Rantman

13

Let's try to figure out where does morality actually originate from.

Many of us have the idea that morals originated from religion. Being non-religious, I admit that I found that hard to swallow. After all, when I found myself of devoid of religion and any compulsory moral mandate to follow to get on the good side of God and reach heaven, shouldn't I have lost my morality? But, I didn't find that to be the case (yet?). Which led me to think about where did morality actually come from, and what is causing it to stay despite my lack of religion and moral obligations originating from its belief.

The fundamental problem with the argument that morality originates from religion is that all religions are relatively new, yet human civilization predates that by a large margin. Christianity is but 2000+ years old. We can assume that most modern religions with a detailed moral code are not more than 10k years old. As far as I know, paganism and older religions didn't have a strict and/or detailed moral code to follow. Yet the early vestiges of civilization, agriculture and the cooperative form of living started existing from much before. And this would not have been possible if we lived like selfish animals incapable of cooperating and thinking about collective welfare, without any morality.

After all, did we really need an external source to tell us that killing is bad, stealing is wrong, and hurting and harming others is evil? Wouldn't an individual with sufficient empathy/emotional quotient be able to understand that, without any external source of information or mandate? If anything, being a victim makes it likely that you won't commit the crime that was done to you. Like if an early man found his food stolen or house damaged, he would feel bad and know how it would feel to others, and wouldn't steal or cause damage causelessly at the very least. 

I don't know about you, but don't you physically feel guilt if you do something really bad? Like say if you accidentally trip a child, won't you feel bad? Isn't that basic, instinctive morality? Religion and law doesn't say you are guilty for something unintentional or an accident. Yet, most people would still feel bad, simply because the core of our being doesn't like causing hurt/harm to others. Unless you are a sadist, which is a mental illness. But the average, normal person doesn't like causing hurt/harm, causelessly at the very lest, and so our mind takes paths to avoid such events, forming our morality. 

Yet, if morality is so intuitive, then why did we need law and religious mandates? Its because while causeless evil is easy to understand, avoid and condemn; the grey ground begins when you have causes. A starving early man would probably not hesitate to steal from his neighbor to survive. Logic and self-interest tells him his survival is most important, and so he steals. And even supposing if he gets more food later, logic and morality clash inside him, as to whether he should store it for himself or give it to the man he stole food from. Logic dictates us to follow our self-interest, and allow us to participate in collectively beneficial behavior only when major benefits passes on from it to us.

Thus, the early vestiges of civilization must have saw that while humans weren't inherently evil, pursuing their self-interest may cause them to pursue actions that lead to collective harm and destruction. And thus, came the law into being. Killing someone to steal their possessions might not feel forbidden to a selfish being, and thus the law was made and enforced to stop such wanton pursuits of self-interest. And the collective law was mostly followed and accepted, for while it limited the chances of the selfish individual benefitting himself at the cost of others, it also reduced the chances of his being harmed from others trying to benefit themselves. Human beings are naturally risk-averse, and so this compromise was accepted by the sane majority.

Much of morality is also quasi-logical and a method of risk-aversion, if you think about it. For example, cheating is a sin simply because it is likely that the betrayed mate would harm both parties if they found out, and there's always a risk of being found out. Do unto others as others do unto you, simply because if you be a jerk to others, they'll be a jerk to you, just out of pure retaliation. Which is logical. Love thy neighbor and be friendly/helpful to them, simply because they live the nearest to you and are your immediate source of help during any crisis, such as food shortage, robbery/attacks, house fire etc. Don't deceive or lie to others, cause if they found out, the consequences could be bad, you lose trust and may get deceived/lied to by others as well. Our entire civilization and social order is based upon human beings being allies or neutral to each other, instead of always behaving as outright competitors/rivals like other powerful but not so smart animals.

But, if that was the case, why did religious morality come into existence in the first place? Why did God/man had to give us the moral mandate recorded in the books of religion? Because while basic and logical morality is intuitive, religion introduced the higher form of morality: altruism. The good Samaritan idea. The idea that we have a duty towards the human race, to guide and help others, even when they may not do the same for us. The idea that certain actions are sins and evil, regardless of cause or effect. Logically, helping others causelessly without any advantage at all may seem like a waste of time and resources. Altruism may have existed before religion too, but I'd like to think that religion tried to introduce a higher morality, to take us from being mere logical neutrals to active good doers. I won't comment upon its success, but religion sure had changed the understanding of morality, though it has not created it from scratch, as some are inclined to believe.

This also explains how China, Tibet, and other non-religious countries also have morals. As far as I know, the Chinese don't have an explicit religion as such, but follow moral codes laid down in Confucianism, Taoism, Buddhism etc. No one says Confucius is God. Buddhism too has more emphasis on following the teachings of the Enlightened One, instead of worshipping or glorifying him (which is another sect). Confucius was a mere man, a great philosopher yet biologically the same as us, but he laid down principles of morality that may echo the sentiments shared by other religions. 

So, what is the way forward? Its not just religion that will make us better human beings. Instead, emphasis on the moral teachings and way of life expected from a follower would lead to better results. Evil cannot be forgiven until the evildoer knows it was wrong, and is prepared to atone for it. The biggest obstacle in helping the human race evolve in terms of our morality is that morality cannot be taught conventionally.  We have a defiant streak in us, we resent being controlled. If someone tells us of a way to live our life, most likely we'll do the opposite. Most disregard teachings and advice until experience makes them learn otherwise. Perhaps its just a matter of a sort of moral intelligence. Nevertheless, the mystery of morality would always allure me, for it is something in us that we know most intimately, yet know least about.