Frans de Waal: Morality Without Religion
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 тра 2013
- Watch the newest video from Big Think: bigth.ink/NewVideo
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive videos: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ABOUT BIG THINK:
Smarter Faster™
Big Think is the leading source of expert-driven, actionable, educational content -- with thousands of videos, featuring experts ranging from Bill Clinton to Bill Nye, we help you get smarter, faster. Subscribe to learn from top minds like these daily. Get actionable lessons from the world’s greatest thinkers & doers. Our experts are either disrupting or leading their respective fields. We aim to help you explore the big ideas and core skills that define knowledge in the 21st century, so you can apply them to the questions and challenges in your own life.
Other Frequent contributors include Michio Kaku & Neil DeGrasse Tyson.
Michio Kaku Playlist: bigth.ink/kaku
Bill Nye Playlist: bigth.ink/BillNye
Neil DeGrasse Tyson Playlist: bigth.ink/deGrasseTyson
Read more at Bigthink.com for a multitude of articles just as informative and satisfying as our videos. New articles posted daily on a range of intellectual topics.
Join Big Think Edge, to gain access to a world-class learning platform focused on building the soft skills essential to 21st century success. It features insight from many of the most celebrated and intelligent individuals in the world today. Topics on the platform are focused on: emotional intelligence, digital fluency, health and wellness, critical thinking, creativity, communication, career development, lifelong learning, management, problem solving & self-motivation.
BIG THINK EDGE: bigth.ink/Edge
If you're interested in licensing this or any other Big Think clip for commercial or private use, contact our licensing partner, Executive Interviews: bigth.ink/licensing
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Follow Big Think here:
📰BigThink.com: bigth.ink
🧔Facebook: bigth.ink/facebook
🐦Twitter: bigth.ink/twitter
📸Instagram: bigth.ink/Instragram
📹UA-cam: bigth.ink/youtube
✉ E-mail: info@bigthink.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I live in Japan. One of the least religious countries in the world. Also one of the most moral and respectful societies in the world.
collosoll Well said!!
collosoll Japanese developed a high sense of morality (to fellow Japanese--since Japan is a racially homogenous country) because for millenniums, they were so tightly packed into a few small islands. If they didn't behave morally toward each other, they would be at each other's throats all the times, killing each other off (which the high-born and all-powerful samurais did just that). So morality had definite survival value for the vast majority of the common folks. The same reason goes for courtesy. Even 150 years ago, a samurai out for a leisurely stroll was fully within his rights to pull out his sword and BEHEAD a lowly peasant for failing to kneel on the side of the road and show proper respect when he passes. This is why the Japanese are all so courteous to each other and bow constantly. Now, the situation may change when they confront non-Japanese or "others". That's when their innate vigilance for showing morality/courtesy relaxes. This explains why such seemingly gentle, moral and courteous people can be so brutal in war and in the treatment of the defenseless POWs and civilians. In short, what I am saying is that the Japanese morality and courtesy has its origin in fear and survival. It is self-serving, not altruistic.
+rmwtsou "Even 150 years ago, a samurai out for a leisurely stroll was fully within his rights to pull out his sword and BEHEAD a lowly peasant for
failing to kneel on the side of the road and show proper respect when he passes. This is why the Japanese are all so courteous to each other and
bow constantly."
No one in their right mind would think that the cause of Japanese courtesy is this one particular thing. Societies are multifaceted and complex. They just don't work that way. Your conclusion is simplistic. I take that you are not a sociologist or historian who specializes in this. That is pretty clear.
+SAAMIAM99 In feudal Japan, there were 4 classes of people, in descending order of importance/prestige: (1) the armed warrior class (shoguns, daimyos, and their samurais), followed by the unarmed (2) peasants, (3) workers and (4) merchants. The latter 3 classes were prohibited from owning weapons of any sort by the ruling warrior class. Contrast this to that of the social structure of ancient China: they were (1) scholars (intelligentsias) (2) peasants (3) workers and (4) merchants -- there wasn't even a "warrior class" to figure in on this. So, as you can see, the vast majority of the people of Japan throughout history were ruled by brute force only. After centuries of brutalization, they learn very quickly, like a beaten dog, that those with brute force are to be RESPECTED. Courtesy and politeness is thus always a virtue when dealing with those that can potentially kill you. That's why they as a people worship POWER and despise meekness. That's also why they love and respect America -- because we BEAT them. The only way to earn their respect is to be more powerful than they are. The moment you become weaker, they will jump on you mercilessly.
rmwtsou
Your argument is flawed. The Japanese were not the only ones with this type of society. One that I might add you continue to oversimplify. Your generalizations and conclusions are simplistic.
