Morality is a religious construct?

[S.A.M.]

A simple way of understanding morality is pay attention to your interaction with your pets and vice versa. Do they try to eat you? attack you? Or do they see you as family and exhibit natural inclinations to cooperation with you? Do they expect you to mistreat them? No. Are they christian? muslim? atheist? No. It has nothing to do with religion, morality is natural. You don't need a book to tell you what you like or dislike. The concepts you form are then transferred to paper and the written word is a snapshot of the mind or moral values of those who wrote it. Simple.

The problem with morality is when its misunderstood as being outside of oneself or control. Morality should and can evolve just like any type of awareness. The development of empathy and other types of awareness is a product of this evolution.

Interaction with pets is not based on morality on their part. If you never feed them or take care of them, and beat them regularly, they are unlikely to look on you as a family member.

You can "teach" a pet right and wrong only in terms of what it can expect otherwise, but would you take the same chances with a wild dog you happened to come across?

 

[S.A.M.]

Atheists generally get their moral standards from the society they are part of.

These societies often have laws, rules, and cultural norms that originated from religious beliefs.

Hence, one could argue that atheists do follow a religious code of morality. They have just subtracted the God.

So why do atheists believe in good or bad, right or wrong? Aren't those artificial constructs imposed upon us by society? What would be the point of assigning a moral value to an action?

 

[S.A.M.]

But there are all of those actions; I would think human motivation runs in the same way.

Except that animals would not have a sense of guilt or victimisation associated with their actions; so should we discard these concepts that have had no effects on human motivation?

 

[Bells]

So why do atheists believe in good or bad, right or wrong? Aren't those artificial constructs imposed upon us by society? What would be the point of assigning a moral value to an action?

Good and bad existed before religions ever came into being. The same applies for right and wrong. Religion is a by-product of a patriarchal society and a wish to impose power and control.

 

[S.A.M.]

Good and bad existed before religions ever came into being.

How do we know that?

 

[peta9]

Except that animals would not have a sense of guilt or victimisation associated with their actions; so should we discard these concepts that have had no effects on human motivation?

Animals are capable of feeling victimized or guilt!! Evidently you are not perceptive of it. Maybe not to the degree we are but certainly they do.

 

[S.A.M.]

Animals are capable of feeling victimized or guilt!! Evidently you are not perceptive of it. Maybe not to the degree we are but certainly they do.

Umm, I've worked with animals in one form or another all my life. The effects of reinforcement training cannot be construed as guilt or victimisation.

 

[Baron Max]

Umm, I've worked with animals in one form or another all my life. The effects of reinforcement training cannot be construed as guilt or victimisation.

Why not? What makes you so sure, Sam?

When a dog or a puppy pees in the house, if that "look" on his face and his actions are not guilty, then pray tell, what is it? ...cause any other time, he's so happy to see his owner that he's ecstatic with happiness and joy. What changes? ...other than he peed on the carpet?

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

Why not? What makes you so sure, Sam?

When a dog or a puppy pees in the house, if that "look" on his face and his actions are not guilty, then pray tell, what is it? ...cause any other time, he's so happy to see his owner that he's ecstatic with happiness and joy. What changes? ...other than he peed on the carpet?

Baron Max

Really? And if its a dog that just walked in from outside and peed all over your furniture? Would he have "that look" on his face?

 

[Baron Max]

Really? And if its a dog that just walked in from outside and peed all over your furniture? Would he have "that look" on his face?

As a matter of fact, they do!!

But I'm still waiting for your answer to my first question. You said, "Umm, I've worked with animals in one form or another all my life. The effects of reinforcement training cannot be construed as guilt or victimisation."

So .... Why not? What makes you so sure, Sam?

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

As a matter of fact, they do!!

But I'm still waiting for your answer to my first question. You said, "Umm, I've worked with animals in one form or another all my life. The effects of reinforcement training cannot be construed as guilt or victimisation."

So .... Why not? What makes you so sure, Sam?

Baron Max

Because if you don't punish a dog for peeing, he won't be "guilty". So if he "knew" it was "wrong" he wouldn't pee, but he pees anyway and "fears" the displeasure that he knows will come after. If you scold him for it an hour later, though, he will not associate it with the peeing.

 

[Baron Max]

Because if you don't punish a dog for peeing, he won't be "guilty".

Yes he does, Sam!! A brand new puppy, never been in the house before, never been punished for anything. If you leave for a while, then come back, he'll pout like a little kid if he's peed in the house. If he ain't peed, he'll greet you like the long lost mommy!

