quote:

Also as I've said before, it's probably going to come down to how you define god and morality,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

I think defining "human" is important too.

Not to argue with the dictionary, but in a clinical context it is often useful to distinguish between feeling and emotion. A good rule of thumb is, feelings are something you have, an emotion is something that has you. Our feelings may tell us that an action is wrong, we may know it in our heart, but a powerful emotion can override our deeper feelings. Too, the ability to be in touch with our feelings can be compromised by our cultures and psychological injury. But I am not the first person, nor will I be the last, to hold the view that if more people were able to be in touch with their feelings and to act from their hearts instead of calculation or emotion, we could free ourselves from much of the mayhem that blights this imperfect world.

K.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

We do know that murder was proscribed in the code of Hamurabi and all other anceint compilations of law that have survived. Since many of those come from areas that had had no contact with the judeo christian religions when written it seems evident that murder, as well as theft and some other actions, were found to be unacceptable for the functioning of a community without the need for some sky guy telling anyone.

The Code of Hammurabi refers to temples and votaries, which would seem to suggest that the Babylonians had some sort of religious life.

As for other societies, does the lack of Judeo-Christian influence mean that they had no religious beliefs whatsover?

So your argument is that all the various sky guys exist and they all handed down morality to their followers? Or are you arguing that simply by holding an untrue religious belief these ancient cultures all decided murder was wrong?

You're putting words in my mouth, Ken. That's a strawman technique I'd associate with <insert notorious right-wing poster here>, and I'm sorry to see you stoop to it.

I have carefully taken no position on whether morality has a divine origin. I'm keenly aware that I haven't given the question nearly enough research or thought to answer it definitively. (I'm not entirely sure that anyone else on the thread has either, but that's their concern.)

I am simply, as someone who likes history and believe it deserves respect, exploring a (pre)historical question that arose in this thread, namely whether humans developed a sense of morality before or after they developed religion. You offered "the code of Hamurabi and all other anceint compilations of law that have survived" as examples of (if I understood you correctly) morality that was not based on religion. You also mentioned that some of those codes came "from areas that had had no contact with the judeo christian religions."

I noted that the Code of Hammurabi contained references to organized religion (temples and votaries). That makes it, imho, an odd example of a religion-free moral code. I also asked whether the absence of Judaism-Christianity meant, as you seemed to be implying in what honestly struck me as a sleight of hand, the absence of any religion. We are surely both aware that the world has more than one religion.

quote:

I will point out that the babylonian gods were not considered to have a problem with their worshippers killing each other, the various city states fought many wars, which likely can be said for many other religions of the era and despite that every society that got to the point of writing down the rules of their society forbid murder.

quote:

It is a human being who said "let them eat cake", and she meant it.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

It is a human being who said "let them eat cake", and she meant it.

I hate to seem like even more of a historical nitpicker than I am , but there's actually a lot of skepticism about whether Marie Antoinette ever really said this.

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

It is a human being who said "let them eat cake", and she meant it.

I hate to seem like even more of a historical nitpicker than I am , but there's actually a lot of skepticism about whether Marie Antoinette ever really said this.

Well I can put up plenty of examples of people thinking incredibly stupid things because they're thinking with their feelings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VokvT0CyT5E

quote:

The Marie Antoinette quote was meant to serve as an example. Whether it can actually be attributed to her is actually somewhat irrelevant to the underlying point

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

quote:

It is a human being who said "let them eat cake", and she meant it.

I hate to seem like even more of a historical nitpicker than I am , but there's actually a lot of skepticism about whether Marie Antoinette ever really said this.

Well I can put up plenty of examples of people thinking incredibly stupid things because they're thinking with their feelings: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VokvT0CyT5E

quote:

One could, for example, be personally averse to the idea of having sex with someone of the same gender. In fact, most straight people, by definition would not be turned on by the idea of sex with the same gender. What does this tell us about whether or not someone supports gay rights? Their personal sexual orientation (which doesn't come from their rational side) actually tells us nothing about their attitude about what others should be free to do (which necessarily comes from a rational thought process).

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: dcnovice

when Justice Powell provided the swing vote, which he later regretted, to uphold sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick, he told a closeted clerk that he didn't know any gay people.

Ironically, it wouldn't surprise me if he did... and didn't even know it.

K.