As a Chinese and a non-religious person, I always find it puzzling how westerners think that religion is necessary for morality. No, that's ridiculous.
Life in general never ceases to amaze me. A very simple lesson, and yet, one that seems to be missed by the general public. I hope we as humans, will learn that cooperative behavior will allow humankind to grow and evolve into the higher beings we might become.
Yes. With humans as potentially higher minds, we also need this lesson: first we must understand each other. Then we will be able to reciprocate. No small task that: we all see the world so differently and our own psychological complexities serve as a “wilderness” where sometimes we don’t see the forest for the trees. Sometimes we can’t understand another person and their morality because they have different personality and/or intelligence. Full disclosure: I know Franz Dewaal personally and I took a class from him at Emory. ❤️
Since this talk is 11 years old, they had not the advantage of all the UA-cam videos that are out now, showing that chimps are not the only animals that exhibit altruistic behavior, which was an eye opener for me, I'll admit - a dog using his nose to splash puddled water onto some caught fish on a pier that were still struggling to breath (how that dog understood what the fish needed still amazes me when I think about it)- a cat keeping a toddler from falling down some stairs by standing on its hind legs and physically blocking the child (!). Personally, I think morality is best served *without* religion, because it is born of genuine concern for others, rather than for fear of "damnation"- where a person doesn't really care about another person, and is only behaving to appease their god.
I told a friend that if people do the morally right thing out of fear of punishment (religion), that it would be even a better thing if people did the morally right thing because it was right (without fear of punishment). I got the "that's impossible - you are crazy" stare for saying that. Thank you animals for backing me up.
@@tarikwalters854 An innate desire to be a part of a community/family. An innate desire for justice and/or fairness. Of course, this is somewhat offset by the desire to gain advantage for oneself which is why laws are necessary.
Having achieved freedom from religion at a young age, the idea that one must be a moral person only if there is an invisible supervisor watching every move one makes is appalling.
Consider whether you have completely misappropriated the inspiration of faith for the practice of the self-proclaimed faithful - as you see their thought process.
I can certainly empathize with the monkey that got the cucumber (although I love cucumbers). However, if you take religion out and add morals then where would you get these moral instructions from? This morning I was thinking like the monkey who got the cucumber (I was feeling down and questioning MY OWN morals and asking why? I was having a selfish pity party), but God ALWAYS speaks to me through his word. Religious leaders believe they are morally correct with their power and riches, but a lot of them are who creates divisions and unjust/unfair treatment. So as I was reading 1 cor 4:6 states "Do not go beyond what is written, so that you may not be puffed up with pride, favoring one against another...." So what is this scripture saying? Did you notice the reaction of the monkeys? The human was the one in control, and treated them unfairly (which God warns against) now how did that make the one being treated unfairly react? So that must be why God gives us moral values to live by in the bible. Because if we lead unfairly, and abuse our power as the human did favoring one over another then it CAUSES bad behaviors in the monkey that got offended
What the unfair human does we call capitalism. Collectively we produce and the resulting benefit gives cucumbers to many and grapes to a small number. God works in mysterious ways!
These studies are amazing! Such eye-opener of how social behaviors evolved and about mammalian brains.. this all will be accepted common knowledge at one point in Humanity's future.
Every human has morals. It’s part of being in community. I worked in a prison. Inmates have morals, but you wouldn’t want them to unleash their morality on you.
In the first place the premise of Christianity is that you're not good enough to qualify for rectification before God. So the view you have of yourself in relation to the Christians you have known or in a cursory glimpse you may have of them is not relevant in Christianity. And you're actions before salvation do not count. Subsequently they don't have a bearing after salvation. It is solely based on Jesus' death on a cross. In the scheme of things your empathy bears no weight in Christianity.
While most enlightened humans now reject the ludicrous idea that objective morality is dictated by the gods, we need to understand now that human rights are not supernaturally derived as well. It is clearly reasoning that led to scientific thinking that has given us a solid, sane concept of rights.
Wonder if your actually right about that. Sometimes feel religious again just because have too or else regret that you didn't and tricked into it of real truth.
Reciprocity and empathy do not always come out as stand-alone ideals. More often on our planet it is viewed as empathy with your ingroup, and reciprocity with your ingroup, but a sense of punishment for those who do have done harm, and a sense of animosity towards those who threaten your loved ones. Morality is often viewed as loyalty to someone at all costs, but a loyalty that means you will protect that person by killing their enemies or by any means necessary. Fairness is often viewed as keeping the rules, but at the expense of empathy. Empathy is often viewed as helping out others, but at the expense of the rules. I'm about four minutes through so far.
This is fine and dandy. Yes other animals can work from the empathetic and cooperative state. And a morality may emerge from there that satisfies for many in a group. Of course there is no such thing as morality under than the emergence of morality from these overlapping parts of our nature. It seems our morality being similar to other primates or elephants stemming from our programs empathy and reciprocity is contingent on our individual limitations. We are fair when we need to be. With the advent of technology our personal limits are being stretched very far. And in the case for some like political elites and owners of massive corporations they have at their fingertips such powerful tech that they don’t need to rely on others nearly as much. This seems to be where the corruptibility of power comes from? When one need not tap into their innate empathy and reciprocal self and they can dismiss this with much more ease in order to do their bidding? I would be very interested to see what the speaker thinks about these conditions.
I recently read that fairness is deeply hard-wired in the amygdala. Can’t get much more hard-wired. I suspect that’s the seat of all morality. The smallest child is deeply outraged by unfairness and even crooks are outraged if accused of something they didn’t do. I also think that empathy is primal, as well. The experience of it precedes understanding though it can be induced by understanding such as discovering that a person’PTSD is responsible for some behavior or other. It is interesting that the human primates begin to smile when the cooperation film is shown. The grape/cucumber video shows what is usually missing in this type of experiment-namely that the animals aren’t responding only to the reward; they are also responding to the experimenter. They learn about the token/reward behavior but they also learn about the experimenter’s behavior.
If so, which it aint, but if so, then how do you explain murder, genocide, and all the other "cides" that are solely the bailiwick of humanity. People are NOT moral. Children are NOT moral. You're not a parent. I can tell this from miles away. You sir are a deluded primate who WISHES we were moral so you pretend that we are when the SELF EVIDENT truth is right in front of you. Religion is wack BUT people are marginally better under its influence. We need to replace it with something real but MAN IS NOT A MORAL BEAST!
@@A_Chicago_Man _"how do you explain murder genocide and all the other cides that are solely the bailiwick of humanity"_ Sorry you confuse me _"murder"_ is a legal term that is used to discribe the illegal killing of a human being by a fellow human so naturally we would not find examples of such a thing in the rest of the animal kingdom 🤣🤣🤣 We do however have multiple example of animals killing members of their own species even ones we would class as genocides and infantacide. So once more I fail to see your point 🤔
What one believes relative to God’s existence has nothing to do with facts. If God is he real stays real regardless of if somebody believes in him or not. That’s like saying, “I don’t believe in gravity” and then jumping off a cliff. Believing in gravity has no change on how quickly they hit the ground.
Daniel Paulson thats is true you but faith into whatever you want, just like you spend time on whatever you want. doesnt mean you should play videogames all your life
@Topher TheTenth The objective truth is people are not equal in there behavior, desires, abilities, etc... treating people equally regardless of their actions would be the greatest inequality of all. I am almost certain that is not what you are advocating? But some sort of system for distributing justice and resources in equal proportion to an individual's actions, needs, etc... And who gets to decide what this equality is? Your argument is pure semantics, for you will arrive at the same problem regardless if you call it morality or equality.
@Topher TheTenth You say difference in ability does not equal difference in value. Yet your immediate response is to point out your perceived superiority in English grammar. While selectively ignoring your mistakes and the possibility English is one of many languages I speak and not my preferred one, i.e. discounting my value in other areas. Proving my point, that everyone, consciously and subconsciously views value subjectively, which makes any attempt to enforce equality impossible. Even you admit a system pursuing equality would require two different classes of people, some with special privileges to decide what "equality" is for everyone else. How do you expect to solve inequality with even greater inequality? How do you expect a system to work that even you yourself can't adhere to?
@Topher TheTenth I do not mean this as an insult. But I think you seriously need to consider psychiatric help. You took 3 weeks to respond to me and make a condescending remark about how I need a long time to counter your arguments. That is called psychological projection and it is a sign of mental illness. As for justifying inequality, I never tried to, nor do I need to. Nature does not care about justice, so whether or not it is fair is irrelevant, like Death it is unavoidable part of life. You proved that yourself, by your own admission, the system you advocate requires the very thing you are condemning. You couldn't get rid of inequality, even in a purely theoretical example. This is because inequality is a defining attribute of reality. If all things were equal the universe would be a single infinite homogeneous blob. Inequality is really just diversity viewed negatively.
