Is Morality Natural?

NEWSWEEK

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: desim2003 @ 09/15/2008 7:41:36 PM

    I think these "what if" situations are stupid! Why would you kill your baby, there are ways to make a baby stop crying, figure that out, and everyone would be saved, plus with devices that can detect body heat, would the eight people really be safe? Tie everyone on the boat, and don't loose one, drive faster, and refuse to let a life perish. Also why would you want to give a sick person's organs to any one anyway, its not rocket science. Whatever diese they have would infect the three healthly people, causing them to all die in the long run. About the big lady getting stuck, duh fatty got in the cave, fatty can get out of the cave. This is a stupid article use logic. These cases really had nothing to do with morals, just common sense and good judgement.

  • Posted By: Phenix76 @ 09/15/2008 7:41:23 PM

    "I think knowledge of good and evil predates Christ"

    certainly, but it doesn't predate the existance of God, whether named Budda, Allah, Christ or otherwise.

  • Posted By: skinny703 @ 09/15/2008 7:22:09 PM

    I agree with this article in that morality (in the sense of being able to differentiate between right and wrong) is given to all: "For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God."
    Each of us is given the Spirit of Christ/Light of Christ/conscience to know right from wrong. It is given to all regardless of religious affiliation or personal belief (whether you recognize it or not). May we choose to do what is right and to help others and uplift those who struggle, rather than tearing people down and debasing others.

  • Posted By: realitylover @ 09/15/2008 5:34:37 PM

    There is no god and only self deluders believfe in one. Morality emerges from the need for social order. There is no survival advantage to being excluded from the group. People behave in order to be accepted . Belief in god is so preposterous as to be primitive.

    • Posted By: tumordoctor @ 09/15/2008 5:49:36 PM

      Prove His nonexistence.

      • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/15/2008 6:26:52 PM

        tumordoctor,

        The burden of proof lies withg the affirmative statement. The affirmative statement is that god exists. Existance being the affirmative state. I have talked with hundreds of scientists about this, (over 150 of them believers in god) and all of them agree with that assertion. And all of the belivers admit that tehy have no proof, only faith. Nothing wrong with faith, but it is not proof.

        The only proof of existance lies in the minds of those who believe in god. The electrical signals that occur with imagination. Therefore there may be a god but not a universal one or a omnipotnet one. Just one of faith. Nothing wrong with that, but not worldwide proof.

        • Posted By: tumordoctor @ 09/15/2008 6:41:19 PM

          ghostmasseur,

          While I agree that I make an affirmative statement when I say that God exists, you or any other atheist also makes an affirmative statement when you announce that nature is the only cause of your own existence. I'm quite sure that such a statement hasn't been proven. So we each have a burden of proof. And we each live by our faith.

          • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/15/2008 7:07:19 PM

            Actually, I make the statement that sans proof of god the default position is that something else caused our existsance. To be honest what that is is of no importance to me. Be it nature or some team of alien scientists. Since the only thing there is proof for the existance of is nature at this time that is the default answer but I am open to other possibilties. But again, how we got here is not as imporant to me as what we do now that we are here. If you faith inspires you to treat others and planet well then it serves a useful purpose for you and those like you who believe and you should not stop believing. I ony say that such belief is not a requirement for everyone and is not the only way that humans develop a "moral compass". It may be the way some do and that is fine. .

      • Posted By: jck.54 @ 09/15/2008 6:27:48 PM

        GOD is reality, I'm sorry you don't know that yet. GOD still exists despite your deniel.

      • Posted By: Joke Teller @ 09/15/2008 5:54:22 PM

        Prove his existence.

        • Posted By: tumordoctor @ 09/15/2008 6:00:28 PM

          I'm responding to an absolute statement. Are you all-knowing?

  • Posted By: Lone Voice @ 09/15/2008 6:59:56 PM

    The reason God is in this discussion is that there is an effort out there to ridicule those who believe in God. For those who belive in God, there can be no morality without God.
    Substitute the word ethics ( a weasle, lawyer word ) for morality and you'll see that these people are saying that ethics (a human's interpretation of right and wrong) and morality (God's view of right and wrong) are the same thing. Any action can and has been justified in the mind of humans. We are quite good at deluding ourselves the that we have acted morally. Right and wrong are built on a completly unstable foudation if all we have is ourselves.

    What is right is right even if everyone votes against it.
    What is wrong is wrong even if everyone votes for it
    It is not up to your vote

    paraphrase from William Penn

  • Posted By: obiesirius @ 09/15/2008 6:42:30 PM

    A better question would be "what is natural?". Why do we consider man and his creations to exist outside of nature? Why is the anthropogenic unnatural? If morality is a creation of man is it then unnatural? Like Twinkies? Or humor?

  • Posted By: obiesirius @ 09/15/2008 6:38:02 PM

    I think the real question is, "what is natural?". Why do we consider man to be apart from nature? Why is the anthropogenic unnatural? If morality is a creation of man is it unnatural? Like Twinkies?