There were many other civilizations (most of them actually) that went through the kind of thing you described. it is IMHO a natural progression through which most civilizations must go. Medieval Europe went thorough something similar, where peasant were very poorly treated, and there was a hierarchy to society.
Why have they not all turned out the same way?
"One of the great tragedies of mankind is that morality has been hijacked by religion"
- Arthur C. Clarke
Wow. Such a great quote.
Also, the Netherlands,Belgium, Denmark and Germany to a certain extent. Overall happiness rating is extremely high in Northern-European countries (happiness index) and the higher amount of cases of depression and mental illnesses is strongly connected to the fact that there are doctors who can identify these illnesses in these countries and people have access to them; other countries might have more people with mental illnesses, only they are never actually diagnosed with them.
I'm looking forward to hearing more commentaries from de Waal. He's a great speaker, and his decades of research needs to be shared in social forums like this one.
When I was a little boy, I kept asking God to give me a bicycle. Then I realized that this is not the way God works. So I stole a bike and then asked God to forgive me. Religious morality in action :-D
@@ALIIMRAN558 god made everything right?, and all is his. So guess he did.
sure? Are you asking? or are you demanding?
@@antonioa3078 no but you have now wronged a human in this world...therefore you must asked forgivness from him
@@JordanPeterson. Forgive me, great *omipresent commenter* ♤♡◇
That's not genuine though.
Apart from providing symbolic answers to the unknown elements of life+death, religions (including the ones that Frans has apparently deemed irrelevant) serve to justify warfare, geographic expansion, social hierarchies and a host of other things that are incongruous with the notions of (a) perfect being(s).
As if those things don't exist without religion.
Wow! that's what I'd call a 'monster' of a perspective :) Thanks for sharing that thought!
Are you familiar with the writer Tom Holland and his book, 'Dominion (The making of the western mind)'?
His work is an incredibly strong challenge to Mr de Waal's perspective.
very candid and genuine. I agree with this premiss myself. Only those without empathy need a structure to have a guide to moral behaviour...
The problem is in it’s defining. He said human morality and attacks the argument from saying that our current religions are only 2000-3000 years old, but that only Islam, Christianity and Judaism as in its current interpretation. People believed in God way before Mozes as in these three faiths you had Abraham before Mozes. And not even considering the ‘Abrahamic’ faiths you had other people believing in God(maybe other interpretations or views of God) like the Hindus who are from 15th-5th centhury BCE or the Zoroastrianists(10th-5th century BCE) or even older the San civilization which is arguably the oldest civilization according to most archaeologists(however, some archaeological evidence supports the view that the San should be attributed to the Early Later Stone Age), and they believed in God. So the logical conclusion then is that human morality comes from religion/God.
If you want to argue that animals also have ‘morality’ and animals predate humans and so morality doesn’t come from religion, fine. But at least admit that human morality comes from religion and I don’t understand why the professor in the video would make such a bold statement while scientifically be so wrong. You definitely need religion to be moral. All our current morals systems are derived, influenced or in some sense intrinsically found in ‘religion’. Philosophy is the little misguided child of theology.
That depends on how you define (moral values).
Thanks. Was useful for my assignment
What a great speech. Religion has more side effects than it teaches us morality, because religion is a little bit of morality mingled with a set of illogical practices.
Have you seen Jordan Peterson's lectures on the utility of faith?
Wow, that's a very clever thing to say
@@DavidKnowles Can you share the link?
The big question that religion asks is: What does your morality come from? Who or what is the ultimate judge of what is right and wrong?
@@Supvia This is a very typical argument given by the believers. Morality can't come from a non existing entity. There is no evidence for any gods. The very source of morality is animals. They take care of their family and also of other species.
Now tell me where the human cruelty comes from.
I understand another factor in the high rate of depressions in these countries is that kids generally grow up within a bubble (making them the happiest kids in the world) and don't quite get to experience hardship until they have to fend for themselves, outside of their parents' nests. Sorry for wrongly referring to the happiness index: I meant, in particular, the 'experienced well-being' (which pertains to happiness). The HPI also takes into account ecological footprint and life expectancy.
"that's a big nono" XD
He points out that most of the world's religions are 2,000 to 3,000 years old, and thus he concludes that morality existed beforehand and the religion was, in his words, "tacked on" to them... what he neglects is that there were many religions then, as well... religions that are now largely dead.
But if you're talking about monotheistic religions then he's right, though... Maybe 4000 years...
But why are they dead then ? because its archaic system of values are not compatible with current norms of society. Religion is just ONE of the mechanisms of different cultures for experimenting on various types of social conduct. You can argue for religion as a form of codified system of right and wrong, but to conclude that it is a foundation of morality is utterly wrong.
