Of course Empathy is not unconditionally good. Empathy with vegetative life could be destructive and unhelpful. Especially when such energy can be invested in more productive areas.

Uyi's persistent claims about the nature of consciousness, its causes and description are inadequate. It is not enough that empathy and consciousness share the same attribute of 'immateriality', it must be clear that one leads to the other.

bump

Kay17:
Of course Empathy is not unconditionally good. Empathy with vegetative life could be destructive and unhelpful. Especially when such energy can be invested in more productive areas.

Uyi's persistent claims about the nature of consciousness, its causes and description are inadequate. It is not enough that empathy and consciousness share the same attribute of 'immateriality', it must be clear that one leads to the other.

Of course, and consciousness leads to empathy.

That said, atheists can make moral choices as with any other human being. You really don't need to be religious to have morality. Morality stems from the conscious intellect humans possess.

UyiIredia:


Of course, and consciousness leads to empathy.

That said, atheists can make moral choices as with any other human being. You really don't need to be religious to have morality. Morality stems from the conscious intellect humans possess.

I take empathy as a feeling of another human's (object) inner feeling. What about a case where the other human (object) is incapable of emotions due to a mental deficiency can empathy be experienced with empty object?

Morality is inherent in us. Religion plays little or no role in maximising its expression. What Religion tries to acheive by creating fear as tool for control, can be taken care of by the state. The state creates laws and institutes punishments for breaking them. The fear of punishment and the voice of people's innate conscience keep them at their best behaviour. For those with dead conscience(very unlikely), fear of punishment, scandal and shame can effectively keep them in check. Only the stupid and those with weak conscience suffer the consequences.
I can rightly say that at the root of every act of immorality is 'stupidity and weak conscience'. However we should keep in mind that morality ,being subjective, is always associated with tradition and established laws, and consequently can mean different things to different people.

knowyaself2:
Morality is inherent in us. Religion plays little or no role in maximising its expression. What Religion seeks to acheive by creating fear as tool for control, can be taken care of by the state. The state creates laws and institutes punishments for breaking them. The fear of punishment and the voice of people's innate conscience keep them at their best behaviour. For those with dead conscience(very unlikely), fear of punishment, scandal and shame can effectively keep them in check. Only the stupid and those with weak conscience suffer the consequences.
I can rightly say that at the root of every act of immorality is 'stupidity and weak conscience'. However we should keep in mind that morality ,being subjective, is always associated with tradition and established laws, and consequently can mean different things to different people.

Morality cannot be inherent in us.
What you mean that people genetically disposed to certain traits or characters, if when nourished in an environment that appreciates such traits, then it may seen as inherently moral.

A simple proof that humans are not inherently moral is Lagos driving and traffic, for good example.
For the purpose of this discussion, I going to say that there are NO set traffic safety culture in Lagos.
There are laws , but those laws are only valid when the enforcing agents are on spot.

Even though road safety is everyone's responsibility, Lagos drivers have NO inherent road safety traits in their DNA.
And unfortunately, they are yet to evolve and nurture a stable road safety culture.
Therefore, the average Lagos driver, unless one who has lived in and imbibed road safety culture from other climes, sees road safety rules as a nuisance. He only obeys these rules when there is an imminent chance of punishment.

I just wanted to use this example to illustrate that in the whole strata of human affairs and human history, societies first have to evolve a culture of what is acceptable and what is not.
It is not written in the DNA.

plaetton:


Morality cannot be inherent in us.
What you mean that people genetically disposed to certain traits or characters, if when nourished in an environment that appreciates such traits, then it may seen as inherently moral.

A simple proof that humans are not inherently moral is Lagos driving and traffic, for good example.
For the purpose of this discussion, I going to say that there are NO set traffic safety culture in Lagos.
There are laws , but those laws are only valid when the enforcing agents are on spot.

Even though road safety is everyone's responsibility, Lagos drivers have NO inherent road safety traits in their DNA.
And unfortunately, they are yet to evolve and nurture a stable road safety culture.
Therefore, the average Lagos driver, unless one who has lived in and imbibed road safety culture from other climes, sees road safety rules as a nuisance. He only obeys these rules when there is an imminent chance of punishment.

I just wanted to use this example to illustrate that in the whole strata of human affairs and human history, societies first have to evolve a culture of what is acceptable and what is not.
It is not written in the DNA.

What about instincts? Self preservation, maternal instincts, etc. Would these not be the foundations of morality outside of religion or law?

LordReed:


What about instincts? Self preservation, maternal instincts, etc. Would these not be the foundations of morality outside of religion or law?

Instincts, of course, are primordial genetic traits.
There is no right or wrong in instinctive impulses.
In fact, instinctive impulses are the opposite of morality.

Morality evolves to checkmate instinctive impulses .

plaetton:


Morality cannot be inherent in us.
What you mean that people genetically disposed to certain traits or characters, if when nourished in an environment that appreciates such traits, then it may seen as inherently moral.

A simple proof that humans are not inherently moral is Lagos driving and traffic, for good example.
For the purpose of this discussion, I going to say that there are NO set traffic safety culture in Lagos.
There are laws , but those laws are only valid when the enforcing agents are on spot.

