Philosophy Now Forum

I haven't delved into this much if at all and have glanced at some threads on the topic of whether belief in God influenced our ethics and morality.

I'd like to take that further, since there are cultures of peoples around the globe where they don't believe in God(s) per se but have beliefs in the supernatural, such as the spirits of their ancestors watching over them etc..

So.

Did the established religions pertaining to God(s) influence our sense of morality over time, and also that of other non God fearing cultures' morality where a sense of the supernatural, cause an effect ultimately on the actions of these people?

I think it must have. This per my above statement can work both ways where God(s) or spirits may be indoctrinated within a culture that has evil traits, thus leading to the people of that culture to act in a way that we would deem unethical, immoral.

The faculty of Morality & Ethics is inherently programmed within ALL humans via evolution but it is dormant or not active in the majority of humans at present.

The main purpose of theism [a relative natural impulse] is dealing with the inherent existential crisis to facilitate survival which also require 'good' actions.

Since Morality and Ethics is not active in most humans, some theists who has a more active moral faculty has transplanted moral elements and principles into the theistic texts to guide those whose moral faculty is less active toward 'good' actions. Certain theistic religions has achieved some degrees of success in preventing evil from the masses. One good example is Christianity with its overriding pacifist maxims from God.

Since the majority tend towards evil [of various degrees] more than good, this theistic-based 'morality' has to incorporate some kind of threats to keep the masses from evil, thus the introduction of the threat of punishment in hell.

Btw, governance and politics also incorporated moral elements and principles into politics to guide citizens towards the good and also their own vested political interests. Because such 'morality' is not natural and spontaneous, governments has to introduce laws to incorporate those moral elements that provide for punishments in the case of non-compliance.

The activeness of the inherent moral faculty within the majority of humans is a johnny-come-lately but it is slowly unfolding with greater speed. This is why there is less slavery, wars and other evil acts at present compared to 10,000, 2,000, 500, years ago.

Since the progress from theism [immutable and cannot cope with changes] and politics are limited, humanity as a whole must expedite a speedier unfoldment of the natural inherent moral faculty within the brains/mind of all humans.
When this is done*, then humanity will have less dependent on theism and politics to enable the majority to be good citizens, rather the majority of humans will spontaneously and naturally be morally good without any need of threats.

* How [.. I am optimistic is possible from the current trend] is another question which will be a separate topic.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:09 am The faculty of Morality & Ethics is inherently programmed within ALL humans via evolution but it is dormant or not active in the majority of humans at present.

What do you mean by "inherently programmed" within all humans via evolution?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:09 am..but it is dormant or not active in the majority of humans at present.

Why or how is that so?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:09 amThe main purpose of theism [a relative natural impulse] is dealing with the inherent existential crisis to facilitate survival which also require 'good' actions.

Please state where in theist religion good actions facilitate survival.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:09 amSince Morality and Ethics is not active in most humans,

Really? Do you think MOST humans are immoral and unethical?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:09 am..some theists who has a more active moral faculty has transplanted moral elements and principles into the theistic texts to guide those whose moral faculty is less active toward 'good' actions. Certain theistic religions has achieved some degrees of success in preventing evil from the masses. One good example is Christianity with its overriding pacifist maxims from God.

Since the majority tend towards evil [of various degrees] more than good, this theistic-based 'morality' has to incorporate some kind of threats to keep the masses from evil, thus the introduction of the threat of punishment in hell.

What majority tend towards evil!?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:22 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:09 am The faculty of Morality & Ethics is inherently programmed within ALL humans via evolution but it is dormant or not active in the majority of humans at present.

What do you mean by "inherently programmed" within all humans via evolution?

ALL humans are "inherently programmed" for the potential puberty which remain dormant and unfold when the individual reaches puberty age.
This is proof all humans are "inherently programmed" with certain potentials which unfold in various stages of their life.

Note all humans are also "inherently programmed" with the potential for intelligence and this had been slowly unfold since 200,000 till the present average IQ.

Just as the above, all human are also "inherently programmed" with the potential for natural morality which is not easily noticeable.

• Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It is something we are all born with. At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness.
  https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:09 am..but it is dormant or not active in the majority of humans at present.

Why or how is that so?

Note the positive trend of the unfoldment of morality since 200,000 or even 10,000 years ago to the present. Take the trend of chattel slavery for example and note the present state and number of chattel slaves.
Thus there is some improvement in morality but not good enough because there impulse to enslave is still there in different forms.

As I had mentioned when the moral potential in the majority is significantly unfold, the majority will be naturally and spontaneously good morally without the need for threats of punishment from a God or the authorities.

• Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:09 amThe main purpose of theism [a relative natural impulse] is dealing with the inherent existential crisis to facilitate survival which also require 'good' actions.

  Please state where in theist religion good actions facilitate survival.