True religion have always existed, people corrupted it and made up their own religions.
Iain Meldrum but the three monotheistic religions already say that there were other people and religions.
Current reliogions? What about the older ones? I am not a believer in any god but I find this question very interesting. How do we find common grounds in ethics when all the gods are dead? Is it even something we should strive for? What is Fjodor doing today? How do we find common grounds to base morals upon if there is no god? Are morals needed?
From the book ... The Final Inequality, by L. J. Ludovici. "Morals at any given moment have always been as good, or as bad, as our imaginations credit them, for the morals (from the Latin, mores: customs) means simply customs, and they keep changing all the time in all the corners of the world."
It bothers me when my parents think I'm going to live a lonely and sad life because I'm an atheist.... I wish they could understand that my life will be even more joyous knowing that these 80-90 years on this planet are all I got so I'm gonna make the most of these years.
Hey, it's been eight years, can you share with us if you or your parent were right?
My experience is the exact opposite. I wasn't raised with any faith or religious teaching. My life was an empty, self-destructive mess.
However, when Christ came into my life, everything changed. I genuinely cared for the first time, and it was liberating.
30 years later, I have learned that the purpose of life is to love and be loved. Everything other aspect of existence is in service of this truth. When I live with this as my focus, life is exhilarating and fulfilling. When I get distracted, life becomes futile and burdensome.
To love is to make the most of life.
Most people on their death beds are not concerned with FOMO. They regret all the wasted time they spent not loving those around them.
All the best Soccafan5
@Milk man The gamer Magic sky daddy 🤣🤣🤣
@Milk man The gamer but they do atheists take the lead in suicide rates
@Milk man The gamer that’s a fact according to the statistics atheists countries take the lead in suicide although they are developed and rich countries like Sweden and the other Scandinavian countries and Japan as well also there is a study that shown people from non religion are the highest when it comes to suicide
In order to live in morality without religion is to teach the basics of psychology and the theory of nature & nurture to everyone. We are our own believe system if we can influence making the right decisions on one another and keep the motivation to evolve our world for the greater good. Than yes we are absolutely capable of morality without religion.
Where do the right decisions come from? Who established what is right and wrong?
So since “we are our own belief system” was hitler right in killing Jews? He was doing what he thought was right. If we are going to use humans as the standard, why is using hitler as a standard inherently worse than using Mother Teresa as a standard? Maybe because there are certain things that are right and certain things that are wrong that extend BEYOND humans and human nature. This, my friend is God. You can’t have a moral law (right and wrong) without a moral law giver. This points to God. I pray for all of you searching for answers that your view won’t be swayed by this one dimensional thinking. “If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. For it is with your heart that you believe and are justified, and it is with your mouth that you profess your faith and are saved.”
Romans 10:9-10.
I think y'all forgot that human empathy exists, with or without god.
Humans feel a need to help others, it's in our nature.
@Omair Shakir it goes hand and hand. We have a need to be right and to feel secure, and dislike challenges to our belief and moral systems. It feels like an attack on character.
@Omair Shakir I has never saying all humans have the same values. I was saying that humans all have empathy, usually that empathy aligns with their moral system.
This has to be the most intellectual discussion on youtube. Kudos.
I think this topic is very interesting and I'm a part of this "experiment". Hope it turns out well! ;)
I totally agree with this. I'm more interested in hard truths than in comforting fantasies. I was rise as christian then I opened my eyes to the world. Is hard to confront life knowing that there is no god out there to protect you and make justice for you. Also the terrifying reality of one death's is the end of the consciousness and nothing of what we do really matters in the end. I came to think that religious people definitely have a more happy life than us. Yet I cant afford to lie to myself.
Mr de Waal seems like a nice, honest guy, but his example is flawed. Current western society is built on a 2000 years old Judeo-Christian foundation, therefore our values are without doubt unquestionably influenced by the traditions and norms of our past.
Religion is man's attempt to appease the gods and doesn't address the root problem mankind has; our destructive tendencies.
I was not raised with any religion, so I lived for myself. However, that life was empty, and I was making a mess of it.
One day, in my despair, I called out these words "God if you are there, I need you".
From that moment on, my heart was changed. For the first time, I truly wanted to connect to others and help. Life wasn't all about me any more. I cared and It was awesome. It wasn't a burden, it was liberating. I wanted to read the bible. I later learned that this is what the Jesus called being born again. I was given the free gift of a new heart.
Once I had learned this I 'officially', turned away from my old life and decided to follow Christ. (This is the micro version of my story).