@Topher TheTenth UA-cam records when responses have been made, anyone can look above here and see you are the one who waited three weeks to respond. You are distorting reality and should seriously evaluate your mental health. I have never condemned fairness. But Equality isn't fair.
Equality by definition is treating everyone the same regardless of differences. Fairness is a matter of unbiased, but proportionate treatment. Do you believe all people should receive the same income regardless of their profession, number of hours worked or the quality of what they produce? That would be equality, but I think few would consider it fair. Alternatively, I believe most would agree a good artist should be paid more than a bad one. A Surgeon should be paid more than dog walker, etc.... No rational person wants equality, but proportionality. To receive results that match the effort they have put in. We have tried giving authority to the average citizen, it is what the world has now. Yet how many politicians have used government money to fund personal projects and lavish lifestyles. How many have donated government property to their private businesses. Appointed friends and family into positions of power. Even bribery has become common place, we just call it "lobbying" now. So what did we solve by eliminating aristocrats and the "privileged' class?
There are about 2,000 religions in the world today, and there were probably many in ancient and prehistoric times. If we had continuously developed our civilization from the ancient Greeks, without any wars or religious interruptions, we would probably be traveling to the stars today (a thought of Carl Sagan).
D'aw.. refused grapes til other got grapes. More 'human' than some I humans I know. We should stop using 'human' and 'humane' as a way to describe morality.
@@bassmaster1834 I disagree, actually, because the most popular religions are utterly immoral by modern standards. The right question is: how can a religious person possibly stay moral? If believing in some authority is enough to make them defend the Old Testament atrocities, aren't these people dangerous?
@@AlexanderShamov believe in authoritie? Like obedience? That is always dangerous, much more than revolting. But i think it makes not much of a difference if you obey a god or obey a state or obey those people because they are intelligent (aka scientists).
How does it proves this kind of thing ? Eventually, it could have "proved" that morality could evolve correctly without and external abstract system like religion nor philosophy nor science (wich I debunked above), but it certainly DOES NOT prove that religion has nothing to do with morality. You're lost in your reflections.
It definitively proves that morality exists in the absence of religion. Primates that can neither read or debate philosophy or science can also not read bibles or understand sermons, adding to the growing mountain of evidence that religion stole moral authority...evidence that incenses and enrages the chosen few who can feel their pillar of righteousness toppling.
I think people can be conned by using their strongest desires against them. greedy people can be conned with money offers. People with a strong spiritual desire can be conned with religion. religion came into existence after the agricultural revolution, after tribal societies already existed for thousands of years. If societies already existed, a form of morality was already in place.
it doesnt prove that the primates have a sense of morality, it could be a selfish desire to protect their own interests by maintaining the welfare of the group (safety in numbers). so basically im saying they might just be incidentally functioning morally. any decent philosopher will tell you that IF god exists, then morality existed before god did. its a fundamental aspect of sentient (and self aware) existence.
We don't need wildlife to understand morality and religion. We emerged from the planet without religion and cooperated with one another in family groups and communal groups. We cared for others in the wider group, assisting, tending and sharing. We exist today because we did not kill one another, before practicing religious ceremonies.
I am really glad and thankful that people are standing up against those who claim that without religion there is no morality. This claim is a delusion. The actual situations in Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the USA, Afghanistan only to name a few, clearly show the dark tribalistic faces of religions. Those who say, that politics is bad but religions are good should ask themselves why it is so easy to manipulate religious people for political purposes.
"It the those charged in our society with ensuring a level playing field don't start doing that,we will return to primate logic,so justice is re established!'
@Ramiz Ali Just to add, if your religion,Islam, which you claimed the religion of peace, why do shia and sunnin muslim doesn't get along. Why blame it to the westerners? If there is somebody to blame? It's your god, right? He has all the power, but he can't solve conflicts. Your god doesn't care at all because even though how faithful your people are to him, he doesn't do anything. He let people die on his watch as a powerful god as you claim him to be. What a great god you have.
in that instance god is proposed as the guarantor of morality ie. those acting badly will be punished by god. like a parent ensures morality in the family.
I believe most of the world religions will be gone in our lives. Morality will be taught to young children with allegories to define acceptable behaviors in society.
Have you got any evidence of that? Primitive cultures were (are) extremely violent and intolerant. The safest and most free countries to live in are generally those that have been steeped in the judeo-christian tradition for the last 1000+ years.
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and to the rulers as useful.” -Seneca “If you derive morality from fairytales then YOU are precisely for whom religion was invented and everyone else should be very worried about you.”😑 -me
Dear commenter, I wanted to reach out in a respectful manner: Seneca is wrong. SO many famous scientists have been theists. So many current scientists look up to the likes of Newton which was a theist. Also it is not that we derive it from fairy tales, this claim assumes religion is false, but u have not presented evidence of its false nature. And I’m sure as a man or woman of reason u have come to this conclusion through reason. I would respectfully like to ask if I may hear how you derived this conclusion
The title of the presentation describes a circumstance "Morality without religion" .... which is much more likely to occur than the opposite "religion without morality". We've certainly seen plenty of the latter.
Morality is constant, but we humans aren't animals. We're of higher intelligence than them and possess individual personalities. Each of our choices can lead to a consequence, good or bad. Looking at the face value of something can only bring collective effects and results in the future.
I think deep down in your heart you really know that man *'IS'* an animal. Look we live & die just like animals then when we do die the same thing that happens to animals happens to us. We breath the same air as them, we have no advantage over the animals anything else is just vanity dear.
@@trumpbellend6717 Technically man is an animal when limited to biology. But when it comes to thinking power? If animals had thinking power we'd see animated movies of pets taking over the world become reality, which they don't. I mean, even biologically we have advantage (walking-posture) which allows us to use our thinking power to the to our best. Yes we live and die and can't see what's ahead of us, but then again we try to find purpose of life, humans always have been. Don't you think it's contradictory? To how we can't see what's after death, yet try to make meaning of our intelligence and use it for better?
If you notice, the no meaning in life philosophy will allow us to do whatever we want, be it good or bad. Our morality and conscience can't be an accident.
@@lehaluaa6460 It's not me you are disagreeing with dear its the bible 👇👇 *Ecclesiastes 3,18 - 19* _"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that THEY THEMSELVES ARE BEASTS"_ _"For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other_ _They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity"_ 👇☝👇☝👇☝👇☝👇☝👇🙌👇☝ *ME* I think deep down in your heart you really know that man *'IS'* an animal. Look we live & die just like animals then when we do die the same thing that happens to animals happens to us. We breath the same air as them, we have no advantage over the animals anything else is just vanity dear.
@@lehaluaa6460 You see this is the game theists like you play, you present a false dichotomy that things can only have "value" or "purpose" if they are the result of YOUR specific subjective imaginary friend and an eternal afterlife. This is most certainly NOT the case. My life has the "value" and " purpose" I GIVE IT cupcake. I think this is the one and only life I will ever have and as such I place a greater "value" on it than YOU do dear. This life is not merely some prelude to a main event or nothing more than something to be "cast off like old rags". I tell my loved ones everyday how much I love them and treasure every moment I spend with them. I don't count on some next life giving me the opportunity to do so. I spend my time trying in my own small way to make THIS LIFE and THIS WORLD a better place for those in it. That's what gives me the "purpose" to get out of bed every day dear. I work hard providing for my wife and 3 kids and spend most of my spare time doing voluntary work with young children ( many of whom are disabled ) the smiles upon their faces the only reward or purpose one could ever need for it to have "meaning" But under your theology my inability to believe in magic and extrodinary claims and diferentiate them from the many other such extrodinary claims of other "Gods" with differing scripture and "values" derived from them, means that I'm deserving of eternal torture regardless of how I live my life. *A child killer however* so long as he truly repents and accepts Jesus on his deathbed he can spend an eternity in paradise with the children he murdered. Unless of course those children also found the "evidence" for your God unconvincing, in which case your child murder would be looking down on them as they too suffered for eternity with me 🤮😡😡😡 Yet you DARE to talk to me about the "value" of human life and *"MORALITY"* shame on you. You sacrifice both your humanity and your reasoning at the alter of Yahweh for the promise of an afterlife ........ its a price I'm not willing to pay 😡😡
@@tarikwalters854 reciprocity and empathy are found in animals. You can find a gazillion clips on UA-cam from animals showing moraI behaviour towards their own species, other species and us humans, occasionally even risking their own lives in the process to do so. Not to mention the experiments as showed by Frans de Waal conducted by scientists clearly proving that animals are just as capable to act with empathy and reciprocity (in some cases even more) as humans. But maybe there is some underground cave, somewhere on the planet, where they all gather together on Sunday to attend to Bible studies, who knows?
@@tarikwalters854 just issued a challenge bud, what, you're not up to a challenge? Probably because you haven't a hope of completing it. Zealots such as yourself are willing to make fantastical religious claims and usually without a shred of evidence as long as blind faith holds the key to your belief. I have a good moral compass with not a single religious idea backing it. All of you in this boat come forward and claim your right to having a good moral compass without using any religion as a 'moral' choice. The problem with me or anyone else claiming this is that you will negate anything we say, even if we may have character witnesses to prove we've never had anything to do with religion.
