HEALTH FOR LIFE

Is Morality Natural?

Science is tracing the biological roots of our intuitive sense of what is right and what is wrong.

By Marc D. Hauser, Ph.D. | NEWSWEEK
Published Sep 13, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Sep 22, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Kmokoto@japan.com_Keito13 @ 10/18/2009 8:48:56 PM

    Deity or not, we are all in a paradox of concepts and ideas. Only things proven are to be understood as fact.

  • Posted By: Kmokoto@japan.com_Keito13 @ 10/18/2009 8:47:10 PM

    Existence itself is a paradox. why do we always move forward but never back? What are the instincts that tell us to move ahead? How do they originate? What is life? Once all of the questions man has are answered, yet another will come: Why did we answer all of the questions? what drove us to it? Will we decline to a primitive state or become higher beings? So what is life? Questions. What is the goal in life? To answer our questions, for they never run out.

  • Posted By: Trooper101st @ 02/23/2009 7:47:19 AM

    I think Chairman Mao was correct when he said "religion is the opium of the people"....

  • Posted By: danahashley @ 09/19/2008 12:32:44 AM

    I was amazed to see the professor of human evolutionary biology at Harvard, Marc D. Hauser, PH.D. use the term "designed" to describe biological roots of morality. Does even a Harvard professor see a design in nature or was it a slip of the evolving tongue?

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/21/2008 8:14:54 AM

      A design in nature does not prove a deity or religious belief. Nature is capable of design. Also even the idea of intelligent design does not require a deity or supreme benig. Just a designer which could just as easily be another species from another galaxy. Our galaxy as a science project.

      • Posted By: Rickoko @ 09/22/2008 5:01:16 PM

        And people of faith are being called rediculous. Where did the 'aliens' come from then? You start the argument all over. What other nonsense will you come up with to avoid the idea of intelligent design by God (or which ever deity you decide upon). It makes far more sense than some of the arguments that are being posted.

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/27/2008 9:14:09 AM

          "Where did the 'aliens' come from then? You start the argument all over."
          Not in the same way as before. There could have been multiple reiterations of this thig. And even IF, there was a "deity" creator, that does nean that said entity had anything to do with successive creations processes. A being that powerful could still die or cease to exist. A lot of this also assumes that time is linear. That is also not absolute.

          "What other nonsense will you come up with to avoid the idea of intelligent design by God (or which ever deity you decide upon)."

          Not nonsense to intelligent people. The point is that even if there is a design for OUR planet that does not mean that a deity has anything to do with it in any real sense of the word if at all.

          "It makes far more sense than some of the arguments that are being posted."
          No it does not. IT is only logical to those who NEED there to be a god or deity.



          • Posted By: Rickoko @ 09/29/2008 11:57:56 PM

            Great- now we are living back with the ancient Roman's and Greeks - the nature of deity is that they are eternal. You can not tell me that a being powerful enough to create life - has not found away to live forever. It is not a matter of needing a deity - it is the fact that he exists. If you take away an eternal deity then you are left with eternal cosmic goop that somehow, some way found itself in the right place at the right time to create intricate, subtle, complex life. If that is what you believe - I have an atom splitter in Europe you can have for cheap (good luck on that project). The nature of humankind- which this blog was suppose to be about - dictates that there is a deity - that deity has dictated morality. Take away the deity there is no morality - there doesn't have to be because there is no greater good -than what humankind sets out - and we can not be impartial enough to decide what is good for everyone. Thus the case study. Look at some of the remarks made about the lady in the mine. Sacrifice does not come naturally for humans - we like ourselves too much and hate everyone else. It is not in our nature to get better - or we would already be in utopia. We go from order to chaos - that is seen in nature - it takes a greater power to go from chaos to order. And of course design means that there was a greater knowledge active in the universe - it can't just happen - that is illogical.

            • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 10/06/2008 3:51:00 PM

              ""the nature of deity is that they are eternal. You can not tell me that a being powerful enough to create life - has not found away to live forever."