I don't know what you were taught, and I'm sincerely sorry for your experience, but I can't deny what happened to me, Christ set me free.
For that, I am eternally grateful.
Rolando, I wish you all the best.
@@DavidKnowles Thanks man! I can't say that religion would work for me. There is always men behind it. In the end what matters is whatever float your boat. So good for you. If you are happy, that's what counts.
@@rolandorodriguez9625 There IS a Divine force (look at nature! You think that that happened all by itself?)... it just has NOTHING to do with religion. Religion is Man's way of trying to control others. But don't confuse one with the other. Ask the Universe, your Angels (we ALL have them. 'Angel' is just a name for an entity that doesn't have a physical body. You don't have to call them 'Angels' or 'guides' ... you can call them anything you like!) to SHOW YOU in some way that they are present in your life. Ask for a sign that you will recognize. Ask for some sort of clear manifestation that they are at work in your life. You just ask, aloud, for this. I know it sounds really simple... just try it! It can be totally mundane; I ask my angels for parking spaces (especially when it's impossible). I ask them for help every day, all day long. (And I THANK THEM!!! Very important).
EVERYTHING you do matters. And, inside, you KNOW this! But really, the only thing that matters is how we treat people (and ourselves). We should remember that Love is the greatest force in the Universe and it can transmute the worst situations. To view the world through the lens of compassion ... this is what I am trying to teach myself (I am very judgemental, so it's difficult!).
Our bodies die, but our Consciousness is eternal. That should be a great relief (and it's true!).
Have a wonderful life!
@@andreaandrea6716 I happy that you see it that way. I just don't believe your view. I envy your conviction that there is more after. I simply need proof of such things. Not signs not subliminal messages. I need direct proof but never seen it. BTW If I had angels watching over me Il be pissed at them and probably end up wanting killing them for invading my privacy and pulling strings in my life. Why would need angels for if we are eternal?
@@rolandorodriguez9625 i have evidence
Also Frans de Waal needs to answer a basic question: Why do we have morals in the first place?
just for survival instinct!?
Because it is a enormous evolutionary advantage.
Kyssifrot WTF?
One of the more beneficial moral systems humans have like no other animal is reciprocity. Reciprocity among individuals helps the whole group, which for example help us survive trough tough situations better, which is the enormous evolutionary advantage.
Coen Deurloo You placed this comment in the video of the guy who literally started all the animal morality studies which include reciprocity...
Brian Ng - My reaction was a response to Wasiq who seemed to have trouble understanding the comment of Kyssifrot, not a general comment on the video. Maybe I should have made that more clear, but I thought it spoke for itself as I replied to this comment thread instead of making a new comment.
Such an amazing scientist. His book Our Inner Ape was brilliant, I am looking forward to read his other books. Thank you Mr. Frans
I plan on reading his books, which do you recommend reading first? Which is your favorite?
@@GraysonGates-bh9pt I suggest you to start with Our Inner Ape then read The Bonobo and The Ateist they are both great books.
Cool how he talked on the concept of god being implemented into those big societies where we might struggle to keep watch on each other in order to scare the people into obedience to law.
The conclusion that "religion could not have induced our morality, because current religions are only 2-3 thousand years old, and morality existed before that" is logically unsound for two reasons. First, the conclusion states "current" religions, but religions existed long before the "current" religions. Older religions may have influenced morality. Second, there is an implicit assumption that morality had the same principles in the last 2 thousand years as it did 20 thousand years ago. There is a lot of evidence that this is not the case - morality evolved across cultures, over time, and across geographical areas. Current religion may have helped in shaping the current morality, just as older religions may have shaped older forms of morality.
Frankly, sounds like a chicken-and-the-egg discussion.
Religion may have played a role in our morality ( often not for the better ) but one could never claim any specific "God" is the source of it.
YES
Im here studying for my essay on morality and all I see is FaZe Banks in the comments wow.
heh
Wow, what is FaZe Banks doing here..?
Wack
I've always wondered if it were possible that the ancestors we had could have formed their own "spiritual belief" which then lead to the presentation of morality in society. His argument was that the current religions we have now are very young in comparison to the age of the human race; however could it be possible that other beliefs which no longer exist set the tone for moral behaviour in our ancestors. It's an interesting topic of discussion.
I have a question. Do atheist simply believe there isn't a god (or gods), or do they believe a god (or gods) is impossible (and yes there is a difference between the two)? Or does that vary amongst atheist?
Atheism includes a broad range of concepts without formal consensus.
Technology is my religion ;)
How dumb. Let me guess, gravity is your savior?!?
consoomer moment
''Truth is not a democracy.''
Some parts of morality are obviously subjective, but I think we can universally accept that when you hurt another human, that's not good.
What's the experiment thats being done in the Netherlands that he refers to?
To those who know the truth: CHEEEEEESE
To all those who know the lie: ICCCEEEE
Religion is a somewhat recent invention. Back in the day, you wouldn't say you were an animist or a monkey-god-ist, or a spirit-ist. They had tons of irrational and inaccurate beliefs about reality in general, not just on religion. As we attempted to understand the world around us, we had to put a divider between what's real and what is bullshit. The real stuff turned out to be scientific things. And the bullshit was either rejected upon closer examination or called religion if they wanted to have faith in it against all evidence.
Faith in an instinct that needs to be scorned wherever is rears its ugly head, not given special treatment or laughed off as just some fundamentalist representing no general trend. Faith is rampant across the globe--as he said.
we must put faith on ourselves, understand everything is from within...
Great Think!
There it is! Thanks.
I don't like the use of the word 'probably' - we know morality exists without religion, look at switzerland, Denmark. And we also know that morality did exist before religion (Confucianism) - the golden rule! "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" - one of the most important phrases representing morality.
Because nothing is 100% confirmable.
Well put together
Wonderful points.
The reason why all societies have religions is because religion and atheism fight an uneven fight. Religion has the weapon of indoctrination and atheism doesn't.
when one group of people has been taught that their world view is superior and should be spread around the population and the other group doesn't, it isn't hard to predict what the consequence will be.
It is actually quite amazing that atheist don't seem to understand the very science (biological evolution) that so much of their views are based on. If atheism rendered a society capable of competing with religious societies, than we would have had entirely atheistic societies long ago. There is clearly a valid scientific assertion to be put forth (hypothesis) that human civilization is mutually interdependent on religion.
Stan1026A Why would you post a reaction to my comment if you didn't even read it?
The Grey Area Cite a single religious belief I have promoted. I'm actually not all that religious. However, I am capable of observing reality as it is. The fact is that civilization is inseparable from religion. Where you find one, you always find the other.
JonnyNice No, I read it and the fact is that a religious world view is superior in every evolutionary sense to an atheistic one. Atheism lost because it is simply incapable of sustaining a stable civil society.
read my comment again
Without God there is no objective moral standard. Otherwise it's just your opinion that something is unjust or evil. BUT, we do know some things are unjust and evil and it's not our opinion. Therfore by what standard do you call something evil. You see, without God you can't justify evil. You can know it, but you can't justify it. God exists because good exists. Good exists because evil exists. There can be no evil without good and there can be no good without God. Period.
Another Frank Turek tactic nice.
by the way is it just me or is the video not loading
I believe that early humans had morality that included respect for other animals. Then along came animal domestication and devaluation (propped up by organized religion): Frans de Waal, a primatologist and professor of psychology at Emory University, in a New York Times article writes, “When our ancestors moved from hunting to farming, they lost respect for animals and began to look at themselves as the rulers of nature. In order to justify how they treated other species, they had to play down their intelligence and deny them a soul.”
A
1. Morality is either innate(theism) or learned(atheism).
2. atheism says it is learned
3. Therefore every culture and society is moral
4. Every culture is not moral, therefore morality is not learned
5. If morality is not learned then it is innate
6. If morality is innate then atheism is false
7. if atheism is false then theism is true
B
for the atheist that believes we are innately moral, (Atheism is now a belief system)
1. The notion of good comes from empathy
2. Empathy, is a product of the realization of wrong
3. You cannot have wrong without right
4. The notion of right cannot be accounted for without God (Usually atheists will revert to morality is learned here see A, 1)
5. Therefore the notion of good proves there is a god.
It is proof of God because god is all that is good. It ties every human being to god whether you like it or not. Science cannot account for innate morality in the human which is my point even though atheists try to claim it does to no avail.
A) how come there is only the 2 options for one thing? Also how can you discern that all cultures are not moral? Morality is different in every culture which is even more proof that it is learnt. ie the treatment of women, laws, social sets of morals and etiquette are different across the entire world, how can you say that they would be all the same. If it was innate then everybody would have the same morals and there would be no question about it because we were born like that, it would be printed onto yourself like the need to breathe, the need to eat and to be loved but it isn't. Morality has evolved over time proof over time. If you looked at ancient bronze age to modern age, morals are very different. So then who is right here?
