Why does basic morality seem to be instinctual and bred into us by evolutionary psychology?
Do you think man is truly able to be moral in order to achieve group survival even without belief in Santa Clauses and Gods?
reference:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/columnists/story.html?id=978093cc-9fb2-4c94-a522-af85f69c6853&k=34576
Wally said,
Wrote on November 29, 2010 @ 9:35 am
Because there was a CREATOR who made man like that in His own image
fruitcake said,
Wrote on November 29, 2010 @ 9:45 am
I don’t necessarily correlate morality with group survival. Many immoral societies existed in history and some still do.
SDW said,
Wrote on November 29, 2010 @ 10:26 am
What we consider basic morality actually goes flatly against many of our inbred survival instincts. So I would say that morality should be actually considered a step backward for evolution.
Ryan said,
Wrote on November 29, 2010 @ 11:15 am
Of coarse he is able to be moral without religion.
judy_t00 said,
Wrote on November 29, 2010 @ 11:58 am
we have been for centuries, why would we stop now, unless religion interferes, and tells its followers to kill any who don’t follow the same beliefs. Oh wait, that’s happening now!
h nitrogen said,
Wrote on November 29, 2010 @ 12:44 pm
Interestingly enough..if it wasn’t for laws and police forces, this inbred morality you speak of would reveal itself not to be so. And besides what you think is moral might be complete different to your neighbor or even your brother. There is no such thing as inate morality.
Not Epicurus said,
Wrote on November 29, 2010 @ 12:52 pm
Didn’t you know that before Moses got the 10 commandments, everybody on earth was raping, killing, stealing, cheating, lying and torturing each other?
Thank God came out from clouds and set everyone straight. Eh? =P
h nitrogen: It’s our in bred morality that allowed for the creation of those laws. Think about it.
Lynchburger said,
Wrote on November 29, 2010 @ 12:53 pm
Morality is the template for embracing what is right and rejecting what is wrong. If Right and Wrong are not grounded in notions of universal truth, they devolve to mere labels, simply tools of the powerful to more easily persuade the masses to adopt “convenient” behaviors. However, pragmatic explanations of morality are dysfunctional. They beg the question of why I “should” do something. Sure, evolution enhances the survival of the race if we don’t murder. Big deal. Too abstract for someone who really want to kill another human being. What then? Are we inhibited solely by the sheer fear of punishment? True for some, but for many others, murder just seems Wrong. But what makes it seem Wrong to me personally, at my moment of crisis? What creates the “should” for me? Genetic impulse? But genes can be manipulated like so many tinker toys. Therefore there is no reliable, universal basis in either fear or genetics for an appeal to Right or Wrong.
What then? I believe there is a theological explanation that squares exactly with the core of your question. Why is there this fiercely persistent sense of basic Right and Wrong built into human psychology? Because, as the Apostle Paul says, there is written on every human heart a law that comes from the pen of the Creator. See Romans 1:15. It is written in indelible ink, so that, in the court of Heaven, every person shall have received notice that they must give an accounting for their deeds, whether they have been based on love, or on the baser instincts. Humankind has a higher calling than mere animality. We are creature made in the image of our Creator, and failure to live up to that destiny will always invite a rebuke from the most essential feature of our humanity, our conscience.
Terry W said,
Wrote on November 29, 2010 @ 1:52 pm
Because we are tribal/social animals, so we need order and that has become part of out genes and our learned psychology. IE it has evolved as we have evolved.