Incorrect
Without the precursor of Spirituality and Religion, there can be no morality.
Submitted 1 day ago by Arkouda@lemmy.ca to showerthoughts@lemmy.world
Comments
fubbernuckin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 day ago
Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
I am open to hearing your point of view, and answering questions about mine.
starlinguk@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Naw, we don’t do sea lioning around here.
Kolanaki@pawb.social 1 day ago
“‘Without religion, how would you stop yourself from raping and killing all you want?’ I already do all the raping and killing I want. That number is ZERO because I don’t want to rape or kill!” - Penn Gillette.
Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
With or without Religion we seem to, as a species, not inherently think raping and killing is wrong considering all of the raping and killing that goes on.
My point is all documented human groups had a spiritual belief structure so evidence suggests that belief structure was required for a consistent, easy to communicate, “moral code” that exists today.
Go back 10,000 years if you want to see what “inherent human morals” look like.
Redfox8@mander.xyz 1 day ago
I also disagree. All you need is to say “I don’t want/like that” and to understand that something could be lost or suffered to yourself or others, given a particular scenario. That can then be used to create a system of morality where the majority are in agreement with each aspect.
Oh and empathy. That’s pretty critical!
I’d say that spirituality and religion is then formed off the back of and alongside general or universal moral beliefs and that many aspects cannot exist without morals in the first place.
Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Where did you learn your moral code from and how far back in your history do I have to go to find a religious believer?
Do you have an example of a documented civilization that did not have some form of Religious or spiritual belief structure that guided their moral codes?
Redfox8@mander.xyz 1 day ago
Some came from religious teaching, but mostly I got my moral code from my peers and personal experience. I very much start with treating others as I’d be happy/like to be treated. If you follow that principal to start with then most other morals fall into place.
Not sure what you’re getting at about how far back you have to go but perhaps I can head off that discussion by saying that most morals can exist in the absence of religion and spirituality.
Re your second question. No. And I doubt anyone has, but that’s because morals form a part of religious beliefs. As I discussed, morals first then religion based morals after.
Religion or spirituality of some form or another has existed for as long as we have any detailed information on any societies. The main problem with this discussion is that spiritual, religious and plain moral beliefs long predate any written language system so we can’t refer to any solid evidence.
If you start with “I don’t like that” as a simplistic moral, then that predates any language as well and therefore spirtuality or religion.
executivechimp@discuss.tchncs.de 1 day ago
What informed the creation of religions and spirituality?
RagingSnarkasm@lemmy.world 1 day ago
People who are only moral because they fear going to hell scare the piss out of me.
Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
I agree.
Fletcher@lemmy.today 1 day ago
I would argue that morality came before religion or spirituality, and therefore does not require either or them to exist.
Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Feel free to argue that whenever you are ready.
Almacca@aussie.zone 1 day ago
They just did.
rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world 20 hours ago
It doesn’t serve us well to murder our own communities. It doesn’t serve us well to cause conflict and strife among ourselves when external circumstances are tough enough. Living on the steppe or on the savannah would have been extremely tough, and pragmatism would have naturally lead to a sort of morality – don’t steal from, harm, kill, antagonise other people in your group or you’re putting the entire group at risk.
It doesn’t have to be spiritual or religious!
Arkouda@lemmy.ca 20 hours ago
It doesn’t have to be spiritual or religious!
But historically, according to all available evidence, it was spiritualism and religion that promoted these behaviors in a more widespread way leading to larger groups of people coexisting.
The behavior you are referencing is seen in other species and known as “premoral behavior”. I do not deny that those behaviors benefit the group, what I am saying is it is not a demonstration of morality. It is however the first step into developing morality.
rayquetzalcoatl@lemmy.world 19 hours ago
Thanks for the response :) it’s an interesting question you’ve raised, and I haven’t looked into it enough really.
I think I’ve keyed into your phrasing, particularly “precursor”, in my answer. If “premoral behaviour” is a step in developing morality, does that make it a precursor?
What happens between premoral behaviour and morality that develops it? I would have assumed that reward/punishment behaviours between humans socially based on those “premoral” behaviours I described would have led to more nuanced moral systems that would have then been written into religious and spiritual practices.
What do you think happens between premorality and morality? What role does spirituality or religion play – does a higher power give us our morals?
lath@lemmy.world 1 day ago
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality
Here you go. Or if you prefer more specific:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
Have a pleasant read.
Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Thank you for the reading material.
Much of it already informs my idea, and supports it.
Assuming that we evolved to what we are now at one point we would need to exhibit “Pre-moral behaviors” like the other animals, including our closest relatives, before developing “morality”. This means that we need something to bring that from “behavior” to “believes to be morally right”.