If your hypothesis is true, then it would be implied that the bronze age of morals, ie the ancient set of morals because they follow the set of morals with would have been 'truer to gods, because people didn't learn and asses, where as now people are changing them because they are rethinking. So you have to wonder that if it isn't learnt and it is innate, that implies that we are going against what was implanted within us as morals. That type of thinking astonishes me.
b) How do you asses what is right? it's like saying that you cannot have light without darkness They do not HAVE to coexist. Your statement is very black and white which is also troubling. How can anyone of us asses what is right if we are not moral? If we cannot determine what is right then how would anybody know if we saw it, even if we read it in the bible, how would we know that is right and everything else is wrong?
I believe that it is definetly more learnt then it is innate. Bullies for example are a product of mistreat and hardship which has skewed their morals to be one of weakness (picking on others because they get picked on). rich people are also quite immoral in some cases ie doing things which would hurt others because they weren't received punishments for their actions and continue to do bad things because their parents money makes the problem go away. as a kid, if you hit another child, if you took something or did something wrong, you would get punished which would grow your set of do's and don'ts or in other words morals which generally results in
Morally good = selfless actions
Morally bad = selfish actions.
which pretty much sums up the concept of morals in the simplest form.
The last point i would like to make is the idea that your statement, which 'disproves' atheism, therefore proves there is a god. What rationalism is that? How does that single handedly prove there is a god? again, one does not equal the other and i know you're hoping there is a god and i'm not sure if there is, but the fact that we have morals does not prove anything of the existence of a god.
I feel you have copy and pasted these posts from somewhere and you feel so smug about it that you wish to give it to everybody who would listen to it but it's wrong.
Sorry for this essay but I saw just how many other videos you've put this garbage on and I had to say something you ignorant fool. Doubt you could read all of this because your brain is stuck in the 1st century A.D. where you left your morals.
P.S. Atheism isn't a belief system you poor ignorant individual
***** word of advice dont insult people, if you want to be taken seriously.
There is either immoral or moral, There is either right or wrong, innocent or guilty. And its funny you mention light and darkness. Because it is scientific fact that darkness is the absence of light. As is evil is absence of good. So without good, there is no evil. Hence our notion of right and wrong is given to us by god.
But your B answers your A and supports my point that we are innately moral. Its kinda funny.
But you are right when you say "how can we know what is good." As an atheist you can't.
Therefore the fact that you know murder is wrong, proves there is a god.
Different societies can be immoral, that's not the issue. Mankind still knows murder is wrong. Regardless of your society. So if your a mongol from the Philippines who kills people on a daily basis just because that's what your taught. It might be accepted in your society and culture. But it doesn't mean it is right.
"Morally good = selfless actions
Morally bad = selfish actions."
These statements contradict your earlier point about morality being different in every society. Which is illustrating my point that there is an innate morality. However,
What on earth makes you morally obligated to be selfless?
What on earth makes you morally wrong for being selfish?
Do you have a duty to be moral as an atheist?
Do you have an obligation to be moral as an atheist?
You should be answering No. If you answer yes then , where does this obligation/duty come from? You will say moral behavior, so you can revert back to my chart for clarification on why you are wrong.
That is some idiotic logic... Section A, part 3 and 4 have a horrendous jump in logic. Each society defines what it feels is "morality" and creates laws to justify that. Certain humans chose to not follow those laws and what many consider common morality (murder, rape etc) and therefor there are punishments based on that. If you want to claim morality is "innate" yet you say we failed to innately learn it because we are not moral makes no sense whatsoever.
Want an example of morality exists without the Jewish god? Are any of you parents? If your child was premeditating murder, do you or your society feel it is moral to stop your child from committing that murder? Christianity based religion believes that God is the Father, is all powerful, all knowing and we are all his children. He is aware at all times of all the premeditated murder that will be committed yet does not stop it. Humans are morally superior to the "great god in the sky" on that basis alone.
Whores of Tijuana God allows evil because he allows free will. If there was no evil there would be no consciousness of wrong and right and therefore no free will. So yes there is evil in the world, but it is not because of god, it is because of man.
viva larevolucion so logic is bigger than god, god cannot contradict logic?, cant it be both, like theres an innate ability to feel empathy but theres a ratinal process after that that determines beyond the empathy if its benefical for all the individuals in a grand time scale or not, arent there different laws in different societies? Also your pointing out a false dichotomy, you contradict science and then you use it to prove your points, youre cherry picking, please doubt of your thoughts as i am going to do with mine
Which consensus?
Do you see the flaw in your objection?
If my empathy, compassion and love are all part of an evolutionary process, why does my moral assertion apply to anyone else. Who am I to impose my views on you another human?
Very good video. Thanks.
