I think there is an unwarranted assumption there

Post #14,364 by ben_tilly 10/20/01 11:35:21 PM Reply	I think there is an unwarranted assumption there What is your evidence that morality was originally codified in religions? We have morality handed down to the present from the earliest religious texts we have available. However early philosophical texts from people as far separated as Aristotle and Confucius present ethics as a subject that is independent of religion. I don't think there is a clear case in the historical record for saying that ethical systems come from religion, or that they don't. It is, of course, clear that religion has been used as a way to codify ethical systems and propagate them through the ages. This doesn't mean, though, that they come from religion. After all local political power has historically come from force of arms, but likewise political realities have tended to become intertwined with religion. But the basis of many of the basic foundations that you can point to behind Addison's sense of morality (and mine) may go back a lot farther. (Insert standard lecture on sociobiology and the potential evolutionary roots of our basic ethical imperatives.) Cheers, Ben
Post #14,418 by gtall 10/21/01 8:54:14 AM Reply	Re: I think there is an unwarranted assumption there I didn't mean ethical systems derive from religion, but rather that principles inherent in ethical systems are found in religion. My contention was that religion is very old and philosophies do owe a debt to those religions. You would argue (I think) that either the flow went in the opposite direction or that both developed simultaneously. But wherever we find human habitation, we find religious artifacts. In that sense, I find it difficult to believe that secular notions of morals or ethics were born in a religious vacuum. Gerard Allwein
Post #14,427 by boxley 10/21/01 10:21:27 AM Reply	ya also find beer containers ]:-> tshirt front "born to die before I get old" thshirt back "fscked another one didnja?"
Post #14,437 by ben_tilly 10/21/01 11:38:13 AM Reply	I think you missed the point I am not arguing that I really know which came first, ethical principles or religion. I am saying that your blanket statement that ethical principles were originally codified in religion is a claim which I don't think you have real support for. (FWIW I suspect that the answer to which came first may depend in the end on how broadly you define each of religion and ethics. Certainly if you define ethics broadly enough, you can find good evidence of ethical motivations in, for instance, chimpanzees.) First of all it is true that the earliest philosophical writings we have are predated by religion. I agree with that, and were it otherwise I would be saying something rather different. Secondly it is both true that in every human society we find both some sort of shared ethical system and religion. Given that, your comment about the distribution of religious artifacts is not evidence one way or another on which came first. It is an argument that religion is a universal tendancy. It doesn't indicate whether that universal tendancy predated the one to shared ethical systems. Cheers, Ben PS You may be asking why I care. It is simple. I am just tired of religious people telling atheists like myself that our morals come from religion, one way or another. They certainly don't directly, and I am not convinced they do ultimately either.

Welcome to IWETHEY!