morality within evolution

[lunamoth]

Hi All,

It depends alot on what you mean by the "morality" displayed in "nature."

Taking another stab at this complex subject. What I was asking in the referenced post was whether natural evolutionary mechanisms can fully explain all morality, all human virtues. I think this is the crux of the discussion, no?

 

[iBrian]

Natural evolutionary mechanisms for morality could well be the processes of social co-operation, which in itself instill some form of "value system". You can clearly see this latter aspect in studies of social apes, and would certainly be a sound foundation to extrapolate a lot of issues of morality - which in itself, in its bare rationalist form, is about the sustainable preservation of the group.

Of course, human thought and creativty complicates the picture - but my personal suggestion would be that the foundations of morality already have a clear biological and evolutionary source. How much of a role Divinity plays a part in the process after is obviously a matter of faith.

Or - did I miss the question completely?

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Hi All,



Taking another stab at this complex subject. What I was asking in the referenced post was whether natural evolutionary mechanisms can fully explain all morality, all human virtues. I think this is the crux of the discussion, no?

That is certainly the main thrust of the discussion. Could that "evolutionary mechanism" be a result of divine design? Does it matter?

Paul seemed to think that written religious revelation was not the source of morality but that "the Law" was written in to us to be found and followed regardless of whether we are consciously aware of or studied the moral Law. From Romans chapter 2:

13For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, 15since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

There are complex sociobiological explanations for moral impulses. Are those impulses things of the "body" - i.e. the "sinful nature" according to Paul? Does a moral code that divides the world into moral categories represent any moral truth? For example, is there any objective meaning to a distinction between the moral impulse that drives us to help a fellow human but makes a person blind to the suffering of non-human animals? Am I inherently predisposed by this moral impulse to give a favorable moral treatment to those who are ever more like me? Of my nationality, my religion, from my hometown, in my family and ultimately me? Or is there a transcendent experience being expressed in myths that goes beyond "morality?"

In Genesis 2 and 3, the myth clearly expresses the notion that it is our moral judgments that separate from each other, separate us from God and separate us from nature (the "Garden") and even creates a schism within ourselves. The way back to Oneness? Freedom from moral judgment. Freedom from the law even if we look into ourselves and desire to follow the law despite our freedom from it. As Paul writes in Romans 7:

"For apart from law, sin is dead. 9Once I was alive apart from law; but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died. 10I found that the very commandment that was intended to bring life actually brought death."

What is the way into the Kingdom of God? Is it through acknowledging the sacrifice of Chirst so that upon your death you shall enter the Kingdom? Or are you in the kingdom already but your moral judgment prevents you from seeing it? The Gospel of Thomas concludes with the following:

113 His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"
"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Abogado,

Thank you for the post.

I've read that Buddhists read the Lotus Sutra as a vision of the oneness of good and evil as well. I haven't read that source myself, but if anyone has further info I'd be interested in learning about it.

well.. that is one aspect that it covers, however, that is a fairly minor portion of the Sutra. the Lotus Sutra is one of the longest in the entire Mahayana canon and covers the full range of Dharmas, of which "good" and "evil" play but a small role.

the interested reader is directed to this site to read the Lotus Sutra:
http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/mahayana-writings/lotus-sutra.htm

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Alexa,

thank you for the post.

The problem in Eastern religions is they have many currents and a lot of schools.

Alexa

whilst this is true, this is also the case for the Semetic traditions as well. in point of fact, there are more extant schools of Chrisitanity in North America alone, than there are of extant Buddhist schools in the world. eh.. but that has never really bothered me all that much, though i do understand how that could be a problem for the Semetic traditionalists.

 

[Abogado del Diablo]

Namaste Abogado,

Thank you for the post.


well.. that is one aspect that it covers, however, that is a fairly minor portion of the Sutra. the Lotus Sutra is one of the longest in the entire Mahayana canon and covers the full range of Dharmas, of which "good" and "evil" play but a small role.

the interested reader is directed to this site to read the Lotus Sutra:
http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/mahayana-writings/lotus-sutra.htm

Thank you very much for the link. I found a great deal by a "Nichiren" and a group called Soka Gakkai International ("SGI") on this subject. I know little to nothing about them but their writings seem to indicate that they place great emphasis on the Lotus Sutra and specifically on the Sutra's teachings regariding the false dualism of good and evil. Perhaps this is unique to SGI?

