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.
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.