Should You Feel Guilty When You Break the Law? Implications of Theory of Evolution on Morality

[Traianvs]

Your initial post is a bit long, I might reply to it tomorrow, but I'd like to mention a few words about this:

If by that you mean "to rape, torture, and kill a child is not 'wrong' per se, but it's certainly not my particular cup of tea," at least I can admire the consistency. Unfortunately many avowed atheists I've known and read still believe that some things are "right" or "wrong" in an objective sense, which is patently hypocritical.

Don't you think these atheist intend to say that most notions of right or wrong are widespread and universally accepted, whether it is religion or another philosophy that is causing people to think and act according to those notions? If that's not the case, then those atheists are stupid, since there is no objective morality. Idiots abound everywhere, atheists are no exception

That was precisely the point I was trying to make throughout; namely that the presence of religion, even if false, may be a lesser evil than a potential societal breakdown in its absence.

Your assumption is that religion is necessary to prevent said societal breakdown. That is to say societal breakdown is caused only by absence of religion or what? To me it's just one more authority that has the power to enact rules upon the masses. It can be beneficial or disadvantageous according to specific circumstances. Nobody denies that it can prevent societal breakdown, but that doesn't mean it applies in each and every context.

The question to ask yourself is whether religion is the only option you have to keep everyone in control.

[Berzerker]

Do people always steal if they can be absolutely positive they won't be caught?

some would, most wouldn't

[GePap]

If by that you mean "to rape, torture, and kill a child is not 'wrong' per se, but it's certainly not my particular cup of tea," at least I can admire the consistency. Unfortunately many avowed atheists I've known and read still believe that some things are "right" or "wrong" in an objective sense, which is patently hypocritical.

As an avowed aethist, I agree with the idea that positing universal principles is silly when denying some fountain of universal morality. That said, I do not believe that one needs to believe in some metaphysical order to create an underlying set of principals to run a human society.

That was precisely the point I was trying to make throughout; namely that the presence of religion, even if false, may be a lesser evil than a potential societal breakdown in its absence.

Social interaction predates our humanity - we are social apes that evolved from other social apes. There will always be codes of conduct amongst humans, just as all other social mammals have codes -there are ckear evolutionary reasons for something akin to morality amongst groups of homo sapiens, something that has nothing to do with organizing a set of rituals built around metaphysical superstitions.

I might add that 25% is a purely hypothetical number for the mind exercise. Since the fundamental question of whether man is inherently good or evil hasn't been sufficiently answered by silence, it's possible that the number could be much higher, to the point of overwhelming society's defenses. Or it could be less, though that doesn't correspond with my anecdotal experience. I admit the way we approach that question is mostly determined by who we've happened to meet, but there it is.

Good and Evil are fundamentally relative terms themselves. Mst of us would consider a religion built around human sacrifice as evil, yet many pre-Columbian societies maintained such religions for millenia without sign of societal collapse. To ask whether man is good or evil is meaningless, since the truth is, we are both at the same time.

[fed1943]

It looks "objective morality" means nothing.
Morality doesn't try to explain "why" but to rule according one goal,i.e. "what for".
So, it's connected with the subjects, not with the objects.
Best regards,

[Darius871]

Don't you think these atheist intend to say that most notions of right or wrong are widespread and universally accepted, whether it is religion or another philosophy that is causing people to think and act according to those notions? If that's not the case, then those atheists are stupid, since there is no objective morality. Idiots abound everywhere, atheists are no exception

We're in total agreement then; unfortunately there are many in that camp that aren't as intellectually honest as you. I suppose I'll never get a real answer from them, but "look to nature" is usually their catch-all canard, despite its potentially disastrous consequences pointed out above.

Your assumption is that religion is necessary to prevent said societal breakdown. That is to say societal breakdown is caused only by absence of religion or what? To me it's just one more authority that has the power to enact rules upon the masses. It can be beneficial or disadvantageous according to specific circumstances. Nobody denies that it can prevent societal breakdown, but that doesn't mean it applies in each and every context.