 

[lunamoth]

His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?" [/color]
"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."

Wow, great post. Is it possible that an iconoclast and devil's advocate will lead me to a deeper understanding of Christianity? Or shall we go through Christianity to an even higher place? Not to fawn but I enjoy your clear exposition and command of scripture and literature.

Dualism and Oneness. Yes. It reminds me of something I read a long time ago, perhaps from Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance? About the philosophers' knife that is always slicing, dividing this from that. I'm starting to get a feel your point, I think. We seem to be mired in a world of dualism and maybe we have to abandon all attempts at making a moral judgement if we are to "see" the Kingdom all around us. Puts the spotlight on the excruciating plight of a conscious being that must make it's way in the world by making never-ending choices and realizing that the only satisfying thing for our soul will be to stop doing this. The goal of meditation then, to put our decision making apparatus on pause?

AdD said: "Could that "evolutionary mechanism" be a result of divine design? Does it matter?"

Exactly. Just as in matters of physiology, morality and behavior might be fully understood as functions of a selfish gene, but the question will remain about the Designer of the gene. And before that the Deisgner of the physical laws that govern the gene. And before that... As I, Brian reminds us it is ultimately a matter of faith.

AdD said: "What is the way into the Kingdom of God? Is it through acknowledging the sacrifice of Chirst so that upon your death you shall enter the Kingdom? Or are you in the kingdom already but your moral judgment prevents you from seeing it? "

Both. Neither. I believe that the Kingdom is all around us and we can be transported there in a "twinkling" (to borrow from Christian and Baha'i scripture). Whether suspending moral judgement is the best way to achieve that twinkling I'm not sure. Until we *know* that every human being/every sentient creature is our brother/sister, no, even closer, is ourself, we will have a veil between us and the Kingdom. Yes, that's a good metaphor, hundreds of thin veils (again borrowing from Baha'i), we keep removing them and pushing them aside and more remain. Perhaps a NDE or "mature" meditation practice or prayer can sweep the veils aside all at once to give us a glimmer. Maybe seeing a spectacular waterfall or your baby's smile takes you there immediately. Have you ever had that sense of falling out of yourself? Christ's sacrifice for me is real, but "how it works" is a mystery.

Another question: why would the selfish gene benefit from a human behavior that seeks God/The Ground of Being?

Pardon the rambling.

 

[alexa]

whilst this is true, this is also the case for the Semetic traditions as well. in point of fact, there are more extant schools of Chrisitanity in North America alone, than there are of extant Buddhist schools in the world. eh.. but that has never really bothered me all that much, though i do understand how that could be a problem for the Semetic traditionalists.

Namaste Vajradhara,

I've just got through all the worlds religions from the past and nowadys . You are right. There are a lot of currents in Christianity also. In fact, I have realised how huge it is the diversity of belifs. I dare say we do not need to find aliens on other planets, as we cannot bore on Earth at all.

Alexa

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Abogado,

thank you for the post.

Thank you very much for the link. I found a great deal by a "Nichiren" and a group called Soka Gakkai International ("SGI") on this subject. I know little to nothing about them but their writings seem to indicate that they place great emphasis on the Lotus Sutra and specifically on the Sutra's teachings regariding the false dualism of good and evil. Perhaps this is unique to SGI?

ah.. yes. that would explain it. this group does, to the exclusion of all else, regard this Sutra as the "True" Buddhas teaching. Nichiren and Soka Gakkai are related but enimical with each other, each, essentially, regarding the other as a break away, heretical sect.

i'm not all that keen on stating that such and such isn't Buddhist or blue, for that matter, so i'm not going to do so here. what i will say is this.... a reading of the Suttas/Sutras themselves show what the Buddha viewed would be the correct method of Dharma transmission and the correct form of practice. in no place does it mention the praxis that these two groups are engaged in. i'll leave it to the discerning reader to decide what that means.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Vajradhara,

I've just got through all the worlds religions from the past and nowadys . You are right. There are a lot of currents in Christianity also. In fact, I have realised how huge it is the diversity of belifs. I dare say we do not need to find aliens on other planets, as we cannot bore on Earth at all.