              Actually a deity does not have to be eternal. But my point is that I used the term "deity" in quotes because that would be how less developed beings (such as humans) would view them. And just because they MIGHT be able to live forever does nto mean that they would choose to do so.

              "It is not a matter of needing a deity - it is the fact that he exists. "
              It is not a fact that he exists. It is purely human ned for such an entity.

              "If you take away an eternal deity then you are left with eternal cosmic goop that somehow, some way found itself in the right place at the right time to create intricate, subtle, complex life."

              Not at all. A powerful, but mortal being could create the microscopic cosmos that we are aware of.

              "If that is what you believe - I have an atom splitter in Europe you can have for cheap (good luck on that project). "
              YAWWN!!

              "The nature of humankind- which this blog was suppose to be about - dictates that there is a deity - that deity has dictated morality."
              Not at all. It staes nowhere taht there has to be a deity. It specifically says NATURE, which doe sNOT require deity.

              "Take away the deity there is no morality - there doesn't have to be because there is no greater good -than what humankind sets out - and we can not be impartial enough to decide what is good for everyone."

              That is not what the study says at all. Morality can be part of evolutinary development.

              " Thus the case study. Look at some of the remarks made about the lady in the mine. Sacrifice does not come naturally for humans - we like ourselves too much and hate everyone else. It is not in our nature to get better - or we would already be in utopia. We go from order to chaos - that is seen in nature - it takes a greater power to go from chaos to order. And of course design means that there was a greater knowledge active in the universe - it can't just happen - that is illogical."

              What you said is fallacious. Greater knowledge does not require deity. Morality does not either. And the ability to evolve gives us the insight to realize what works and what does not.

  • Posted By: MCsol @ 09/16/2008 2:36:55 AM

    Morality is often seen as realtive, because its much more comfortable for us that way. But truth itself, can never be relative. It is absolute. Our perceptions of the truth, are very often relative, however. For example, some of the ancient greeks knew the earth was round and proved it mathmatically and experimentally. In the dark ages, that knowledge was lost and everyone believed the earth was flat. The perceptions of the truth changed, but the underlying truth never changed. The earth remained round.
    Science works exactly the same way. It bases everything on the perceptions of the truth. The "scientific facts" are carved in stone and declared inviolate..... until the real truth becomes clearer and perceptions change to the new "truth". Then the new "facts" are recarved in the same old stone.
    If science progressing not by the steady gain of new knowledge, but by the revelations of new perceptions sounds a lot like faith, then give some thought to what science really is preaching.

    • Posted By: swimmtrunx @ 09/23/2008 8:41:53 PM

      In the instance of the world being flat/round, could you not say that during the dark ages the absolute 'truth' of the matter dictated that the world was flat? Without the benefit of airplanes, ocean-crossing ships, transcontinental railways, or oftentimes even roads, a person was limited to territory a couple of dozen miles in either direction. When your perspective is restricted to that extent then it makes sense that you would see the world as flat; only when the restrictions from your perspective have been lifted do you begin to realize that the world is round.
      I???m willing to concede that the truth (i.e. there is an earth) does not change but I am willing to bet that OUR understanding of that truth MUST change. Clinging to out-dated dogma on the basis of ???faith??? is irresponsible. The Bible provides you a general guide to live your life (i.e. love your neighbor, don???t kill, respect yourself because you are holy, etc.) but is abused as an excuse to enshrine crusty Old Testament doctrines (eye for an eye, homophobia, etc.). Your mission, BOTH as an animal AND as a child of God, is to simply live and love in this world.

  • Posted By: jck.54 @ 09/15/2008 5:23:00 PM

    I know from personal experience that GOD is real and also know that GOD places the knowledge of right and wrong into every single person, so the source of knowing right from wrong isn't internal in origin,but from GOD HIMSELF. But GOD does let everyone decide for themselves what they want to do with that knowledge.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/15/2008 6:17:35 PM

      No, you THINK that god is real. You know nohting of the sort.