Great video.
i like that somebody with real knowledge is kicking unfunded arguments out of the way :D
Interesting video. I think social trends can lead to changes in mora
this is one of the best on BT. i liked very much that U said society rather than individual, that needs 2 b understood. what could be taken as an advantage 2 society, can also be taking advantage of society by the elite(self appointed of course) religion does promote stagnation, and caring 4 each other is herd mentality female not male, yet religion is male domination. i hope you will do a follow up as a closer look at what were heading into
slayerwulfe cave
As they say, "do unto others what you want others to do unto you", and therefore, we should watch out for intolerant religions....
Wait wait, he says "religion is 3k years" does he mean our religions today or religion in general? Didn't our ancestors have one god or the other?
We havent done this since we started to record stuff but we have been doing this long before that, and it seemed to have goon pretty well since our society has made it here.
Interesting fact:in the countries where religion is largely absent (de Waal speaks of Northern-European countries) crime rates are extremely low, living standards extremely high and people extremely happy.
@Carlo Derwig (sorry I'm using mobile and can't respond correctly) If you read the Bible there are indications within that the doctrine itself dates back about 6000-7000 years maybe more.
Without science it is hard to do ethics.
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.
His message is pretty clear when you look at context both historical and literary. which might also be reason for their was a fear of the scriptures falling in the hands of laymen when the scriptures were being printed. Yes heretics would arise but also those who where not and so the leaders could be judged with the heretics not because there is no consistency but because there is, this is why you and I can carry a conversation and understand one another.
Immorality comes from what humans think is or isn't moral, Frans was saying that we used a moral system before religion, including what is immoral.
Nazi Germany was predominantly Protestant Christian, the Soviet Union was predominantly Catholic and orthodox Christian, Cubans are mostly Catholics. No matter what the politics of the country were/are, the fact is that the majority of the people in those places were religious in one form or another. What is unique about Scandinavian countries is that people have the freedom to choose, and they choose atheism and agnosticism. They are also some of the more peaceful places on earth.
I realize this is a late response but what I meant was what does it matter if I am "good" or "bad" if there is no consequence to actions. You might be put in jail or people might think poorly of you but that doesn't mean anything. The universe will end regardless of weather I steal something so for what reason would I behave morally? what does it matter if I want to keep surviving? Do my wants make a difference? does real morality exist or is it just a manifestation of evolutionary behavior?
If this a legitimate question, it's because of gravity. It pulls in all directions equally, thus creating a sphere (it's not technically a sphere since it's squashed at the poles.)
Morality originates from the sensations of pain and anguish. From there it transforms into empathy which becomes the foundation for complex moral codes.
Well I think we can certainly all *behave* morally without religion. But to admit that we believe morality itself is *objectively* real is to at very least abandon evidentialism, which is something anti-theists use quite frequently in their opposition of theism. And that's despite evidentialism itself being invalid and self-refuting.
Well said!
Where is this place? I wanna live there.
"No absolute evil or absolute good," is a dangerous statement.
Why is it that in our modern times we believe rape is wrong. Has it always been wrong, or did we only recognize it now?
I would say even in ancient times, people knew their actions were wrong but did them anyway.
That was brilliant. And true.
Good question.
Well thank you.^^
He makes a good point about the origins of morality vs religion.
Morality is typically a large network of social rules, such as 'killing is wrong'.
So even if you hate a person, someone might pull the morality card and and say you shouldn't kill that person because it is morally wrong; whereas an animal would kill it straight away without thinking about the moral implications.
It is true that morality stems from our natural feelings, but they are different in the regards that we created them, while we did not create our primal feelings.
The foundation of morality is empathy. Empathy is found in highly developed conscious beings and is even more finetuned in a society of such. Religion is just one strategie among many, to overcome a number of psychological problems that arise with a highly developed consciousness.
Anyone can be a good person, regardless of religious beliefs, if they do what they feel is right and try to help others when they can. Enough people have used religion as a reason or excuse to do horrible things to prove that simply following a religion does not make you a good person, ultimately who you are, how you were raised (which religion is only a part of) and who you decide to be play far more into morality.
The problem with this argument is that human history tells us that we cannot agree to hurt another human is wrong. Perhaps we need a foundation for moral values after all?
As an atheist I can't get away with doing evil because my ethics/conscience/ society in general judge my behavior in THIS life. I don't have confession as an excuse for doing wrong or the long wait for the afterlife as an excuse for everything. I don't have the excuse for doing wrong because others are infidels and as such don't count. All people count for me.
seeing his whole discussion it reinforces what the bible says. Says we are all sinners yes but that does not mean "good" cant be done. It speaks of the non believers doing good showing moral law is written in their hearts.