If the 10 commandments did not prohibit killing, many people would have been killed.
Many a % of Christians [not all] would have held back their impulse to kill another human or be violent for fear of being burnt in hell due the 'love even your enemies' maxim in the Gospel. Same with other theistic religions.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:09 amSince Morality and Ethics is not active in most humans,

Really? Do you think MOST humans are immoral and unethical?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:09 am..some theists who has a more active moral faculty has transplanted moral elements and principles into the theistic texts to guide those whose moral faculty is less active toward 'good' actions. Certain theistic religions has achieved some degrees of success in preventing evil from the masses. One good example is Christianity with its overriding pacifist maxims from God.

Since the majority tend towards evil [of various degrees] more than good, this theistic-based 'morality' has to incorporate some kind of threats to keep the masses from evil, thus the introduction of the threat of punishment in hell.

What majority tend towards evil!?

All humans are also programmed with the potential for evil indirectly [not directly].

I define 'evil' as related to any act that is net-negative to the well being of the individuals and therefrom to humanity.
Evil comes in degrees from 1% [petty crimes] to 99.99% [genocides and the likes].
Surely the majority are prone to lying, stealing, cheating, and the likes which are low degree evil acts, thus immoral to lesser degrees.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:09 am The faculty of Morality & Ethics is inherently programmed within ALL humans via evolution but it is dormant or not active in the majority of humans at present.

Well by your OBVIOUS misbehavior "veritas aequitas", this apparently 'inherently programmed' faculty of morality and ethics is VERY, VERY DORMANT, or NOT ACTIVE, within that body.

Also, you are CLEARLY NOT YET AWARE of the CLEARLY OBVIOUS CONTRADICTION in your statement here.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:09 am The main purpose of theism [a relative natural impulse] is dealing with the inherent existential crisis to facilitate survival which also require 'good' actions.

Since Morality and Ethics is not active in most humans, some theists who has a more active moral faculty has transplanted moral elements and principles into the theistic texts to guide those whose moral faculty is less active toward 'good' actions. Certain theistic religions has achieved some degrees of success in preventing evil from the masses. One good example is Christianity with its overriding pacifist maxims from God.

Since the majority tend towards evil [of various degrees] more than good, this theistic-based 'morality' has to incorporate some kind of threats to keep the masses from evil, thus the introduction of the threat of punishment in hell.

Btw, governance and politics also incorporated moral elements and principles into politics to guide citizens towards the good and also their own vested political interests. Because such 'morality' is not natural and spontaneous, governments has to introduce laws to incorporate those moral elements that provide for punishments in the case of non-compliance.

The activeness of the inherent moral faculty within the majority of humans is a johnny-come-lately but it is slowly unfolding with greater speed. This is why there is less slavery, wars and other evil acts at present compared to 10,000, 2,000, 500, years ago.

Since the progress from theism [immutable and cannot cope with changes] and politics are limited, humanity as a whole must expedite a speedier unfoldment of the natural inherent moral faculty within the brains/mind of all humans.
When this is done*, then humanity will have less dependent on theism and politics to enable the majority to be good citizens, rather the majority of humans will spontaneously and naturally be morally good without any need of threats.

* How [.. I am optimistic is possible from the current trend] is another question which will be a separate topic.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:54 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:22 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:09 am The faculty of Morality & Ethics is inherently programmed within ALL humans via evolution but it is dormant or not active in the majority of humans at present.

What do you mean by "inherently programmed" within all humans via evolution?

ALL humans are "inherently programmed" for the potential puberty which remain dormant and unfold when the individual reaches puberty age.
This is proof all humans are "inherently programmed" with certain potentials which unfold in various stages of their life.

Note all humans are also "inherently programmed" with the potential for intelligence and this had been slowly unfold since 200,000 till the present average IQ.

Just as the above, all human are also "inherently programmed" with the potential for natural morality which is not easily noticeable.

As a 'programmer' I ask U ...what CAUSED this programming within evolution?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:54 am

atto wrote:

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:09 am..but it is dormant or not active in the majority of humans at present.

Why or how is that so?

Note the positive trend of the unfoldment of morality since 200,000 or even 10,000 years ago to the present.

Say wot? Nobody knows shit F.A. beyond 2600 yrs ago about such matters of morality.

Please cite your sources.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:54 am

attofishpi wrote:

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:09 amThe main purpose of theism [a relative natural impulse] is dealing with the inherent existential crisis to facilitate survival which also require 'good' actions.

Please state where in theist religion good actions facilitate survival.

If the 10 commandments did not prohibit killing, many people would have been killed.
Many a % of Christians [not all] would have held back their impulse to kill another human or be violent for fear of being burnt in hell due the 'love even your enemies' maxim in the Gospel. Same with other theistic religions.

How come then there are Christians left> since they would have put down their arms and not killed -------- when some other enemy would have KILLED THEM. Your statement is ridiculous.

btw. Hebrew of the 1st commandment was "Thou shalt not murder" (not kill) - sorry, in ol' English.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:09 amSince Morality and Ethics is not active in most humans,

Really? Do you think MOST humans are immoral and unethical?

