Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"I do think that human morality didn't start from scratch -- human morality started with the primate psychology which has all these tendencies of reciprocity and empathy and following social rules and so on...so we took that psychology and we turned it into a moral system," he {eminent biologist Frans De Waal} said.
Quote:
"I'm not sure that religion is at the root of morality because I personally think that morality probably existed long before we had religions," De Waal said. "We are very much group animals, we want to fit in the group, we are interested in the community life that we are part of and so we will contribute to it ... all these tendencies that are important for morality."
He argues that we evolved to be moral, that humans, like primates, are group animals and groups that work well together tend to survive.
I agree that morality was a trait that was developed as an evolutionary advantage. We still need social mechanisms to impart and regulate this trait. Religion, community, and family units were excellent mechanisms for this. As we have seen the break down of each we have also seen a decline in morality across society.
We need to replace these things if they are no longer feasible but without replacements society will suffer. Secular humanism is a wonderful alternative for older religions though. We still need community and family and have to find our way back to them as being important features of a well functioning society.
Religion in general also provided ritual and spirituality. Two things we need to remain healthy and balanced. If one does not find religion and church as ideal vehicles for these in their life they also need replacements for both instead of just totally discarding them.
At least that is my view which is still partial to spirituality, faith, and religion though I do believe the UN WHO would agree to a great extent.
"Study Says Humans Acquired Morality from Primates, Not Religion"
While I fundamentally agree with the study, I have a problem with the title because we humans are still primates. The fact that morality has evolved along with our own evolution, and that some degree of morality (social mores) can be detected amongst other higher mammals, I would think makes the findings rather self-evident.
The statement that morality can only come from religion is a bit asinine considering that all societies have moral codes, of which most facets overlap (find me a society where murder and theft are allowed). Yet not all societies share the same religion. This alone should be proof that societies and more specifically human beings themselves are the authors of morality.
Infanticide
Hanuman langurs have a puzzling behavior. Adult males kill infants. For primatologists, the research problem is: why do males go to the trouble of killing infants? Here are some hypotheses and their predictions:
Hypothesis
Predictions Population Control: To control their numbers, langurs kill infants. This prevents overpopulation which threatens group survival. (Good-for-the group)
Infanticide should occur when population density is high. It should not occur when population density is low.
Competition for Resources: Males kill infants to make more resources available to their kin and descendants.
Infanticide should occur when resources are scarce. Infanticide is less likely to occur when resources are plentiful. Also, males do not kill their own kin or offspring.
Cannibalism: Males kill infants and consume them as food.
Males should be observed to eat infants they kill.
Infanticide
Hanuman langurs have a puzzling behavior. Adult males kill infants. For primatologists, the research problem is: why do males go to the trouble of killing infants? Here are some hypotheses and their predictions:
Hypothesis
Predictions Population Control: To control their numbers, langurs kill infants. This prevents overpopulation which threatens group survival. (Good-for-the group)
Infanticide should occur when population density is high. It should not occur when population density is low.
Competition for Resources: Males kill infants to make more resources available to their kin and descendants.
Infanticide should occur when resources are scarce. Infanticide is less likely to occur when resources are plentiful. Also, males do not kill their own kin or offspring.
Cannibalism: Males kill infants and consume them as food.
Males should be observed to eat infants they kill.
Ironic considering your Bible god absolutely LOVED infanticide. It was one of his choice methods of inflicting terror and wrath on those who failed to kowtow to him and/or his chosen people.
So much for that "higher law", eh?
Last edited by QuixoticHobbit; 12-06-2010 at 07:48 PM..
Ironic considering your Bible god absolutely LOVED infanticide. It was one of his choice methods of inflicting terror and wrath on those who failed to kowtow to him and/or his chosen people.
So much for that "higher law", eh?
So where is it written that we are to kill our babies?
Please look up the definition of infantcide before you babble.
***********
And please stick to the topic of the OP.
Study Says Humans Acquired Morality from Primates, Not Religion
Personally, I think primates have higher moral standards than Humans. Humans drop bombs on each other. Primates just throw their poop at each other.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.