Where does the sense of right and wrong originate?

[Rogar]

I was having a discussion with an atheist friend on the value of organized religion. One of my tenets was that, at the least, organized religion perpetuates what is right and wrong for future generations through it's teachings. For example, the Ten Commandments are probably one of the first things taught in Christian Sunday school once kids are old enough to understand. There are obvious exceptions, but in many geographically isolated societies some semblance of right and wrong with things such as murder, theft, and monogamy are ubiquitous. Which seems like a grand mystery in itself. And are often preserved as a part of the respective religious beliefs. The marriage ceremony for example is usually a part of a religious event conducted by a spiritual leader.

He countered that right and wrong are only mechanisms of Darwinian survival of the species. One of his examples was that without monogamy there would be jealousy and competition for mates which would cause social unrest. (again obvious exceptions). And the differences between personal right versus and the practices of religious organizations, such as wars over religion, show that the teachings do not have value.

Anyway, maybe I'm weird, but I thought it was an interesting discussion. What defines and then preserves the sense of right and wrong in a society. And maybe more interesting, why is it that geographically isolated societies often have similar basic concepts of what is good and bad, given some exceptions.

[loosechickens]

Actually, there are very few things that are "right" or "wrong" in all cultures, periods in history, etc. Even murder.

I'm one who believes no religious basis is really necessary, although if it is, the Ten Commandments are certainly a Johnny Come Lately to the party, since religions inculcating various ethical or moral ideas predate them by thousands of years.

Although plenty of religious people believe that if a person is an atheist, he or she could not possibly be ethical or moral. Witness the almost universal abhorrence when the poll question of whether or not you would vote for an atheist for President comes up.

To me, there are certain ways of behaving and interacting with others, that if engaged in on a societal basis, makes for smoother running, more pleasant societies. Various versions of what we call The Golden Rule have permeated various religions and systems of ethics for a very long time.

But, when you start really drilling down into what is considered "moral" or "right" or "wrong", you get into quite a kettle of fish, since such things as monogamy have been far more rare throughout societies than one would think. In fact, in the past, in biblical times (if one is a Christian), throughout history, and into the present, far more people have engaged in polygamous arrangements than the "one man, one woman" sort of idea that we, in this country, have come to see as "moral".

Many societies have had no WORDS even for "theft", since the concept of private property didn't even exist.

So much of what WE consider right or moral, or wrong and immoral is only our particular cultural slant on "how it's supposed to be". Recognition that it has often been different and is still different for large numbers of people is quite a shock sometimes to folks.

I think one could certainly impart ideas of a way of thinking and conducting oneself through the generations without the benefit of any organized religion, so religion per se, would not be necessary for such an endeavor. Although handy for many, especially those who believe that their culture, their way of looking at the world and their ideas represent Truth, and want to make sure that they get that word out to as many as possible.

[JaneV2.0]

I think basic decency, the impulse to care for our fellow beings, to interact honestly and fairly with each other is encoded genetically. I've heard it described as "the default setting," even for non-human communities--the mechanism usually called "conscience."


I remember years ago working with a fellow who was going on and on in new-found religious fervor, and when I asked him about it, he explained that when you were a believer, you wouldn't be inclined toward sin like, say, stealing. He was an exceptionally good-looking man, so I stifled my impulse to snort at him. But really? He probably didn't believe me when I asserted that I was a non-believer who didn't have to fight that particular demon. And then I clutched my wallet a little tighter, just in case he backslid.

[pinkytoe]

I think basic decency, the impulse to care for our fellow beings, to interact honestly and fairly with each other is encoded genetically.
I have always wondered if the exact opposite might not be the case and that we have developed rules and morals to keep things civil. Witness the natural tendency of a two year old to grab what he can for himself so that others can't get it. I think a lot of my own personal moral code came from being raised as a Catholic with the good being empathy for others and the bad being guilt. The other tenets of the Church stopped making sense to me a long time ago. I also was strongly influenced by childhood non-religious stories like Aesop's fables and Greek/Roman myths.

[razz]

I think that it is values and principles that are taught from birth or learned later in life when one faces consequences.

[bae]

You might enjoy Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation" and Trivers' "The Evolution of Recriprocal Altruism".

[Xmac]

I have always wondered if the exact opposite might not be the case and that we have developed rules and morals to keep things civil. Witness the natural tendency of a two year old to grab what he can for himself so that others can't get it

My experience is that babies are constantly observing and mimicking the world around them. If they grab, they've seen someone grab, whether it was a sibling or maybe even a parent quickly taking something from them that could be harmful. Additionally, I've been in the presence of many babies whose apparent inclination is to constantly give things to me. I'm not saying that it is necessarily generosity, it could be that they do it to see what happens the way they drop their "sippy cups" 25 times to test gravity, listen to the sound, watch the movement etc. Grabbing could also be a way to test, or learn from, their environment and if you get angry you could be teaching them how to deal with others who don't do what's "right".

As for right and wrong, I haven't seen that any exterior rules, commands, admonishments, or orders of any kind have ever contributed to long term behavior modification. They may have some kind of short term effect, but as I see it, we learn from example and life experience. It's like that quote, "tell me and I forget, teach me and I remember, involve me and I learn". We only truly learn what we directly observe and what we experience.

[Xmac]

You might enjoy Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation" and Trivers' "The Evolution of Recriprocal Altruism".
Thanks, Bae.
There's also an interesting book called the Altruism Equation.

[winterberry]

It comes from the fact that we are communal animals. We need each other for survival since we are very vulnerable if we are alone in the wilderness. If we don't share and cooperate we could be cast into the outer darkness.

Children of monogomous relationships thrive because two parents are better than one when it comes to survival.

Of course, we no longer live in isolated tribes. Vast and intricate networks of mutual support have taken their place -- megatribes -- but we still instinctively feel threatened without close human connections. Faith communities are one way in which we maintain those connections. My faith community is my tribe, as are my family and friends, and we provide mutual support in times of need. We also encourage one another to participate in the life of the megatribe (town, city, state, country, human race) in order to promote the common good and our own survival.

My faith community also connects me to the Divine Source and Presence which gives meaning to all this.