To be fair I'm not really "assuming" it, just supposing it for the sake of the thought experiment. But in my admittedly limited and nonscientific anecdotal experience, I have come to believe that a huge portion of the presently religious would habitually manipulate and abuse others had they not come to falsely believe that it'd bring eternal damnation. Whether they're quantitatively enough to overwhelm the rest of society and cause its "breakdown" or merely to be a surmountable pox on society isn't really relevant if there's a net social harm.

The question to ask yourself is whether religion is the only option you have to keep everyone in control.

Not everyone obviously, since not everyone is religious, but I do believe that the maximum amount of ethical behavior will be induced where it is in society's "bag of control mechanisms" than where it is not. As I've mentioned, the cops can't catch everybody, some don't care if they're caught regardless, some worldly punishments aren't all that bad, and many unethical acts aren't illegal anyway. Even the risk of ostracism for legal-but-unethical acts can be mitigated by taking care not to get caught, or at least the mistaken perception that one won't get caught.

In contrast, "God" is purported to be omniscient, so it's literally impossible to not get caught. What's more, he's purported to dish out the worst conceivable punishments and the best conceivable rewards. Both combine to make maximum deterrence/incentive, which by definition would control people better than anything on this earth, if they first get tricked into the belief to begin with.

[Dauphin]

So when Americans die in an accident along with foreigners, news sources in the US will always mention the American numbers because we in the US want to know that in this tragedy how many of our "national family" (for lack of a better term) survived.

Do you really care? Or is it just a proxy for what you are really interested in.

I know I don't care how many out of the total deaths/injuries are from my home country, except insofar as a lower number means that someone I know or am related to is less likely to have been affected.

In the same manner, when I hear of school killings I am more concerned if it is in Chicago (where my sister-in-law teaches) than I would be if it was in my own country (outside of my family's/friends' locale).

Am I atypical?

[Dauphin]

I guess it means I am not a nationalist.

USA!

[Darius871]

As an avowed aethist, I agree with the idea that positing universal principles is silly when denying some fountain of universal morality. That said, I do not believe that one needs to believe in some metaphysical order to create an underlying set of principals to run a human society.

Then we're in total agreement about universal morality, but I'm not convinced that any societal code developed in the absence of the delusion of a universal morality will as effectively inspire compliance. That's all that concerns me. It's reminiscent of Nietzsche's phrase "Christians and other nihilists," suggesting that they're the true nihilists since they desperately need and rely on the illusion of an objective morality in order to act ethically, and without it they would be lost. I doubt that this is necessarily true of all Christians, but it's probably true of enough of them that without that illusion they would revert to their innate nihilism and become a pox on the rest of society that is capable of developing and adhering to a non-objective social code. Some people just psychologically can't fathom the idea.

Social interaction predates our humanity - we are social apes that evolved from other social apes. There will always be codes of conduct amongst humans, just as all other social mammals have codes -there are ckear evolutionary reasons for something akin to morality amongst groups of homo sapiens, something that has nothing to do with organizing a set of rituals built around metaphysical superstitions.

A) It's worth noting that in that state of nature there were far more effective means of enforcement than now; if a social mammal broke a code, he'd risk being ostracized from the group and promptly becoming some other animal's snack or otherwise starving. This strong deterrent is completely inapplicable to a post-industrial age with a social safety net that's not going anywhere.

B) That aside, as I've mentioned earlier there are countless parts of our present social code that are totally contradictory to the code nature tends to derive, "egalitarianism vs. might makes right," "women are non-proprietary entities that must consent to sexual contact vs. rape who you like so long as she's not 'owned' by another male," "don't even lay a finger on anyone in an offensive manner vs. club over the head whoever crosses you," etc. being the most obvious examples. Unfortunately many of the principles we hold dear, particularly on the left, can't find any origin in nature. They only appear to me to be the aggregation of individual subjective perspectives on what is or isn't moral, not that there's anything wrong with that.