Spirituality is documented in our species as far back as we can go with recorded history, and the pictures remaining from the earliest humans as far as I know. This implies to me that it was required for a widespread and unified “moral code” needed in order to bring more than a few dozens humans together at a time.
Redfox8@mander.xyz 1 day ago
Glad you took the time to read this. The paragraph “Religion likely evolved by building on morality, introducing supernatural agents to encourage cooperation and restrain selfishness, which enhanced group survival. Additionally, emotions like disgust play a key evolutionary role in moral judgments by helping to avoid threats to health, reproduction, and social cohesion.” Describes much of what I’ve discussed so far. Though my thoughts re disasters is omitted. I think that they are very significant if you look at e.g. Roman and Greek gods.
You say that it’s required to bring together larger populations, but plant cultivation - the beginnings of farming will be far more significant.
As a slightly sideways thought, take a look at e.g. African tribal social structures - relatively small population groups (villages) may exists with low/intermittent positive interaction (not fighting over resources), but can still share similar or near identical spiritual beliefs and moral codes. I.e. one does not automatically determine the other. They can develop side by side or independently.
Outwit1294@lemmy.today 1 day ago
Even animals have some kind of morality
FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
I’d say morality came first and people invented religion to justify the moral frameworks they already had. Cultures invented gods and ascribed their culture’s shared moral views to their gods
moshankey@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I have neither spirituality nor religion and I consider myself a rather moral person. Neither of those did anything for me and I do not look at any religiosity I may have been taught as a child as a reason for my morals. Live and let live works pretty well for me. Always has and I’m almost 60. So no, I don’t agree with your point.
Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
I am not saying that you require either in modern times. I am saying that without both Spirituality and Religion in our civilizations history we wouldn’t have the moral codes that exist within our species.
FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Ethical frameworks exist that don’t rely on religion or spirituality. Utilitarianism, kantism, etc…
hemmes@lemmy.world 1 day ago
Morality is inherent in mankind, even if many folks have the will to defy it or lack it altogether.
Religion emerged as a product of humanity’s profound drive for survival. The concept of death as a finite existence is inherently unacceptable to the brain’s survival mechanisms. Consequently, we developed religion and spirituality as coping mechanisms to address this existential dilemma.
november@lemmy.vg 1 day ago
What do you even mean by “precursor”?
Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
One that precedes and indicates, suggests, or announces someone or something to come.
november@lemmy.vg 1 day ago
I didn’t ask for the dictionary definition, I asked what you meant by using it in the context you used it.
blackstampede@sh.itjust.works 19 hours ago
“Without the precursor of gender roles, there can be no morality.”
“Without the precursor of tradition there can be no morality.”
“Without the precursor of <insert social structure> there can be no morality.”
Some of our social structures have things to say about morality. Sometimes they’re saying"love your neighbor as yourself," and sometimes they’re saying “burn that city to the ground and keep all of the preteen girls as sex slaves.” Just because religion and spirituality have things to say about morality doesn’t necessarily mean that they’re right, and it doesn’t mean we couldn’t have developed a system of morality in their absence.
Without religion and spirituality, we may have developed a better, more universal system of morality, rather than the patchwork of haphazard and contradictory traditions we currently enjoy. We’ll never know, because religion was created early in our history, and for the rest of eternity, we get to listen to asinine armchair theologians tell us “without religion, there would be no real morality.”
Arkouda@lemmy.ca 17 hours ago
and it doesn’t mean we couldn’t have developed a system of morality in their absence.
The fact is we have no evidence to suggest our species has ever developed a system of morality without spirituality. Just because we may have been able to, evidence clearly demonstrates a trend of that either not working or not being an idea for precivilization humans.
Without religion and spirituality, we may have developed a better, more universal system of morality, rather than the patchwork of haphazard and contradictory traditions we currently enjoy. We’ll never know, because religion was created early in our history, and for the rest of eternity, we get to listen to asinine armchair theologians tell us “without religion, there would be no real morality.”
I am not arguing that religion is good. I am saying it was a means to an end, and we can point to all evidence we have and see that. Regardless of how you feel about it, not a single culture developed a moral system without first developing a spiritual one that we have evidence of.
lerba@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
I’m not sure if I understand the statement properly, but I appreciate the challenge here
Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
My argument is that a “unified morality” can only be the result of a Spiritual or Religious belief structure due to the subjective nature of morality, the need for it to be easily communicated and enforced, and the need for a “bigger than me” idea to connect the species to in order to follow.
I support this by the fact that the evidence we have of Human civilization, and precivilization humans, demonstrates a spiritual belief structure in all documented groups.
