-101
Without the precursor of Spirituality and Religion, there can be no morality. (lemmy.ca)
submitted 1 year ago by to c/showerthoughts@lemmy.world
113 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 1 year ago (23 children)

I get where you're coming from. I used to think the same thing. I don't anymore and I would urge you to look more into subjective vs objective morality. Alex O'Connor has some really good thoughts on the matter.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 23 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -1 points 1 year ago (22 children)

    I would urge you to look at the fact that every documented human group we have evidence from had a spiritual belief structure, and that it is safe to assume that a spiritual belief system was required for our species to form larger groups and bigger populations.

    This does not argue the existence of God, just our species constant and persistent belief that something supernatural is behind that shit. Which also happens to be the driver of early scientific study.

    If you assumed I was Religious based on my post I also urge you to check your bigotry.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 22 child comments
    •
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    Yes, humans tend to explain things they don't understand using myths. And yes, humans have historically used those same myths to explain morality. How does it then follow that religion and spiritualism are required for morality to exist?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago

    If a unified morality is required for our species to coexist in ever larger groups, and evidence of spiritual belief has been found in every documented group of Humans, why wouldn't it be safe to assume that spirituality was a requirement for our species to move beyond small family units?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (19 children)

    I think the issue here is horse before cart

    Humans as a species have a need to explain the world around us. Unfortunately the thought process before the codified use of science was "i don't know there for god"

    This means the spiritual system was in place was in place before morality.

    This spiritually was bent around what was acceptable at the time. Slavery capital punishment polygamy etc. All of which are more or less moral based on nothing more than where you live

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 19 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (18 children)

    This sounds like you agree with me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 18 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (17 children)

    Not really your arguing unless I'm misunderstanding you your basically arguing coronation = causation

    We are now in a time where spirituality is not built in (terms and conditions apply) but morality still exist.

    Hell I'd argue in this day and age societal spirituality is harmful to morality

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 17 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (16 children)

    We are in a time now where morality does not require spirituality or religion. My point is that it was required to get our species to the point we are at now by unifying a "moral code", and all evidence we have supports that idea.

    I am not arguing for religion or spirituality in the modern age, I am saying it served a purpose.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (15 children)

    Again causality vs coronation

    There is nothing to say if by some quirk of faight (yeh i know what I'm saying but roll with it) something akin to the scientific method was the norm in place of i dunno there for God. We would still come up with societal norms or morality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 15 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (14 children)

    If that were true, why has no documented civilization or precivilization existed without an element of spirituality or religion in their history?

    The point is Spirituality came first, and based on evidence, was needed for humans to form groups larger than a small family unit as a way to unify "morals".

    "What if we had science instead" is a moot point because we have Science now and proved early humans wrong.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (13 children)

    First of your twisting my words i never said it were true

    Humans are dumb as fuck. They see patterns where there is none and make up reasons just to make the world make sense. Like I keep repeating your arguing coronation equestrian causation this is simply not true.

    While you seemed on the level you tipped your hand I guess were done here

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -2 points 1 year ago (12 children)

    I sincerely do not believe you understand English well enough to understand what I am saying, and I do not have the ability to explain it any better than I already have.

    If you are hung up on the whole "God" thing, know it isn't about that.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 1 year ago (11 children)

    Morality is nothing more than a social construct. For a society to exist there needs to be common rules

    Spirituality haz nothing to do with that

    Is that clear enough for you

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 11 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    I agree, morality is a social construct. It is a product of large groups of humans needing a unified set of common rules to get along.

    Historically, 100% of the time according to the evidence we have available on all documented groups of humans, this was done with spirituality and religion up until modern times.

    Is that clear enough for you?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (9 children)

    I understand your premises ivstill disagree its spiritual. More a case of you catch more honey with flies. If we agree to certain behaviours we both benefit. This system grew up to become what we call morals and then laws

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    I would love to see the archaeological evidence that suggests our species begun exploring "morality" through agreeing on certain behaviors being "good" or "bad". Unfortunately all evidence we have on early humans demonstrates our species has been "spiritual", e.g. believing in a greater force beyond our control that determines outcomes and promotes group unity, as long as we were leaving a mark on the world that outlasted our bodies.

    You can disagree, but that doesn't change what we know about early humans and their early belief systems, and that we lack any supporting evidence for your point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (7 children)

    We don't need archeology we see it every day with pack animals. Those that don't conform get ostracised or worse

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    That isn't "morality".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (5 children)

    Morality is just a word we give to our personal rules to live by thes begin in groups

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Morality is a word given to a specific idea, i.e. a universal set of rules for "Good" and "Bad" that are believed to be undeniable, and is different from "rules" or "laws" prescribed to live cohesively.

    If we agree not to murder each other to the benefit of the group, we are not saying we won't kill each other if it no longer benefits the group. If we agree that murder is inherently wrong, we are saying that we won't kill each other even if it does benefit the group.

    Morality requires more than simply agreeing to not do something. Simply abiding by a rule in animals is called "premoral behavior", which assumes they are not acting with morality but the precursor to it. Much like we would have before developing those basic "rules" into a morality that has been historically done through spirituality.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago* (3 children)

    So explain slavery. That was once morraly good. Hell, some still do.

    There is no such thing that is universally good ot bad. If it were it would apply universally not just to the ingrown.

    We are seeing it all over thr world in real time. Murder should be a universally condemned act yet we see "moral" people screaming for the death of people they deemed unworthy every day

    Wee e just to add you and I may think a thing should be a universal good/bad it doesn't make it true and is easy to see even in our own countries

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    So explain slavery. That was once morraly good. Hell, some still do.

    What is there to explain? We aren't the only species on the planet who take slaves.

    There is no such thing that is universally good ot bad. If it were it would apply universally not just to the ingrown.

    I know. Hasn't stopped our species from fighting about it. Which is why my point is something "Bigger than humans" was required to unify our species beyond small groups who agree with one another.

    We are seeing it all over thr world in real time. Murder should be a universally condemned act yet we see “moral” people screaming for the death of people they deemed unworthy every day

    I know. Doesn't change my point.

    I am not arguing that "morality" is a universal inherent thing. In fact, I am arguing that it is not universal, not inherent, and you are supporting my point which is that Spirituality and Religion preclude Morality because "morality" is not universal and "something bigger than our species" was required to move beyond family sized units.

    That does not mean it worked and we now live in a morally sound utopia.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    So your arguing morality is this untangle thing that we just pulled out of our arse because we want to ne nice to the people we want to be nice to. And not because we are a social spices who have evolved to ensure survival of said species

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •