Believers, Non-Believers & Morality

Originally posted by @fmf
Yes and I think it's evidence that these commonalities are the upshot of how humans are wired and what works - helps us to survive and prosper - in collective living; in other words, human nature, the human condition.

So the shared morality is strictly based on humans wanting to survive as a species? Do you think shared morality across cultures and generations was the result of an evolutionary process?

Originally posted by @romans1009
Aren’t there cases where someone knows what the moral thing to do is (according to their own moral code,) but choose not to do it?

Of course there are, and this is the case no matter whether a person believes the source of their morality is a supernatural one or whether they believe it is a product of nature and nurture.

Originally posted by @fmf
This is all that morality is. There is nothing more or less to it, to my way of thinking.

So if someone’s moral code is not to litter, there is never a case where they will litter? There is never a case where they will go against their moral code?

Originally posted by @romans1009
So the shared morality is strictly based on humans wanting to survive as a species?

As an ongoing refinement of how people collectively choose to live with each other, I think it has progressed well beyond such a raw existential process, but I believe the origins of human beings' moral capacity are in the obvious need to find a way of successfully manage sustainable communal living.

Originally posted by @fmf
Of course there are, and this is the case no matter whether a person believes the source of their morality is a supernatural one or whether they believe it is a product of nature and nurture.

But if the person’s morality is the result of their background and experiences, why would they not change it if it proved inconvenient when they were in a different environment or circumstances?

Originally posted by @romans1009
So if someone’s moral code is not to litter, there is never a case where they will litter? There is never a case where they will go against their moral code?

This has already been answered I think.

Originally posted by @fmf
This has already been answered I think.

Yes, I posted that around the same time as your post addressing this query.

Originally posted by @fmf
As an ongoing refinement of how people collectively choose to live with each other, I think it has progressed well beyond such a raw existential process, but I believe the origins of human beings' moral capacity are in the obvious need to find a way of successfully manage sustainable communal living.

What is the evolutionary motivation then in the morality of helping a far-flung population? Surely they are not a threat to the well-being or resources of a population that exists far away from them.

Originally posted by @romans1009
But if the person’s morality is the result of their background and experiences, why would they not change it if it proved inconvenient when they were in a different environment or circumstances?

Some people do. Sometimes it might be a bad thing that there's such a change; sometimes it might be appropriate or a good thing. It's not unusual for morality to vary or change. A person's moral outlook will often change as they grow up and grow older, or after they have children, or as a result of dramatic experiences.

Originally posted by @romans1009
What is the evolutionary motivation then in the morality of helping a far-flung population? Surely they are not a threat to the well-being or resources of a population that exists far away from them.

Try again. I don't really know what you mean. Maybe try a scenario. If you are talking about how the evolutionary process might have created capacities in humans that then gave rise to more codified moral sensibilities, then I suggest you set your scenario somewhere tens of thousands of years ago.

Originally posted by @suzianne
How do you get this? Do you really think this? Does this include all theists?

"My morality bank is filled with genuine currency, while yours is Just an IOU from a non-existent deity." Ghost.


"How do you get this? Do you really think this? Does this include all theists?" Suzianne


I was speaking to Romans directly, so no, I don't apply that to all theists. - My point was that his morality was 'borrowed' from an outside agency and was not 'self-generating.' Christians like him believe man falls into depravity when God is taken out of the equation, despite the world being filled with perfectly decent individuals who manage to do so without God.

If God alone is keeping you good,....then you're not good. Borrowing morality from God is like borrowing a watch. Lose that watch and you lose all concept of time. Fashion your own watch and you're in control of your own timekeeping.

Originally posted by @fmf
Some people do. Sometimes it might be a bad thing that there's such a change; sometimes it might be appropriate or a good thing. It's not unusual for morality to vary or change. A person's moral outlook will often change as they grow up and grow older, or after they have children, or as a result of dramatic experiences.

<<Sometimes it might be a bad thing that there's such a change; sometimes it might be appropriate or a good thing.>>

Upon what is the determination made that the change is bad or appropriate/good? If there is no universal standard of morality, then the change is neither bad nor good. It is just a change.

Originally posted by @fmf
Try again. I don't really know what you mean. Maybe try a scenario. If you are talking about how the evolutionary process might have created capacities in humans that then gave rise to more codified moral sensibilities, then I suggest you set your scenario somewhere tens of thousands of years ago.

Let’s say there’s a devastating earthquake in an impoverished country halfway across the world from a wealthy country. Many citizens in the wealthy country decide to send money and some even decide to travel there to help.

Why?

What evolutionary process would create a moral code that drives a wealthy population to contribute money and time/effort helping an impoverished population a very great distance away? The impoverished population is surely no threat to the well-being or resources of the wealthy population.

Shouldn’t the wealthy population, viewed from an evolutionary standpoint, favor a “survival of the fittest” response?

Originally posted by @romans1009
Let’s say there’s a decent sting earthquake in an impoverished country halfway across the world from a wealthy country. Many citizens in the wealthy country decide to send money and some even decide to travel there to help.

Why?

Human nature, as we now know it, informed by global communications and propelled by the political/moral ideology that permeates cultures, including religious institutions.

Originally posted by @romans1009
What evolutionary process would create a moral code that drives a wealthy population to contribute money and time/effort helping an impoverished population a very great distance away? The impoverished population is surely no threat to the well-being or resources of the wealthy population.

Communal survival creates the need for moral capacity to develop countless tens of thousand years ago > family level > village level > tribe level > ethnic group level > national level > trans-national level > global level... a.k.a. common humanity. Cultures propagate moral information. Human faculties and capacity make this possible.