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 10:30 pm I haven't delved into this much if at all and have glanced at some threads on the topic of whether belief in God influenced our ethics and morality.

I'd like to take that further, since there are cultures of peoples around the globe where they don't believe in God(s) per se but have beliefs in the supernatural, such as the spirits of their ancestors watching over them etc..

So.

Did the established religions pertaining to God(s) influence our sense of morality over time, and also that of other non God fearing cultures' morality where a sense of the supernatural, cause an effect ultimately on the actions of these people?

I think it must have. This per my above statement can work both ways where God(s) or spirits may be indoctrinated within a culture that has evil traits, thus leading to the people of that culture to act in a way that we would deem unethical, immoral.

Any and religion has three interlinked components: its mythology, its moral code, and its practised rituals.

God belief depends on narrative about God. Narratives about God are important myths. I doubt if any code of ethics can survive without a myth to support it. If there is no God myth we have to invent another attractive enough myth which has, as we know, been done by the Communists.

There are people on the philosophy forums who claim to be atheists. As far as I can make out these are post-Christians who subscribe to the main tenets of Xian morality. It would be interesting to elicit from some of them what myth they subscribe to. My guess is they are Humanists.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 1:40 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 10:30 pm I haven't delved into this much if at all and have glanced at some threads on the topic of whether belief in God influenced our ethics and morality.

I'd like to take that further, since there are cultures of peoples around the globe where they don't believe in God(s) per se but have beliefs in the supernatural, such as the spirits of their ancestors watching over them etc..

So.

Did the established religions pertaining to God(s) influence our sense of morality over time, and also that of other non God fearing cultures' morality where a sense of the supernatural, cause an effect ultimately on the actions of these people?

I think it must have. This per my above statement can work both ways where God(s) or spirits may be indoctrinated within a culture that has evil traits, thus leading to the people of that culture to act in a way that we would deem unethical, immoral.

Any and religion has three interlinked components: its mythology, its moral code, and its practised rituals.

God belief depends on narrative about God. Narratives about God are important myths. I doubt if any code of ethics can survive without a myth to support it. If there is no God myth we have to invent another attractive enough myth which has, as we know, been done by the Communists.

There are people on the philosophy forums who claim to be atheists. As far as I can make out these are post-Christians who subscribe to the main tenets of Xian morality. It would be interesting to elicit from some of them what myth they subscribe to. My guess is they are Humanists.

Sorry Belinda but i feel U R missing the point of my OP. Who gives a shite about 'god belief' etc..

Fact is - once that narrative has been played amongst a community - a culture - a society - IT'S GAME OVER for believers and non-believers - there is a 'GHOST in the ROOM' watching over your 'furtive' moves.

I guess that was the point I am alluding to.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:09 am The faculty of Morality & Ethics is inherently programmed within ALL humans via evolution but it is dormant or not active in the majority of humans at present.

Pure academic psychobable horsepucky. Human beings are volitional beings. There are no, "evolved," programs or any other mystic nonsense determining their conscious behavior.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 1:51 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 1:40 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Fri Nov 26, 2021 10:30 pm I haven't delved into this much if at all and have glanced at some threads on the topic of whether belief in God influenced our ethics and morality.

I'd like to take that further, since there are cultures of peoples around the globe where they don't believe in God(s) per se but have beliefs in the supernatural, such as the spirits of their ancestors watching over them etc..

So.

Did the established religions pertaining to God(s) influence our sense of morality over time, and also that of other non God fearing cultures' morality where a sense of the supernatural, cause an effect ultimately on the actions of these people?

I think it must have. This per my above statement can work both ways where God(s) or spirits may be indoctrinated within a culture that has evil traits, thus leading to the people of that culture to act in a way that we would deem unethical, immoral.

Any and religion has three interlinked components: its mythology, its moral code, and its practised rituals.

God belief depends on narrative about God. Narratives about God are important myths. I doubt if any code of ethics can survive without a myth to support it. If there is no God myth we have to invent another attractive enough myth which has, as we know, been done by the Communists.

There are people on the philosophy forums who claim to be atheists. As far as I can make out these are post-Christians who subscribe to the main tenets of Xian morality. It would be interesting to elicit from some of them what myth they subscribe to. My guess is they are Humanists.

Sorry Belinda but i feel U R missing the point of my OP. Who gives a shite about 'god belief' etc..

Fact is - once that narrative has been played amongst a community - a culture - a society - IT'S GAME OVER for believers and non-believers - there is a 'GHOST in the ROOM' watching over your 'furtive' moves.

I guess that was the point I am alluding to.

I am trying to understand what I may have missed. God-belief is not just a word, it's a narrative. Nietzsche said that God is dead which means that people are free to think and feel without the Ghost in the Room, which has gone like morning dew.