      You only know what your beliefs does to you and others that believe the same as you do.

      You can not know what forms the moral compass in others.

      • Posted By: jck.54 @ 09/18/2008 2:39:16 PM

        It sadens me that you don't know the truth, but it doesn't suprise me, for I was like you are now before the truth set me free.

    • Posted By: viretarmis @ 09/15/2008 5:34:30 PM

      Morality is doing what's right, no matter what you're told. Religion is doing what you're told, no matter what's right.

      • Posted By: jck.54 @ 09/15/2008 5:58:04 PM

        It's has nothing to do with religion, it has to do with a personal relationship with the LORD JESUS. Nothing is forced.

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/15/2008 6:14:32 PM

          For YOU it may have to do with a relationship with your god but that is not required for others.

          God and religion are not required for morality.

      • Posted By: divinely speaking @ 09/15/2008 5:39:20 PM

        Amen. Can I quote you? So succinct, so brief, so to-the-point. Thanks.

        • Posted By: jck.54 @ 09/15/2008 5:55:34 PM

          Please feel free to quote me. It's all from the LORD JESUS.

          • Posted By: divinely speaking @ 09/15/2008 6:12:30 PM

            not you, you idiot. I am asking Viretarmis. What you stated is nothing new, nothing profound. In fact it is rednecky.

          • Posted By: tumordoctor @ 09/15/2008 6:01:06 PM

            Amen!

  • Posted By: skram5 @ 09/15/2008 5:12:33 PM

    You suggest "nature" handed us a moral grammer. To be handed something requires a hand - the hand of God. Common sense tells us this moral grammer is called a conscience - the Bible has told us this all along. "Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools." Romans 1:22
    Having graduated from 2 excellent public universities has shown me more and more the folly of the intellectual elite who are very smart but lack common sense. Study THE book that has stood the test of the ages and yet has never been wrong. Try it like Josh McDowell did. Read "The Skeptics Quest"

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/15/2008 6:12:23 PM

      skram5,

      To be handed somethig does not require a hand. To think that it does shows a limited intellect.

      The bible was written by huamns so of course it says what humans before it knew. That prove nothing about its validity or truth.

      And it has never been proven valid or always correct.

      • Posted By: abeliever @ 09/15/2008 9:55:13 PM

        Any lawyer will tell you that you cannot prove truth or innocence, you can only prove guilt or lies by exposing them. You can only validate truth or innocence. The fact that no one has ever been able to prove the Bible is false or a lie validates that fact that what it says is the truth. On the same note, the fact that "good" and "bad" exist proves that there must be a source by which one can measure good and bad. Without a tape measure, an inch would not exist. It would be ambiguous and therefore a meaningless concept.

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/16/2008 10:06:00 AM

          Actually you can most definately prove innocence or truth.

          And your comment that no one has ever been able to prove the bible false is both not proof that it is truth and it is false. Much of what is in the bible is based onfaith or tales. Very little of the NT has been proven true and because much of what it covers was unimportant there is no record of it being true. Much of it can easily be assumed to be fiction. The fact that there have shown to be other equally valid explanations for many things in the OT brings its veracity (specifically that some deity had anything to do with what happnened) into serious doubt. There can be little arguement that there is much ethical/moral/legal value to some of the OT ideas/laws but there is no proof that a diety had anything to do with their developemnt. A more logical explaantion is that Moses, having been trained in the Court of Egypt, one of the most advanced cultures of the time, havingleft, for whatever reason, then wandered around for many decadesand would have encountered many caravans from all over. Those caravans often had itinerant philosophers/story tellers and scholars travelling with them who came form far and wide. They had seen many things, and heard of a variety of laws and ethical concepots from various cosieties. They would have seen which ones worked and which did not. . As a highly educated man, Moses would have been able to gather the useful ideas together and write a set of standards. But since he was trying to get his ethnic people out of Egypt, a very superstitious and deity-oriented society he would have to couch them in mystery and supernatural. That is how the whole thing started. It is one very logical and possible explanation.

