Where does morality come from?

[VisionOfLehi]

I joined the Church 19 months ago.

That's also when I joined Christianity. I got to see a lot of the other side

Although, I will say some Christian things as fact when I feel it truly is, even if not everyone acknowledges it.

[Elphaba]

Elphaba: No, whatever the first moral laws were, and they weren’t Christian, the world is still enmeshed in pervasive poverty, dictatorships, and violence, especially to its girls/women." (emphasis by VOL)

Vision of Lehi: That depends on your viewpoint. As a Christian, I definitely believe certain moral laws ALWAYS existed.

Hi VOL,

Just to be sure we're talking about the same thing, I inferred from your comments that you believe these moral laws have always existed in a spiritual sense, and that they are eternal principles established by God. If this is not correct, would you please let me know?

As an atheist, I obviously don't agree these "laws" are spiritual in nature. However, as a humanist I do believe there are ethical, and moral laws we must insist on, or our society will not survive. I also think we'd agree on a number of these "laws," perhaps more than we'd both realize.

Anyway, since the gist of my post was that there are ethical and moral religions that preceded Christianity, I offer the following information about Zoroastrian:

According to the BBC, Zoroastrian religious beliefs can best be summed up by the maxim: Good Thoughts, Good Words, Good Deeds.

Dualism

Zoroastrian dualism is probably one of the most debated aspects of Zoroastrianism in the West. So what does it mean?

Dualism in Zoroastrianism is the existence of, yet complete separation of, good and evil. This is recognized in two interconnecting ways:

Cosmically (opposing forces within the universe)

Morally (opposing forces within the mind)

Cosmic dualism

Cosmic dualism refers to the ongoing battle between Good (Ahura Mazda) and Evil (Angra Mainyu) within the universe.

It is important to understand that Angra Mainyu is not God's equal opposite, rather that Angra Mainyu is the destructive energy that opposes God's creative energy. This creative energy is called Spenta Mainyu. God created a pure world through his creative energy, which Angra Mainyu continues to attack, making it impure. Aging, sickness, famine, natural disasters, death and so on are attributed to this.

With cosmic dualism we have life and death, day and night, good and evil. One cannot be understood without the other. Life is a mixture of these two opposing forces.

Moral dualism

Moral dualism refers to the opposition of good and evil in the mind of mankind. God's gift to man was free will; therefore man has the choice to follow the path of Evil (druj - deceit) or the path of Righteousness (asha - truth). The path of Evil leads to misery and ultimately Hell. The path of Righteousness leads to peace and everlasting happiness in Heaven.

As with cosmic dualism, we have the polarity of happiness and sadness, truth and deception and so on but with an emphasis on choice. This choice is crucial as it determines whether we are the helper of Ahura Mazda or the helper of Angra Mainyu. When all of mankind chooses the former over the latter, evil will finally be defeated and Paradise on earth will be realized.

In practice, modern Zoroastrianism has a positive outlook. It teaches that Mankind is ultimately good and that this goodness will finally triumph over evil. This could be seen as a retrenchment from the faith's original purity of dualism.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is obviously a simple explanation of a complex belief system, and the BBC link gives a more comprehensive view of the religion and its beliefs and practices.

And while Zoroastrianism’s beliefs are intrinsic to its adherents, as is true for Christianity, it preceded Christianity by centuries. Thus, Christianity is not the only source of moral and ethical practices and beliefs. That was the point of my post. (However, the more I write, the more I think I've misunderstood you. If so, please let me know.)

Although I am loathe to use Wiki as a reference, I found the following very interesting, as they mirror the beliefs of the Church. For example:

Initiation

“At the age of seven, Zoroastrians are given a sudreh (shirt) and kusti (cord) as part of an initiation ceremony. These garments are considered sacred. They tie the kusti around the sudreh three times to remind themselves of 'Good Words, Good Thoughts, and Good Deeds'.”

From then on, Zoroastrians traditionally perform this ritual with prayers several times a day.

(Just a clarification, I see the similarities in the sacred garments and the initiatory. However, I do not attach these practices to a seven-year-old.)

Family and community

Zoroastrianism is a home- and community-oriented religion. There is no tradition of monasticism or celibacy. Zoroaster himself was a family man and most worship happens in the family home.

Zoroastrianism is also about action. Zoroastrians work towards improving the local community and society in general. They tend to give generously to charities and are often behind educational and social initiatives.”

Man and God

Unlike some religions where man is God's child or servant, in Zoroastrianism man is considered more as God's helper. Through man's positive choices, evil will be eradicated and God's Paradise on Earth will be established.

Men and women, rich and poor, and young and old are all seen as equal. One only surpasses the other through their righteousness.”

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I think that is very interesting. What do you think?

Elphaba

[DigitalShadow]

I was going to go through and do a point by point response, but I think Elph summed it up pretty well already :)

[VisionOfLehi]

Hi VOL,

Just to be sure we're talking about the same thing, I inferred from your comments that you believe these moral laws have always existed in a spiritual sense, and that they are eternal principles established by God. If this is not correct, would you please let me know?

Right. And also that the LORD spoke to the our first progenitors and re-taught this laws (or established them, as some may say).

So, the comment covered pre-mortal, eternal, and "Adam and Eve" standpoints.

[Misshalfway]

Taking the idea of God off the table.....

Is it possible that part of being human is being moral? And expanding on that idea, could it be that each human is actually a combination of moral and carnal sensibilities? If that is true, then would it be possible that such a genetic trait or condition could explain why most humans seem to have a general sense of right and wrong?

[Islander]

Taking the idea of God off the table.....

Is it possible that part of being human is being moral? And expanding on that idea, could it be that each human is actually a combination of moral and carnal sensibilities? If that is true, then would it be possible that such a genetic trait or condition could explain why most humans seem to have a general sense of right and wrong?

I know and certainly understand, that we are tempted to portrait ourselves as thoughtful, balanced, moral and essentially good as human beings. What I tried to explain on a prior post is that although we in the West tend to see ourselves that way, even in the apparent absence of God, closer scrutiny of what happens in the world at large and away from western civilizations points to the contrary. Beyond that, the scriptures also sketch a very different picture when it comes to humanity in general:

"For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble, patient, full of love, willing to submit to all things which the Lord seeth fit to inflict upon him, even as a child doth submit to his father." Mos 3:19

As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:

11 There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God.

12 They are all gone out of the away, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth cgood, no, not one.

13 Their throat is an open sepulchre; with their tongues they have used deceit; the poison of asps is under their lips:

14 Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness:

15 Their feet are swift to ashed blood:

16 Destruction and misery are in their ways:

17 And the way of peace have they not known:

18 There is no fear of God before their eyes.

I also attempted to illustrate that; one: ALL behavior is learned. That social controls exist primarily for the protection of the individual and property but it does not constitute moral or ethical behavior and should not be confused with it. According to God, there is no righteousness or goodness away or separate from Him. I offered a few examples.

MIsshalfway assertion that "most humans have a sense of right and wrong" has no empirical support. Some have suggested that there is an innate predisposition for moral or ethical behavior in humans, sort of hard coded into us. The capacity for expression and behavior exist but whether it is right or wrong depends entirely on external environmental factors, social, cultural, religious. A child may be born with intact and fully functioning vocal cords. Whether he/she learns to talk or even what language depends on those environmental factors.

It is appealing to some to advocate for an entirely secular position on the issues of moral and ethical behavior, but 10,000 years of human experience points in a different direction.

[VisionOfLehi]

"Whether he/she learns to talk or even what language depends on those environmental factors."

That's incorrect.

Children have an innate ability to learn language. They WILL learn language. As long as they have something to interact with, they will develop a language.

Deaf children, without being taught sign language, naturally develop their own gestures and noises, with rudimentary but consistent syntax. Even without verbal language cues they develop a language of their own, complete with grammar.

"Wild" children, like the girl who essentially lived with dogs, still had language.

Severely disabled people, who can hardly express themselves, still have a way to do so. Hard as it may be for US to understand, they do have a language.

Language is an intrinsic human quality, and the evidence backs that up.

[Islander]

VoL - I agree with you to the extent that a child has something to model or imitate he/she will develop a language skill set. The point being that external environmental factors have a deterministic impact on behavior, language being just an example of such.

[VisionOfLehi]

Again... They don't need something to imitate.

The brain is hard-wired to develop language at a certain age. That's like it's primary duty for a chunk of time.

During that time, some sort of communication will develop. Unless a child was deprived of all 5 senses. So yes, the environment has a factor in that sense. But a deaf and blind child will still express itself. It might not get too far beyond varying cries for different needs without external help, but it'll develop.

[Misshalfway]

...until you notice that two kids raised the same way don't turn out the same.

People are so quick to jump on either the nature bandwagon or the nurture bandwagon, and miss how both are important. Not all behaviour is learned. Not even close. As humans, our instincts aren't as strong as they are in other animals are, but we still have them.

This is an interesting point. If we are the product of evolution, why is it that we don't have stronger instincts? Why is it that we are so flimsy in terms of behavior and why we insist on destroying one another? I don't see animals trying to destroy one another. I see laws of nature at work to keep the systems in balance. If this earth were just made up of human animals, I think we would see more order among our species. Having a moral code or sense or inclination certainly must set us apart from every other living creature. If we weren't created by God and there is no purpose to our existence and we are just going to live and die, why evolve into such an intelligent and moral place?

Edited July 15, 2008 by Misshalfway

[DigitalShadow]

Again... They don't need something to imitate.

The brain is hard-wired to develop language at a certain age. That's like it's primary duty for a chunk of time.

During that time, some sort of communication will develop. Unless a child was deprived of all 5 senses. So yes, the environment has a factor in that sense. But a deaf and blind child will still express itself. It might not get too far beyond varying cries for different needs without external help, but it'll develop.

Are you telling me that a person who grew up in absence of any other animal would develop a 'language' of some kind to communicate with themself?

I agree that human brains are predisposed to assign symbols (sounds, pictures, gestures) to meaning, but what they learn depends entirely on their surroundings. In fact some languages don't even have a concept of numbers.

[VisionOfLehi]

Digital: Something like that. Deprived of other animals, I think actually the child would die, or if it managed to survive they'd be absolutely crazy, and probably mentally retarded. People need people.

Fent/Miss: I think human instincts are just as strong as animals. The difference is that we have higher thinking: the ability to ignore them.

What are instincts? Natural instincts are all geared towards survival, right? Fight or flight. Find food. Find shelter. Avoid predators.

[VisionOfLehi]

There's also "find a mate" which is a really, really powerful one, and "have babies". And I think that others, like "care for members of your group" go back to the idea of where secular ideas of morality can be found.

Ah, yeah. I'd say those are survival, too. Survival of the species as a whole.