@@wire5246, no. You explain where reciprocity and empathy come from. But also define them first. Naming and observing a phenomenon does not explain it.
If you compare two world-views-First, seeing your beloved as a miracle, a precious creation by an Infinite Intelligence at a unique point in history,, for a unique purpose which only their being, their qualities and gifts, their intellect and their will, can bring to lift all of humanity, and does not have a fear death. Second, your beloved is a thing made of complicated interacting blind forces of matter and energy which occurred at random with no overall purpose except what their "self" chooses, with one life which ends in death, who does not love you, really, because their brain hallucinate an image it calls "you", and weights its synapses in favor of bonding and mating because of evolution. Which viewpoint is more realistic? Which has a higher level of feeling meaning, purpose, and Transcendence beyond the material. Of course this is dumbed down, simplistic: The left brain "rational self," believes it holds the whole story of "what is." The non-verbal right brain holds the artistic, the irrational, the contemplative, but cannot be heard until the left brain listens. The advancements in science mainly arose through warfare,, now through profits. Scientific thought has no intrinsic morality- that is the realm of philosophers. And the scientists who create fully fledged A.I. will be like those at Los Alamos: "My God! What have we created?"
I always find it interesting how the question get’s turned into can you be moral without religion? And the consequence of that change is the fact that it becomes personal to a lot of people, especially atheists/agnostics, and therefore get’s diluted with a lot of emotion and anecdotal information, not necessarily fruitful for the question itself. Of course you can be moral without religion. Some animals seem to have some sense of ‘morality’, but that doesn’t answer the question: does absolute morality exist and if so, who’s the absolute judge of that absolute moral framework. That question can’t be, I think, answered without mentioning some form of description of God.
@@YY4Me133 Okay? But my question wasn’t in regards to who wrote religious texts but the content that’s in it, so there was literally no point of even mentioning that because nobody disputed it.
My experience in religion after 45 years, the morality, the ethic is NOT in the religion, religion is a promise that they will be moral and ethic, only that, a promise, but the reality is different, they justify when they misbehave.
I saw this with my cat. He wanted me to feed the cats that live outside. He also wished me to help him share his food. His cohorts were not as enlightened as he.
Start at 5:50 The one on the right did not get it all, although he did try to. At 5:53 you can see the hand of the one on the left grab some. Not all. And left him a small amount to take of his side.
... Morality does NOT require the self-interest of Religion ... it just requires a modest amount of thoughtfulness and empathy ... that's it, that's all ...
@@tarikwalters854 😜 Thats why the concept of SIN percieved transgressions against whims of anyone's subjective imaginary friend should play no part in any discussion of morality dear.
I have many life questions if somebody can please help and answer, So if one is not religious is it right for them to do adultery? Their moral side dont stop them to emotionally hurt somebody they are romantically involved with? Does one always have to fear God to maintain a relationship?
That's like dinner without asphalt. What does religion have to do with morality? I don't see any connection between religion and morality. In fact, religion creates structural immorality - heretics are expendable, torture is called for, wars of conversion required. Morality involves consideration of consequences and an orientation towards a better future, a categorical imperative to consider the well-being of sentient souls, oneself and others in concentric neighborhoods - from nearest family and friends to the totality of humanity. Religion is about foreclosing the future and dictating a set of arbitrary rules, mindless dogmatism. So again, what has religion to do with morality? Nothing at all, really.
Religions are a curse. No one or nothing will change my stand on this. I am a “mystic Gypsy” and need no church to teach me moral imperatives. I know what is right and wrong, as we all do.
In many, many ,ways atheists are more moral than people practicing the various religions in the world. Morality is a social moray that has little to do with the myriad of religions. It is part of being a human being and how one is raised. Religions try to take morality and make it their own idea.
@@tarikwalters854 Social morality has been around since humankind lived together 100’s of thousands of years before any religion. There are norms and societal norms. Other species, like our fellow species ,the monkeys have morals.
@@tarikwalters854 Theists don’t take into account that nature itself creates morality. Since morals have been around way before the first religions over 5000 years ago, religions have adopted morals as principles associated with them. Morals ,in no way are religious principles , but human principles in general.
In my personal experience, I have often found that the overtly religious are often FAR less moral than those running their lives without the influence of religion. I have been in need of a lift and turned down by car loads of Christians. In need of shelter and turned away by people who nonetheless were absolutely shameless in their endless proselytizing. And just a block from my house is a homeless shelter run by a religious organization who demands that you ascribe to their particular brand of theism if you would like to volunteer to help the homeless in the region at their shelter, and sign forms attesting to such. Seems like one should simply be grateful that the greater good is being served that more people are being aided. I guess that doesn't serve their underlying motive of harvesting souls. I honestly feel like they don't deserve the tax breaks they so richly enjoy.
I think this video's title would be more accurate if it was " Morality without Abrahamic Religions". The Religions of the Far East (e.g. Hinduism, Taoism) have a theology that is integrated with the material world and the interrelations between all living things.
Many millenia ago, a caveman took a shaft and applied a point to it. With this spear, he could kill his dinner. Even better, he could kill his enemy. With sufficient numbers of these weapons, he could terrorize entire tribes of his enemies. Until , of course, the enemies copied the design and built lots of them. Then Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) ensured peace. Many millenia later, some other cavemen from the scientist tribe, took a different shaft (an ICBM) and attached a different point (a nuclear warhead). Now, cavemen could kill their lunch, themselves, and everything else on the planet. Mercifully, MAD has saved him. Can cavemen be good without God? The question is irrelevant. Caveman, in any millenium, can only be good with MAD..... even on a small scale. Eliminate all deterrents and the Really Big Question presents itself: WILL caveman be good.
Fascinating that many humans do not want to see that as a species we find it acceptable to imprison and use other species as experimental tools , for experiments on empathy. What might that say about human empathy that when another being shows frustration at being part of an experimental process that they have no control over, we find it cute and funny.
living in Alabama my whole life, even the most intense bible beaters are empathetic, maybe because desperation and poverty create social dependence. (also the bible teaches care for the neighbor.) But bible-beaters ARE the least empathetic once you get on the topic of religion and they are "playing the role" of religion. (also, not all people in the south are religious)
Well, that challenges a basic idea related to my job as a Martial Arts Instructor. Clearly, I'll have to modify my approach to teaching Self-Defense. Lol
If you just act upon a feeling, you're likely to cause a lot of damage. If you act upon a feeling of empathy, without a cognitive foundation, you are not acting morally.
@@rickedwards7276 Faith is not the goal. Faith is a tool to reach the goal. The goal is to seek our Creator, to allow Him to reveal Himself to us, to come to love Him and to find our joy in Him forever. We come to know God through the experiences he leads us into.
Matthew Tenney the question was why one needs a “cognitive foundation” to validate empathy. You haven’t said why that is necessary or even what that is. Faith isn’t cognitive, it is emotion, similar to empathy. Why wouldn’t you need a cognitive foundation for faith, a belief in things for which there is no proof, but you would need one for empathy, a connection with other people’s experiences?
I wish someone would have been allowed to ask de Waal why he needed to explain the origin of morality without religion. Is something wrong with the morality attributed to religion? I’d also be curious to know where de Waal derived his criteria for morality used in his study. From where did that criteria originate? And did he select his criteria from some abstract principle, or did he select them based on behavior he observed or trained into his test subjects?
_"is something wrong with morality attributed to religion"_ Crusades, holy wars, inquisitions, forced conversions of indigenous peoples, crashing planes into towers, ect ect all done specifically for religious reasons. By people striving to attain their subjective Gods "moral perfection" and citing the moral imperfection of the victims as justification 🤮🤮🤮
Perhaps the need to explain the origin of morality without religion is to help establish the point that morality pre-dates religion and develops without it. There are some religious people who like to claim we need religion or god to be moral or that their particular faith/ god is the origin of morality. As to the details of this study and the criteria he used, perhaps there’s a book?
Well he defines his criteria at the start, he explains the pillars of morality. There’s nothing to be offended or upset about, religion doesn’t have a monopoly on morality.