Alexa

to use some modern, urban parlance..

"true dat"

 

[alexa]

Hello everybody and thank you very much for joining this thread.

From a simple question, I manage myself to complicate a lot the situation. But what do you want ? I'm a woman, so complicating things is in my nature!



I’ll re-write again the initial questions of Juantoo3, as I believe it is important:

Can morality be the result of natural evolution? Or, as Gould implies, is this a matter of human psycho-social development that cannot be adequately addressed by scientific scholarship? Can nature based religions rightfully claim scientific basis for their moralities? Or should the whole subject of moral development be held aside, restricted to the "magisterial" of religion?

So, let's talk a little about nature based religions. My fist concern was to establish which those religions were. I began with the religions on this forum, I got through the main religions of the world and finally I got through all of them in the past and nowadays.



I could identify in the past the most important earth based religions, which were: ancient Greek, ancient roman, ancient druidism and witchcraft. They had a high respect for the nature and the earth and they were polytheistic.



Greek religion was a predominant form of early Paganism. Greek had rituals, rites, ceremonies and animal (sheep, cows, goats, pigs, bulls) and human sacrifices. They were flexible in beliefs and they didn’t claim universality. They did not participate in regular clergies, any hierarchical system, any sacred texts or moral code. They also worshipped oracles, demy-gods and Heroes. They believed in afterlife, in contrast with the other pagan religions who believed in re-incarnation.



Romans borrowed a lot of their gods from Greek and they believed the rituals were necessary to please them. They believed everything had a spirit, who could influence for good or evil their life.



The druids worshipped some gods similar to those of the Greeks and Romans, but under different names. Their sacred place was a circle of stones and not temples like Greeks and Romans. They met in woods and glens because they believed the spirits emerged from the anture :the sea, the light, the wind, the sun and the oak tree. They performed animal and human sacrifices, but they didn’t have defined images to represent the object of their worship. Druids believed in re-incarnation.



Here you have a scene of worship:



http://library.thinkquest.org/28111/_borders/drawingdown.jpg



Witchcraft has its roots in ancient folk ways and beliefs, usually following the seasonal cycle. There are several forms of worship which may vary from elaborate rituals in ritual circles to simple meditation. A lot of witchcraft’s religion was lost in the middle age. Many witches were burned or hanged. They believed in one god and one goddess, but worshipped them as many gods. The Goddess is the mother of all things, of nature and the earth. She is represented by the Moon and her power is greater from May to October. The God is symbolised in the wood lands, in the sun and in the hunt with a greater power from October to May. Witches believe the divine is in all things which partially explains their deep respect and affinity with the nature.



Here you have a scene of drawing down the Moon:



http://library.thinkquest.org/28111/_borders/drawingdownthemoon.jpg





People disillusioned with the present religions had returned to the nature based religions, as these religions had sustained the world for centuries before the appearance of the Christianity.



There are several forms of Neo-paganism including Wicca, Neo-druidism and Astrau. Neo-pagans are usually polytheistic or duo theistic. As a lot of the ancient religions were lost, the new religions have new concepts, which had modified the ancient tradition.



The human is the only being that has realised his life has an end. The appearance of Gods and the spirits in the ancient world was the result of fear of death. Those who hunted had created hunting gods; those who till the earth had created crops gods and so on.



Alexa

 

[alexa]

Can a person without morals (if such truly exists) be genuinely religious? Can a person without morals be genuinely scientific? Can a person without religion or science be moral?

Hi Juan,

I'm afraid people without moral exist. I don't like to watch the news as there are to many crimes reported. The answer is NO. You cannot be without moral and be religious in the same time. On the contrary, I belive somebody without moral can be a scientific.

Again, what do you understand by a moral person ?

Alexa

 

[juantoo3]

My sincere thanks to everybody who has contributed so far!