          The ideas of good and bad are mosty objecitve terms. There does nto need to be a source for humans to figure out what actions are beneficial and detriemtnal to society by observing, over time, what actions results in more suffering, conflict and death versus those that either make thigs better or do not cause such harm.

          • Posted By: Rickoko @ 09/18/2008 12:18:59 AM

            You want nonsense - buy into the drivel that you are spouting. Whether you believe the Bible or not - you just took a story from an ancient text that has survived for thousands of years - that has been proven to at least have historicity - and have fashioned a so-called 'reasonable' explanation that has no proof whatsoever. There is no proof to your version of Moses - whereas the Christian has the Biblical account. You can't do that and call it proof. Your premise on ethics is faulty because there have been any number of cultures that have decided the moral low road - war, greed, violence - was the right solution. There has to be a standard for what is right and wrong - or there is no point to any of it. Hitler believed the Holocaust was the right way to advance his moral society - we all know how well that turned out. When you look to the Biblical standard you see at least a sense of logic - why do we not murder - because it is part of the great commandment to love God and love our neighbour. The 10 commandments are a description of what that means. If you love God you don't have other idols, you don't take his name in vain, you remember the Sabbath. If you do all that then when you look at your neighbour while loving God you don't covet, you honor your parents, you don't steal, you don't kill. The basis for morality is God.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/15/2008 6:21:39 PM

      One does not need a hand to be "handed" something like moral judgement. There is not need or proof of god in any othe that.

      That a man made book says something simply proves that the humans who wrote it figured things out after years of experience, not that some deity was involved.

  • Posted By: Omaar @ 09/16/2008 9:04:52 PM

    Morality: Is a Wide Open Word...

    Created, Perpetuated & Dictated to the Masses via Immoral People of Religion, who themselves, cannot live up to the Word Moral, the Moral Code or the Moral Definition, in their Own Lives.

    Human Beings have the Will to be [Decent Human Beings]....

    But Not the Ability to be [Moral Human Beings] Its goes against Our [Nature] Our [DNA] Our True Natural Selves.

    Moral, means for a Person to be [Deity] a Human as [God] having No Flaws or Perverted Inclinations or Raging Caranilty of any sort...

    Moral: Being Upright in all You do...its a Unnecessary Burden and Cross to Bare.

    Thats why those Percieved as [Moral & Perfect] when they Fall, its a [Major Event]

    The list of People are too many to name.

    The word [Moral] once its Stuck to you....Will Destroy You...

    Once your Shortcomings are Revealed an brought to the Public Arena !!!

    Stay a [Decent Human Being] being Neither Extremely Good or Extremely Bad, with Room to [Improve and Grow]

    Decency is [Attainable and Sustainable]

    Opposed to being Percieved as [Moral & Upright] because it leaves No Room for....

    [ Error, Vices, Shortcomings, Perversions of anykind, Carnality or Flaws] Sorry

    Decency: To me is Neither being Overly Good or Overly Bad...

    [70% Good-30% Bad] or [60% Good or 40% Bad]

    Likewise if Your [Bad % Dominates Over Your Good %] You may have to Reprogram Yourself or Fall Victim to Yourself.

    Moral: Would Subscribe to a person being [Without Fault or Blemish] Damn near making it impossible for Any [ImPerfections, Vices or Shortcomings] when as a Human being, thats [Virtually Impossible] Humans are Genetically Flawed, No Matter the Race, Creed, Religion, No Matter the Man or Woman, Even the Poorer Nations....The Flaws, Shortcomings and Vices will Persist.

    Still, Most [Majority] of Human Being in this World are Decent....

    Neither Extremely Good or Extremely Bad.

    [There is Extremely Hot, Hot, Warm, Cold, Or Extremely Cold]

    Most People [The Real Silent Majority] are Warm and that to me, is [Decent] [Indifferent] & [Fair]


    Fair: Is where Most People Live and this is where Most People Breathe.