This is not to say that morality in the modern age requires either Spirituality or Religion, because it doesn’t due to the thousands of years of “debate”, but that the formation of these things were necessary to bring our species together into larger groups because there is no inherent moral code in humans, and we are simply animals who need to be taught everything to survive by our elders and peers.
I do not believe in a “God” and I am not arguing that one is required for morality to exist, but I am saying that spirituality is the precursor to the idea of “morality” and required for “morality” to form in the first place.
lerba@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
Wow, thanks for your thorough clarification!
I do agree somewhat, or at least to the extent that without spirituality the morality concept is weak. Things like compassion and altruism don’t necessarily need spirituality to exist, yet offer vague subjective guidelines for morality.
Fanghole@reddthat.com 1 day ago
I feel a lot of the people disagreeing here are making assumptions about your beliefs, missing the point, and then simply refuting you to refute you without providing explaination. I think this is a fair and interesting premise. I disagree with it and will ecplain why, though do note I am not invested enough to specifically look anything up so if I say something inaccurate, please evaluate if the logic falls apart or not.
I think the first part of your main justifications has been hard to refute. Most, if not all societies we have known have had religion or spirituality. However, I think your following conclusion, “those societies must have then used morality based on those religions”, is where the flaw is. I think most societies had religion as a form of a “God of the gaps” and used it to explain phenomena they couldn’t. I would say that is the main reason they did have it. However, that doesn’t yet mean they didn’t use it for morality. To see that, I’d ask you to look at Greek and Roman mythology, or as known to them, religion. Now I believe, Zeus turning into a swan and doing Zeus things doesn’t have a moral (or not a useful one, it’s mainly that Zeus is an asshole)… Likewise, Aphrodite turning Arachne into a spider didn’t really inform some Greek moral of don’t be too pretty, just showed Aphrodite is, for lack of a better word, a fucking jealous bitch. Let’s similarly look at Norse mythology. Loki makes Fenrir and tries to kill other gods and generally does shenanigans. There’s not really a moral attached to that, he kinda just does shit cus he’s a hit of a dick.
My main point here is that while these religions existed, they did so to explain phenomena or were then essentially fanfic extensions of the reasons/personifications of those phenomena, and often were not the basis for morality of a culture (but very well likely were themselves molded by a cultures morality in a reversal of causation). Because Greece, Roman, and Norse cultures were more secular, they could therefore have stories without morals that just had assholery abound. Because the time around the formation of the Christian church was more tyrannical (now I’m guessing), the bible had much more heavy handed morals (ten commandments, 7 deadly sins etc).
I hope that was a better argument for disagreement. And, I don’t think your premise was as outlandish as so many others are making it out to be, despite my disagreement.
Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
I sincerely do not think you understand my point if you are only willing to think as far back as Classical Greece, while also demonstrating a pretty ignorant understanding of Greek, Roman, or Norse culture. I would highly recommend reading up on the history of all those people before trying to use their belief structures in argument.
My point is 100% of all documented groups of people had spirituality and religious practices in their history, and a unified idea of “morality” cannot exist without those precursors.
You are operating under the impression that humans 10,000 years ago had access to even a fraction of the education and time to reflect and think you have.
Fanghole@reddthat.com 1 day ago
Classical Greece was just one of my examples. My main point is that, even if all documented groups had spirituality and religious practices (which I don’t refute), is that you have not convinced me of the cause and effect between morality and spirituality in human society.
-
I do believe people did not need a modern formal education or a ton of free time to reflect and think at a high level. If that belief is an issue, then we fundamentally disagree on that point.
-
You continue to state that all societies have documented spiritual and religious practices, and I apologize that I didn’t make it clear enough that I understood you meant all societies and that I was only using a few societies as an example, but you have not stated why that means spirituality caused morality or needed to have caused morality. Genuinely, could you explain to me how it is implausible that any moral principals found in those religions were the product of societal morals of the time and not the other way around?
-
If you want to ignore everything else, here’s as simple a summary of my question as possible: Why do you insist religion -> morals? Why can it not be morals -> religion?
-
maxwells_daemon@lemmy.world 1 day ago
If you think religion is the only reason to be a good person, you need therapy.
Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
I don’t think that and never said that.
tkk13909@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
I get where you’re coming from. I used to think the same thing. I don’t anymore and I would urge you to look more into subjective vs objective morality. Alex O’Connor has some really good thoughts on the matter.
Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
I would urge you to look at the fact that every documented human group we have evidence from had a spiritual belief structure, and that it is safe to assume that a spiritual belief system was required for our species to form larger groups and bigger populations.
This does not argue the existence of God, just our species constant and persistent belief that something supernatural is behind that shit. Which also happens to be the driver of early scientific study.