Good and Evil are fundamentally relative terms themselves. Mst of us would consider a religion built around human sacrifice as evil, yet many pre-Columbian societies maintained such religions for millenia without sign of societal collapse. To ask whether man is good or evil is meaningless, since the truth is, we are both at the same time.

That's just using a common phrase for simplicity of language; for purposes of discussion by "evil" I simply mean a rather sociopathic personality that has no innate qualms about habitually deceiving and even harming others for personal gain regardless of whether others might subjectively find it immoral. That's not a moral concept but a pattern of behavior which is every bit as objectively observable as a chemical reaction.

[Japher]

More to the OP, and concerning evolution as a function of behavior, I once saw a video in which a couple of guys were attempting to justify their greed, and subsequent wealth, on their hereditary/genetic makeup. Regardless of "right", "wrong", and "morals" is it possible for people to have a genetic predisposition to a certain behavior?

Do the greedy feel guilty? I would think so, since they are explaining themselves away to their genes and not their skills, business acumen, or cunning. If they didn't feel guilty they would flaunt it along side their ability to get it.

So, in the same light, on breaking a law; of course they will feel guilty, but they will find away to explain away the act and place the blame elsewhere. Anytime someone is unwilling to accept the responsibility I always question how much they are to blame.

Is this genetic? Sure, to a point, because social acceptance by peers is a survival instinct. We require acceptance in order to survive and succeed in this society. If we think others will perceive our actions as wrong or bad we will be less likely to do it. And, if or when we do that bad action we will try to remove ourselves from the consequences of those actions.

[KrazyHorse]

Darius, as a "weak atheist" (lack of belief in God; extreme skepticism but no certainty as to non-existence of God) here are my answers:

1) A focus on the "objectivity" of morality is misplaced. I care deeply about the well-being of my fellow human beings. This is emotional, and has no rational basis. I am fairly universal in my valuation of human welfare. While I have to admit that I value my own and that of my family and friends more highly than I do that of others, the gradation is not that severe. This feeling is the basis of my entire system of morality. Why is it wrong to kill another except in some very specific circumstances? Because when I imagine myself in the place of the killer and the killed (and those associated with each of these) it is only in certain circumstances where the harm of killing is outweighed by its benefits. The answers get more rationalist as the questions get more specific. The fact that I cannot justify my morality from first principles DOES NOT, however, excuse others from my judgment or my compulsion (as far as it reaches, and bearing in mind that I consider compulsion in itself harmful). In sum, my morality is acknowledged to be based on a wholly subjective presumption (the value of human welfare) and varying degrees of objectivity as the measurement of welfare becomes easier. On the other hand, this morality is universal (in a certain sense); it provides my justification for the harm I may do to others in order to prevent greater harm perpetrated by others.

2) When discussing morality with the hoi polloi I generally tend to oversimplify and to make declarative statements; more is presumed in my distillation. Demonstrate suffering caused by "immorality" and let emotionality do its work.

3) This question presumes that those who espouse a belief in God are actually strongly motivated by that nominal belief. I dispute the assertion. I also note that as time has gone on we (Western/modern society) have managed to alleviate the ills of religious belief. In such a context, the need to convince others that their religious beliefs are unfounded is reduced. I have little urge to argue with non-fundy religious people about their superstitions. Most of them are decent enough people, and their decision to waste an hour every Sunday (or more likely every couple of months) does me little enough harm (and may provide them with a great comfort in times of distress). I'm married to a Christian after all, and this has never really been a source of tension. I tend to be more active in fighting against the actions or beliefs of religious people which ARE harmful.

[Traianvs]

To be fair I'm not really "assuming" it, just supposing it for the sake of the thought experiment. But in my admittedly limited and nonscientific anecdotal experience, I have come to believe that a huge portion of the presently religious would habitually manipulate and abuse others had they not come to falsely believe that it'd bring eternal damnation. Whether they're quantitatively enough to overwhelm the rest of society and cause its "breakdown" or merely to be a surmountable pox on society isn't really relevant if there's a net social harm.