Kindest Regards, Alexa!

I only have a moment.

I'm afraid people without moral exist. I don't like to watch the news as there are to many crimes reported. The answer is NO. You cannot be without moral and be religious in the same time. On the contrary, I belive somebody without moral can be a scientific.

Again, what do you understand by a moral person ?

My question you quoted for this was an attempt to provide a way of "falsifying" morality in the scientific sense. I agree that a religious person would have a difficult time being amoral, but I would think a truly logical person, represented by a scientist, would have an equally difficult time being amoral. Logic requires constancy, and while constancy by itself does not make morality, morality requires a form of constancy. I am probably not clear here, but for the moment it is the best I can do.

I wanted briefly to address the beginning of your comment.
"I'm afraid people without moral exist." Moral people commit crimes too. It could be called a "lapse" of their morality, or in Christian terms "sin." I haven't looked deeply into the subject, but according to my psych professor it is not uncommon for mass murderers to be moral people. Their morality may be twisted from what most people believe, but in their own minds they find some form of justification for their actions. I could even point to the terrorist suicide bombers, who believe they are fulfilling some moral justification for sending "non-believers" to their brand of "hell." Outside of their circle, we view them as immoral. Inside their circle, they view themselves as extremely moral. This is an extreme example of subjective morality. Other than people with severe mental disease, I don't think there are any real world examples of fully functional, rational humans walking the face of the planet that do not have some form of morality. It may seem that way, but close up and in context I don't believe it is so.

A moral person understands "right and wrong." How much of that understanding is subjective (individual interpretation) and how much is objective (universally true for all) is open to debate, but the moral person holds some form of understanding of right and wrong. A (hypothetical) person who does not hold some form of understanding of right and wrong can not truly be religious or logical. IMHO.

Does this help?

By the way, excellent job! Keep up the good work! I am learning a great deal from everyone's participation.

 

[alexa]

I agree moral people can commit crimes, too.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Brian!

Thank you for your post! My apologies for not answering sooner.

Natural evolutionary mechanisms for morality could well be the processes of social co-operation, which in itself instill some form of "value system". You can clearly see this latter aspect in studies of social apes, and would certainly be a sound foundation to extrapolate a lot of issues of morality - which in itself, in its bare rationalist form, is about the sustainable preservation of the group.

I think what you say here is valid, but I am not familiar enough with it to integrate this into what we are looking at yet. Ordinarily, I would take the time to look deeper into it, but I am pressed for time at the moment. Do you have any suggestions about where to look?

Of course, human thought and creativty complicates the picture - but my personal suggestion would be that the foundations of morality already have a clear biological and evolutionary source. How much of a role Divinity plays a part in the process after is obviously a matter of faith.

On the one hand, I am in agreement with Abogado about "it doesn't really matter" (paraphrased). On the other, whether or not "divinity" plays a role, there is a process, and one would think that process could, at least in a general way, be uncovered. History shows us that humanity developed over a long period of time looking to nature for moral guidance. At some point humanity turned to itself. My original question had to do with whether or not it is in the interest of humanity as a whole to continue looking to ourselves to develop our moral code(s), or is it valid to return to looking at nature for moral examples to continue developing morality into the future.

I suppose it would be well to insert here, that I think modern morality often ignores nature, to its detriment. Nature is something to be valued and treasured. We kill ourselves when we destroy nature. So I can see some value in looking to nature, for some things. I am not sure morality is one of those things. "Survival of the fittest" is sometimes promoted by those who assume they rank among the fittest. I cannot help but wonder if their attitudes might not change once they are faced with the reality that someone they love and deeply care about, possibly themselves, may not rank among the "fittest."

It is also fair to insert, that civil morality is often vague, seems at times deliberately designed for the individual to fail to completely live up to, and can be in opposition to the moralities of other cultures. The whole puzzle is complex and difficult, and has long been a thorn in my academic side.

Or - did I miss the question completely?

Quite the contrary, I think you have included an important angle to consider, I just haven't the time right now. Perhaps when things settle down a bit around here.

