Why have morals if God/Nature has no morals?

[Winston]

Some deep but terrible questions:

Why do humans always have to do what's right and moral, when God and Mother Nature have no morality at all? Mother Nature kills countless animals, insects and plant life every second. And God allows wars, famines, poverty, disease, hunger, greed, and evil to kill people everyday. He does nothing to stop it. He lets evil people prosper and good people die young. He allows the strong to take advantage of the weak, and the "might is right" principle to rule the world. So if God himself has no morals, why must humans? How can there be any "universal morality code" if God or Mother Nature doesn't follow it? It's a terrible question, I know. Nothing makes sense in this world or life. But for crying out loud, stop pretending that there is some absolute "divine moral code" that exists for all creation.

[Billy]

The phenomenon of 'reciprocity' in nature is seen by evolutionary biologists as one way to begin to understand human morality. Its function is typically to ensure a reliable supply of essential resources, especially for animals living in a habitat where food quantity or quality fluctuates unpredictably. For example, some vampire bats fail to feed on prey some nights while others manage to consume a surplus. Bats that did eat will then regurgitate part of their blood meal to save a conspecific from starvation. Since these animals live in close-knit groups over many years, an individual can count on other group members to return the favor on nights when it goes hungry (Wilkinson, 1984)


Christopher Boehm (1982) has hypothesized that the incremental development of moral complexity throughout hominid evolution was due to the increasing need to avoid disputes and injuries in moving to open savanna and developing stone weapons. Other theories are that increasing complexity was simply a correlate of increasing group size and brain size, and in particular the development of theory of mind abilities. Richard Dawkins in The God Delusion suggested that our morality is a result of our biological evolutionary history and that the Moral Zeitgeist helps describe how morality evolves from biological and cultural origins and evolves with time within a culture.

[Winston]

Billy, those aren't obviously your words. You should paste the link or source where you got that from. Don't copy and paste other sources as your own words to make yourself sound more academic.

[Billy]

Winston this is a stupid question. Most answers to life problems are in Wikipedia. lol.

This is a no brainer. lol.

Even children know that. lol.

I question your intelligence.lol.

Your thoughts are full of errors. lol.

Next time read Wikipedia before asking the questions. lol.

I am right and you are wrong. lol.

You got owned. lol. and BAM

[Winston]

Here is my favorite aware freethinker Darryl Sloan on "defining good and evil without God".

[GuitarGuy996]

Winston this is a stupid question. Most answers to life problems are in Wikipedia. lol.

This is a no brainer. lol.

Even children know that. lol.

I question your intelligence.lol.

Your thoughts are full of errors. lol.

Next time read Wikipedia before asking the questions. lol.

I am right and you are wrong. lol.

You got owned. lol. and BAM

Owned? SMH

Anyway Winston, I'll provide an answer that wasn't stolen from Wikipedia and/or insulting your honest question by telling you it's just "common sense" to know this stuff.

According to Sociology: morals are a set of appropriate behaviors in a society. If you deviate too far from what is considered "appropriate" by society, you will receive formal or informal sanctions. If you were to rob a bank, a formal sanction would be you receiving jail time. An informal sanction would be people shunning you and not wanting to associate with a thief.

Our ethics and morals are taught to us at a very young age. Our parents were trying to teach us how to effectively function in society, not necessarily what was "right" or "moral" by nature. If we were left to our own devices, we would not be anything like the way we are today. If we lived in Russia, we would speak Russian. If we were were raised by Muslims, we'd probably be Muslim. If we were raised by wolves, we would exemplify the behavior of wolves and wouldn't behave anything like humans (look up feral children).

You raise a good point. Why is killing a cow for food wrong? Well, it's not. Since we need meat to survive, most of us don't really have a problem killing animals for sustenance. Why is killing a human wrong? Well, if we are defining "wrong" by some universal, innate principle, it's not. However it is shunned by society because of societal rights, wrongs, and taboos we have established over time.

We humans are really an anomaly being here at the top of the food chain. Our intelligence and use of tools has placed us at the top.

Now...as to the WHY of any of this? It really beats me. But from a purely natural, non spiritual standpoint, I believe what I said is correct.

That said, I still believe we are spiritual beings. It MAY have been Thoreau, when he went into the woods to live in nature in order to get new perspective on his life, who explained how he is constantly struggling between his primal nature and his higher, spiritual nature. It's interesting how even though we are animals, we seem to have a higher nature. I still don't know the answer to any of this!

I believe we're all an intricate part of this universe. Everything living and all matter are connected to the same source. Consciousness is the only thing purely fundamental in our universe. That's not a proven theory, just my opinion.

[Winston]

But we do not need meat to survive. You can survive on a vegetarian diet too.