It's true that this freedom of thought does not usually happen all at once. I know that even now despite all my reasoning I still feel loyalty to the stories my father told me about God. The result is I feel disloyal to the God of the Christian believers who reared me. However we are suppose to be doing philosophy here, clinging to reason.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 5:32 pm

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 1:51 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 1:40 pm
Any and religion has three interlinked components: its mythology, its moral code, and its practised rituals.

God belief depends on narrative about God. Narratives about God are important myths. I doubt if any code of ethics can survive without a myth to support it. If there is no God myth we have to invent another attractive enough myth which has, as we know, been done by the Communists.

There are people on the philosophy forums who claim to be atheists. As far as I can make out these are post-Christians who subscribe to the main tenets of Xian morality. It would be interesting to elicit from some of them what myth they subscribe to. My guess is they are Humanists.

Sorry Belinda but i feel U R missing the point of my OP. Who gives a shite about 'god belief' etc..

Fact is - once that narrative has been played amongst a community - a culture - a society - IT'S GAME OVER for believers and non-believers - there is a 'GHOST in the ROOM' watching over your 'furtive' moves.

I guess that was the point I am alluding to.

I am trying to understand what I may have missed. God-belief is not just a word, it's a narrative. Nietzsche said that God is dead which means that people are free to think and feel without the Ghost in the Room, which has gone like morning dew.

It's true that this freedom of thought does not usually happen all at once. I know that even now despite all my reasoning I still feel loyalty to the stories my father told me about God. The result is I feel disloyal to the God of the Christian believers who reared me. However we are suppose to be doing philosophy here, clinging to reason.

My fault, I think my comprehension and reasoning skills last night were poor due to way too much Guinness.

Personally I think true philosophy is maintaining a degree of belief ...in God.

I think the Ghost in the Room is far from gone. Once an entity or myth as you state has been suggested, I think to a degree there is always going to be that niggling thing playing on the conscience of anyone including atheists certain in their short-sightedness when they are doing something immoral.

Indeed, it would be interesting if there was a parallel universe where humans never had any God, supernatural myth etc..introduced into culture\society, whether the peoples of such a planet would have a more acceptable degree of morality or not. Personally, I think there would be chaos!!

I am reading the The Philosophy Book btw that yourself and uwot recommended, really enjoying it..thanks.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 1:28 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:54 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:22 am

What do you mean by "inherently programmed" within all humans via evolution?

ALL humans are "inherently programmed" for the potential puberty which remain dormant and unfold when the individual reaches puberty age.
This is proof all humans are "inherently programmed" with certain potentials which unfold in various stages of their life.

Note all humans are also "inherently programmed" with the potential for intelligence and this had been slowly unfold since 200,000 till the present average IQ.

Just as the above, all human are also "inherently programmed" with the potential for natural morality which is not easily noticeable.

As a 'programmer' I ask U ...what CAUSED this programming within evolution?

My approach is top-down [from experience and observations to inference] not bottom-up [assuming there is a programmer].

Note 'program' in this case is 'a potential for systematic set of activities in the human brain /mind and body.'

It is very natural for humans to acquire certain "programs" significantly from nurturing conditions alone. For example a normal child exposed to a very 'bad' environment will likely turned out to be a gangster, a thief, violent, and other negative traits.
So what cause this 'programming' of the person to commit 'evil' acts [i.e. re Nurture] is the environmental conditions he was and is in.

So to your question re inherent nature Morality, what cause the 'programming' of the traits of 'Nature' [opp. nurture] is also due to the environmental conditions, the human species was exposed to in its 200,000 years of existence and the traits inherited from its ancestors from 4 billion years ago.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:54 am

atto wrote:
Why or how is that so?

Note the positive trend of the unfoldment of morality since 200,000 or even 10,000 years ago to the present.

Say wot? Nobody knows shit F.A. beyond 2600 yrs ago about such matters of morality.

Please cite your sources.

It can be easily be inferred by the average person from the various positive trends of reduction of evilness going on in the world at present since 200,000 or even 500 years years ago to the present. Here is one reference;

Violence Has Decreased There4 Morals Increased?
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=30995
In his 2011 book,
The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined,
Steven Pinker argued with relevant data and posited violence has declined significantly at Present since from the past years.

Given that the inherent impulse is unfolding any one with average IQ would able to extrapolate the increase in the moral quotient of the average person in 2100, 2200 to 2600 and beyond.

If a slave during 5000 years [3000BCE] has such a same insight to predict that one day chattel slavery will be banned all over the world in 5000 years' time, other slaves would have thought he was crazy and not realistic.
But such a prediction based on trend happened so the trend I predicted in the future (2150, 2300 to >2600) and beyond will also happen.

Your thinking is too constricted.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:54 am

attofishpi wrote: Please state where in theist religion good actions facilitate survival.

If the 10 commandments did not prohibit killing, many people would have been killed.
Many a % of Christians [not all] would have held back their impulse to kill another human or be violent for fear of being burnt in hell due the 'love even your enemies' maxim in the Gospel. Same with other theistic religions.