  • Posted By: searching @ 09/15/2008 6:03:34 PM

    This is precisely what the Catholic Church has taught for approximately 1,600 years: The Natural Law. Plato and Aristotle taught the natural law as well. Now, perhaps, the Judeo-Christian foundation of our civilization will be more acceptable again (i.e., no more protests against the 10 commandments). Also, St. Thomas Aquinas, and the Catholic Church, teach that emotions are very important to morality and have an "intelligence". All of this suggests, though does not necessarily prove, that teleology (acting for an end)ought to be taken seriously once again. If teleology is real, as I believe it is, then evolution has a purpose, or, a final cause.

    • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/15/2008 6:34:20 PM

      Of the 10 Commandments (actually the Hebrew is "10 Utterances") only 5 could be considered moral oriented.

      No Murder (the Hebrew does not say "kill")
      No Theft.
      No Bearing of False witness
      No Adultery
      No Covetting

      And since there is not one version of them, they must still be restricted in their governmental display (private property display has never been restricted unless it violates general signage laws), lest the government Establish a specific religion's viewpoint.

  • Posted By: paulos1 @ 09/15/2008 4:55:15 PM

    C S Lewis' classic book "Mere Christianity' deals extensively with the common morality of humanity in the early chapters. He makes the argument that humans respond intuitively to a moral law, which points to a moral law-giver. I would like to see some discussion on this perspective.

    • Posted By: viretarmis @ 09/15/2008 5:33:21 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: runnergirl731 @ 09/15/2008 6:12:34 PM

        viretarmis...why do you keep giving the same comment? It's cute, but not as deep as you think it is. It's too bad you've been exposed to people who committed immoral acts in the name of religion. Everyone knows that is not right....our 'natural morality' tells us so ;)
        paulos1...I haven't read 'Mere Christianity', but I agree that our moral compass comes from God. In my LDS religion (lds.org), we believe that everyone is born with the Light of Christ. Most people call it a conscience. There is no such thing as moral relativism. What is right comes from God, and what is wrong comes from the Adversary. The more you disregard your conscience, the less shame and guilt you will feel. Consequently, the line between right and wrong inevitably becomes blurred. Hence, the phsycopaths mentioned in the article.
        It's interesting how science continually tries to explain what religion already knows without the God part.

        • Posted By: toby123 @ 09/15/2008 6:29:59 PM

          Religion did not 'know' anything. Across the span of thousands of years, people have said and written down all kinds of stuff. Statistically a few of them were bound to be correct even if made up on the spot.

  • Posted By: concerned citizen 1 @ 09/15/2008 6:25:28 PM

    Viretarmis,
    If that is your precept of religion, then you have failed to understand religion at all. Your comment is very shallow and shows that you haven't gone beyond your own prejudices to respond to this topic.

  • Posted By: twuesthoff @ 09/15/2008 5:19:13 PM

    The interesting concept for me is that we have any moral compass at all. If evolution were true, and we are only here due to natural selection, there is and should never be any "moral" portion of any decision. It becomes simply a matter of what is best for me at any moment. The fact that we do have this innate sense of right and wrong completely invalidates the "theory" of evolution- how would this have "evolved", and most importantly why? Take a good look at this people- our moral compass is the overwhelming evidence that we are here as a result of a higher power, a greater intelligence that has designed us in a beautiful way. Thank God we do have our moral compass- it is a great gift.

    • Posted By: toby123 @ 09/15/2008 6:21:25 PM

      This does nothing to invalidate the theory of evolution. What is 'best for me' and what is 'moral' are often the same. Acting immoral the once may yeild a short term benefit, but if it leads to later punishment or social ostricism, it was disadvantageous. What is 'best' is usually to aid the group, ie be 'moral' because then they will also aid you.

    • Posted By: MoabGal @ 09/15/2008 5:47:15 PM

      It is pretty obvious that you don't understand the Theory of Evolution. If the "moral compass" is evidence for a God then all the right wing fundamentalist Pastors who have been caught with hookers, drugs and stolen from church coffers have a fine God leading their "moral compass".

      • Posted By: tumordoctor @ 09/15/2008 5:57:51 PM

        You're pointing out a failure to follow that compass; not a failure of the compass itself. Christians have the epistles which clarify what the fruits of the Spirit are (love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self control), as well as those which aren't ("adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, envy, murders, drunkenness, revelries, and the like"-Galatians 5). Which parts of that compass are ambiguous?

        • Posted By: ghostmasseur @ 09/15/2008 6:16:02 PM

          And there is no proof that that stuff came from anything other than human beings. Very wise ans insightful human benigs but humans nonetheless.

  • Posted By: PolarOpposite @ 09/15/2008 6:00:33 PM

    The article wasn't discussing whether or not God exists. It was talking about morality being natural. The simple fact is, that some people feel the need to go on a tired old diatribe about what they believe as opposed to discussing the subject at hand. Being a good person, regardless of what you may believe would indicate the need to show others with a different view with respect and dignity. As for morality being natural, of course it is. The basic precepts of not killing, stealing, etc have been around since people have, sure some people tend to ignore them, but that should be expected when we have the ability to make decisions, some people make good ones, some people make bad ones.