Even though road safety is everyone's responsibility, Lagos drivers have NO inherent road safety traits in their DNA.
And unfortunately, they are yet to evolve and nurture a stable road safety culture.
Therefore, the average Lagos driver, unless one who has lived in and imbibed road safety culture from other climes, sees road safety rules as a nuisance. He only obeys these rules when there is an imminent chance of punishment.

I just wanted to use this example to illustrate that in the whole strata of human affairs and human history, societies first have to evolve a culture of what is acceptable and what is not.
It is not written in the DNA.

Disregarding traffic laws is sadly our tradition in some parts of lagos, reflecting the level of law enforcement and civilization. We see this, even ,as being smart....tradition and zero law enforcement at work. However, if there's a risk of losing one's life by breaking a traffic law, we would hardly go against this law...action is by instinct

Refraining from telling lies comes naturally to people with good conscience. On the other hand, it's very easy for others to lie. So is sleeping with another man's wife, etc. Religion doesn't imbibe these tendencies, they come naturally. You don't need the fear of God to know that stealing is bad and can get you into lots of trouble and get you embarrassed.

plaetton:

Instincts, of course, are primordial genetic traits.
There is no right or wrong in instinctive impulses.
In fact, instinctive impulses are the opposite of morality.

Morality evolves to checkmate instinctive impulses .

I don't (somewhat) agree. I'd say morality refines those impulses into what we call civilization. Someone does you wrong? No don't take revenge let society get revenge justice for you.

LordReed:


I don't (somewhat) agree. I'd say morality refines those impulses into what we call civilization. Someone does you wrong? No don't take revenge let society get revenge justice for you.

I agree completely.
Morality refines instincts.

But morality evolves, instincts are innate.

plaetton:

Instincts, of course, are primordial genetic traits.
There is no right or wrong in instinctive impulses.
In fact, instinctive impulses are the opposite of morality.

Morality evolves to checkmate instinctive impulses .

I dont think instinctive impulses are always negative. So, I beg to differ - they cannot be the opposite of morality. What I believe is that instinctive impulses draw from our heart and soul, which houses our conscience, inclination to preserve ourselves, etc.

plaetton:


I agree completely.
Morality refines instincts.

But morality evolves, instincts are innate.

If Morality evolves then we are doomed to conform to any authority that defines good or bad in the ages.
Morality is an objective standpoint that is God himself.

Joshthefirst:
If Morality evolves then we are doomed to conform to any authority that defines good or bad in the ages.

Such has been the history human race.
Duuuhhhh!!

Empathy exists amongst almost all animal species, not just humans. Dogs have died protecting humans. A fowl will attack you if you go near it's chicks. A dog has been documented to stand guard over a baby that was thrown on a refuse heap and fought off pigs that tried to eat the child until help came. A cat was witnessed going into a burning house to rescue all her kittens. Like 6 or so of them, one by one. These are other animal species, not humans. Abeg o, which church dem de go?

Kay17:
Since God does not exist, at least in our minds, I believe we atheists have a wild freedom. I am careful not to use to free will because that has it own crazy baggage.

In absence of an all seeing authority, we find ourselves being our own guides and authorities. The weakness of our will represents laxer restraints. What guidelines are necessary to create our own unique morality? What does our morality aim for, since morality is a means to a goal? Greater civilization? Excellent individuals? etc

Interesting read.
History teaches us, just like animals Man lived on the principle of Survival of the fittest.
As Man's intelligence evolved, there was a need for social order for peaceful coexistence. Hence laws were enacted by the wisest men.
Laws were not enough, perhaps that led to religion.(but that's another argument)

I believe it all boils down to what we the people decide is moral.
Globalisation has proven that one man's virtue is another's vice. One man's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
Moral values vary across geography.

So evidently what determines right or wrong is simply the laws pertinent to your locality.
The human conscience or instinct is simply a factor of what morals have been imbibed over the years. No divine/evil spirit is telling you what you're about to do is wrong or right.
No different voice in your head, just yours.
It is your thoughts, and your choice.

Idrismusty97:
Common sense will tell you not to steal or murder. And if you go out of the norms to commit these acts the long arms of the law will always catch up with you. Besides you wouldn't want to raise up your kids as a thief or murderer would you? We don't need a god or religion for morality, the world is changing. We are entering into a new era...Most irreligious countries are usually the most peaceful. E.g Denmark, Japan, Iceland etc

i"ve never seen a wrong statement more than this, so u mean Denmark the home to one of the biggest orthodox church (The Lutheran) is irreligious? wow! then u went ahead and called Icedland? hahahaha are u high? iceland has a population close to 300,000 of whom 85% are christians

onetrack:
Morally, there is no difference between atheists and theists. Both a Christian and an atheist can steal a bike. The atheist doesn't worry about punishment in the afterlife, and neither does the Christian; they just pray for forgiveness.

"I prayed to God for a bike, but I didn't get one; so I stole a bike and prayed for forgiveness"

That is where most Christians and atheist get it wrong, that you are forgiven doest mean, you won't reap the reward if you do something bad knowingly.
Spiritual forgiveness is different from physical forgiveness.

hmmm