    The [Fair Minded People], Live and Let Live.... In Peace, when Chaos tries to Persist.

    While the Extreme People cause Dissention, Turmoil, Conflict and Dispair !!

    Thank The Spirits Above for the [Fair Minded and the Balanced People Of the World]

    You can have the [Hypocritical Moralist]

    I'm a Decent Person, Not a Moral Person...

    Shout Out to All the [Decent humans] around the World !!!!

    My Name is Omaar....."An I Approved this Comment"

  • Posted By: robpaulk1 @ 09/15/2008 11:45:59 PM

    All I want to say is this: Of course morality is natural. If it wasn't it wouldn't be. It's about survival. Forget about religion for a second. Over centuries of time we've learned that we live longer, cleaner, healthier lives if we squelch our more primal urges, take better care of ourselves, and help others. It's part of our continuous evolution as human beings. Human beings in God's form, if you like. It's how we transcend.

    • Posted By: Rickoko @ 09/16/2008 7:54:21 PM

      That is the problem though - over time we haven't learned to squelch our more primal urges or we would be living in some type of utopia. All I have to do is watch a child develop and see how they immediately go towards the side of diobedience and pushing the boundaries until they are corrected. Being created in the image of God means that he has given us something the animals do not have - the ability to reason and way the pro's and con's. Immorality is natural - morality is a decision that has to be made. Our human history shows that we are going further away from any type of morality - this is why empires decline and implode on themselves - the Romans delved so far into deviance and self-indulgence that they lost their empire. For the Christian - we are live healthy lives by putting our needs second - and others first. We are to love God with all that we are - and then we are to love our neighbour. On these two principles are all the other commandments based.

  • Posted By: SuzieC @ 09/16/2008 4:32:02 PM

    Is this a serious question? Kill the fat b*tch! She's going to eat us alive or die soon anyway.

  • Posted By: jubilee131 @ 09/15/2008 8:45:49 PM

    Killing a baby a baby in the name of saving 8 others is not a moral judgment. If soldiers kill 9 people they bear the blame for the deaths. If I kill a baby for whatever reason I bear the blame. How can anyone "know" what others will do, as in kill 9 people. Knowing 1 person will fall of a boat and die and doing it anyway is wrong because I contributed to that death. How do you know the others will definitely die if I delay? The whole premise is false.

    • Posted By: peanutmom2001 @ 09/15/2008 10:03:01 PM

      EXACTLY! It does not matter that the test SAYS it WILL happen - you can only be responsible for your own actions towards what YOU can control. You can choose to kill or not to kill. If you come under service to your country to PROTECT it and the help PROTECT other around the world from oppression, that you are submitting to the rules of warfare against civilian code, but with purpose, direction and sanction.

      • Posted By: jubilee131 @ 09/16/2008 1:08:44 PM

        These questions were all set up to lead people to the conclusion that killing a few is better than letting many die. The problem with the questions is that death is never certain. No one can predict the future. The point of the test is to convince (or educate) others that killing is an acceptable solution. Assuming soldiers will kill everyone justifies killing a baby. One person drowning justifies saving 5 others. Who gets to decide who dies? I am not qualified to make that judgment and I don???t know anyone who is. If you want what if questions try adding the swimmers that get saved are killed in a car wreck on the way home. Then what? Everyone must die sometime. What difference does it make if it is now or tomorrow or next year? That is what makes the question moote.

      • Posted By: jubilee131 @ 09/16/2008 1:07:53 PM

        These questions were all set up to lead people to the conclusion that killing a few is better than letting many die. The problem with the questions is that death is never certain. No one can predict the future. The point of the test is to convince (or educate) others that killing is an acceptable solution. Assuming soldiers will kill everyone justifies killing a baby. One person drowning justifies saving 5 others. Who gets to decide who dies? I am not qualified to make that judgment and I don???t know anyone who is. If you want what if questions try adding the swimmers that get saved are killed in a car wreck on the way home. Then what? Everyone must die sometime. What difference does it make if it is now or tomorrow or next year? That is what makes the question moote.