So if killing animals for food is ok, then by that logic, is it also ok for higher alien life forms to come and kill us for food or experimentation?

[onezero4u]

i think the "golden rule" is a human creation to preserve societal cohesion.
i dont mind anarchy but an amoral society would worry me.

due to free will i dont consider god as a cosmic person who allows this or that...rather an impartial unified frequency which we are aspects of and allowed to experiment in creation as mini gods...

im guess karma has morality as we know it but not absolute reality.

[GuitarGuy996]

But we do not need meat to survive. You can survive on a vegetarian diet too.

So if killing animals for food is ok, then by that logic, is it also ok for higher alien life forms to come and kill us for food or experimentation?

Well, even if vegetarianism was "right", that still doesn't account for predatory animals. Predatory animals are designed to kill. I.E. a dogs fangs are made to kill and be and able to tear into and consume raw flesh.

It's all part of the cycle of life. A rose grows to be beautiful, then withers and dies. Death is as fundamental as life.

[Ned Zeppelin]

If everything was perfect in the first place there would be no use for religion or the afterlife. No death means no after death.

[Winston]

Some more points to consider:

God and Mother Nature have no morals either - about letting animals, insects and plants die every second, or allowing innocent people to suffer, or allowing good/innocent people to die young and evil people to thrive and prosper either. So there does not seem to be any objective "divine moral code" that governs all of creation. Morality is something that humans create, not some universal divine law that governs the universe.

Sometimes you gotta do what's best for you. As already explained, survival and self-preservation often takes precedent over "morally correct choices". It's not right or wrong; it's just reality. No one likes to admit that publicly, but it's true. There is no perfect world in which the best choices are always the morally correct ones.

I know that doesn't sound good. But you have to be realistic here. No one (at least not most people) can always make the morally correct choice in every decision and action. No one is a saint. But we are all hypocrites in that we hold others to the standards of a saint which we ourselves do not live up to. Everyone (at least most) has skeletons in the closet that would bring moral condemnation from others if exposed out in the open.

As the saying goes: "People do not like to do what's right. They like to TELL others to do what's right."

For example, let's take a hypothetical situation: Suppose Bill Gates accidentally deposited $500,000 into your bank account, and he never noticed it. Now, would you contact him and tell him about it, or would you think: "$500k to him is nothing. It's just pocket change to him. He'll never notice or care that he's missing that amount. I need it A LOT MORE than he does." Of course, publicly you might say that you'd report it because it's the "right and morally correct choice". But in REALITY and PRIVATELY, you KNOW you would probably keep it under the rationale and excuse: "I need this money more than he does. And besides, it was his mistake, not mine." Most people would probably do that, and never tell anyone about it of course. They would never post about it on a forum and try to debate the "morality" of it with others either, because they know that everyone would condemn them. Most of you KNOW that YOU WOULD just keep it, because in this scenario, your "survival instinct" would override your "moral instinct". The benefits and gains would overshadow the "moral ethics" (which bring you nothing), especially if you were badly in need of money. So stop pretending that you are all saints who hold other people to the standard of a saint. You are hypocrites and you know it!

Besides, most of you are also hypocrites for condoning the slaughter of cows, chickens and pigs, (and eating them) while condemning the slaughter of dogs and cats. And you are hypocrites for condoning hunters who shoot ducks and deer. Who are you to decide which life of which species is sacred and valuable, and which isn't? Should an advanced alien race have a right to eat you for food too? Just because you are human doesn't mean that human life is the most sacred thing in the objective universe. A higher more advanced race than you might think otherwise. There's simply no consistency in your thinking and moral standards.

If killing were morally wrong, then those who kill and eat animals would be punished by karma and universal retribution right away, wouldn't they? Yet many meat eaters live long and healthy lives. Why is that?

If killing were ethically wrong and punishable by karma, then is your immune system guilty of killing all the harmful bacteria that it kills everyday? Should karma punish you and your immune system?

If killing was a sin punishable by karma or God, then how come George Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, who started the Iraq War and killed over a million people, have gone unpunished by the universe, and are wealthier than ever? How come the US officials who started the Vietnam War lived long and healthy lives? How come Joseph Stalin, who killed more people than Hitler, lived to a ripe old age? Yet, Robert Kennedy, a man with great compassion for others, gets gunned down and dies young? Where is all the karmic retribution or divine justice in that?

If you are a man, every time you ejaculate, you kill thousands of sperm, even during sex. Does that make you a mass murderer? Should "divine punishment" come upon you for that? If you are a woman, every time you go through menstruation, you kill thousands of fertilized eggs. Does that make you a mass murderer? Should "divine punishment" befall you for that?

