The difference between a lion and a gorilla and a human is the brain, particularly the cerebral cortex. Humans, being social animals - this is not exclusively a human trait, there are plenty of social animals, gorillas being a good example - need to work out not just how to live in close proximity to each other (the human reproductive process requires some form of parenting, unlike, say the turtle which just lays eggs and then leaves the hatchlings to fend for themselves) to ensure the continuation of the species and also the in-group. The rules were probably originally worked out by trial and error (experience is the ancient educator of humans) and the information, the "rules", were transmitted across generations. One early rule might have been "don't kill". I am hypothesising here but let me qualify that by saying it was probably "don't kill one of ours because it means we're down one and that means the rest of you will have one less hunter, one less gatherer, one less body to reproduce....." and so on.
The rules came from there.
One can be moral and not be religious. Morality is simply rules for living. While some of those rules for living can be said to be constant, almost embedded in human DNA, most are socially relative, having been invented by humans in particular social circumstances to fit.
Let me give an example. Australian aborigines had no concept of theft simply because they had no concept of private property. The idea of theft will only be found in a society that has invented the concept of private property.
In that sense much - not all - morality is subjective and relative, bound in time and place.
Morality predates religion.
Go back and read the questions again, you missed a few. I wasn't asking about the physical difference between humans, lions, and gorillas, I was asking about the behavioral difference. It was also rhetorical in question, the point being, we already know and understand the behaviors of other creatures of evolution, why would we need to question our own? Lions and Gorillas have obviously not adapted a moral behavior, and last I checked, they have not become extinct from killing each other, so your idea that this was the reason humans adopted morality, is baseless.
You said:
Morality is just an answer to the questions humans ask each other - "how are we to live?" Well, why do we need to ask such a question? And why would Morality be involved with the answer? The Lion and Gorilla are the collective kings of their domains, and they don't seem to be asking each other how to live, nor do they exhibit moral behavior. Why would humans, the products of the same evolution, need or want to entertain such a question? You've not really explained this sufficiently, in my opinion.
Your argument amounts to an example of how man may have come to the moral decision not to kill, but we see evidence over the years of many killed in war, some of them were literal moral crusades! So it seems your theory fails at explaining morality. You state, rather matter-of-factly, that morality predates religion, but does it predate spirituality? From the most ancient relics we've discovered of man, we see indications of spiritual belief. Ritual burial, ceremonial funerals, and also a sense of some morality. So, this question of when morality came to be and why, is still unanswered.
As I stated, there is no physiological reason for man to behave morally. It doesn't make us stronger, it doesn't help us to reproduce, and in most cases it has proven to be detrimental in our very survival. Consider all of the millions of people who have died standing on their moral convictions. Clearly, morality is not conducive with the physical 'natural selection' of any species, as it is only found in humans. I love the way you guys assign a simplistic description to morality... you claim morality is simply not acting selfish toward others, or not killing them, but morality goes a lot deeper than this. Those are certainly moral attributes, but you are still failing to answer the fundamental question, why is it important to man?
What is it about Morality, that prompts an Atheist to post a thread like this? Why is it important to AHZ that he be seen as a moral person? Why are all the anti-religious pinheads so defensive about their own morality? Most importantly, how can you endorse your own version of morality, yet constantly battle the moral viewpoints of others, and still claim to be the advocate of morality? You can easily claim to believe it is not right to kill other people, that doesn't make you moral, it just makes you civilized.
