I appreciate this discussion. It is important, because fundamentally outsourcing moral formation to a religious body deprives the individual of ethical agency. This implies the institutions of faith are granted unchallenged dictatorship on human conduct. History and contemporary times clearly reveal the danger of this. It devoices critical reflection and discourages ethical evolution when necessary. An institute cannot allow for dynamic context as we meet the changes of time.
My humble view was reflected in your article. Human beings survive via interdependent tribal formation. The preservation of one's homeostasis relies on the active involvement of the other person. Therefore, as I am acutely aware of my own pathos, I may project and anticipate that pathos in other members of the tribe. I must be involved in the alleviation of their suffering, so that they will also be involved in mine. When I break the chain of interdependence, I shall consequently receive societal neglect. This is a biologically enforced empathy.
Now, as an "esoteric atheist" (a simple peaceful meditating man), I do believe a human being has a higher nature in addition to merely his primal aspect. I can at present not argue well for it, though. It remains but an intuited experience so far.
Since you commented on my note and asked for feedback, I thought I’d spend some time properly reading your post.
Here are my thoughts: :)
You’ve chosen a form that mixes personal essay with academic writing which can work well to ground your opinions and experiences in scientific literature. I’m a researcher and publish articles in academic journals so my critique of your approach largely stems from my dislike of the constraints of academic form.
First, this quote.
“Our sense of right and wrong likely emerged from our evolutionary biology.”
- kind of a weak and baseless statement when considering that that there are many people who don’t share moral codes (e.g. terrorists and cult members.)
Second, your paragraphs will be more convincing if you first use a topic sentence to state your main point, use your body paragraphs to defend, elaborate, or support your topic sentence (references go in body paragraphs sentences) and then wrap up in a concluding or transitions sentence. Ending your paragraphs with in text citations is bachelor level and gives off the impression that you’re very new to this style of writing. The academic form is stale and strict, but breaking conventions will put off people in-the-know.
Otherwise, interesting arguments and obviously Nietzsche seems to be right up your alley. Maybe Kierkegaard, too.
First of all, thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate that you took the time to provide it.
I'll definitely work on structuring my paragraphs more like you suggested; those structural tips are very helpful, so thanks again!
Regarding the point about morality being evolutionarily ingrained, I’d like to offer a counterargument, as this is more of a content-related discussion. In my view, moral diversity does not disprove an evolutionary basis for morality. I think rather, it suggests that while core moral instincts like empathy and reciprocity are biologically ingrained, culture and socialization shape their expression. Naturally, this also means that not everyone behaves in a way that is strictly evolutionarily optimal. Evolution provides the foundation, but the environment molds moral codes. Additionally, since all religions have been used to justify both good and harm, this moral variability aligns more with an evolutionary perspective than a fixed, divine source.
I completely agree, morality isn’t absolute or dictated by religion, it’s products of biological and socialization reactions.
To go further, I think the moral codes in scriptures are the exact proof of why religion is the product of humankind.
These scriptures (in this case the Bible) was made by oppressive and colonials men, for them. We can clearly see it if we know about the historical and cultural contexts at the time. It defended those morals, but it doesn’t reflect any universal or timeless truths.
Its called survival instinct i guess natuarlly not a moral. Moral rules in society is the social rules to keep survival inticts in order. What do you think?
Well, yes, initially, everything is rooted in survival instincts—even consciousness itself. Of course in most animals, it’s not the same morality we possess, but it forms the foundation of what we call moral. I wouldn’t necessarily describe it as social rules designed to regulate survival instincts. Rather, I see it as an instinctively ingrained compass for evolutionarily advantageous behaviour, which has, in turn, become embedded in society. But I think that's not far off from what you are saying:)
I was thinking recently that the king Nabukkos law : eye for an eye, and tooth for the tooth was a brilliant most humanitarian law ever. one of the foundations of moral
this rule basically stopped the violence escalation in ancient society and become depicted in lather languages as moral code.
"moral" derives from the Latin term moralis, which means "pertaining to manners, customs, or character." The Roman philosopher Cicero is credited with coining moralis as a translation of the Greek word ethikos (ἠθικός), meaning "ethical" or "moral," from ethos (ἦθος), which translates to "character" or "custom."
after all the beginning of everything in human society is the word!
Morality encompasses the system of norms, values, and principles that a given society or culture regards as right, just, or desirable. It functions as a framework for daily conduct, shaping perceptions of which actions are deemed permissible, commendable, or morally objectionable.
Yes! In my humble opinion the foundation of morality lies in the evolution of the neomammalian cortex and its functional connectivities (see the article). Since similar structures and functions are also evident in some animals, I would consider this a fundamental basis for the morality we possess.
I appreciate this discussion. It is important, because fundamentally outsourcing moral formation to a religious body deprives the individual of ethical agency. This implies the institutions of faith are granted unchallenged dictatorship on human conduct. History and contemporary times clearly reveal the danger of this. It devoices critical reflection and discourages ethical evolution when necessary. An institute cannot allow for dynamic context as we meet the changes of time.