So you see, under casual scrutiny, the "moral logic" of most humans falls apart and is shown to be inconsistent, subjective, situational and relative. Human morality is not some "divine law" handed down by God. It is a code of ethics humans created to help ensure the survival and cooperation of our species. The "moral conscience" you have in your subconscious that makes you feel guilty when you do something wrong is not something that God put into you. It's the result of the moral behaviors and beliefs of all your ancestors that have become ingrained into your DNA. It's the same reason why a kitten is born with an expert instinct to catch mice, and a knowing of what it can eat and what it can't. It's the same way animals know that they are supposed to run from predators. God didn't teach them to. It's simply ingrained into their DNA as an instinct from the past behavior of their ancestors.

This is why our survival instinct tends to override our moral instinct. Our need to survive comes first and foremost. It is the root instinct of all life and comes before all other instincts. It also precedes any "moral code" we develop to get along with others. So naturally, when survival and morals come into conflict, we will choose survival. As the saying goes, "One can only have morals if one can afford them."

[odbo]

Morality is something that humans create, not some universal divine law that governs the universe.

Interpretations may be affected by men but at it's heart morality is dictated by consciousness, and that is something man does not control. Humans only choose whether or not to do what is right. The more you do what's right, the stronger your soul becomes. The more you do what's wrong the weaker your soul becomes, until one day it is completely repressed and you are "liberated".

You're coming up with strawman-esk examples because you're trying to use your left-brain to understand what is only accessible with your right-brain. A lot of it has to do with empathy. If you look into the eyes of a creature, or hear it wailing, you can empathize with it. You can't do that with sperm or bacteria. Don't worry about the morality of predators in the African savanna, or about your immune system, focus on your own actions.

[Twobrains]

If you are a woman, every time you go through menstruation, you kill thousands of fertilized eggs. Does that make you a mass murderer? Should "divine punishment" befall you for that?

You seriously need to brush up on female biology, Winston. I suggest your read Sperm Wars. I can send you a PDF.

Morality may be wholly relativistic, or there may be some evolutionary advantage to altruism, I don't know. See Nice Guys Finish First by Dawkins: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice_Guys_Finish_First

[Billy]

Twobrains, this reminds me of my german sisters who say you have to be nice in order to allowed to f**k us.

[momopi]

If you are a man, every time you ejaculate, you kill thousands of sperm, even during sex. Does that make you a mass murderer? Should "divine punishment" come upon you for that? If you are a woman, every time you go through menstruation, you kill thousands of fertilized eggs. Does that make you a mass murderer? Should "divine punishment" befall you for that?

1. When a man ejaculates, he releases ~100-600 million sperms depending on his virility. A health male will produce new sperms daily, which takes 2-3 months to mature in the testicles. If a mature sperm is not ejaculated, it will eventually die and is replaced by new sperm. Sperm can live inside the vagina for 2-7 days depending on the acidity of the environment. Only the strongest sperm out of hundreds of millions or even billions will ever fertilize an egg. The rest will all die.

2. A women is born with 1-2 million ovarian follicles, of which the majority would die before she reaches her first menstruation. By the time that a women has her first period, only a few hundred thousand follicles remain. With each menstruation cycle, ~1000 follicles will compete and only 1 dominate follicle will mature into an egg -- only the strongest will survive and the rest will all die. During a women's life time, only 300-400 follicles out of 1-2 million will ever mature into eggs.

3. There is no such thing as killing thousands of fertilized eggs through the menstruation process. The menstruation process does not fertilize the egg, and a women is not likely produce more than a few hundred mature eggs in her lifetime. Fertilization occurs only when a sperms successfully penetrates a mature egg, resulting in pregnancy.





[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gNy6-n5t ... re=related[/youtube]

For example, let's take a hypothetical situation: Suppose Bill Gates accidentally deposited $500,000 into your bank account, and he never noticed it. Now, would you contact him and tell him about it, or would you think: "$500k to him is nothing. It's just pocket change to him. He'll never notice or care that he's missing that amount. I need it A LOT MORE than he does." Of course, publicly you might say that you'd report it because it's the "right and morally correct choice". But in REALITY and PRIVATELY, you KNOW you would probably keep it under the rationale and excuse: "I need this money more than he does. And besides, it was his mistake, not mine." Most people would probably do that, and never tell anyone about it of course. They would never post about it on a forum and try to debate the "morality" of it with others either, because they know that everyone would condemn them. Most of you KNOW that YOU WOULD just keep it, because in this scenario, your "survival instinct" would override your "moral instinct". The benefits and gains would overshadow the "moral ethics" (which bring you nothing), especially if you were badly in need of money. So stop pretending that you are all saints who hold other people to the standard of a saint. You are hypocrites and you know it!

I'd return the $500k to Bill Gates, in exchange for a favor or two.

For example, if I were to run a project on kickstarter, I'd ask Bill Gates for his endorsement and mentorship.