You’re making the false assumption that there are universal morals and human values here. That’s immediately falsifiable by noting that different societies don’t, in fact, have the same morals or values. You’re also making the other false assumption that religions never (or essentially never) challenge their host societies’ morals or values when the two biggest religions in the world (Islam and Christianity) provide ample evidence to the contrary. You’re then deriving from those two false assumptions the false conclusions that religions don’t shape the values and morals of their host societies when, for example, it’s not a coincidence that Americans regardless of religion tend to find polygamy morally unacceptable.
I think you’re confusing Morality - things like “I shall not harm others” - with social norms - like your polygamy example.
Morality derives from Empathy - the higher a person’s Empathy the less likely they are to do things to hurt others because due to Empathy they actually feel bad (mainly guilt) when exposed to the hurt in others which they caused.
Social norms on the other hand are things which we in society have agreed are better done that way for the good of all. Some do indeed overlap with Morality, but others are just the product of figuring out over centuries that societies are more stable and last more if those things aren’t done (for example, polygamy as a widespread practice - rather than when only done by very few and very rich men - yields societies with lots of angry young men unless such a society is constantly at war and hence most young men die in it, so generally being against polygamy is just logical). In simple terms, societies with social norms that don’t work or without some social norms quickly self-destructed or were destroyed by other societys which were more prosperous (or even more violent)
There is no necessity of people being told not to hurt others - it’s a natural thing for people who aren’t high on the Psychopathy, Sociopathy or Narcissism spectrum and hence have empathy, plus even for those there is the fear of reciprocation by others, which is why most hurting of others is people with more power doing it to those with less power (something, which by the way is inconsistent with the “Morality comes from Religion” theory - if that was the case, the powerful being just as Religious would do no more harm to others than the powerless).
There is no necessity of people being told not to hurt others - it’s a natural thing for people who aren’t high on the Psychopathy, Sociopathy or Narcissism spectrum and hence have empathy,
Counterpoint: Slavery. A good chunk (probably a majority) of societies before the 19th century saw slavery as just and natural, so either holding people in bondage doesn’t quality as “hurting” or morality is in fact dependent on social norms. Other counterexamples would include the death penalty, acceptable conduct in warfare (compare wherever you live to Israel for a modern example), domestic violence, the use of certain criminal punishments (i.e. corporal punishment), the whole concept of crime, illicit sexual relationships, drinking alcohol (viewed as morally wrong in most Muslim societies), etc. These are things that by most definitions would be included under “morality,” so while there’s a basic core of morality that’s mostly independent of culture, beyond that it’s all socially contingent.
Social norms on the other hand are things which we in society people have agreed are better done for the good of all […] (for example, polygamy as a widespread practice - rather than when only done by very few and very rich men - yields societies with lots of angry young men unless such a society is constantly at war and hence most young men die in it, so generally being against polygamy is just logical).
I strongly doubt the average American is going through that thought process when saying “polygamy is bad.” That’s a claim that requires evidence.
(something, which by the way is inconsistent with the “Morality comes from Religion” theory - if that was the case, the powerful being just as Religious would do no more harm to others than the powerless).
I didn’t say that being moral stems from being religious, but that the moral values observed in many societies (including Western ones) stem from religious ones, but also: You’re assuming the powerless don’t act like the powerful due to better morality rather than lack of ability. Usually people who transition from powerless to powerful act basically like the already powerful do, with maybe some benefit of perspective.
You’re making the false assumption that there are universal morals and human values here. That’s immediately falsifiable by noting that different societies don’t, in fact, have the same morals or values. You’re also making the other false assumption that religions never (or essentially never) challenge their host societies’ morals or values when the two biggest religions in the world (Islam and Christianity) provide ample evidence to the contrary. You’re then deriving from those two false assumptions the false conclusions that religions don’t shape the values and morals of their host societies when, for example, it’s not a coincidence that Americans regardless of religion tend to find polygamy morally unacceptable.
I think you’re confusing Morality - things like “I shall not harm others” - with social norms - like your polygamy example.
Morality derives from Empathy - the higher a person’s Empathy the less likely they are to do things to hurt others because due to Empathy they actually feel bad (mainly guilt) when exposed to the hurt in others which they caused.
Social norms on the other hand are things which we in society have agreed are better done that way for the good of all. Some do indeed overlap with Morality, but others are just the product of figuring out over centuries that societies are more stable and last more if those things aren’t done (for example, polygamy as a widespread practice - rather than when only done by very few and very rich men - yields societies with lots of angry young men unless such a society is constantly at war and hence most young men die in it, so generally being against polygamy is just logical). In simple terms, societies with social norms that don’t work or without some social norms quickly self-destructed or were destroyed by other societys which were more prosperous (or even more violent)
There is no necessity of people being told not to hurt others - it’s a natural thing for people who aren’t high on the Psychopathy, Sociopathy or Narcissism spectrum and hence have empathy, plus even for those there is the fear of reciprocation by others, which is why most hurting of others is people with more power doing it to those with less power (something, which by the way is inconsistent with the “Morality comes from Religion” theory - if that was the case, the powerful being just as Religious would do no more harm to others than the powerless).
Counterpoint: Slavery. A good chunk (probably a majority) of societies before the 19th century saw slavery as just and natural, so either holding people in bondage doesn’t quality as “hurting” or morality is in fact dependent on social norms. Other counterexamples would include the death penalty, acceptable conduct in warfare (compare wherever you live to Israel for a modern example), domestic violence, the use of certain criminal punishments (i.e. corporal punishment), the whole concept of crime, illicit sexual relationships, drinking alcohol (viewed as morally wrong in most Muslim societies), etc. These are things that by most definitions would be included under “morality,” so while there’s a basic core of morality that’s mostly independent of culture, beyond that it’s all socially contingent.
I strongly doubt the average American is going through that thought process when saying “polygamy is bad.” That’s a claim that requires evidence.
I didn’t say that being moral stems from being religious, but that the moral values observed in many societies (including Western ones) stem from religious ones, but also: You’re assuming the powerless don’t act like the powerful due to better morality rather than lack of ability. Usually people who transition from powerless to powerful act basically like the already powerful do, with maybe some benefit of perspective.