/I'll put on my atheist hat here for a while .

Turn round that logic and suppose people had never heard of religion. I realize assumption is the mother of all ****-ups but whatever. Contrary to a religious society in which people adopt their moral viewpoints mostly from their priestly overlords, atheists would be forced to think themselves about their morality. As you know the argument that religion prevents people from thinking independently is widespread among atheists. Simply gauging the atheist population for their violent or unethical behaviour shows they have no particular tendency to act in evil ways; or at least not more or less than their religious counterparts.

In short the argument is that those people you know from anecdotal experience never had the chance to ponder morality independently from religious dogma, so you merely think they would become loose cannons if deprived of their religion. I realize this point of view entails a positive view on mankind (which I don't adhere to btw ).

That religion has a net social benefit is a very subjective matter. Define what you consider a benefit. Let's take an extreme example such as Afghanistan. Their strong religion keeps their society together and enforces them against outside intruders like we've seen with the Russians and US. On the other hand it stifles the opportunity for growth, efficiency and better standards of living, let alone improving the dismal social position of women.

Like I said, strong religious tendencies can cause societal collapse too (cf. Jews and the burning of the temple by the Romans & accompanying diaspora; or meso-american tribes converting to christianity because their own gods had not protected them against European raiders, effectively breaking down their age old societies to become subservient to Spanish/English... values and way of living). If we agree there's no objective morality, then no religion is required to uphold it, in fact it is totally irrelevant and subject to culture and circumstance.

In contrast, "God" is purported to be omniscient, so it's literally impossible to not get caught. What's more, he's purported to dish out the worst conceivable punishments and the best conceivable rewards. Both combine to make maximum deterrence/incentive, which by definition would control people better than anything on this earth, if they first get tricked into the belief to begin with.

Others might propose an enlightened education. Being brought up with respect for other people for their own merit instead of fear of divine wrath works just as well. Since there is no objective morality all you need to is trick the mind: you can do this with religion, but education works fine too. Unless you're saying kids raised without God are more likely to become hardened criminals. That's be a bold statement

[Lorizael]

This thread is interesting. I intend to answer Darius' questions when I'm feeling less lazy.

[Darius871]

1) A focus on the "objectivity" of morality is misplaced. I care deeply about the well-being of my fellow human beings. This is emotional, and has no rational basis. I am fairly universal in my valuation of human welfare. While I have to admit that I value my own and that of my family and friends more highly than I do that of others, the gradation is not that severe. This feeling is the basis of my entire system of morality. Why is it wrong to kill another except in some very specific circumstances? Because when I imagine myself in the place of the killer and the killed (and those associated with each of these) it is only in certain circumstances where the harm of killing is outweighed by its benefits. The answers get more rationalist as the questions get more specific. The fact that I cannot justify my morality from first principles DOES NOT, however, excuse others from my judgment or my compulsion (as far as it reaches, and bearing in mind that I consider compulsion in itself harmful). In sum, my morality is acknowledged to be based on a wholly subjective presumption (the value of human welfare) and varying degrees of objectivity as the measurement of welfare becomes easier. On the other hand, this morality is universal (in a certain sense); it provides my justification for the harm I may do to others in order to prevent greater harm perpetrated by others.

After three concessions that there is no objective morality I realize Poly is just too intellectual a sample for the question; the "strong" atheists I usually come across would never be able to sign on to the hyperbole of "to rape, torture, and kill a child is not 'wrong' per se, but it's certainly not my particular cup of tea," even though that's exactly what non-objective morality means. Every one of them would just declare it "wrong" out of one side of their mouths while whining out the other side about how the religious have no "rational basis," but it seems like everyone here is consistent.

