Guilt, sin, crime and punishment
Posted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 11:58 pm
I had been re-thinking my stance on human morality.
My belief had been that morality is an evloutionary development, and the random mutations that govern ethical behaviour have been surviving in genomes in larger numbers than the genomes that lacked it, because social living helped the survival of those who behaved ethically (treat others as you would like to be treated, do your fair share of community work, help those in need to survive, follow marriage traditions, accept community standards of behaviour codes).
Then I got on this site, and see arguments by theists, that atheists can't have a moral system because they lack in the beliefe in a God-given moral code.
Then I got thinking. The crime rate of atheists and theists are not different. So if some crimes ara also sinful, then the Christians in America also don't follow god's commandments. So the argument that atheism leads to more sinful ways, is valid only inasmuch as a sin is not a crime. For instance, overeating, or cheating on a spouse.
But even Gluttony, one of the seven deadly sins, is more prevalent in America, the most Christian nation in the world, than anywhere else.
So I decided that fear of god does not dictate a sinless, crime-free life.
But does atheism?
In all honesty, no. Atheists and Christians would both walk into fire to save their sons and daughters, and atheists and Christians would be equally likely to jump into the foaming brine of the oceans to save a person from drowning. Atheists and theists alike would and do volunteer their time to serve the poor in food kitchens, and atheists and theist alike are equally bent on either not shoplifting, or shoplifting.
There was an other reason why my theory on ethics as a development by the evolutionary process had to change. That is that both theists and atheists commit murder, or steal, or cheat on their spouses, or are rude with others, or beat their spouses, etc. etc. They both drive drunk and hit people.
So if ethics can be superridden, I theorized, by sinful behaviour, then it's not DNA or genome-driven. Some ethical behaviour is. But most behaviour which our society fosters as "ethical" is not genome-driven.
So what the driving force that compels people to behave ethically?
I would say indoctrination, and fear of law.
People do feel guilty if they do something unethical. Guilt is a feeling which would not exists if humans lived outside of a society. Guilt, as a feeling, is a social development. It is not an innate process.
So guilt and the knowledge of future guilt IF the individual does something unethical, is one driving force to make people generally behave ethically.
Another force is the law. If you steal an apple, you can go to jail. If you murder someone, and get caught, you go to jail.
We created laws for all conceivable ways in which unwanted behaviour is punished. Laws don't exactly follow the descriptions of what comprises sin. For instance, in Canada now you can blaspheme in public. Or wear nothing above the belt, even if you are a woman.
But my thinking or opinionating shifted from a belief of an evolutionary development of ethics, to a belief in which it is crime punishment that forbid also in one fell swoop unethical behaviour.
I believe that it the social invention of enforceable law that dictates to most humans how and when to behave ethically, it is not religion and it is not an innate evolutionary imperative.
We, humans, behave ethically, regardless of our philosophies, because we tend to want to avoid legal remedies dished out to criminals.
What do you think?
My belief had been that morality is an evloutionary development, and the random mutations that govern ethical behaviour have been surviving in genomes in larger numbers than the genomes that lacked it, because social living helped the survival of those who behaved ethically (treat others as you would like to be treated, do your fair share of community work, help those in need to survive, follow marriage traditions, accept community standards of behaviour codes).
Then I got on this site, and see arguments by theists, that atheists can't have a moral system because they lack in the beliefe in a God-given moral code.
Then I got thinking. The crime rate of atheists and theists are not different. So if some crimes ara also sinful, then the Christians in America also don't follow god's commandments. So the argument that atheism leads to more sinful ways, is valid only inasmuch as a sin is not a crime. For instance, overeating, or cheating on a spouse.
But even Gluttony, one of the seven deadly sins, is more prevalent in America, the most Christian nation in the world, than anywhere else.
So I decided that fear of god does not dictate a sinless, crime-free life.
But does atheism?
In all honesty, no. Atheists and Christians would both walk into fire to save their sons and daughters, and atheists and Christians would be equally likely to jump into the foaming brine of the oceans to save a person from drowning. Atheists and theists alike would and do volunteer their time to serve the poor in food kitchens, and atheists and theist alike are equally bent on either not shoplifting, or shoplifting.
There was an other reason why my theory on ethics as a development by the evolutionary process had to change. That is that both theists and atheists commit murder, or steal, or cheat on their spouses, or are rude with others, or beat their spouses, etc. etc. They both drive drunk and hit people.
So if ethics can be superridden, I theorized, by sinful behaviour, then it's not DNA or genome-driven. Some ethical behaviour is. But most behaviour which our society fosters as "ethical" is not genome-driven.
So what the driving force that compels people to behave ethically?
I would say indoctrination, and fear of law.
People do feel guilty if they do something unethical. Guilt is a feeling which would not exists if humans lived outside of a society. Guilt, as a feeling, is a social development. It is not an innate process.
So guilt and the knowledge of future guilt IF the individual does something unethical, is one driving force to make people generally behave ethically.
Another force is the law. If you steal an apple, you can go to jail. If you murder someone, and get caught, you go to jail.
We created laws for all conceivable ways in which unwanted behaviour is punished. Laws don't exactly follow the descriptions of what comprises sin. For instance, in Canada now you can blaspheme in public. Or wear nothing above the belt, even if you are a woman.
But my thinking or opinionating shifted from a belief of an evolutionary development of ethics, to a belief in which it is crime punishment that forbid also in one fell swoop unethical behaviour.
I believe that it the social invention of enforceable law that dictates to most humans how and when to behave ethically, it is not religion and it is not an innate evolutionary imperative.
We, humans, behave ethically, regardless of our philosophies, because we tend to want to avoid legal remedies dished out to criminals.
What do you think?