The actual origin of moral codes, religious law, is the simplest thing of all to recognize, by the use of rationality, and the ability to see the outcome of a society, especially a primitive and ancient tribal society that did not institute by social conditioning such a code. Human beings have not evolved psychologically for at least 50,000 years, perhaps longer. And so, we are no different today than our ancient ancestors were, psychologically. The reaction today of another man copulating with your wife on the sly, is psychologically as it was 6000 years ago. The reaction of stealing someone's resources, that might very well cause his family to starve is not different either, nor is murdering someone else for they infringed upon you own self image, by their treatment of you. If a society did not try to address these antisocial actions of ego driven beings, there would of course be chaos and disorder in the society. And no doubt man being intelligent noticed early on what selfish behavior did to the cooperative nature of the tribe, making it less apt for optimum survival, So noticing what caused the disorder, they did the common sense thing and created rules to be followed in an attempt to address this. And that then became a conditioning given to all of the new born humans joining the group. At some point in time, tying moral codes in with religious beliefs served to help enforce the moral codes, by punishment after death,so that you may escape retribution in this life, but surely not the next. So moral codes arose from intelligence recognizing the cause of social disorder, and the attempt to address it, as to minimize disorder. But what about homosexuality? Would those acts cause society to be in disorder? I doubt it, given the low rates of homosexually. But could it be seen as some threat to a tribal society, that had to keep procreating in order that the numbers could be maintained which optimized the survival of the tribe? I think that answer is yes. And no doubt some of these tribes living so close to nature noticed that exclusive homosexual behavior looked to be out of step with the natural world, for the natural world seemed to be obsessed with procreation. But that would not have been the driving force that made homosexual behavior against moral codes. Procreation for tribe survival would be. And so should homosexual behavior be immoral today, given that we no longer have to concern ourselves with procreating enough to keep our species going? I would say no. So most of our moral codes, which then became law, were created out of necessity. And the reasons these codes were created, most of them are still valid today, and illustrates intelligence at work. Yet we still have codes that are irrelevant today, yet still enforced, many times very harshly. The war on drugs, which has made us the largest prison nation in the world comes to mind. Thoughts?
You paint a false picture. Homosexuals would have actually provided a great benefit to tribes. Only the alpha males would mate with the few females in a tribe but they would also be the ones to hunt. What would stop the males left behind from copulating with the females creating weaker offspring? I could give many examples as to how homosexuality was useful but the point is religion is not reasonable and nor are the reasons for its "moral" teachings. I've posted this many times and continue to because it's a truth more people need to recognize. Religion is a kaleidoscope of morality. It takes our inherent morality created over thousands of years of evolution, combines it with our baser instincts and behaviors,distorts it and breaks it into various shapes and colors. It confuses what was already a difficult thing to ascertain, it seeks to force its will over the human condition in a failed attempt to create an objective morality. Every Christian or theist who disregards the most immoral thoughts and actions of religion, places the blame of those thoughts and actions squarely on the human being while giving that same religion credit for the morality that allowed them to reject those same thoughts and actions.
Every sin contributes to societal disorder, because the sinner eventually finds himself compelled to extract from another what he lost by sinning - an obvious example being the lesbians who got an Oregon bureaucrat to levy a six figure fine on a bakery based on their fraudulent claim to have been emotionally damaged.
I agree. There are some caveats that I have about open Gay's in society, like identity issues among the young. One benefit I realized was that Gay people tend to adopt children a lot. Children without a family get a family. So there's that...
Evolution made this easy humans ,ancient and modern, who were more social and worked in groups created a moral code which most benefitted them through a combination of social pressure and leaders enforcing behavior they preferred. Stealing, murder, rape and other crimes go against the group and therefore became bad and things like working hard with others and caring for the sick were positive and therefore encouraged. Its as simple as that, loners tended to die off or not survive, unless done in a wy that society accepted in the dark ages a reclusive monk could get away with that. No one is born moral young people to adulthood are instructed in the morality the society wishes to instill this could be bad or good, by the standards of another society, in some raping women to marry them was fine (Biblical Hebrews) and in others that's a serious crime and one considered disgusting,
Our social morality was being constructed long before we became humans. The golden rule popping up throughout the world in different times and places is a pretty good indication that we have an inherent morality given to us by evolution. Religion gave people power over others and with it the ability to behave immorally with impunity and thanks to our baser instincts we ran with it. For a long time morality existed in spite of the immorality that ruled the lands. Can't remember who said it but the quote goes, "we are monkeys with guns and money" and it's very easy looking at our behavior to agree with what that statement implies. Religion however preached the idea that we are born sinners and only through our belief in God will we be forgiven for it. Because of this religion acts as a wall preventing us from facing our immoral instincts and challenging them in a way that will help us grow beyond them.
I based my opinion on OUR species, branched off from a common ancestor, who likely was a social animal since its how we survive along with our intelligence.
Kudos. Recognizing morality is a social construct not all that universal or consistent is not all that common Noticed the quote, you are incorrect about eho said it first. But anyhow, have you read Ayn Rand? - - - Updated - - - Where do you think prejudices come from?
Differences, people often make the mistake of viewing emotions and ideas from a purely modern point-of-view. Prejudice began as nothing more than a fear of the unknown. "We don't know that tribe and we do not understand their way of doing things." Anything that runs counter to their known practices, especially if it might cause or has caused harm regardless of the intent would be something to avoid. As we progressed however religion became the ultimate form of prejudice because it wasn't just behaviors that collided it was realities. Just ask the Aztecs.