How come then there are Christians left> since they would have put down their arms and not killed -------- when some other enemy would have KILLED THEM. Your statement is ridiculous.

btw. Hebrew of the 1st commandment was "Thou shalt not murder" (not kill) - sorry, in ol' English.

Yes, but that is further extended by Jesus' 'Thou shall love all even your enemies' therefore implied no murder and killing.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:09 amSince Morality and Ethics is not active in most humans,

Really? Do you think MOST humans are immoral and unethical?

I have already justified the point.
Yes, MOST humans are immoral and unethical re the lower degree of evil acts.
Note the critical 'degrees of evil' from 0.1% to 99.9%.

Most people appear to be honest on the surface, but note,

AMHERST, Mass. – Most people lie in everyday conversation when they are trying to appear likable and competent, according to a study conducted by University of Massachusetts psychologist Robert S. Feldman and published in the most recent Journal of Basic and Applied Social Psychology.
The study, published in the journal's June issue, found that 60 percent of people lied at least once during a 10-minute conversation and told an average of two to three lies.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/534347

Note even if 10% of humans have the potential for >90% sort of evil acts, that would be ~800 millions of them around the world, if 1% that is 80 million . This is a very significant quantum [from an apparently small %).

Note the recent smash and grab by a large number of people in San Francisco recently.

And just because of the drawing of cartoons we have millions of Muslims calling for the death of the cartoonists and they were killed in reality.

From the above, it is obvious your thinking is too shallow and narrow, I suggest you read and reflect more deeply & widely.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 6:23 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 1:28 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:54 am
ALL humans are "inherently programmed" for the potential puberty which remain dormant and unfold when the individual reaches puberty age.
This is proof all humans are "inherently programmed" with certain potentials which unfold in various stages of their life.

Note all humans are also "inherently programmed" with the potential for intelligence and this had been slowly unfold since 200,000 till the present average IQ.

Just as the above, all human are also "inherently programmed" with the potential for natural morality which is not easily noticeable.

As a 'programmer' I ask U ...what CAUSED this programming within evolution?

My approach is top-down [from experience and observations to inference] not bottom-up [assuming there is a programmer].

Note 'program' in this case is 'a potential for systematic set of activities in the human brain /mind and body.'

It is very natural for humans to acquire certain "programs" significantly from nurturing conditions alone. For example a normal child exposed to a very 'bad' environment will likely turned out to be a gangster, a thief, violent, and other negative traits.
So what cause this 'programming' of the person to commit 'evil' acts [i.e. re Nurture] is the environmental conditions he was and is in.

So to your question re inherent nature Morality, what cause the 'programming' of the traits of 'Nature' [opp. nurture] is also due to the environmental conditions, the human species was exposed to in its 200,000 years of existence and the traits inherited from its ancestors from 4 billion years ago.

Stating things as far back as 200,000 years indeed to 4 billion years regarding matters of morality is ridiculous, you simply have no data to work with.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 6:23 am

attofishpi wrote:

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:54 am Note the positive trend of the unfoldment of morality since 200,000 or even 10,000 years ago to the present.

Say wot? Nobody knows shit F.A. beyond 2600 yrs ago about such matters of morality.

Please cite your sources.

It can be easily be inferred by the average person from the various positive trends of reduction of evilness going on in the world at present since 200,000 or even 500 years years ago to the present.

Bullshit. Intelligent people would not infer anything so nonsensical where there is little to no information about the level of morality, especially beyond 2500 yrs ago.

Perhaps I should remind you of the likes of Stalin and Hitler, and those that partook in the slaughter of men, women and children?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:54 amGiven that the inherent impulse is unfolding any one with average IQ would able to extrapolate the increase in the moral quotient of the average person in 2100, 2200 to 2600 and beyond.

If a slave during 5000 years [3000BCE] has such a same insight to predict that one day chattel slavery will be banned all over the world in 5000 years' time, other slaves would have thought he was crazy and not realistic.
But such a prediction based on trend happened so the trend I predicted in the future (2150, 2300 to >2600) and beyond will also happen.

Your thinking is too constricted.

Lol. I just laugh at assuming bookworms that can't think for themselves. You should look into the very real modern day rather furtive slavery that is present right now, including child sex slaves, it's a massive international industry.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:54 am

attofishpi wrote:

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:09 am If the 10 commandments did not prohibit killing, many people would have been killed.
Many a % of Christians [not all] would have held back their impulse to kill another human or be violent for fear of being burnt in hell due the 'love even your enemies' maxim in the Gospel. Same with other theistic religions.

How come then there are Christians left> since they would have put down their arms and not killed -------- when some other enemy would have KILLED THEM. Your statement is ridiculous.

btw. Hebrew of the 1st commandment was "Thou shalt not murder" (not kill) - sorry, in ol' English.