@@norswil8763 Where’d you get the idea that I was offended or upset? I raised a question that is still unanswered. Unless de Waal has converted to religion recently, he does not believe in God; therefore, he does not believe morality originated with God. If he is consistent in his atheism, de Waal does not believe that God created the universe and everything in it, took dust from the ground on planet earth, and breathed life into that dust. Furthermore, de Waal must think that God did not make human beings in His image-that of an intelligent, moral being. So coming back to the criteria that de Waal established for his study: from where does de Waal develop the idea of morality with his particular criteria? Did morality appear along with the universe as it burst from a singularity as some special natural law like those we find in physics? Did morality occur at the moment (not yet defined) when life arose from dead matter through some undetermined process of abiogenesis? Did morality spontaneously appear at the yet undefined moment that our bipedal ancestors became self-aware, conscious beings? Or did morality evolve as humans evolved, and if so, when did it become a universally accepted code of conduct that most “tribes” follow when many thinkers argue that morality is relative to each group? De Waal could not establish his criteria for morality unless he drew it from a pre-existing system of thought. He did not wake up one morning and invent morality, so he is borrowing from something that exists outside the material; that is, morality, like natural laws, is not composed of matter and energy. If that something outside the material is not God, then I’d like to know what it is and how it came to be a source of morality. It is not a question of monopoly: believers and unbelievers can behave morally. Believers argue that they ought to behave morally because each will be held accountable for his or her deeds by a superior being-a God who will judge. To whom do unbelievers answer? If people live and then die without a consequence for their behavior during their lives, then why bother behaving morally? Morality (or altruism) as a means for meeting selfish needs through manipulation-help me get food and you can have some-appears to be an inadequate description for morality. Neither you nor de Waal has answered my question, and my curiosity to know an answer is neutral; it is neither based on feeling offended nor feeling upset.
In my shallow understanding of Christianity, all of these fairness pursuing behaviors by animals as well as humans would be the perfect description before the our soul is saved. The whole point of Jesus Christ redemption is selfless giving. Which means something is unfair on me, but I would willingly lose to let you gain. This transformation of attitudes toward others is called born again, spiritually wakening. This gives us life purpose of put others in front of ourselves. Without this spiritual awakening, we want things to be fair, when it doesn't, we become aggressive eventually, human are not much different than animals. Having said this, surely Christians a lot of times don't behave better than any non-believers. Yet a true Christian is someone choose to follow Jesus Christ and working towards the direction of being gracious in the face of unfair situation.
both/and not either/or. why is it so difficult for 'intelligent' humans to grasp that. we have nurses who work their arses off, and then we have trump.
In my view this is about "morality" and not about religion. Christian religion is quite simple: in respect of God, love each other. And start loving the poor and weak, knowing you will not get anything in return.
I think you'll find that these "positive tendencies" are either current or legacy traits related to survival. This whole idea of animal morality is far off the mark. If we can look at animal behavior and say that it's good, then we must have another standard for "good" so that we can compare the animal behavior to the standard. If we have such a standard, then let's use it and forget about animal behavior. Morality has to include motive, doing the right thing for the right reason. The whole industry of "con artist" is based upon doing the right thing for the wrong reason, i.e. kind acts that build confidence that is then used sometime in the future for the purposes of theft.
@Gagan Singh Animals don't have positive tendencies. You simply anthropomorphize animal behavior. Morality requires reason; it is doing the right thing for the right reason.
@Gagan Singh In their new study, Richard Stansfield and Thomas Mowen (from Rutgers and Bowling Green universities) tracked outcomes for more than 1,300 released prisoners in Oregon. The researchers wanted to see if the makeup of the community - religious practice, the presence of social service resources, and economic vibrancy - contributes to desistance from criminal behavior. The researchers found that the strength of a given community’s religious adherence significantly affected recidivism rates. In other words, the greater percentage of people that were a part of a religious congregation in a given community, the less likely a released prisoner in that community was to be reconvicted for a future crime.
@Gagan Singh “We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.” “If there is a human moral to be drawn, it is that we must teach our children altruism, for we cannot expect it to be part of their biological nature.” ― Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene You want to connect animal behavior with caring, compassion, love and brotherhood, which is how we normally think of a moral person, but in animals it's just selfish survival.
@Gagan Singh Ever feel rage or panic? They are emotions ingrained into our human nature and they almost always encourage the wrong behavior. Empathy is the same way. Don't quote Dawkins? He's a recognized authority on the subject. Our human morality is based upon the idea that all of us have worth that is distinct and separate from our usefulness. Until you can speak to animals about the abstract concept of worth, the abstract concept of morality will be impossible
@Gagan Singh Dawkins has authority because he has done and documented the science he did. In his documentation, he includes science, studies, evidence and data. Come on, do you ignore the advice of your doctor saying it's just his opinion? It is not that animals do not have the same morals as humans. Animals do not have morality period.
As a Chinese and a non-religious person, I always find it puzzling how westerners think that religion is necessary for morality. No, that's ridiculous.
Not only westerners, people all over the world.
confucius?
Religion can teach and transform immoral behavior of a person to a compassionate and empathetic one.
IKR I feel religious again sometimes because you're tricked into it and no choice of obedience by default.
@@dianababenones3426 wonder if your actually right about that as much as I agree what would those be?
Life in general never ceases to amaze me. A very simple lesson, and yet, one that seems to be missed by the general public. I hope we as humans, will learn that cooperative behavior will allow humankind to grow and evolve into the higher beings we might become.
Yes. With humans as potentially higher minds, we also need this lesson: first we must understand each other. Then we will be able to reciprocate. No small task that: we all see the world so differently and our own psychological complexities serve as a “wilderness” where sometimes we don’t see the forest for the trees. Sometimes we can’t understand another person and their morality because they have different personality and/or intelligence.
Full disclosure: I know Franz Dewaal personally and I took a class from him at Emory. ❤️
Frans de Waal! How pleasant, smart and logical to watch!
Since this talk is 11 years old, they had not the advantage of all the UA-cam videos that are out now, showing that chimps are not the only animals that exhibit altruistic behavior, which was an eye opener for me, I'll admit - a dog using his nose to splash puddled water onto some caught fish on a pier that were still struggling to breath (how that dog understood what the fish needed still amazes me when I think about it)- a cat keeping a toddler from falling down some stairs by standing on its hind legs and physically blocking the child (!). Personally, I think morality is best served *without* religion, because it is born of genuine concern for others, rather than for fear of "damnation"- where a person doesn't really care about another person, and is only behaving to appease their god.
Thanks Dr. Frans de Waal for an insightful speech.
I told a friend that if people do the morally right thing out of fear of punishment (religion), that it would be even a better thing if people did the morally right thing because it was right (without fear of punishment). I got the "that's impossible - you are crazy" stare for saying that.
Thank you animals for backing me up.
What does “right” even mean anyway?
As a hardcore Atheist, I know that morality is not based on fear of a supreme being. It's nice to see demonstrations of it in "baser" life-forms.
Then what is it based on?
@@tarikwalters854 An innate desire to be a part of a community/family. An innate desire for justice and/or fairness. Of course, this is somewhat offset by the desire to gain advantage for oneself which is why laws are necessary.
Having achieved freedom from religion at a young age, the idea that one must be a moral person only if there is an invisible supervisor watching every move one makes is appalling.
Creepy.
Consider whether you have completely misappropriated the inspiration of faith for the practice of the self-proclaimed faithful - as you see their thought process.
If you need the fear of eternal damnation to make you a good person, you are NOT a good person. 😼
"Freedom from religion"
Ah, you're one of _those_ atheists.
@@godofthecripples1237 always better to be one of those atheists than to be one of those bible thumpers. Just saying
A great talk, but I'll admit I re-watched the scene with the thrown cucumber about 10 times. It is too funny.
I can certainly empathize with the monkey that got the cucumber (although I love cucumbers). However, if you take religion out and add morals then where would you get these moral instructions from? This morning I was thinking like the monkey who got the cucumber (I was feeling down and questioning MY OWN morals and asking why? I was having a selfish pity party), but God ALWAYS speaks to me through his word. Religious leaders believe they are morally correct with their power and riches, but a lot of them are who creates divisions and unjust/unfair treatment. So as I was reading 1 cor 4:6 states "Do not go beyond what is written, so that you may not be puffed up with pride, favoring one against another...." So what is this scripture saying? Did you notice the reaction of the monkeys? The human was the one in control, and treated them unfairly (which God warns against) now how did that make the one being treated unfairly react? So that must be why God gives us moral values to live by in the bible. Because if we lead unfairly, and abuse our power as the human did favoring one over another then it CAUSES bad behaviors in the monkey that got offended
What the unfair human does we call capitalism. Collectively we produce and the resulting benefit gives cucumbers to many and grapes to a small number. God works in mysterious ways!
HAHAHA same it was absolutely hilarious
These studies are amazing! Such eye-opener of how social behaviors evolved and about mammalian brains.. this all will be accepted common knowledge at one point in Humanity's future.
Every human has morals. It’s part of being in community. I worked in a prison. Inmates have morals, but you wouldn’t want them to unleash their morality on you.
Haggis 95 I would love you to give us some examples.
@@bobrussell3602 search “the donta show”
As an atheist I find I have more care and empathy for others than most people who claim to to be Christians.
In the first place the premise of Christianity is that you're not good enough to qualify for rectification before God. So the view you have of yourself in relation to the Christians you have known or in a cursory glimpse you may have of them is not relevant in Christianity. And you're actions before salvation do not count. Subsequently they don't have a bearing after salvation. It is solely based on Jesus' death on a cross. In the scheme of things your empathy bears no weight in Christianity.