In my observation and experience prejudices tend to come from generalizations most often times having merit and truth. If you chalk up prejudice as simply fear of the unknown, you fail to address it and probably will be unsuccessful changing it. Prejudices are not the product of ignorance. Everyone has prejudices.
You have made a big mistake. You have seen tribal societies as little more than a chimp society. Believe it or not, man developed more complex societies than chimps were able to do. That is what the difference in the human brain yielded. Homosexuality, does not optimize human survival, for it does not procreate. And procreation was of the upmost importance whether it was a mouse or a human being. So, having codes against it, as the Hebrew tribe did was of pragmatism. So the laws against homosexuality are easily understood from the point of view of simple survival of the species. Yet some of these tribal cultures saw it differently. The queerness of the behavior by some tribes was seen as so different as to be special, and perhaps they even gave homos a special status and they gave shamans. So how homosexuality was viewed did vary, but with the Hebrews, it was seen as bad, and they had laws against it.
You have made a big mistake. You have seen tribal societies as little more than a chimp society. Believe it or not, man developed more complex societies than chimps were able to do. That is what the difference in the human brain yielded. Homosexuality, does not optimize human survival, for it does not procreate. And procreation was of the upmost importance whether it was a mouse or a human being. So, having codes against it, as the Hebrew tribe did was of pragmatism. So the laws against homosexuality are easily understood from the point of view of simple survival of the species. Yet some of these tribal cultures saw it differently. The queerness of the behavior by some tribes was seen as so different as to be special, and perhaps they even gave homos a special status and they gave shamans. So how homosexuality was viewed did vary, but with the Hebrews, it was seen as bad, and they had laws against it. But homosexuality was different, in that the other moral rules addressed actions that would actually cause disorder and chaos in the tribe which was not condusive in keeping the tribe socially healthy. There is something in the mind of man that seeks order over disorder. And certain actions created disorder and chaos, and these were then codified as unacceptable behavior, purely pragmatic act that religion later claimed credit for.
And almost everyone lacks self awareness. In other words if someone expects the worst of you they will be unlikely to see your virtues and much more likely to observe all and even your smallest failures. And so you of them. --- Thats prejudice in a nutshell I agree its not really all about fear of the unknown though. Its about the need to be loyal to ones own in order to survive or thrive in challenging environments.
Is America more moral where divorce, abortion, homosexuality, pornography, adultery and such are common and pretty acceptable? Or are middle eastern countries more moral for exercising more control over what their cultures are exposed to and using punishment and execution as a means of encouraging the populous to be good?
I'm not the one who made a mistake. Humans didn't suddenly appear on this planet, we weren't birth by a chimp and the length of time the Hebrews have been on this planet pales in comparison to the totality of the social structures that shaped our behavior over the length of our evolution. You actually missed my point entirely because if you hadn't you wouldn't have responded by inadvertently supporting my position. The Hebrews view of the parts of human nature they didn't understand was a perversion of our inherent morality for the sake of trying to force their will over the human condition in an attempt to create an objective morality. Consciousness is a great responsibility and we spent most of our infancy failing tremendously to meet our potential, all part of the growing pains of the human mind. Homosexual behavior is found throughout the animal kingdom and what was once a matter of instinct became a matter of thought, thoughts that were obviously limited in their scope. Imagine Adam and Eve suddenly becoming aware of their nakedness. There are many theories as to why homosexuality was beneficial beyond the one I provided and several as to how the genes were passed on and the Hebrews were privy to none of them. And now with the very real danger and reality of overpopulation we have another viable benefit to homosexuality. Understanding nature is not intuitive.
Generalizations are an exercise in ignorance foundationally void of merit regardless of whatever small amounts of truth they may contain. You are making the mistake of viewing prejudice from a purely modern point-of-view. The underpinnings of it are more instinctual and if it wasn't for credulous claims dogmatically propagated to the ignorant masses it would not take on the modern form it does now and certainly would not be so prevalent. By modern I mean since the dawn of civilization by the way. We are after all talking about the origins of moral codes.
Young people are really impressionable. They unconsciously absorb their environment and when they aren't doing that, their doing their best to consciously imitate it. If there is an increased presence of homosexual activity, I can bet that as time goes by, you will see this at younger and younger ages more and more. Here's where I have trouble, however. If a young boy witnesses sexual activity, tries it, and likes it....is that wrong? If more and more young boys find that they can be as attracted to each other as they can a girl...is that wrong? The young tend to be relatively fearless when it comes to exploring things and I believe if homosexuality becomes more common, more visible, they will try it. And I believe that absent social pressure from friends and family who would punish, oppress, or ostracize them in some way for this, I think many more young boys won't really see that much of a difference- especially if it was their first sexual encounter. So...I don't think society will blow up if this happens anyway. However, I do feel that the sexual boudaries we previously had in society will evaporate and their will be a sort of free-for-all. Something tells me that's not going to be a good thing, but, again, this is just speculation...
Homosexuality is not something you try, you are either gay or your not. What you seem to be referencing here is bi-sexuality. My parents and family members had gay friends, for me it was out in the open free from oppression or social pressures and never once did I think "hey I should give that a try" and the reason I didn't is because I'm not gay. This whole idea that people can be influenced into homosexuality is I'm sorry to say completely delusional. Only people severely confused would fit this category but their confusion would have little to do with the social atmosphere.
I don't think that is the case. It draws things into two neat, absolute groups. How you may react is not how another person may react. Also, you might not have known or realized the pressures the gay people you knew might have been under or experiencing. Did these gay people you knew say they never were bothered or oppressed or was that your observation? Well, it's just my opinion anyway, so I could be wrong...
