10-18-2010, 07:23 PM
As a person of faith (although I'm sure plenty of holy rollers would call me a "Bad Catholic") who occasionally struggles with moral and ethical choices and why I consider those choices good or bad, I've posted here that without my faith that encourages generosity, self-sacrifice, humility and suspicion of physical wealth, I would probably live my life pretty differently. If I believed that I am only a lump of chemical compounds that will exist as me for seventy or eighty-something years, then I would try to make the goal of every day to experience as much pleasure as possible. If death is a finality, if I would be utterly annihilated upon death, would my life be miserable if I wasn't fabulously wealthy and surrounded by nubile young ladies who catered to my every whim?:popcorn: I'd wanna party every day until I died like a rock & roll song.
And for the record, I love science, the Big Bang, evolution, etc. and don't believe in the literal interpretation of scripture like my ignorant Protestant brethren, so don't get me off-track on that stuff.
But back to morality.
Here is a very thought-provoking essay by Frans de Waal that concerns morality and religion. de Waal cites observations of primates that demonstrate traits that we may consider "altruistic" or "selfless" and wonders that if religion arose as a way to "humanize" what has been longstanding primate behavior.
So what says you? Does acting good help you, the individual, out in the long run? Is the capitalist mantra of "he who dies with the most toys wins" a distinctly human trait? While the author lists a few instances of primates and other animals demonstrating what we may consider altruistic or even moral values, he fails to cite other examples of animals showing 100% selfish behavior...sort of in his mention of Robert Wright's The Moral Animal. I'm sure we can cite the same instances with humans as well.
And for the record, I love science, the Big Bang, evolution, etc. and don't believe in the literal interpretation of scripture like my ignorant Protestant brethren, so don't get me off-track on that stuff.
But back to morality.
Here is a very thought-provoking essay by Frans de Waal that concerns morality and religion. de Waal cites observations of primates that demonstrate traits that we may consider "altruistic" or "selfless" and wonders that if religion arose as a way to "humanize" what has been longstanding primate behavior.
"We started out with moral sentiments and intuitions, which is also where we find the greatest continuity with other primates. Rather than having developed morality from scratch, we received a huge helping hand from our background as social animals. At the same time, however, I am reluctant to call a chimpanzee a “moral being.” This is because sentiments do not suffice.\ We have no evidence that other animals judge the appropriateness of actions that do not affect themselves. The great pioneer of morality research, the Finn Edward Westermarck, explained what makes the moral emotions special: “Moral emotions are disconnected from one’s immediate situation: they deal with good and bad at a more abstract, disinterested level.” This is what sets human morality apart: a move towards universal standards combined with an elaborate system of justification, monitoring and punishment. wrote:However, de Waal isn't sold on the idea of completely separating science and religion and relying on science to provide us with a moral guideline to live our lives in harmony with other humans.
what alternative does science have to offer? Science is not in the business of spelling out the meaning of life and even less in telling us how to live our lives. We, scientists, are good at finding out why things are the way they are, or how things work, and I do believe that biology can help us understand what kind of animals we are and why our morality looks the way it does. But to go from there to offering moral guidance seems a stretch.
...what would happen if we were able to excise religion from society? I doubt that science and the naturalistic worldview could fill the void and become an inspiration for the good. Any framework we develop to advocate a certain moral outlook is bound to produce its own list of principles, its own prophets, and attract its own devoted followers, so that it will soon look like any old religion. wrote:
So what says you? Does acting good help you, the individual, out in the long run? Is the capitalist mantra of "he who dies with the most toys wins" a distinctly human trait? While the author lists a few instances of primates and other animals demonstrating what we may consider altruistic or even moral values, he fails to cite other examples of animals showing 100% selfish behavior...sort of in his mention of Robert Wright's The Moral Animal. I'm sure we can cite the same instances with humans as well.