Yes, but that is further extended by Jesus' 'Thou shall love all even your enemies' therefore implied no murder and killing.

That's bollox. I can love my enemies from an empathetic POV and kill them if they attack my village. Indeed, as Christian I might go so far as to ensure any valuables on those my set have slain get returned to their village...such is the Christian I am.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:54 am

attofishpi wrote:

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 6:09 amSince Morality and Ethics is not active in most humans,

Really? Do you think MOST humans are immoral and unethical?

I have already justified the point.
Yes, MOST humans are immoral and unethical re the lower degree of evil acts.
Note the critical 'degrees of evil' from 0.1% to 99.9%.

So stealing a mars bar is evil is it!?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:54 amFrom the above, it is obvious your thinking is too shallow and narrow, I suggest you read and reflect more deeply & widely.

LMAO. I've cried puddles deeper than you think, said attofishpi in the unfathomable fathoms of the deepest ocean.

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:06 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 6:23 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 1:28 pm

As a 'programmer' I ask U ...what CAUSED this programming within evolution?

My approach is top-down [from experience and observations to inference] not bottom-up [assuming there is a programmer].

Note 'program' in this case is 'a potential for systematic set of activities in the human brain /mind and body.'

It is very natural for humans to acquire certain "programs" significantly from nurturing conditions alone. For example a normal child exposed to a very 'bad' environment will likely turned out to be a gangster, a thief, violent, and other negative traits.
So what cause this 'programming' of the person to commit 'evil' acts [i.e. re Nurture] is the environmental conditions he was and is in.

So to your question re inherent nature Morality, what cause the 'programming' of the traits of 'Nature' [opp. nurture] is also due to the environmental conditions, the human species was exposed to in its 200,000 years of existence and the traits inherited from its ancestors from 4 billion years ago.

Stating things as far back as 200,000 years indeed to 4 billion years regarding matters of morality is ridiculous, you simply have no data to work with.

As I had stated your thinking is too narrow and shallow.
True one do not have sufficient data but one can easily inferred backward to arrive at various universal principles of 'living things'.

Do you deny the universal principle that right from the first one-celled living things, there is the universal principles that they are all "programmed" to strive to survive till the inevitable and this strive to survive principle is embedded in all living things at present.
If there is no such universal principle there is a possibility there would be no living things [including humans] at present.
But this survival impulse can be suppressed in some exceptions but not in the majority.

This fundamental universal principle of 'striving to survive till the inevitable' is the fundamental ground of human morality at present from which we can verify and justify with whatever empirical evidence we can gather.

The above answer points to your ignorance and being very obstinate with it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 6:23 am

attofishpi wrote:
Say wot? Nobody knows shit F.A. beyond 2600 yrs ago about such matters of morality.

Please cite your sources.

It can be easily be inferred by the average person from the various positive trends of reduction of evilness going on in the world at present since 200,000 or even 500 years years ago to the present.

Bullshit. Intelligent people would not infer anything so nonsensical where there is little to no information about the level of morality, especially beyond 2500 yrs ago.

Perhaps I should remind you of the likes of Stalin and Hitler, and those that partook in the slaughter of men, women and children?

Again you are ignorant and obstinate with it.
Take slavery for example.
Surely 10,000 years ago slavery [evil] was very prevalent. Prove me wrong on this.
By 2021, progressively every sovereign nation has laws that ban and make chattel slavery illegal.
This is obvious an indication of the implied trend of moral progress from 10,000 to the present 2021.
How did this happen if not for the greater unfoldment of the moral potential within the average human.

What about Stalin and Hitler?
How can you be so ignorant of the positive trend of reduction to lesser and lesser tyrant genocidal dictators since 100 years ago to the present.
Note the link I gave regarding Steven Pinker assertion there is no lesser violence compared to 100 years ago.

See this again show your ignorance.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:54 amGiven that the inherent impulse is unfolding any one with average IQ would able to extrapolate the increase in the moral quotient of the average person in 2100, 2200 to 2600 and beyond.

If a slave during 5000 years [3000BCE] has such a same insight to predict that one day chattel slavery will be banned all over the world in 5000 years' time, other slaves would have thought he was crazy and not realistic.
But such a prediction based on trend happened so the trend I predicted in the future (2150, 2300 to >2600) and beyond will also happen.

Your thinking is too constricted.

Lol. I just laugh at assuming bookworms that can't think for themselves. You should look into the very real modern day rather furtive slavery that is present right now, including child sex slaves, it's a massive international industry.

Note there are degrees of evilness in slavery with chattel slavery the worst, if this is 90/100 evilness, child slavery is perhaps 60/100.
Despite the laws on banning chattel slavery, it is likely chattel slavery is still happening illegally somewhere, but the inherent morality is unfolding and progress to reduce chattel slavery.