@@stalker7892 like I said ....atheist. all that Christians believe and say about their god is made up.
@@stalker7892
I guess you never read Matthew 25:35-46.
Amazing stuff. It seems that human morality is much more complex or has been changed through the years. Nature shows us a simpler way!
While most enlightened humans now reject the ludicrous idea that objective morality is dictated by the gods, we need to understand now that human rights are not supernaturally derived as well. It is clearly reasoning that led to scientific thinking that has given us a solid, sane concept of rights.
Wonder if your actually right about that. Sometimes feel religious again just because have too or else regret that you didn't and tricked into it of real truth.
Reciprocity and empathy do not always come out as stand-alone ideals. More often on our planet it is viewed as empathy with your ingroup, and reciprocity with your ingroup, but a sense of punishment for those who do have done harm, and a sense of animosity towards those who threaten your loved ones. Morality is often viewed as loyalty to someone at all costs, but a loyalty that means you will protect that person by killing their enemies or by any means necessary. Fairness is often viewed as keeping the rules, but at the expense of empathy. Empathy is often viewed as helping out others, but at the expense of the rules. I'm about four minutes through so far.
I am in agreement with you 4 minutes in.....
“ It Is About How we are raised”
“ Fellow is KEY”
This is fine and dandy. Yes other animals can work from the empathetic and cooperative state. And a morality may emerge from there that satisfies for many in a group. Of course there is no such thing as morality under than the emergence of morality from these overlapping parts of our nature.
It seems our morality being similar to other primates or elephants stemming from our programs empathy and reciprocity is contingent on our individual limitations. We are fair when we need to be.
With the advent of technology our personal limits are being stretched very far. And in the case for some like political elites and owners of massive corporations they have at their fingertips such powerful tech that they don’t need to rely on others nearly as much.
This seems to be where the corruptibility of power comes from? When one need not tap into their innate empathy and reciprocal self and they can dismiss this with much more ease in order to do their bidding?
I would be very interested to see what the speaker thinks about these conditions.
What evidence is there that Religion makes one a better person, or better citizen?
Ma holy book 📖 says so
In a religious theocracy, these kind of researches will be suppressed and shut down immediately.
I recently read that fairness is deeply hard-wired in the amygdala. Can’t get much more hard-wired. I suspect that’s the seat of all morality. The smallest child is deeply outraged by unfairness and even crooks are outraged if accused of something they didn’t do. I also think that empathy is primal, as well. The experience of it precedes understanding though it can be induced by understanding such as discovering that a person’PTSD is responsible for some behavior or other.
It is interesting that the human primates begin to smile when the cooperation film is shown. The grape/cucumber video shows what is usually missing in this type of experiment-namely that the animals aren’t responding only to the reward; they are also responding to the experimenter. They learn about the token/reward behavior but they also learn about the experimenter’s behavior.
If so, which it aint, but if so, then how do you explain murder, genocide, and all the other "cides" that are solely the bailiwick of humanity. People are NOT moral. Children are NOT moral. You're not a parent. I can tell this from miles away. You sir are a deluded primate who WISHES we were moral so you pretend that we are when the SELF EVIDENT truth is right in front of you. Religion is wack BUT people are marginally better under its influence. We need to replace it with something real but MAN IS NOT A MORAL BEAST!
@@A_Chicago_Man _"how do you explain murder genocide and all the other cides that are solely the bailiwick of humanity"_
Sorry you confuse me _"murder"_ is a legal term that is used to discribe the illegal killing of a human being by a fellow human so naturally we would not find examples of such a thing in the rest of the animal kingdom 🤣🤣🤣
We do however have multiple example of animals killing members of their own species even ones we would class as genocides and infantacide. So once more I fail to see your point 🤔
i think he is proving his point rather well.
I am a human being who has a strong sense of morality, I am also an atheist. Simple fact.
What is a sense of morality? Is it a feeling? How much are you willing to sacrifice in order to get a feeling?
What one believes relative to God’s existence has nothing to do with facts. If God is he real stays real regardless of if somebody believes in him or not. That’s like saying, “I don’t believe in gravity” and then jumping off a cliff. Believing in gravity has no change on how quickly they hit the ground.
ASK Truth Apologetics what are you getting at?
Daniel Paulson thats is true you but faith into whatever you want, just like you spend time on whatever you want. doesnt mean you should play videogames all your life
I'm sure you do, however, you have no basis for your morality. It is utterly meaningless.
Thumbs up if you yawned at 10:36
Thumbs up if you yawned while reading this comment)
It's amazing how many people can't conceive that this is possible.
It's also very troubling.
I would say it's EASIER without religion.
Morality is so subjective that even Stalin had a strong sense of morality. The question is- What are those morals based on.
To share life smoothly and in fairness.
@Topher TheTenth The objective truth is people are not equal in there behavior, desires, abilities, etc... treating people equally regardless of their actions would be the greatest inequality of all.
I am almost certain that is not what you are advocating? But some sort of system for distributing justice and resources in equal proportion to an individual's actions, needs, etc... And who gets to decide what this equality is?
Your argument is pure semantics, for you will arrive at the same problem regardless if you call it morality or equality.
@Topher TheTenth You say difference in ability does not equal difference in value. Yet your immediate response is to point out your perceived superiority in English grammar. While selectively ignoring your mistakes and the possibility English is one of many languages I speak and not my preferred one, i.e. discounting my value in other areas.
Proving my point, that everyone, consciously and subconsciously views value subjectively, which makes any attempt to enforce equality impossible. Even you admit a system pursuing equality would require two different classes of people, some with special privileges to decide what "equality" is for everyone else.
How do you expect to solve inequality with even greater inequality?
How do you expect a system to work that even you yourself can't adhere to?
@Topher TheTenth I do not mean this as an insult. But I think you seriously need to consider psychiatric help.
You took 3 weeks to respond to me and make a condescending remark about how I need a long time to counter your arguments.
That is called psychological projection and it is a sign of mental illness.
As for justifying inequality, I never tried to, nor do I need to.
Nature does not care about justice, so whether or not it is fair is irrelevant, like Death it is unavoidable part of life.
You proved that yourself, by your own admission, the system you advocate requires the very thing you are condemning.
You couldn't get rid of inequality, even in a purely theoretical example. This is because inequality is a defining attribute of reality. If all things were equal the universe would be a single infinite homogeneous blob.
Inequality is really just diversity viewed negatively.
@Topher TheTenth UA-cam records when responses have been made, anyone can look above here and see you are the one who waited three weeks to respond. You are distorting reality and should seriously evaluate your mental health.
I have never condemned fairness. But Equality isn't fair.
Equality by definition is treating everyone the same regardless of differences.
Fairness is a matter of unbiased, but proportionate treatment.
Do you believe all people should receive the same income regardless of their profession, number of hours worked or the quality of what they produce? That would be equality, but I think few would consider it fair.
Alternatively, I believe most would agree a good artist should be paid more than a bad one.
A Surgeon should be paid more than dog walker, etc....
No rational person wants equality, but proportionality. To receive results that match the effort they have put in.
We have tried giving authority to the average citizen, it is what the world has now.
Yet how many politicians have used government money to fund personal projects and lavish lifestyles.
How many have donated government property to their private businesses.
Appointed friends and family into positions of power.
Even bribery has become common place, we just call it "lobbying" now.
So what did we solve by eliminating aristocrats and the "privileged' class?
There are about 2,000 religions in the world today, and there were probably many in ancient and prehistoric times.
If we had continuously developed our civilization from the ancient Greeks, without any wars or religious interruptions, we would probably be traveling to the stars today (a thought of Carl Sagan).
But religion makes humans working together. Progress, faith of Progress is a religion. Aristote said his religion was the religion of sophia
@Caller ID How do you feel about yourself? So you have to prove yourself to be superior to people on the net
D'aw.. refused grapes til other got grapes.
More 'human' than some I humans I know.
We should stop using 'human' and 'humane' as a way to describe morality.
^^ True.
Morality without religion is like a gum wrapper without an ostrich.
Or a blind man without a dart board.
In other words morality and religion are completely unrelated?
@@ADerpyReality , YES! Of course!
@@bassmaster1834 I disagree, actually, because the most popular religions are utterly immoral by modern standards. The right question is: how can a religious person possibly stay moral? If believing in some authority is enough to make them defend the Old Testament atrocities, aren't these people dangerous?
@@AlexanderShamov believe in authoritie? Like obedience? That is always dangerous, much more than revolting. But i think it makes not much of a difference if you obey a god or obey a state or obey those people because they are intelligent (aka scientists).
AMAZING and entertaining. Proves that religon does not necessarily tie in with morality and empathy. :)
How does it proves this kind of thing ? Eventually, it could have "proved" that morality could evolve correctly without and external abstract system like religion nor philosophy nor science (wich I debunked above), but it certainly DOES NOT prove that religion has nothing to do with morality.
You're lost in your reflections.
It definitively proves that morality exists in the absence of religion. Primates that can neither read or debate philosophy or science can also not read bibles or understand sermons, adding to the growing mountain of evidence that religion stole moral authority...evidence that incenses and enrages the chosen few who can feel their pillar of righteousness toppling.
I think people can be conned by using their strongest desires against them. greedy people can be conned with money offers. People with a strong spiritual desire can be conned with religion. religion came into existence after the agricultural revolution, after tribal societies already existed for thousands of years. If societies already existed, a form of morality was already in place.
it doesnt prove that the primates have a sense of morality, it could be a selfish desire to protect their own interests by maintaining the welfare of the group (safety in numbers). so basically im saying they might just be incidentally functioning morally.
any decent philosopher will tell you that IF god exists, then morality existed before god did. its a fundamental aspect of sentient (and self aware) existence.
We don't need wildlife to understand morality and religion. We emerged from the planet without religion and cooperated with one another in family groups and communal groups. We cared for others in the wider group, assisting, tending and sharing. We exist today because we did not kill one another, before practicing religious ceremonies.
Religious people individually can be moral, but faith can't give them a framework to explain why anything is right or wrong.
But depends on what religion they follow
@@crazy_ando0113 But how can anyone say an act is right tor wrong through faith?
@@Ozzyman200 ikr
I am really glad and thankful that people are standing up against those who claim that without religion there is no morality. This claim is a delusion. The actual situations in Russia, India, Saudi Arabia, Israel, the USA, Afghanistan only to name a few, clearly show the dark tribalistic faces of religions. Those who say, that politics is bad but religions are good should ask themselves why it is so easy to manipulate religious people for political purposes.
Religion is singular religions is plural.
@@tarikwalters854 So what
@@karlschmied6218 So you can’t use other religions as an argument against one, it’s illogical.
@@tarikwalters854 How do I use other religions as an argument against one? Which religions do I use as an argument against which religion?
@@tarikwalters854 Are you a Christian?
Now, that hit the spot. What an illuminating and interesting talk. Ain't larnin' fun? 😀
"It the those charged in our society with ensuring a level playing field don't start doing that,we will return to primate logic,so justice is re established!'
The concept of a god creating the morality for humans is just a social construct, which is getting obsolete as time goes by.
xýpnios I gńosi it was obsolete before time began🙄
@Ramiz Ali Just to add, if your religion,Islam, which you claimed the religion of peace, why do shia and sunnin muslim doesn't get along. Why blame it to the westerners? If there is somebody to blame? It's your god, right?
He has all the power, but he can't solve conflicts. Your god doesn't care at all because even though how faithful your people are to him, he doesn't do anything. He let people die on his watch as a powerful god as you claim him to be. What a great god you have.
in that instance god is proposed as the guarantor of morality ie. those acting badly will be punished by god. like a parent ensures morality in the family.
I think that it's also to enforce morality, because people are more likely to follow rules if they think that a god might punish them if they don't.
@Greg McFarland That, would completely depend on how you define morality.
I believe most of the world religions will be gone in our lives. Morality will be taught to young children with allegories to define acceptable behaviors in society.
I think thats a bit optimistic. Unless you think we will live hundreds of years (which I admit is possible)
People had good moral values even before all religions. Religion tried to change but later became more immoral.
Have you got any evidence of that? Primitive cultures were (are) extremely violent and intolerant. The safest and most free countries to live in are generally those that have been steeped in the judeo-christian tradition for the last 1000+ years.
Excellent presentation! We can learn so much from chimpanzees and other social animals.
humans and animals come from the same person that's why we relate
I am watching it late but I have to say it is just wow !!!
The idea, that morality stems from religion, is so self centered human and just obscure. Who thinks stuff like that?
Theists!
What does morality has to do with religion!
“Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and to the rulers as useful.” -Seneca
“If you derive morality from fairytales then YOU are precisely for whom religion was invented and everyone else should be very worried about you.”😑 -me
what about if we view them as morality tales and not 'fairy' tales?
Dear commenter, I wanted to reach out in a respectful manner: Seneca is wrong. SO many famous scientists have been theists. So many current scientists look up to the likes of Newton which was a theist. Also it is not that we derive it from fairy tales, this claim assumes religion is false, but u have not presented evidence of its false nature. And I’m sure as a man or woman of reason u have come to this conclusion through reason. I would respectfully like to ask if I may hear how you derived this conclusion
Wonder if your actually right about that 🤔
@@sawtoothiandi 🤨
@@mistylover7398 😧
The title of the presentation describes a circumstance "Morality without religion" .... which is much more likely to occur than the opposite "religion without morality". We've certainly seen plenty of the latter.
Says you.
I actually thought the other one will refuse the grape lol... But I'm happy he reported similar results happened in other experiments
Brilliant talk!
Morality is constant, but we humans aren't animals. We're of higher intelligence than them and possess individual personalities.
Each of our choices can lead to a consequence, good or bad. Looking at the face value of something can only bring collective effects and results in the future.
I think deep down in your heart you really know that man *'IS'* an animal. Look we live & die just like animals then when we do die the same thing that happens to animals happens to us. We breath the same air as them, we have no advantage over the animals anything else is just vanity dear.
@@trumpbellend6717 Technically man is an animal when limited to biology. But when it comes to thinking power? If animals had thinking power we'd see animated movies of pets taking over the world become reality, which they don't. I mean, even biologically we have advantage (walking-posture) which allows us to use our thinking power to the to our best.
Yes we live and die and can't see what's ahead of us, but then again we try to find purpose of life, humans always have been. Don't you think it's contradictory? To how we can't see what's after death, yet try to make meaning of our intelligence and use it for better?
If you notice, the no meaning in life philosophy will allow us to do whatever we want, be it good or bad. Our morality and conscience can't be an accident.
@@lehaluaa6460 It's not me you are disagreeing with dear its the bible 👇👇
*Ecclesiastes 3,18 - 19*
_"I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that THEY THEMSELVES ARE BEASTS"_
_"For what happens to the children of man and what happens to the beasts is the same; as one dies, so dies the other_ _They all have the same breath, and man has no advantage over the beasts, for all is vanity"_
👇☝👇☝👇☝👇☝👇☝👇🙌👇☝
*ME*
I think deep down in your heart you really know that man *'IS'* an animal. Look we live & die just like animals then when we do die the same thing that happens to animals happens to us. We breath the same air as them, we have no advantage over the animals anything else is just vanity dear.
@@lehaluaa6460 You see this is the game theists like you play, you present a false dichotomy that things can only have "value" or "purpose" if they are the result of YOUR specific subjective imaginary friend and an eternal afterlife. This is most certainly NOT the case.
My life has the "value" and " purpose" I GIVE IT cupcake. I think this is the one and only life I will ever have and as such I place a greater "value" on it than YOU do dear. This life is not merely some prelude to a main event or nothing more than something to be "cast off like old rags".
I tell my loved ones everyday how much I love them and treasure every moment I spend with them. I don't count on some next life giving me the opportunity to do so. I spend my time trying in my own small way to make THIS LIFE and THIS WORLD a better place for those in it. That's what gives me the "purpose" to get out of bed every day dear.
I work hard providing for my wife and 3 kids and spend most of my spare time doing voluntary work with young children ( many of whom are disabled ) the smiles upon their faces the only reward or purpose one could ever need for it to have "meaning"
But under your theology my inability to believe in magic and extrodinary claims and diferentiate them from the many other such extrodinary claims of other "Gods" with differing scripture and "values" derived from them, means that I'm deserving of eternal torture regardless of how I live my life.
*A child killer however* so long as he truly repents and accepts Jesus on his deathbed he can spend an eternity in paradise with the children he murdered. Unless of course those children also found the "evidence" for your God unconvincing, in which case your child murder would be looking down on them as they too suffered for eternity with me 🤮😡😡😡
Yet you DARE to talk to me about the "value" of human life and *"MORALITY"* shame on you. You sacrifice both your humanity and your reasoning at the alter of Yahweh for the promise of an afterlife ........ its a price I'm not willing to pay 😡😡
The absence of religion is a prerequisite for true morality
Define morality
@@tarikwalters854 reciprocity + empathy= morality
@@walterdaems57 But reciprocity and empathy are teachings found in religious texts, no?
@@tarikwalters854 reciprocity and empathy are found in animals. You can find a gazillion clips on UA-cam from animals showing moraI behaviour towards their own species, other species and us humans, occasionally even risking their own lives in the process to do so. Not to mention the experiments as showed by Frans de Waal conducted by scientists clearly proving that animals are just as capable to act with empathy and reciprocity (in some cases even more) as humans. But maybe there is some underground cave, somewhere on the planet, where they all gather together on Sunday to attend to Bible studies, who knows?
@@walterdaems57 You didn’t answer my question.
We do NOT need religion to own moral goodness.
Prove it.
@@tarikwalters854 I'm happy to prove that when you prove the existence of your god. Good luck with that.
