I agree, morality is a social construct. It is a product of large groups of humans needing a unified set of common rules to get along.
Historically, 100% of the time according to the evidence we have available on all documented groups of humans, this was done with spirituality and religion up until modern times.
I understand your premises ivstill disagree its spiritual. More a case of you catch more honey with flies. If we agree to certain behaviours we both benefit. This system grew up to become what we call morals and then laws
I would love to see the archaeological evidence that suggests our species begun exploring “morality” through agreeing on certain behaviors being “good” or “bad”. Unfortunately all evidence we have on early humans demonstrates our species has been “spiritual”, e.g. believing in a greater force beyond our control that determines outcomes and promotes group unity, as long as we were leaving a mark on the world that outlasted our bodies.
You can disagree, but that doesn’t change what we know about early humans and their early belief systems, and that we lack any supporting evidence for your point.
Morality is a word given to a specific idea, i.e. a universal set of rules for “Good” and “Bad” that are believed to be undeniable, and is different from “rules” or “laws” prescribed to live cohesively.
If we agree not to murder each other to the benefit of the group, we are not saying we won’t kill each other if it no longer benefits the group. If we agree that murder is inherently wrong, we are saying that we won’t kill each other even if it does benefit the group.
Morality requires more than simply agreeing to not do something. Simply abiding by a rule in animals is called “premoral behavior”, which assumes they are not acting with morality but the precursor to it. Much like we would have before developing those basic “rules” into a morality that has been historically done through spirituality.
So explain slavery. That was once morraly good. Hell, some still do.
There is no such thing that is universally good ot bad. If it were it would apply universally not just to the ingrown.
We are seeing it all over thr world in real time. Murder should be a universally condemned act yet we see “moral” people screaming for the death of people they deemed unworthy every day
Wee e just to add you and I may think a thing should be a universal good/bad it doesn’t make it true and is easy to see even in our own countries
Morality is nothing more than a social construct. For a society to exist there needs to be common rules
Spirituality haz nothing to do with that
Is that clear enough for you
I agree, morality is a social construct. It is a product of large groups of humans needing a unified set of common rules to get along.
Historically, 100% of the time according to the evidence we have available on all documented groups of humans, this was done with spirituality and religion up until modern times.
Is that clear enough for you?
I understand your premises ivstill disagree its spiritual. More a case of you catch more honey with flies. If we agree to certain behaviours we both benefit. This system grew up to become what we call morals and then laws
I would love to see the archaeological evidence that suggests our species begun exploring “morality” through agreeing on certain behaviors being “good” or “bad”. Unfortunately all evidence we have on early humans demonstrates our species has been “spiritual”, e.g. believing in a greater force beyond our control that determines outcomes and promotes group unity, as long as we were leaving a mark on the world that outlasted our bodies.
You can disagree, but that doesn’t change what we know about early humans and their early belief systems, and that we lack any supporting evidence for your point.
We don’t need archeology we see it every day with pack animals. Those that don’t conform get ostracised or worse
That isn’t “morality”.
Morality is just a word we give to our personal rules to live by thes begin in groups
Morality is a word given to a specific idea, i.e. a universal set of rules for “Good” and “Bad” that are believed to be undeniable, and is different from “rules” or “laws” prescribed to live cohesively.
If we agree not to murder each other to the benefit of the group, we are not saying we won’t kill each other if it no longer benefits the group. If we agree that murder is inherently wrong, we are saying that we won’t kill each other even if it does benefit the group.
Morality requires more than simply agreeing to not do something. Simply abiding by a rule in animals is called “premoral behavior”, which assumes they are not acting with morality but the precursor to it. Much like we would have before developing those basic “rules” into a morality that has been historically done through spirituality.
So explain slavery. That was once morraly good. Hell, some still do.
There is no such thing that is universally good ot bad. If it were it would apply universally not just to the ingrown.
We are seeing it all over thr world in real time. Murder should be a universally condemned act yet we see “moral” people screaming for the death of people they deemed unworthy every day
Wee e just to add you and I may think a thing should be a universal good/bad it doesn’t make it true and is easy to see even in our own countries