  • Posted By: Christian_Mom @ 09/15/2008 9:32:41 PM

    I find it sad and puzzling that people would like to make God and spirituality into only an emotional experience for those who chose to believe the truth. What if...What if I am wrong? What if God doesn't exist? Does my choosing to believe with great conviction that He does exist cost me anything? The answer is "NO." In fact, it offers me the reward of hope and eternal salvation, if I do those things that He has instructed as being right. Now...What if those who chose not to believe are wrong? What if God does exist? (And I know HE does indeed.) Does one choosing to believe that He doesn't exist cost them anything? The answer is "YES." Choosing not to believe in God and His righteousness and His commandments can and will cost your soul, and this choice will in fact reward you with an eternity of damnation and torment. No one has to take my word for it. God's Word is truth. And I don't have to answer for anyone else's choices in the end - I have to answer for mine.

    • Posted By: toby123 @ 09/16/2008 12:32:53 PM

      Being Christian just in case God's real and there is an afterlife is not true faith, that's just hedging your bets.

      And like the other poster correctly pointed out, it's only a successful hedge on the assumption God is both real and Christianity is correct.

    • Posted By: im.thatoneguy @ 09/15/2008 11:32:36 PM

      Christian Mom. What if God is actually a God which condemns all those who hold false Gods? You have to believe in Juntah Lord of the Rock Garden or at the very least not worship another God in order to be saved.

      Perhaps Christianity is actually a trick by the nemesis of Juntah: Guntor. He creates christianity to trick people into believing in a false religion so that they might face eternal damnation.

      So let's turn your little parable around.

      If you believe in a God and it's the wrong God then you are condemened to eternal damnation.
      If you don't believe in a God it is more likely that your lack of allegiance will be seen as non-threatening and unoffensive and you will be allowed into the eternal kingdom of Juntah.

  • Posted By: MCsol @ 09/16/2008 1:48:09 AM

    Evolutionary morality?
    In the animal world, many societal creatures will intentionally sacrifice the weak and old members of the herd to predators so that the healthy and young may escape, and have less competition for food supplies. If man had come by his moral code by the darwinian theory of evolution, we would not value individual life as we do today, we would only value the life of the society and species. Granted, the modern science/religion tries to teach us that individual life has little value, but so far, most individual humans do not share that value system.

    • Posted By: Babelfish @ 09/16/2008 11:32:21 AM

      @MCsol
      Your posts display a serious lack of understand of science.

      Firstly as to your comment on moral evolution. Unlike with other species, the old and infirm are not simply drains on resources. With the human capacity for language and sentience, the elderly are still able to contribute to the group through passing on knowledge and experience even after they are unable to physically contribute. Cooperation and altruism are evolutionarily advantageous. The group benefits from the welfare of the individual.

      I'd like to see some justification for your statement that Science teaches that an individual life has little value.

      You falsely equate truth and morality. Morality is a code of conduct governing the behaviour of an individual or group. Truth is an abstract concept concerning whether something is fact. Truth is an absolute in that something is either factual or not (unless you're a quantum physicist), but it is a non sequitur to say that truth is absolute, therefore morality is absolute. Morality varies from society to society, indeed from individual to individual. There is no absolute standard for it, regardless of what some people claim. Judging by your writing, I would assume that you are a Christian and would claim the Christian bible or god as the source of morality. (If you're not, my point is still valid.) However, a Muslin, Hindu, Buddhist or would disagree with you and point to their teachings as the absolute, just as convinced of its divine origin.

      The closest thing we have to an objective standard is to ask whether something causes harm. Even that is not not absolute, as evidenced by the hypothetical situations in the article. Is it moral to harm the individual to save the group? Is it moral to sacrifice the group so as to not directly harm the individual?

      It really seems to me that you see Science/Evolution as some conspiracy to promote an ideology. Science merely investigates and describes reality as observed and tested. Scientific facts are not "carved in stone", observations are made and conclusions made based on those observations. As more evidence is found, the conclusions are either reinforced or revised to match the new data. By contrast, faith takes a conclusion and either distorts or disregards any data that do not support the initial claim.

  • Posted By: daegudaddy @ 09/16/2008 2:01:20 AM

    Morality, like truth, is relative. As for some of the examples from the article- I don't see any real relevance, especially the one with the boat. No one would actually be in that situation-its not real because- you do not know the outcome! You do not know in fact if you will save 5 people--it's just words. The others-- one cannot fully (and accurately) make that decision just by answering a question yes or no, you would have to be there at that exact moment, feeling all the emotions. As Americans, we think we are highly morale, just look at church attendance. And we do show high morality in our donations in emergencies, actions we take to save others, etc...There are also things we do, whether physically or via our support of others actions, that show we are not. How many people mourn the deaths of innocent people in Afganistan from our military actions and write letters telling the government to put a stop to it. None. We (as a nation) say, 'It's too bad, but we are fighting for our lives against a ruthless enemy". Just by that alone, one can see we are not that moral. Murders, crimes, child pornography, etc... at such a high rate I would think is proof alone that man is not a moral creature. Either that, or there are many people on this Earth suffering from some form of genetic abnormality. Can't be both, can it? If so, where does "normal" fall into place. Just wondering...

    • Posted By: searching @ 09/16/2008 11:20:09 AM

      "Morality, like truth, is relative." Is that statement absolutley true? If so, you have a contradiction. To be a moral creature means that we have the capacity to know and choose right from wrong, not that we will actually choose right. Christianity, the foundation of Western civilization, recognizes that man is now in a fallen state, that is, his capacity for harmonizing intellect, will and emotions is skewed. Christianity also recognizes that we need a savior without whom it is impossible to live a fully moral life. Also, you decry the seeming contradictiono f the American people who say one thing and do another and therefore conculde that we are not a moral people. But, your entire analysis itself is a moral evaluation; therefore, you offer proof against your own statement that we are not moral people.

  • Posted By: InvisiblePills @ 09/16/2008 10:32:29 AM

    I don't see how this is an issue for the religious or non religious. Atheists will say see, Natural explanation. Theists will say see, we are designed with a moral compass driven to determine right and wrong.

    This paragraph stands out the most

    "A study of individuals with damage to an area of the brain that links decision-making and emotion found that when faced with a series of moral dilemmas, these patients generally made the same moral judgments as most people. This suggests that emotions are not necessary for such judgments."


    Either way I am sure they still need to study this further. It is an interesting topic, I just don't see it making a dent either way.

  • Posted By: InvisiblePills @ 09/16/2008 10:30:11 AM

    I don't see how this is an issue for the religious or non religious. Atheists will say see, Natural explanation. Theists will say see, we are designed with a moral compass driven to determine right and wrong.

    This paragraph stands out the most

    "A study of individuals with damage to an area of the brain that links decision-making and emotion found that when faced with a series of moral dilemmas, these patients generally made the same moral judgments as most people. This suggests that emotions are not necessary for such judgments."


    Either way I am sure they still need to study this further. It is an interesting topic, I just don't see it making a dent either way.

  • Posted By: questionfaith @ 09/15/2008 10:59:17 PM

    It is truly sad to see how closed minded those of "faith" are. Even sadder, the lack of tolerance given to those of other beliefs. And FYI, Buddah is not and never was a god. Just goes to show how ignorant religion can make people. Read Richard Dawkins "The God Delusion" and see how your blind faith is illogical and as silly as believing in Santa Claus.

    • Posted By: Jmon @ 09/15/2008 11:11:54 PM

      Instead of sitting on your high horse mocking people who believe life has meaning, why don't you and your prescious god reason try to do something constructive like help the poor and starving. It makes me laugh when idiots like you and Dawkins sit there spouting hate and bigotry towards people of faith and have the nerve to claim to be "enlightened". Atheism has given the world Stalinist Russia and North Korea. Darwinism has given us the Holochaust, the Rwanda genocide, and other forms of eugenics. Wow you people are truly enligtened and intellegent.

      • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/16/2008 9:45:58 AM

        Actually Stalinist Russia and North Korea are not examples of atheist societies. They are politicotheist societies. They have made both their leaders and states into deities so they are no different than any other religion.


        And the argument that eugenics, the Holocaust and the Genocides are due to Darwinism is also garbage.

        Do no assume that all atheists have the views of Dawkins. He is a fool. Not all atheists look down at people of faith. There are many, like me, who feel that although there is no god, that those who do beleive in a deity utilize that belief as inspriation to do good. (Of course much of the historical evil has been done inthe name of gods and religions (and as I pointed out Stalinism, China and North Korea ALL function as religious style entities requiring worship of state and leader. No truly atheist state would ever allow such a thign to happen).

      • Posted By: agnstheflow @ 09/16/2008 3:15:09 AM

        thank you Jmon!

  • Posted By: agnstheflow @ 09/16/2008 4:33:18 AM

    You know this article is going to draw all Christians out of the woodwork.

    The question about the woman in the cave is ridiculous. If she got in???. she can be gotten out and she did. Horrible situations leading to death will always happen sometimes in this world and I will describe the reason below.
    This sad article from Harvard is trying to tell us that???s it???s ok to accept killing someone to SUPPOSEDLY save others. Will this make it easier to take the killing solution instead of focusing all out efforts to save everyone? Is our society becoming more prepared to kill each other and more comfortable with the idea? Isn???t abortion bad enough? Why is it wrong to Kill in the first place? Is it Sin? What is Sin? How do we know what is sin and what isn???t sin? Killing to make things better seems to be the solution for those who have no faith in God who can be called on and trusted for help. We are just animals running around on this planet trying to make our existence as tolerable as possible. Believe it or not God still provides miracles for bad situations like those listed here if we just do what is right and trust in him. We read books about these miracles all the time. I don???t believe doing what is right ever involves intentionally killing anyone. We all inherit a sense of right and wrong because God created us in his image but we are also born with the tendency to sin and give in to temptation.

    I know???. oh no another bible thumping religious fanatic!!

    If you were hanging off a cliff and needed a rope wouldn???t you want me to throw you one? Well here it is. It???s up to you whether you want to take it or not.
    If you want to know more then go here: http://www.gotquestions.org/


    ??? Comment: Do people really still care about gays being gay? Aren't there more pressing issues in the world?

    Looking at this article I believe there are much more pressing issues. I have nothing to say against homosexuals. Find Christ first!

  • Posted By: CJ1203981209 @ 09/16/2008 2:27:47 AM

    These seem more like logical questions where we are omnipresent, rather than questions about morality. We most times have other options than life or death, and like the ending of the piece, we do. We have such a skewed version of life and death, at least in our Western culture that we don't know what's what, it could be social, learned, feared into, but I don't think it's natural. I think our main inclinations are for self-preservation and perhaps the preservation of ones who are closest to us. Anything else is just what is socially programmed into us. In order for us to keep our self preservation we'll follow rules and norms that correspond to that in society. I don't want to die soon, so I won't kill my fellow man. If I kill people then it is a strong possibility that I will be killed/challenged. Moral dilemas they are merely mind games that generally corespond to a type of utilitarianism; If we can save the most lives in a certain situation, we will.
    Most times we (think) that a certain action is right. Again, like the piece mentions no one really knows why. I think the real question is about utilitarianism and not nature. I do not think we are wired to be selfless. However like the psychopath who kills without remorse I'm sure that there are those who are truly altruistic who place a higher regard on others than themselves.

  • Posted By: obiesirius @ 09/16/2008 1:07:50 AM

    Do people really still care about gays being gay? Aren't there more pressing issues in the world?

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse