church? Why be born again, why worship God, or any of the rest of it, if you are going to think and behave like anyone else, and have exactly the same morals?

[_Xenu_]

But seriously.

This is something with which I've struggled.  I don't know if there is an answer that will satisfy both sides.

The best I've been able to come up with is: Morals are a manifestation of our internal struggle between self-preservation and the realization that what's best for me -- as an individual -- may not be what's best for the everyone else.

You're actually pretty close to the truth, but you fail to make an important distinction. As social animals, collective survival is often genetically advantageous to humans. Its not necessarily an either or type situation.