@@IamKlaus007 I’m not the one making any claims here buddy, you are.
@@tarikwalters854 just issued a challenge bud, what, you're not up to a challenge? Probably because you haven't a hope of completing it. Zealots such as yourself are willing to make fantastical religious claims and usually without a shred of evidence as long as blind faith holds the key to your belief. I have a good moral compass with not a single religious idea backing it. All of you in this boat come forward and claim your right to having a good moral compass without using any religion as a 'moral' choice. The problem with me or anyone else claiming this is that you will negate anything we say, even if we may have character witnesses to prove we've never had anything to do with religion.
@@IamKlaus007 And who’s to say your character witnesses are moral people?
What was not shown is any animal giving away it’s food and having nothing so the other could eat.
Reciprocity + Empathy = Morality
try explaining that to any radical creationist
@@wire5246, no. You explain where reciprocity and empathy come from. But also define them first. Naming and observing a phenomenon does not explain it.
If you compare two world-views-First, seeing your beloved as a miracle, a precious creation by an Infinite Intelligence at a unique point in history,, for a unique purpose which only their being, their qualities and gifts, their intellect and their will, can bring to lift all of humanity, and does not have a fear death.
Second, your beloved is a thing made of complicated interacting blind forces of matter and energy which occurred at random with no overall purpose except what their "self" chooses, with one life which ends in death, who does not love you, really, because their brain hallucinate an image it calls "you", and weights its synapses in favor of bonding and mating because of evolution.
Which viewpoint is more realistic? Which has a higher level of feeling meaning, purpose, and Transcendence beyond the material.
Of course this is dumbed down, simplistic:
The left brain "rational self," believes it holds the whole story of "what is." The non-verbal right brain holds the artistic, the irrational, the contemplative, but cannot be heard until the left brain listens.
The advancements in science mainly arose through warfare,, now through profits. Scientific thought has no intrinsic morality- that is the realm of philosophers.
And the scientists who create fully fledged A.I. will be like those at Los Alamos: "My God! What have we created?"
I always find it interesting how the question get’s turned into can you be moral without religion? And the consequence of that change is the fact that it becomes personal to a lot of people, especially atheists/agnostics, and therefore get’s diluted with a lot of emotion and anecdotal information, not necessarily fruitful for the question itself. Of course you can be moral without religion. Some animals seem to have some sense of ‘morality’, but that doesn’t answer the question: does absolute morality exist and if so, who’s the absolute judge of that absolute moral framework. That question can’t be, I think, answered without mentioning some form of description of God.
Euthephro may agree, but Plato would have something to say about that
@@captainzork6109 please elaborate
Religion is not morality, it's gullibility. Intelligent people realise all we need is the golden rule.
A rule which is found in religious texts, correct?
@@tarikwalters854
Written by humans.
@@YY4Me133 Your point?
@@tarikwalters854
My point is that all human rules were/are written by humans, no matter where they happen to show up.
@@YY4Me133 Okay? But my question wasn’t in regards to who wrote religious texts but the content that’s in it, so there was literally no point of even mentioning that because nobody disputed it.
Read "Are Humans Smart Enough To Know How Smart Animals Are? " by Dr. Frans van Der Wahl.
Waal is what I meant.
My experience in religion after 45 years, the morality, the ethic is NOT in the religion, religion is a promise that they will be moral and ethic, only that, a promise, but the reality is different, they justify when they misbehave.
Great speech! I learned a lot
I saw this with my cat. He wanted me to feed the cats that live outside. He also wished me to help him share his food. His cohorts were not as enlightened as he.
Lol
Start at 5:50 The one on the right did not get it all, although he did try to. At 5:53 you can see the hand of the one on the left grab some. Not all. And left him a small amount to take of his side.
... Morality does NOT require the self-interest of Religion ... it just requires a modest amount of thoughtfulness and empathy ... that's it, that's all ...
Which are both teachings in religious texts, no?
@@tarikwalters854 *"Buy your slaves from the heathen nations that surround you"* are also "teaching in religious texts, yes ?
@@trumpbellend6717 Yes
@@tarikwalters854 😜 Thats why the concept of SIN percieved transgressions against whims of anyone's subjective imaginary friend should play no part in any discussion of morality dear.
@@tarikwalters854 Are you a Christian dear?? ..... please don't obfuscate with a response like _"I'm no bible thumping expert"_
When anything goes ...Anything goes .
Exactly.
The justice we have is the justice we make.
If we make no justice then there will be no justice.
@@JP-JustSayin One things for certain Christian theology could never lead to any "justice" 🤣🤣🤣
I have many life questions if somebody can please help and answer,
So if one is not religious is it right for them to do adultery? Their moral side dont stop them to emotionally hurt somebody they are romantically involved with?
Does one always have to fear God to maintain a relationship?
Also check out his other TED talk. Not sure about the title, but it is about how chimpanzee males exercise power.
sa gumagawa ng socsci 1 jan.👋
Lol hahahaha
Hhahahaha
Hooy . Hahaha
@@cristinejoyvillarosa6639 hoy ka rin HAHAHAHAHA
@@francisanthonyb.hernandez4028 tapos ka na mn hahahhahha
That's like dinner without asphalt. What does religion have to do with morality? I don't see any connection between religion and morality. In fact, religion creates structural immorality - heretics are expendable, torture is called for, wars of conversion required. Morality involves consideration of consequences and an orientation towards a better future, a categorical imperative to consider the well-being of sentient souls, oneself and others in concentric neighborhoods - from nearest family and friends to the totality of humanity. Religion is about foreclosing the future and dictating a set of arbitrary rules, mindless dogmatism. So again, what has religion to do with morality? Nothing at all, really.
Religions are a curse. No one or nothing will change my stand on this. I am a “mystic Gypsy” and need no church to teach me moral imperatives. I know what is right and wrong, as we all do.
Wonderful and effective
I appreciate you
In many, many ,ways atheists are more moral than people practicing the various religions in the world. Morality is a social moray that has little to do with the myriad of religions. It is part of being a human being and how one is raised. Religions try to take morality and make it their own idea.
How so?
Social “morays”, how do we eel about that?
@@tarikwalters854 Social morality has been around since humankind lived together 100’s of thousands of years before any religion. There are norms and societal norms. Other species, like our fellow species ,the monkeys have morals.
@@Toto-cl8rw But don’t theists argue that the creator of humankind represents religion?
@@tarikwalters854 Theists don’t take into account that nature itself creates morality. Since morals have been around way before the first religions over 5000 years ago, religions have adopted morals as principles associated with them. Morals ,in no way are religious principles , but human principles in general.
Stimulating and thought-provoking.
I find it fascinating that chimps are always put out in front of us and the denial put out by those who are mauled by them
In my personal experience, I have often found that the overtly religious are often FAR less moral than those running their lives without the influence of religion. I have been in need of a lift and turned down by car loads of Christians. In need of shelter and turned away by people who nonetheless were absolutely shameless in their endless proselytizing. And just a block from my house is a homeless shelter run by a religious organization who demands that you ascribe to their particular brand of theism if you would like to volunteer to help the homeless in the region at their shelter, and sign forms attesting to such. Seems like one should simply be grateful that the greater good is being served that more people are being aided. I guess that doesn't serve their underlying motive of harvesting souls.
I honestly feel like they don't deserve the tax breaks they so richly enjoy.
Can’t speak on your experience but I can assure you that not all religious people are the same.
pov nandito ka dahil sa soc sci 😗
Really interesting. Thank you.
I think this video's title would be more accurate if it was " Morality without Abrahamic Religions". The Religions of the Far East (e.g. Hinduism, Taoism) have a theology that is integrated with the material world and the interrelations between all living things.
What this man should have experiment with rather animals love and hate each others. That would have been a damm great experiment.
“ Please do a video on time and space for
All our children to grow into maturity “.
Brilliant talk.
Many millenia ago, a caveman took a shaft and applied a point to it. With this spear, he could kill his dinner. Even better, he could kill his enemy. With sufficient numbers of these weapons, he could terrorize entire tribes of his enemies. Until , of course, the enemies copied the design and built lots of them. Then Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) ensured peace. Many millenia later, some other cavemen from the scientist tribe, took a different shaft (an ICBM) and attached a different point (a nuclear warhead). Now, cavemen could kill their lunch, themselves, and everything else on the planet. Mercifully, MAD has saved him. Can cavemen be good without God? The question is irrelevant. Caveman, in any millenium, can only be good with MAD..... even on a small scale. Eliminate all deterrents and the Really Big Question presents itself: WILL caveman be good.
You nailed it.
You haven't watched the video, have you?
You need to do ted talks. For people who believe human nature is good. Stand outside your security gates sweetums oh yes
This is Hasty generalization.
Fascinating that many humans do not want to see that as a species we find it acceptable to imprison and use other species as experimental tools , for experiments on empathy. What might that say about human empathy that when another being shows frustration at being part of an experimental process that they have no control over, we find it cute and funny.