You don't actually need religion to be moral. Because that's what philosophy does prove, how and what is good and moral. I love videos that are educated like these. Helps with my anxiety disorder. Thanks so much.
It is. The problem is in it’s defining. He said human morality and attacks the argument from saying that our current religions are only 2000-3000 years old, but that only Islam, Christianity and Judaism as in its current interpretation. People believed in God way before Mozes as in these three faiths you had Abraham before Mozes. And not even considering the ‘Abrahamic’ faiths you had other people believing in God(maybe other interpretations or views of God) like the Hindus who are from 15th-5th centhury BCE or the Zoroastrianists(10th-5th century BCE) or even older the San civilization which is arguably the oldest civilization according to most archaeologists(however, some archaeological evidence supports the view that the San should be attributed to the Early Later Stone Age), and they believed in God. So the logical conclusion then is that human morality comes from religion/God.
If you want to argue that animals also have ‘morality’ and animals predate humans and so morality doesn’t come from religion, fine. But at least admit that human morality comes from religion and I don’t understand why the professor in the video would make such a bold statement while scientifically be so wrong. You definitely need religion to be moral. All our current morals systems are derived, influenced or in some sense intrinsically found in ‘religion’. Philosophy is the little misguided child of theology.
Historically, religion was more about politics and social cohesion than morality. Basically, it's about 1) why the king is the best and you should heel and 2) how to identify people who are in our religion and others who are not in our religion.
The first people believed in something. This is known because archeologists found old flower petal fossils near dead bodies, spread around them. They found a couple of these in the same 100km squared (they also found necklaces and other artifacts) . So they did have a 'religion' but it doesnt fall into any categories of religion we have today.
I dont know who is this man but he has a power to deside over my faith or path.
That's a definition of my father, a moral person without religion.
That shouldn't be phrased as a static question. Throughout history, religion made total sense on every level - philosophically, culturally, technologically, politically. Now, that really depends of where you're talking about. The future, I have hopes it'll flourish. Humans command their own destiny.
A Dutch person on BigThink, cool!
Morality is our inherent religion. We are our own "gods". Let's not lose sight of the very reason we haven't torn ourselves apart as a race.
We could put it like this, both Austria and Germany were part of the Holy Roman Empire, that was dissolved like a century before, and both countries do speak German.
sounds like an interesting book, i wish northern europe wasn t so cold...
Why are the planets sphere shaped and not cube shaped?
Wow. My thoughts the other day, morality is my god.
I believe that some people really do need religion to be moral. They feel lost and without a purpose and religion is all they have to turn to.
he starts with 'current religions are only 2 or 3 thousand years old claiming there was God who gave us morality' and ended it with 'I don't know if humanity has ever done a morality experiment without religion'. As Ravi Zacharias explains, 'if there is right and wrong, there must be a moral law If there is a moral law, there must be a moral law giver. If there is no moral law giver there is no moral law. If there is no moral law there is no right or wrong, no good and no evil. Go listen to Ravi Zacharias explain this and other difficult questions. and keep asking them. Godspeed on your journey.
This quote of mine does not say God is not required for omv, it only says human perspective has no bearing on omv.
1:27 he says he is struggling with it. He says he doesn't really know whether we need religion or not. The way he says this, is telling me, that he thinks that morality comes forth out of religion, and that religion is nothing more. He also asks the question: Is this really needed (1:57). And back to 2:35 he says that he doesn't think religion is really needed. And those are the points that 'disgust' me.
Both of you are correct in the fact that with or without religion bad things will happen. The question is knowing that bad things will happen anyway why is religion needed. We have laws and an evolving moral system to keep us from regressing to old broken systems. So what is the point of using religion to create another moral system especially when it is hard to change?
I was also wondering about his implication that religion built upon an innate morality; this would suggest that morality is objective and we all had the caring nature within us before we realised it was nice to be nice to people. Is there a difference between this and a small group of animals coming together in a pack for safety and working together for order? Is that considered moral if it's for the benefit of the individual in the long term? Do other species have morality too? Just curious :)
as well as the fact that we can post scientific findings online, allowing many more people to free their minds to what they thought they knew.
Simple particles combine to form atoms. Atoms combine to form molecules, molecules combine to form more powerful chemicals, chemicals combine to form creatures. Things become more complex and powerful given time, because the laws of entropy predict increasing order as time increases. And as humans have changed with technology through the years, becoming more powerful, I would wager that divinity is our future, not our origin.
This is why I love northern Europe!
I say I'm perfect, if it's not true it means I'm not perfect which is impossible because a perfect being can only be right therefor I'm perfect.
Interesting ;) I think we need religion not only to get morality, we need it to go to heaven, worship God, organize as a society and more