Sam, I've been there on three different puppies ...they all do it. They just know that it's wrong to pee or poop in the house ...and they damned sure feel "guilty" about doing it.

Sorry, Sam, but you just obviously don't know.

But I'm still waiting for your answer to my first question. You said, "Umm, I've worked with animals in one form or another all my life. The effects of reinforcement training cannot be construed as guilt or victimisation."

So .... Why not? What makes you so sure, Sam?

What's the matter, Sam? Why won't you answer that question??? How do you know what you claimed in the italic statement above?

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

Yes he does, Sam!! A brand new puppy, never been in the house before, never been punished for anything. If you leave for a while, then come back, he'll pout like a little kid if he's peed in the house. If he ain't peed, he'll greet you like the long lost mommy!

Sam, I've been there on three different puppies ...they all do it. They just know that it's wrong to pee or poop in the house ...and they damned sure feel "guilty" about doing it.

Sorry, Sam, but you just obviously don't know.

But I'm still waiting for your answer to my first question. You said, "Umm, I've worked with animals in one form or another all my life. The effects of reinforcement training cannot be construed as guilt or victimisation."

So .... Why not? What makes you so sure, Sam?

What's the matter, Sam? Why won't you answer that question??? How do you know what you claimed in the italic statement above?

Baron Max

Well I've actually had puppies and kittens and baby goats and chickens and mice and birds and a turtle.

Next time you get a puppy, don't scold him if he pees; act joyful, "good dog nice boy" etc, and see how guilty he feels about doing it again.

I even have a friend who breeds Shelties, and she lets them pee on newspapers all over the house when they are young; I've never seen them look abashed either.

 

[Baron Max]

Next time you get a puppy, don't scold him if he pees; act joyful, "good dog nice boy" etc, and see how guilty he feels about doing it again.

How many times do I have to say it, Sam!?! I've said it over and over and over, yet you disregard it. Why? Go back and reread my posts about the dogs/puppies ....please. Yo're trying to make a point about "scolding" when there is NOT one to make.

Baron Max

 

[S.A.M.]

How many times do I have to say it, Sam!?! I've said it over and over and over, yet you disregard it. Why? Go back and reread my posts about the dogs/puppies ....please. Yo're trying to make a point about "scolding" when there is NOT one to make.

Baron Max

I've seen the reverse too, so whom should I believe?
So are the puppies abashed when they pee in the yard, or only when they pee in the house?

 

[Rick]

Morality is a consequence of ethical knowlege, wether it comes from religion or it comes from reading Desktop Reference of plato doesnt matter....

True and untrue knowledge are only manifests of absolute truth


Rick

 

[Bells]

How do we know that?

What was deemed to be "good and bad" and "moral" were drawn upon at the creation of religions. For example, were Muslims not aware of what constituted "good and bad" before the writing of the Quran? What of the Bible and the Torah?

 

[S.A.M.]

What was deemed to be "good and bad" and "moral" were drawn upon at the creation of religions. For example, were Muslims not aware of what constituted "good and bad" before the writing of the Quran? What of the Bible and the Torah?

I mean how do we know that there were concepts of good and bad before there ever was religion? The Muslims were not atheists before they were Muslims.

 

[Baron Max]

What was deemed to be "good and bad" and "moral" were drawn upon at the creation of religions.

No, Bells, "right n' wrong" was set long, long before any kind of religion was instituted. In the cave, when one man tried to steal another's food, and the owner smacked the theif with a big club, it was instantly recognized by every other caveman that ...stealing someone else's food is ...a bad thing to do!

As religions came along, they just incorporated all of those old "good n' bad" things into it's rules.

Baron Max

 

[Pandaemoni]

Because if you don't punish a dog for peeing, he won't be "guilty". So if he "knew" it was "wrong" he wouldn't pee, but he pees anyway and "fears" the displeasure that he knows will come after. If you scold him for it an hour later, though, he will not associate it with the peeing.

How do you know that if your mother hadn't punished you for being selfish, that you'd "feel guilty" when you were selfish later in life? Guilt itself may just be the sense we get when we know we "deserve" punishment that we are not getting. In that sense it might be Pavlovian...a reflection of some part of us that is anticipating punishment (even when the rational part of our brain knows that we've avoided it).

Mother chimpanzee punish children who refuse to share, and that's how chimpanzees learn that not sharing is bad. It gets ingrained into them over time. Chimpazees may not be "morally autonomous" in the philosophical sense, but there are debates about that (as there are about whether humans are truly morally autonomous).

That question, along with the question of whether animals "really" feel guilt or not are moot questions. We do know that other complex social animals exhibit behaviors very similar to those of humans to some extent or another.