My humble view was reflected in your article. Human beings survive via interdependent tribal formation. The preservation of one's homeostasis relies on the active involvement of the other person. Therefore, as I am acutely aware of my own pathos, I may project and anticipate that pathos in other members of the tribe. I must be involved in the alleviation of their suffering, so that they will also be involved in mine. When I break the chain of interdependence, I shall consequently receive societal neglect. This is a biologically enforced empathy.
Now, as an "esoteric atheist" (a simple peaceful meditating man), I do believe a human being has a higher nature in addition to merely his primal aspect. I can at present not argue well for it, though. It remains but an intuited experience so far.
Great essay! The endless chasm of right and wrong, good and evil—shifting depending on where one stands, and what one chooses to see, or search for.
Since you commented on my note and asked for feedback, I thought I’d spend some time properly reading your post.
Here are my thoughts: :)
You’ve chosen a form that mixes personal essay with academic writing which can work well to ground your opinions and experiences in scientific literature. I’m a researcher and publish articles in academic journals so my critique of your approach largely stems from my dislike of the constraints of academic form.
First, this quote.
“Our sense of right and wrong likely emerged from our evolutionary biology.”
- kind of a weak and baseless statement when considering that that there are many people who don’t share moral codes (e.g. terrorists and cult members.)
Second, your paragraphs will be more convincing if you first use a topic sentence to state your main point, use your body paragraphs to defend, elaborate, or support your topic sentence (references go in body paragraphs sentences) and then wrap up in a concluding or transitions sentence. Ending your paragraphs with in text citations is bachelor level and gives off the impression that you’re very new to this style of writing. The academic form is stale and strict, but breaking conventions will put off people in-the-know.
Otherwise, interesting arguments and obviously Nietzsche seems to be right up your alley. Maybe Kierkegaard, too.
Keep on keeping on :)
First of all, thank you very much for your feedback, I really appreciate that you took the time to provide it.
I'll definitely work on structuring my paragraphs more like you suggested; those structural tips are very helpful, so thanks again!
Regarding the point about morality being evolutionarily ingrained, I’d like to offer a counterargument, as this is more of a content-related discussion. In my view, moral diversity does not disprove an evolutionary basis for morality. I think rather, it suggests that while core moral instincts like empathy and reciprocity are biologically ingrained, culture and socialization shape their expression. Naturally, this also means that not everyone behaves in a way that is strictly evolutionarily optimal. Evolution provides the foundation, but the environment molds moral codes. Additionally, since all religions have been used to justify both good and harm, this moral variability aligns more with an evolutionary perspective than a fixed, divine source.
And yes I like Nietzsche :)
Loved the counter-argument and I now understand your point of view more clearly. :)
I completely agree, morality isn’t absolute or dictated by religion, it’s products of biological and socialization reactions.
To go further, I think the moral codes in scriptures are the exact proof of why religion is the product of humankind.
These scriptures (in this case the Bible) was made by oppressive and colonials men, for them. We can clearly see it if we know about the historical and cultural contexts at the time. It defended those morals, but it doesn’t reflect any universal or timeless truths.
Yes, you are completely right!
Its called survival instinct i guess natuarlly not a moral. Moral rules in society is the social rules to keep survival inticts in order. What do you think?
Well, yes, initially, everything is rooted in survival instincts—even consciousness itself. Of course in most animals, it’s not the same morality we possess, but it forms the foundation of what we call moral. I wouldn’t necessarily describe it as social rules designed to regulate survival instincts. Rather, I see it as an instinctively ingrained compass for evolutionarily advantageous behaviour, which has, in turn, become embedded in society. But I think that's not far off from what you are saying:)
yeah
I was thinking recently that the king Nabukkos law : eye for an eye, and tooth for the tooth was a brilliant most humanitarian law ever. one of the foundations of moral
this rule basically stopped the violence escalation in ancient society and become depicted in lather languages as moral code.
"moral" derives from the Latin term moralis, which means "pertaining to manners, customs, or character." The Roman philosopher Cicero is credited with coining moralis as a translation of the Greek word ethikos (ἠθικός), meaning "ethical" or "moral," from ethos (ἦθος), which translates to "character" or "custom."
after all the beginning of everything in human society is the word!
What is morality?
Morality encompasses the system of norms, values, and principles that a given society or culture regards as right, just, or desirable. It functions as a framework for daily conduct, shaping perceptions of which actions are deemed permissible, commendable, or morally objectionable.
That's how I would define it.
would you describe as morality or similar thing when other animals take care of their offspring or just members oh their herd?
Yes! In my humble opinion the foundation of morality lies in the evolution of the neomammalian cortex and its functional connectivities (see the article). Since similar structures and functions are also evident in some animals, I would consider this a fundamental basis for the morality we possess.