It is the same with child slavery, where there are laws that make child slavery illegal and punishable. There were no such laws in the past, thus there is a moral progress in child slavery since 100 years ago. Child slavery was prevalent and not addressed in the UK until the 19th century and at present, if it happen it is illegal and rare. So there is moral progress in this area. At present child slavery is still happening prevalently only in third world countries but a lot of attention is being focused it and it is on a reducing trend worldwide, thus indication of moral progress driven by the moral impulse within.

My point is humanity must understand the root causes of evil and the solution is not from a God or politics but expediting the inherent moral impulse in all humans.
This is why we need such discussions.

But with your ignorance and immutable principles of morality from God, there will not like be significant incremental progress.
Note the progressive trend in slavery is not driven by theism [where Christianity and Islam condone slavery with its immutable doctrines] but by the natural unfoldment of the inherent moral faculty in all humans.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:54 am

attofishpi wrote:
How come then there are Christians left> since they would have put down their arms and not killed -------- when some other enemy would have KILLED THEM. Your statement is ridiculous.

btw. Hebrew of the 1st commandment was "Thou shalt not murder" (not kill) - sorry, in ol' English.

Yes, but that is further extended by Jesus' 'Thou shall love all even your enemies' therefore implied no murder and killing.

That's bollox. I can love my enemies from an empathetic POV and kill them if they attack my village. Indeed, as Christian I might go so far as to ensure any valuables on those my set have slain get returned to their village...such is the Christian I am.

Nah, the maxim of 'love even your enemies' is absolute with no permission for killing them, otherwise there will be no fixed moral 'goalpost' to guide Christians. Beside there is no room for infallible and imperfect humans to edit God's immutable commands.
The point is Christians will have to hold back and only kill their enemies in the last resort but they will ask forgiveness and God is likely to be lenient [if self defense is really necessary] given that God is omnipresent and omniscient.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:54 am

attofishpi wrote:
Really? Do you think MOST humans are immoral and unethical?

I have already justified the point.
Yes, MOST humans are immoral and unethical re the lower degree of evil acts.
Note the critical 'degrees of evil' from 0.1% to 99.9%.

So stealing a mars bar is evil is it!?

Note the bolded above.
I have defined 'evil' as related to any act that is net-negative to the well being of the individual and to other humans.
The act of stealing in principle is evil.
Stealing a mars bar is evil and can be rated at say 5/100 evilness.
In a scenario where a group of men are stranded somewhere and only has mars bar which is rationed according to all the survivals. In this case, stealing a mars bar could have an effect on the life of the other person.

See! you are not thinking deeply and widely.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:54 amFrom the above, it is obvious your thinking is too shallow and narrow, I suggest you read and reflect more deeply & widely.

LMAO. I've cried puddles deeper than you think, said attofishpi in the unfathomable fathoms of the deepest ocean.

If you have done so, you would have answer all the questions you raised instead of me having to provide the answers.

If you are able to think more deeply and widely then both of us can think of more deeper and wider issues on the subject that can then make more effective contributions to the knowledge base of humanity.

My main point re
1. "God and belief in the Supernatural"
should be independent and never be conflated with morality and ethics.
Whilst theism is concern with 'good' it has also condone evil within its immutable doctrine.
Example Christianity do not denounce slavery while Islam has commands that sanction Muslims to kill non-Muslims under the vaguest conditions.

2. Humanity must address and research on the inherent moral impulse within all humans and find ways to expedite its unfoldment so that humans will be moral naturally and spontaneously.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 11:22 am

attofishpi wrote: ↑Mon Nov 29, 2021 9:06 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 6:23 am
My approach is top-down [from experience and observations to inference] not bottom-up [assuming there is a programmer].

Note 'program' in this case is 'a potential for systematic set of activities in the human brain /mind and body.'

It is very natural for humans to acquire certain "programs" significantly from nurturing conditions alone. For example a normal child exposed to a very 'bad' environment will likely turned out to be a gangster, a thief, violent, and other negative traits.
So what cause this 'programming' of the person to commit 'evil' acts [i.e. re Nurture] is the environmental conditions he was and is in.

So to your question re inherent nature Morality, what cause the 'programming' of the traits of 'Nature' [opp. nurture] is also due to the environmental conditions, the human species was exposed to in its 200,000 years of existence and the traits inherited from its ancestors from 4 billion years ago.

Stating things as far back as 200,000 years indeed to 4 billion years regarding matters of morality is ridiculous, you simply have no data to work with.

As I had stated your thinking is too narrow and shallow.
True one do not have sufficient data but one can easily inferred backward to arrive at various universal principles of 'living things'.

Do you deny the universal principle that right from the first one-celled living things, there is the universal principles that they are all "programmed" to strive to survive till the inevitable and this strive to survive principle is embedded in all living things at present.
If there is no such universal principle there is a possibility there would be no living things [including humans] at present.
But this survival impulse can be suppressed in some exceptions but not in the majority.

This fundamental universal principle of 'striving to survive till the inevitable' is the fundamental ground of human morality at present from which we can verify and justify with whatever empirical evidence we can gather.