  • Posted By: PolarOpposite @ 09/15/2008 5:54:45 PM

    Wow, some of these comments are scary, and really beside the point. The article was discussing whether Morality was a natural phenomanon. It was saying does God exist? And using the article as a chance to bash those who believe in God is a little sad, especially when you do so with such a dismissive manner, (Yes I mean you realitylover). Why can't people be entitled to their own opinion. You have yours, other people have theirs. The point in being a good person (regardless of your beliefs) would mean that you'd treat others with respect and dignity, even if you didn't agree with them.

  • Posted By: RRAI @ 09/15/2008 5:53:20 PM

    Oh, realitylover, the only thing that is preposterous is your bold statement that "there is no god". You make some niftly little side arguments about the need for social order and people's behaviour being based largely on a desire to be accepted are all fine and dandy -and may be true to varying degrees. But your main conclusion, that there is no god - is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to inject objectivity and certainty into an uncertain world. Essentially you're doing the same as those you would seek to ridicule. You have proven yourself not to be a reality lover, but yet another wishful thinker. You are just like those who you disdain. I find that funny...

  • Posted By: rags55 @ 09/15/2008 5:32:33 PM

    the lead story of the piece is incorrect, as the large woman survived along with the 22 other tourists....the most annoying thing is when someone gets the story wrong.

    • Posted By: Joke Teller @ 09/15/2008 5:51:39 PM

      They didn't say if she lives or dies, that wasn't the point. The scenario was what would you do in the situation. They are asking what would YOU do? Even more annoying is people who make comments that they apparently don't understand what they are reading.

  • Posted By: workingmomsaregoodmoms @ 09/15/2008 5:50:21 PM

    The problem with all of these artificial situations is that you can never know for sure that killing the one will result in the effect described. Conversely, you cannot know for sure that letting your baby live will certainly result in your death. Real life dilemmas are not that clear cut.

  • Posted By: tumordoctor @ 09/15/2008 5:48:17 PM

    Oh brother. A "science" of morality? Sounds like a lot of intellectual gobbeldy-goop to me. As if a person can't experience good or evil/peace or turmoil from a spiritual perspective, and have a psychosomatic response to it? So what if a measure of the physical response/reaction is an indirect response/reaction to the spiritual? How would you measure that aside from the psychosomatic phenomenon? You can't. To say that there is no spiritual component is purely speculative, and can't be tested.

  • Posted By: tumordoctor @ 09/15/2008 5:47:52 PM

    Oh brother. A "science" of morality? Sounds like a lot of intellectual gobbeldy-goop to me. As if a person can't experience good or evil/peace or turmoil from a spiritual perspective, and have a psychosomatic response to it? So what if a measure of the physical response/reaction is an indirect response/reaction to the spiritual? How would you measure that aside from the psychosomatic phenomenon? You can't. To say that there is no spiritual component is purely speculative, and can't be tested.

  • Posted By: divinely speaking @ 09/15/2008 5:29:30 PM

    Are we capable of abandoning our moral principles? Yes. we are the manifestation of the force of creation, the force of dispersion (or destruction or transformation) and the force of perpetuation. What is moral about shooting an intruder in the house? But we do it. The instinct of survival (for the force of perpetuation) stirs up the dormant force of destruction, and we shoot. Morality is momentarily made to be more comprehensive for the situation.
    The answer to this dilemma is explained in the Hindu Epic of Mahabharata in general, and the Bhagvad Gita in particular. When I was in India growing up, I never believed in these mythological tales. As I grew older and with many years of experience behind me, I discovered the depth of the meaning in these epics. These books are absolute masterpieces. In fact, the Bhagvad Gita is all about identification and resolution of conflicts. Creed, need, deed, greed and breed all play role in resolving a moral conflict. Combine the moral of these epics with a simple fact that everything, living or non-living, is the manifestation of the three forces in nature: Creative Force or Brahma, Dispersive Force or Shiva, Perpetuative Force or Vishnu. At any given time, any one of these three forces will make you play out your act for the outcome you desire. Beware that the outcome is already determined. All one can do is try, and try one must.

    • Posted By: jgputnam @ 09/15/2008 5:37:36 PM

      if the outcome is already predetermined then there is no reason to try.

      • Posted By: divinely speaking @ 09/15/2008 5:45:18 PM

        I suspected many would miss the point. It is not our business to find out what is already decided. Our business is to do what we deem appropriate, legal or illegal. The outcome is certain. What is moral about speeding, or immoral about not speeding? But we do speed despite a very high probability of ticket and fine. Not speeding has certain outcome: no ticket. Do we ever never speed? The outcome is predetermined. We try. And we find out. So try we must.

  • Posted By: Joke Teller @ 09/15/2008 5:45:08 PM

    Killing the baby so you both won't die is called self preservation.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse