NationStates

Thepeopl wrote:Yes. Animals have morals. They don't practice religion.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 018-9275-3

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_look ... nds%2CMark

That's not morality. It's survival instinct.Only when there is a society, a civilization and a life-threatening environment can morality be created.Altruistic behavior can increase the survival rate of the population, and emotions can help cope with different problems.Paternal love, maternal love, can prevent the adult from abandoning the young, thus improving the survival rate.In fact, most animals can't even pass the mirror test, let alone explore nature and possess morality and religion.

Yes, one can be moral without religion.

In fact, I'd argue that those who do good actions just because their religion tells them too, are not moral actors in their own right, but merely automata that follow a predefined set of rules.

Yes. No shit.

Page wrote:

Adamede wrote:Neither of those are support for animals having morals.

If observation of behavior isn't sufficient to prove that animals have morals, then it's not sufficient to prove humans have morals either.

With the way most people act I’d agree.

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:

Thepeopl wrote:Yes. Animals have morals. They don't practice religion.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 018-9275-3

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_look ... nds%2CMark

That's not morality. It's survival instinct.Only when there is a society, a civilization and a life-threatening environment can morality be created.Altruistic behavior can increase the survival rate of the population, and emotions can help cope with different problems.Paternal love, maternal love, can prevent the adult from abandoning the young, thus improving the survival rate.In fact, most animals can't even pass the mirror test, let alone explore nature and possess morality and religion.

Ever seen cappuccino monkey thing where the monkey was annoyed at not getting a grape for doing the same task ad their partner who did get a grape. Pretty sure they cannot pads the mirror test, but that experiment suggests they are somewhat aware of self. I agree a social species is needed, but civilization is not.

Old Tyrannia wrote: On the other hand, there are many people who don't regard themselves as religious but still hold quasi-religious beliefs, whether they acknowledge it or not, and they may well have a true sense of morality derived from those beliefs. An example would be the belief in the existence of universal human rights, which lacks a rational basis and is taken by most people as, essentially, an article of faith, and which supplies the basis for many people's sense of "secular" morality or ethics.

Congratulations, you've found a way for people to have morality without religion-- to have beliefs and principles of their own which aren't dictated to them by a church or an ancient text.

We could argue all day whether a belief in universal human rights has a rational basis (I think you're too dismissive of the argument that it does), but calling it "quasi-religious" is a bit of a cop-out. It's not a religion or religious belief in any sense of the term, you're just trying to claim it basically is so you can justify the argument that secular people can't be truly moral or have principles.

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:

Thepeopl wrote:Yes. Animals have morals. They don't practice religion.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 018-9275-3

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_look ... nds%2CMark

That's not morality. It's survival instinct.Only when there is a society, a civilization and a life-threatening environment can morality be created.Altruistic behavior can increase the survival rate of the population, and emotions can help cope with different problems.Paternal love, maternal love, can prevent the adult from abandoning the young, thus improving the survival rate.In fact, most animals can't even pass the mirror test, let alone explore nature and possess morality and religion.

You'd be quite surprised at what elephants, dolphins, killer whales, and corvids (particularly crows) are capable of when it comes to socialization, civilization (or at least culture), and abstract thinking. I wouldn't dismiss so quickly the idea that some of them may have something we'd think of as morality, or quite similar to it.

Senkaku wrote:

Old Tyrannia wrote: On the other hand, there are many people who don't regard themselves as religious but still hold quasi-religious beliefs, whether they acknowledge it or not, and they may well have a true sense of morality derived from those beliefs. An example would be the belief in the existence of universal human rights, which lacks a rational basis and is taken by most people as, essentially, an article of faith, and which supplies the basis for many people's sense of "secular" morality or ethics.

Congratulations, you've found a way for people to have morality without religion-- to have beliefs and principles of their own which aren't dictated to them by a church or an ancient text.

We could argue all day whether a belief in universal human rights has a rational basis (I think you're too dismissive of the argument that it does), but calling it "quasi-religious" is a bit of a cop-out. It's not a religion or religious belief in any sense of the term, you're just trying to claim it basically is so you can justify the argument that secular people can't be truly moral or have principles.

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:
That's not morality. It's survival instinct.Only when there is a society, a civilization and a life-threatening environment can morality be created.Altruistic behavior can increase the survival rate of the population, and emotions can help cope with different problems.Paternal love, maternal love, can prevent the adult from abandoning the young, thus improving the survival rate.In fact, most animals can't even pass the mirror test, let alone explore nature and possess morality and religion.

You'd be quite surprised at what elephants, dolphins, killer whales, and corvids (particularly crows) are capable of when it comes to socialization, civilization (or at least culture), and abstract thinking. I wouldn't dismiss so quickly the idea that some of them may have something we'd think of as morality, or quite similar to it.

Also the great apes and quit a few monkeys. I made note of the Capuchin https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KSryJX ... vladimerk1

Deacarsia wrote:No, one cannot have morals without religion.

This is not to say that such people cannot behave is a conventionally moral manner or even have principles, but without a religious basis such things ultimately are arbitrary.

That's a load of manure.
People can absolutely have morals without religion, and no, their code is not arbitrary. It's based on "this is a bad thing to do to people" or "this is a good thing to do to help someone" without the "I'll be punished for it/I'll be rewarded for it by God" carrot-dangling.

I would definitely say that a person can have morals without region. It is because culture and society play a huge impact in showing us what is culturally acceptable and what is not. It is partly common sense as well because as we grow up we learn by watching others. We begin to mimic each other because we want to be able to fit into what society wants us to be. I have met plenty of people who don't believe in religion and have the same morals as other who may believe in something. With us being social beings, it allows us to understand what morals are.

One can (and should) have morals, even without religion, solely for the simple fact that humans are social animals. We need to cooperate with each other to survive and progress as a society / civilization. This is what ultimately pushes people to have morals.

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:

Thepeopl wrote:Yes. Animals have morals. They don't practice religion.

https://link.springer.com/article/10.10 ... 018-9275-3

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_look ... nds%2CMark

That's not morality. It's survival instinct.Only when there is a society, a civilization and a life-threatening environment can morality be created.Altruistic behavior can increase the survival rate of the population, and emotions can help cope with different problems.Paternal love, maternal love, can prevent the adult from abandoning the young, thus improving the survival rate.In fact, most animals can't even pass the mirror test, let alone explore nature and possess morality and religion.

I would argue that many dogs have a sense of morality or judgement. Once upon a time a shitzu got loose and ran up on my dog Nadia, who was a rather aggressive pooch. Nadia could have torn that dog to shreads or seriously injured them but she simply snapped and kept snapping repeatedly till the small dog got the message and ran.

That dog didn't need to exercise restraint but did. Sounds like morality to me.

Neutraligon wrote:

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:
That's not morality. It's survival instinct.Only when there is a society, a civilization and a life-threatening environment can morality be created.Altruistic behavior can increase the survival rate of the population, and emotions can help cope with different problems.Paternal love, maternal love, can prevent the adult from abandoning the young, thus improving the survival rate.In fact, most animals can't even pass the mirror test, let alone explore nature and possess morality and religion.

Ever seen cappuccino monkey thing where the monkey was annoyed at not getting a grape for doing the same task ad their partner who did get a grape. Pretty sure they cannot pads the mirror test, but that experiment suggests they are somewhat aware of self. I agree a social species is needed, but civilization is not.

I'm pretty sure most animals have a sense of self. They just can't figure out that a mirror is a mirror and think they're looking at another creature.

Borderlands of Rojava wrote:

Shanghai industrial complex wrote:
That's not morality. It's survival instinct.Only when there is a society, a civilization and a life-threatening environment can morality be created.Altruistic behavior can increase the survival rate of the population, and emotions can help cope with different problems.Paternal love, maternal love, can prevent the adult from abandoning the young, thus improving the survival rate.In fact, most animals can't even pass the mirror test, let alone explore nature and possess morality and religion.

I would argue that many dogs have a sense of morality or judgement. Once upon a time a shitzu got loose and ran up on my dog Nadia, who was a rather aggressive pooch. Nadia could have torn that dog to shreads or seriously injured them but she simply snapped and kept snapping repeatedly till the small dog got the message and ran.

That dog didn't need to exercise restraint but did. Sounds like morality to me.

Err....Bro,Is this moral standard too low?Animals are not an organic killer of discovery and destruction.And they also have emotions. When a tiger is happy, it may even keep a lamb beside him for fun

every religious idea and every idea of God is unutterable vileness ... of the most dangerous kind, 'contagion' of the most abominable kind
"every religious idea and every idea of God is unutterable vileness ... of the most dangerous kind, 'contagion' of the most abominable kind. Millions of sins, filthy deeds, acts of violence and physical contagions ... are far less dangerous than the subtle, spiritual idea of God decked out in the smartest ideological costumes ..."

morals aren't real it's all fictives for justification silly

Katganistan wrote:

Deacarsia wrote:No, one cannot have morals without religion.

This is not to say that such people cannot behave is a conventionally moral manner or even have principles, but without a religious basis such things ultimately are arbitrary.

That's a load of manure.
People can absolutely have morals without religion, and no, their code is not arbitrary. It's based on "this is a bad thing to do to people" or "this is a good thing to do to help someone" without the "I'll be punished for it/I'll be rewarded for it by God" carrot-dangling.

The criteria is completely arbitrary though, and presumes that everyone's moral conception is centered around altruism. Quite a few believe that selfishness is a good thing and that opinion would be no more or less invalid than another without a religious basis.