If you assumed I was Religious based on my post I also urge you to check your bigotry.
Z3k3@lemmy.world 1 day ago
I think the issue here is horse before cart
Humans as a species have a need to explain the world around us. Unfortunately the thought process before the codified use of science was “i don’t know there for god”
This means the spiritual system was in place was in place before morality.
This spiritually was bent around what was acceptable at the time. Slavery capital punishment polygamy etc. All of which are more or less moral based on nothing more than where you live
tkk13909@sopuli.xyz 1 day ago
Yes, humans tend to explain things they don’t understand using myths. And yes, humans have historically used those same myths to explain morality. How does it then follow that religion and spiritualism are required for morality to exist?
smiletolerantly@awful.systems 1 day ago
Either your argument is that morality is somehow “god given” through religion, in which case I have to ask, which god? Which religion? There’s a lot of those around or no longer around, with different nuances of morality, contradicting that idea.
Or each civilization developed religion and incorporated their respectove ideas about morality, but then morality necessarily precedes religiosity.
Either way, doesn’t make sense.
Besides, the idea that a fear of god is necessary to make people “moral” is ridiculous. If you would commit immoral atrocities if you didn’t believe in god, then I’m sorry, that makes you a bad person; but don’t project that unto other people.
Empathy is sufficient for morality, while god, arguably, is an amoral monster.
Cheers, a moral atheist
Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
Either your argument is that morality is somehow “god given” through religion, in which case I have to ask, which god? Which religion? There’s a lot of those around or no longer around, with different nuances of morality, contradicting that idea.
That supports my idea. It doesn’t contradict it.
All evidence we have demonstrates spirituality has existed in our species as long as we have existed in groups. This leads me to believe that spirituality was a catalyst to a unified morality that took a very long time to agree on, and we still don’t agree on it.
Or each civilization developed religion and incorporated their respectove ideas about morality, but then morality necessarily precedes religiosity.
Spirituality predates recorded civilization. It is also observable in other animals.
Either way, doesn’t make sense.
Probably because you are assuming I am religious, when I am simply referring to our historical evidence.
Besides, the idea that a fear of god is necessary to make people “moral” is ridiculous. If you would commit immoral atrocities if you didn’t believe in god, then I’m sorry, that makes you a bad person; but don’t project that unto other people.
Who taught you your morals?
I also agree with you, but we are speaking about precivilization humans so do not be offended for them. They didn’t know any better and it was either believe the rock brings a good hunt or starve in the wilderness alone.
Empathy is sufficient for morality, while god, arguably, is an amoral monster.
Empathy is not inherent, or it wouldn’t need to be taught.
God cannot exist based on all evidence we have on the subject.
Cheers, a moral atheist
Thank your Religious ancestors and ancient humans for debating all of these ideas over thousands of years so you can quickly come to the conclusion that God cannot possibly exist.
Cheers, someone who thinks atheists are as annoying as theists, and just as prone to being human.
Blueberrydreamer@lemmynsfw.com 1 day ago
All evidence we have demonstrates morality has existed in our species as long as we have existed in groups. This leads me to believe that morality was a catalyst to a
unifieddiverse spiritualitythat took a very long time to agree on,and we still don’t agree on it.See, it’s the same when you swap them around. When both morality and spirituality exist throughout all of written history, how can you make any claim of causality? I think spirituality is a natural extension of morality, as people began to establish collective morals, spirituality and ritual can be used to spread and reinforce ideas.
And the idea that empathy isn’t inherent is wildly ignorant. Mirror neurons are a fundamental part of our brains, suggesting empathy is taught is like claiming taste is. People are taught what to do with their empathy. Whether to embrace it or ignore it. Hell, look at any of the hundreds of examples of empathy in animals. It’s not even exclusive to vertebrates, much less civilization.
Lumidaub@feddit.org 1 day ago
Define “morality”.
Arkouda@lemmy.ca 1 day ago
The idea that things are inherently “Right” or “Wrong”, “Good” or “Bad”.
Lumidaub@feddit.org 1 day ago
And to determine that, “I won’t hurt you if you don’t hurt me” and “does this hurt someone?” isn’t enough as a starting point?
Tattorack@lemmy.world 2 hours ago
I’ve heard this bullshit so many times…
What we call “morality” is simply put to words those behaviours that has made us a successful species. We are a communal species, one of our greatest strengths being the delegation and specialisation of tasks; all working together. Everything we’ve built, everything we’ve achieved, can be attributed to that feature of our species.
Now, imagine how far we’d get if every individual in our species acted “amorally”.
Morality is a product of evolution.