Can a person have morals

I guess it is all dependent on how you choose to view the world. I think humans are prone to caos and selfishness. I think there has to be something guiding them in order for them to overcome that and act in a moral way.

I do not think morality is the normal path for humans to follow. Whether you attribute that evolving from animals or you see it as sin nature it is still pretty apparent.

 

bravo! sadic would be proud.

And I agree with Nut's idea that religion was invented to reinforce the "rules" that were starting to come into effect to protect people. While some may not fear the consequences here in their societies, some might just fear eternal damnation enough to give pause before running a knife through someone else.

even what I consider to be my morality is loosely defined according to the US laws. There are some I do not agree with so I don't always drive 55mph. That is my choice. I don't think it makes me a bad person, just a simple lawbreaker like the other guy driving 65mph.

 

Obeying the law due to fear of punishment is not the same thing as having morality. I do not think it is man's nature to be moral. Any time in history that there have been periods of lawlessness it has brought out the worst in man. Look at the Sudan right now.

 

Laws reflect morality. Morality reflects religion. They are not the same, sure. But they are intertwined due to the origins of each.

 

Every decision you ever make will be made based on (your perception of the potential) consequences. It's that simple.

That said, I like what Nut & Magnus had to say. I agree. Religion, regardless of your belief or disbelief, was pre-existed by morality, and exists as a context for morality to the believers.

 

I disagree with the notion that morality predates religion. As a christian I believe God gave moral laws to people from the beginning starting with Adam and Eve being told not to eat the fruit. Even if you reject that, religion is a common theme in most all ancient archological finds.

 

not at all. you anthropomorphize the process a bit much. i suppose that's natural (and probably why religion even exists in the first place).

natural selection tends towards passing on traits that give an advantage to the organism in question. societies give humans an advantage, so it would make sense that a natural predisposition towards societal living would be genetic.

you'd be surprised at how much human experience is instinctual (and thus genetic).

 

actually, the problem in the sudan is more related to religion/culture than it is about people only concerned with themselves (no morals). people aren't just running around killing people indiscrimantly, they're attacking perceived enemies based on cultural identification. it's killing between societies, not within.

totally amoral people are called sociopaths and are, by definition, antisocial.

 

Being the first unselfish member of a selfish group would be a competitive disadvantage not advantage.

 

Any time a large group of people decide it is ok to kill massive amounts of innocents then they are going outside the bounds of religion and morality. What religious authority or leader do they claim has led them to this end?