That said, I'm not convinced that any level of specificity makes morality more or less objective than otherwise, since it always boils down to the first principle of human welfare having intrinsic value, which is a subjective proposition. I do have no problem with compelling, deterring, and reacting to specific observable behaviors that I subjectively despise, because I happen to subjectively value human welfare, but that doesn't mean I have any rational basis to "judge" anyone in the usual sense of the term.

2) When discussing morality with the hoi polloi I generally tend to oversimplify and to make declarative statements; more is presumed in my distillation. Demonstrate suffering caused by "immorality" and let emotionality do its work.

Fair enough, but that always rests on the assumption that the listener A) has emotions, B) is in touch with them, and C) keeps them at the forefront of the mind enough to guide day-to-day behaviors, none of which are a given. For people lacking B or both, belief in an omniscient enforcer with maximum conceivable deterrence/incentive is about the only thing that could change behavior.

3) This question presumes that those who espouse a belief in God are actually strongly motivated by that nominal belief. I dispute the assertion.

As I've said, that's just a simplified structure to the thought exercise and itn reality it's all a matter of degree from person to person; obviously the proportions aren't quantifiable, at least with current science. False belief might be the but-for cause of alteration of 90% of day-to-day behaviors among 20% of the religious, 50% among 40%, 30% among 10%, and so on, for example. But even factoring in those additional variables, the end result would still be a net increase in behavior to the detriment of human welfare, i.e. a net social harm.

I also note that as time has gone on we (Western/modern society) have managed to alleviate the ills of religious belief. In such a context, the need to convince others that their religious beliefs are unfounded is reduced. I have little urge to argue with non-fundy religious people about their superstitions. Most of them are decent enough people, and their decision to waste an hour every Sunday (or more likely every couple of months) does me little enough harm (and may provide them with a great comfort in times of distress). I'm married to a Christian after all, and this has never really been a source of tension. I tend to be more active in fighting against the actions or beliefs of religious people which ARE harmful.

I'm in total agreement here; the question is more directed at the vehement "strong" atheists that routinely get their panties in a bunch over religion being a pox on humanity to be eradicated. Even if I were a "strong" atheist as opposed to a gutless agnostic, I would still be totally indifferent to what others do or not believe so long as it doesn't compel anyone else.

[Traianvs]

I'm in total agreement here; the question is more directed at the vehement "strong" atheists that routinely get their panties in a bunch over religion being a pox on humanity to be eradicated. Even if I were a "strong" atheist as opposed to a gutless agnostic, I would still be totally indifferent to what others do or not believe so long as it doesn't compel anyone else.

Certain people claim that to subvert the fundie religious it is necessary to crack down on your run of the mill religious bloke. With the mainstream of society being non-religious, those fundies would be edged out towards the fringes of society. Also, the average (religious) John Doe will still be at risk of being swayed by fundies if things go bad (both at a personal level as when overall times are getting tougher). I figure that's the reasoning, but I agree there's no good reason to polemicize the debate too much.

Fair enough, but that always rests on the assumption that the listener A) has emotions, B) is in touch with them, and C) keeps them at the forefront of the mind enough to guide day-to-day behaviors, none of which are a given. For people lacking B or both

I believe people lacking B are called psycho/sociopaths.

[Theben]

In contrast, "God" is purported to be omniscient, so it's literally impossible to not get caught. What's more, he's purported to dish out the worst conceivable punishments and the best conceivable rewards. Both combine to make maximum deterrence/incentive, which by definition would control people better than anything on this earth, if they first get tricked into the belief to begin with.

I dispute this based soley on the reality that not every religion is based on a monotheistic, omnipotent, omniscient deity. Unless you have proof that Xians are more "moral" than Hindus or Buddhists you may want to rethink your assertion.

As an aside, you might look into what setting you interact with aforementioned atheists since they'd probably say there's no obj morality one-on-one or over the links... and if in a social gathering where I felt an unspoken pressure to say "it's wrong" I might blurt that out too (I think this is what KH said but he uses dem funny words).