The above answer points to your ignorance and being very obstinate with it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Nov 28, 2021 6:23 am It can be easily be inferred by the average person from the various positive trends of reduction of evilness going on in the world at present since 200,000 or even 500 years years ago to the present.

Bullshit. Intelligent people would not infer anything so nonsensical where there is little to no information about the level of morality, especially beyond 2500 yrs ago.

Perhaps I should remind you of the likes of Stalin and Hitler, and those that partook in the slaughter of men, women and children?

Again you are ignorant and obstinate with it.
Take slavery for example.
Surely 10,000 years ago slavery [evil] was very prevalent. Prove me wrong on this.
By 2021, progressively every sovereign nation has laws that ban and make chattel slavery illegal.
This is obvious an indication of the implied trend of moral progress from 10,000 to the present 2021.
How did this happen if not for the greater unfoldment of the moral potential within the average human.

What about Stalin and Hitler?
How can you be so ignorant of the positive trend of reduction to lesser and lesser tyrant genocidal dictators since 100 years ago to the present.
Note the link I gave regarding Steven Pinker assertion there is no lesser violence compared to 100 years ago.

See this again show your ignorance.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:54 amGiven that the inherent impulse is unfolding any one with average IQ would able to extrapolate the increase in the moral quotient of the average person in 2100, 2200 to 2600 and beyond.

If a slave during 5000 years [3000BCE] has such a same insight to predict that one day chattel slavery will be banned all over the world in 5000 years' time, other slaves would have thought he was crazy and not realistic.
But such a prediction based on trend happened so the trend I predicted in the future (2150, 2300 to >2600) and beyond will also happen.

Your thinking is too constricted.

Lol. I just laugh at assuming bookworms that can't think for themselves. You should look into the very real modern day rather furtive slavery that is present right now, including child sex slaves, it's a massive international industry.

Note there are degrees of evilness in slavery with chattel slavery the worst, if this is 90/100 evilness, child slavery is perhaps 60/100.
Despite the laws on banning chattel slavery, it is likely chattel slavery is still happening illegally somewhere, but the inherent morality is unfolding and progress to reduce chattel slavery.

It is the same with child slavery, where there are laws that make child slavery illegal and punishable. There were no such laws in the past, thus there is a moral progress in child slavery since 100 years ago. Child slavery was prevalent and not addressed in the UK until the 19th century and at present, if it happen it is illegal and rare. So there is moral progress in this area. At present child slavery is still happening prevalently only in third world countries but a lot of attention is being focused it and it is on a reducing trend worldwide, thus indication of moral progress driven by the moral impulse within.

My point is humanity must understand the root causes of evil and the solution is not from a God or politics but expediting the inherent moral impulse in all humans.
This is why we need such discussions.

But with your ignorance and immutable principles of morality from God, there will not like be significant incremental progress.
Note the progressive trend in slavery is not driven by theism [where Christianity and Islam condone slavery with its immutable doctrines] but by the natural unfoldment of the inherent moral faculty in all humans.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:54 am Yes, but that is further extended by Jesus' 'Thou shall love all even your enemies' therefore implied no murder and killing.

That's bollox. I can love my enemies from an empathetic POV and kill them if they attack my village. Indeed, as Christian I might go so far as to ensure any valuables on those my set have slain get returned to their village...such is the Christian I am.

Nah, the maxim of 'love even your enemies' is absolute with no permission for killing them, otherwise there will be no fixed moral 'goalpost' to guide Christians. Beside there is no room for infallible and imperfect humans to edit God's immutable commands.
The point is Christians will have to hold back and only kill their enemies in the last resort but they will ask forgiveness and God is likely to be lenient [if self defense is really necessary] given that God is omnipresent and omniscient.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:54 am I have already justified the point.
Yes, MOST humans are immoral and unethical re the lower degree of evil acts.
Note the critical 'degrees of evil' from 0.1% to 99.9%.

So stealing a mars bar is evil is it!?

Note the bolded above.
I have defined 'evil' as related to any act that is net-negative to the well being of the individual and to other humans.
The act of stealing in principle is evil.
Stealing a mars bar is evil and can be rated at say 5/100 evilness.
In a scenario where a group of men are stranded somewhere and only has mars bar which is rationed according to all the survivals. In this case, stealing a mars bar could have an effect on the life of the other person.

See! you are not thinking deeply and widely.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sat Nov 27, 2021 10:54 amFrom the above, it is obvious your thinking is too shallow and narrow, I suggest you read and reflect more deeply & widely.

LMAO. I've cried puddles deeper than you think, said attofishpi in the unfathomable fathoms of the deepest ocean.

If you have done so, you would have answer all the questions you raised instead of me having to provide the answers.

If you are able to think more deeply and widely then both of us can think of more deeper and wider issues on the subject that can then make more effective contributions to the knowledge base of humanity.

I am not one amongst forum members to entertain waffling irrational morons, hence bugger off.