Some other things I might want to look into include abnormal psych (such as what makes a person amoral, and what precisely that means), and morality among animals (probably the social apes as you mention being the better examples), and possibly philosophy (such as Kantian and Utilitarian ethics). The one thing I am trying to deliberately avoid is the political aspect, at least for this exercise, as a courtesy.

Thank you very much for you contribution!

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Abogado!

Thank you for your posts!

Have you ever read Erne Ness's writings on "Deep Ecology"?

Sorry for repeating an earlier quote, but it is much shorter than the follow up.

If I understood your summary, it sounds much like a program I watched a few months back by David Suzuki called "The Sacred Balance." While the program was only cursory, it was quite interesting. But it left me wanting, almost like a cliffhanger. I almost bought the book at one point, hoping for a better, deeper explanation, but as luck would have it they were out of stock. I haven't tried again, it just slips my mind with other things going on.

I guess what I see between the two moral paths, is shortcomings in each, and too many who only pay lip service while not seriously trying to hold to what they profess. This is not true of all people, but enough to make one question. And, of course, my own soul searching. Try as I might, and I do try very hard, I cannot fully live up to the formal code I have aligned myself with.

Morality is something we all require, in order to function in a social environment. That I see as a given. Can morality truthfully and really be modified for the greater good of all peoples as we move into a more unified world? And does that mean making a moral code stronger (meaning more difficult to live up to), or more lax (meaning more ambiguous and illdefined)? Or a reversion to the moral anarchy of nature?

Forgive my ramble.

It is not directed specifically to you, it is a general ramble to hopefully better show my quandary.

Thank you most sincerely for your contributions here!

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


to complicate this subject

is there a difference between morality and ethics?

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vajradhara!

Thank you for your thought provoking response!

to complicate this subject

is there a difference between morality and ethics?

Is not ethics applied morality? Or have I missed something? What is your take on the matter?

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Juan,


thank you for the post.

hmm.. perhaps you are correct, i'm not certain.

in my tradition, for instance, morality is rarely, if ever, mentioned. what is mentioned are ethical actions. it wouldn't be too far removed to say that Buddhism cares little for morality and cares greatly about ethics.. though, obviously, the tradition doesn't "care" in the traditional sense of the word.

the Buddhist tradition, by and large, is geared towards the skillful development of ethical behavior as it's foundational goal. once this has been perfected, you move along the path to other, less exoteric praxis.

in my naive view, i had rather considered morality to be ethical action couched in religious terms whereas ethical actions, themselves, were independent of a particular religion.

some of this comes out when we look at what the various religious traditions prohibit in their teachings.. we see that morality is relative to the paradigm from which it is viewed. ethics appears to be more widely consistent across cultures.

of course, i could be conflating the ideas quite a bit and totally missing the mark

 

[alexa]

Is not ethics applied morality? Or have I missed something? What is your take on the matter?

Hi Juan,
Namaste Vajradhara,

I just want to give the definition for the morality and the ethic, as they are in Wikipedia encyclopedia :

Morality

is a complex of concepts and philosophical beliefs by which an individual determines whether his or her actions are right or wrong. Oftentimes, these concepts and beliefs are generalized and codified in a culture or group, and thus serve to regulate the behaviour of its members. Conformity to such codification may also be called morality, and the group may depend on widespread conformity to such codes for its continued existence. A "moral" may refer to a particular principle, usually as informal and general summary with respect to a moral principle, as it is applied in a given human situation.

see on : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality

You can also have an overview of morality; changes in morality; morality and Darwinism; morality in juridical systems; the moral in story.

Ethics

is a general term for what is often described as the "science of morality". In philosophy, ethical behavior is that which is "good". The Western tradition of ethics is sometimes called moral philosophy. This is one of the three major branches of philosophy, alongside metaphysics and logic.

see on : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics

You can also have the history of ethics; disputes of definition; the first social science; ethics vs politics vs science vs practise; divisions of ethics; metaethics; normative ethics; applied ethics; ethics by cases; the analytical view; is ethics futile ?; ethics in religion; psycology and politics and finally major doctrines of ethics.

Best regards,

Alexa