I've found that southern (US) bible beaters are the least empathetic people I have ever encountered.
I had a breakdown while driving through Meredian, Alabama. I was amazed at the kindness shown by strangers.
@@matthewtenney2898 Were you white LOL?
@@njm3211 I'm white but not those who came to my assistance.
living in Alabama my whole life, even the most intense bible beaters are empathetic, maybe because desperation and poverty create social dependence. (also the bible teaches care for the neighbor.) But bible-beaters ARE the least empathetic once you get on the topic of religion and they are "playing the role" of religion. (also, not all people in the south are religious)
Let's make it harder: "Morality with religion".
What’s hard about that?
Yeah, God made everything. And he obviously knew that without empathy and all that there would only be chaos.
How many people have been killed by religious zealots? How many by humanitarians?
I love how the camera randomly just cuts to a guy sleeping (or at least looks to be).
Necrikus 🤣🤣🤣
This is a *wonderful* talk!
Fascinating!
Well, that challenges a basic idea related to my job as a Martial Arts Instructor. Clearly, I'll have to modify my approach to teaching Self-Defense. Lol
Interesting, but its a laboratory conclusion? i would prefer natural enviroment observation like a complement
If you just act upon a feeling, you're likely to cause a lot of damage. If you act upon a feeling of empathy, without a cognitive foundation, you are not acting morally.
Matthew Tenney really. So what cognitive foundation would you consider required to validate our empathy?
@@rickedwards7276 That empathy serves a purpose put there by a Creator.
Matthew Tenney No, you said cognitive foundation. Now you’re just saying faith.
@@rickedwards7276 Faith is not the goal. Faith is a tool to reach the goal. The goal is to seek our Creator, to allow Him to reveal Himself to us, to come to love Him and to find our joy in Him forever. We come to know God through the experiences he leads us into.
Matthew Tenney the question was why one needs a “cognitive foundation” to validate empathy. You haven’t said why that is necessary or even what that is. Faith isn’t cognitive, it is emotion, similar to empathy. Why wouldn’t you need a cognitive foundation for faith, a belief in things for which there is no proof, but you would need one for empathy, a connection with other people’s experiences?
Am I watching to Bill Gates' younger brother?
Morality without religion? I wonder if Ayn Rand would have anything to say about that.
Absolutely fabulos
Coloquem legendas em português!
Thank you sooooo much for posting
I wish someone would have been allowed to ask de Waal why he needed to explain the origin of morality without religion. Is something wrong with the morality attributed to religion?
I’d also be curious to know where de Waal derived his criteria for morality used in his study. From where did that criteria originate? And did he select his criteria from some abstract principle, or did he select them based on behavior he observed or trained into his test subjects?
_"is something wrong with morality attributed to religion"_
Crusades, holy wars, inquisitions, forced conversions of indigenous peoples, crashing planes into towers, ect ect all done specifically for religious reasons. By people striving to attain their subjective Gods "moral perfection" and citing the moral imperfection of the victims as justification 🤮🤮🤮
Perhaps the need to explain the origin of morality without religion is to help establish the point that morality pre-dates religion and develops without it. There are some religious people who like to claim we need religion or god to be moral or that their particular faith/ god is the origin of morality.
As to the details of this study and the criteria he used, perhaps there’s a book?
Well he defines his criteria at the start, he explains the pillars of morality.
There’s nothing to be offended or upset about, religion doesn’t have a monopoly on morality.
@@norswil8763 Where’d you get the idea that I was offended or upset? I raised a question that is still unanswered.
Unless de Waal has converted to religion recently, he does not believe in God; therefore, he does not believe morality originated with God. If he is consistent in his atheism, de Waal does not believe that God created the universe and everything in it, took dust from the ground on planet earth, and breathed life into that dust. Furthermore, de Waal must think that God did not make human beings in His image-that of an intelligent, moral being.
So coming back to the criteria that de Waal established for his study: from where does de Waal develop the idea of morality with his particular criteria? Did morality appear along with the universe as it burst from a singularity as some special natural law like those we find in physics? Did morality occur at the moment (not yet defined) when life arose from dead matter through some undetermined process of abiogenesis? Did morality spontaneously appear at the yet undefined moment that our bipedal ancestors became self-aware, conscious beings? Or did morality evolve as humans evolved, and if so, when did it become a universally accepted code of conduct that most “tribes” follow when many thinkers argue that morality is relative to each group?
De Waal could not establish his criteria for morality unless he drew it from a pre-existing system of thought. He did not wake up one morning and invent morality, so he is borrowing from something that exists outside the material; that is, morality, like natural laws, is not composed of matter and energy. If that something outside the material is not God, then I’d like to know what it is and how it came to be a source of morality.
It is not a question of monopoly: believers and unbelievers can behave morally. Believers argue that they ought to behave morally because each will be held accountable for his or her deeds by a superior being-a God who will judge. To whom do unbelievers answer? If people live and then die without a consequence for their behavior during their lives, then why bother behaving morally? Morality (or altruism) as a means for meeting selfish needs through manipulation-help me get food and you can have some-appears to be an inadequate description for morality.
Neither you nor de Waal has answered my question, and my curiosity to know an answer is neutral; it is neither based on feeling offended nor feeling upset.
@@lnuan6959 morality has nothing to do with religion. What’s your argument?
Demonstrate the biblical god first, them make claims of divine morality.
fabulous presentation
In my shallow understanding of Christianity, all of these fairness pursuing behaviors by animals as well as humans would be the perfect description before the our soul is saved. The whole point of Jesus Christ redemption is selfless giving. Which means something is unfair on me, but I would willingly lose to let you gain. This transformation of attitudes toward others is called born again, spiritually wakening. This gives us life purpose of put others in front of ourselves. Without this spiritual awakening, we want things to be fair, when it doesn't, we become aggressive eventually, human are not much different than animals. Having said this, surely Christians a lot of times don't behave better than any non-believers. Yet a true Christian is someone choose to follow Jesus Christ and working towards the direction of being gracious in the face of unfair situation.
YJ Adriana I’ve rarely met christians that were well aware of their beliefs. They seem more content with ‘fitting in with others’.
@@showmethescience2514 the actor of Jesus in Passion said in an interview: we were born to standout, not to fit in.
Is this dude at 13:22 sleeping? lol
odd. i didn't think iy would involve evolution or animals. Pretty good data but simplistic analysis.
Nietzsche would disagree. Read Konrad Lorenz "On Aggression."
both/and not either/or. why is it so difficult for 'intelligent' humans to grasp that. we have nurses who work their arses off, and then we have trump.
In my view this is about "morality" and not about religion.
Christian religion is quite simple: in respect of God, love each other. And start loving the poor and weak, knowing you will not get anything in return.
Mark Vierin LOL. That’s a good one!
I think you'll find that these "positive tendencies" are either current or legacy traits related to survival. This whole idea of animal morality is far off the mark. If we can look at animal behavior and say that it's good, then we must have another standard for "good" so that we can compare the animal behavior to the standard. If we have such a standard, then let's use it and forget about animal behavior.
Morality has to include motive, doing the right thing for the right reason. The whole industry of "con artist" is based upon doing the right thing for the wrong reason, i.e. kind acts that build confidence that is then used sometime in the future for the purposes of theft.
@Gagan Singh Animals don't have positive tendencies. You simply anthropomorphize animal behavior. Morality requires reason; it is doing the right thing for the right reason.
@Gagan Singh In their new study, Richard Stansfield and Thomas Mowen (from Rutgers and Bowling Green universities) tracked outcomes for more than 1,300 released prisoners in Oregon. The researchers wanted to see if the makeup of the community - religious practice, the presence of social service resources, and economic vibrancy - contributes to desistance from criminal behavior.
The researchers found that the strength of a given community’s religious adherence significantly affected recidivism rates. In other words, the greater percentage of people that were a part of a religious congregation in a given community, the less likely a released prisoner in that community was to be reconvicted for a future crime.
@Gagan Singh “We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.”
“If there is a human moral to be drawn, it is that we must teach our children altruism, for we cannot expect it to be part of their biological nature.”
― Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene
You want to connect animal behavior with caring, compassion, love and brotherhood, which is how we normally think of a moral person, but in animals it's just selfish survival.
@Gagan Singh Ever feel rage or panic? They are emotions ingrained into our human nature and they almost always encourage the wrong behavior. Empathy is the same way.
Don't quote Dawkins? He's a recognized authority on the subject.
Our human morality is based upon the idea that all of us have worth that is distinct and separate from our usefulness. Until you can speak to animals about the abstract concept of worth, the abstract concept of morality will be impossible
@Gagan Singh Dawkins has authority because he has done and documented the science he did. In his documentation, he includes science, studies, evidence and data. Come on, do you ignore the advice of your doctor saying it's just his opinion?
It is not that animals do not have the same morals as humans. Animals do not have morality period.