Why?Yes.
Question one: No. Humans are social animals and have evolved traits which limit these behaviours. Moral truth is not a requirement, and indeed history suggests neither is it an impediment. Question two: In general, this question is the wrong way around. Ideas of what is right and wrong arises out of the way a society has developed. In one society burning people of other religions is good, in another bad. In one society, abortion is good, in another bad. Question three: Do societies have understandings? If so, what is the view of present day society in, say, Florida, about ontology? In general bad things seem pretty likely to happen in any society founded on something other than democracy and the rule of law. And even there bacd things happen.In a world where no one believes in moral truth, is rape and murder for personal pleasure more likely to occur? How much of an impact does a belief in moral truth, right and wrong, effect the way society develops? If a society is nihilistic in its cultural and ontological understanding, are bad things more likely to happen.
So you think that belief in moral truth (a belief that personal life and existence has intrinsic and objective moral value), has had no significant impact on the development of human society?Question one: No. Humans are social animals and have evolved traits which limit these behaviours. Moral truth is not a requirement, and indeed history suggests neither is it an impediment.
That would appear to be the commonsense conclusion, but others appear to think that good is an inevitable consequence of evolution rather than belief. How do you respond to that?If we reject moral truth, then we descend into evil and sin. Without anything to tell us that rape and murder is wrong, we will commit them with impunity, or at least without knowledge that they are wrong. Such evil things could even be considered commonplace and be accepted in a society like that.
Well I think rape is wrong because I think we are best off in a society that upholds human rights, of which the right to the integrity of your own body is one. I don’t know of any study in evolutionary biology dealing specifically with rape, but your hypotheses does not seem to me to be the more likely one. Evidence points to humans surviving as a result of strong social units such as families and tribes; rape would not contribute to this. Generally people now think of the unit of selection being populations rather than individuals. and of course much of this evolution probably took place before we were human.Why is rape considered evil? From a purely “natural” perspective, rape is not inherently wrong. It provides the same function as regular, consenting intercourse, although in a more forced and violent way. Wouldn’t Natural Selection prefer the males who exhibit that kind of dominance? The ones who demonstrate that strong, alpha male mentality? If we are simply evolved animals, why do we consider something like rape to be inherently wrong across the board?
I think it has, yes, but I think these ideas arise from society, not society from these ideas.So you think that belief in moral truth (a belief that personal life and existence has intrinsic and objective moral value), has had no significant impact on the development of human society?
The origin of ideas is irrelevant to the truth of ideas - unless they have a rational origin. The test is whether they correspond to reality…I think it has, yes, but I think these ideas arise from society, not society from these ideas.
Well, yes, but we were not talking about whether the ideas were true. We were talking about their impact on society. An untrue idea can have a big impact, even if it arises from society, rather than society arising from it.The origin of ideas is irrelevant to the truth of ideas - unless they have a rational origin. The test is whether they correspond to reality…
That is true but the OP is concerned with whether the absence of belief in moral truth leads to a greater likelihood of immoral behaviour. If beliefs and non-beliefs have any effect on people’s lives (as they surely do) the impact on society must be an increase in immorality - unless they are naturally moral. History doesn’t bear out that assumption!Well, yes, but we were not talking about whether the ideas were true. We were talking about their impact on society. An untrue idea can have a big impact, even if it arises from society, rather than society arising from it.
Rape alone wouldn’t but in conjunction with a strong, alpha male mentality it could! The strong social units were surely based on the strongest males. If the rapist could overcome the existing leader he would replace him. In primitive society might is right and rights don’t exist!Evidence points to humans surviving as a result of strong social units such as families and tribes; rape would not contribute to this.
I think you are slightly imprecise with this question, because at a society level humans always assumed some moral truth. Therefore you should clarify whether you are asking for the situation of a society with absence of believe in moral truths, which might be a society you cannot form with humans, or whether you ask for societys with moral truths differing from christians believe moral truth to be.How much of an impact does a belief in moral truth, right and wrong, effect the way society develops? If a society is nihilistic in its cultural and ontological understanding, are bad things more likely to happen.
How would you justify that assumption?I think you are slightly imprecise with this question, because at a society level humans always assumed some moral truth.
By arguing that i worded it badly and meant that humans always assumed some things regarding moral matters to be true. E.g. the aztecs were as a society convinced that it was moral to sacrifrice children to tlaloc. So they believed in some moral “truth”.How would you justify that assumption?
Yes, unless there’s an oppressive dictatorship which inflicts pain on people in order to “recondition” them (like Pavlov’s classical conditioning) every time they step out of line.How much of an impact does a belief in moral truth, right and wrong, effect the way society develops? If a society is nihilistic in its cultural and ontological understanding, are bad things more likely to happen.
If we go back far enough in history there was a time when our ancestors were preoccupied with amoral survival against marauders!By arguing that i worded it badly and meant that humans always assumed some things regarding moral matters to be true. E.g. the aztecs were as a society convinced that it was moral to sacrifrice children to tlaloc. So they believed in some moral “truth”.
Therefore we can by looking at history only say something about societies, which believed in different “truths” but not something about societies that lacked belief in any “truths”.
While some people may say it is a fallacy to think that if there are no “objective morals” all things are allowed, I actually do believe that people, without something transcendent to believe in (or often than not merely hang onto) will tend to satisfying their own greed and desires. It is simply a fact of us being blinded by these physical bodies.How much of an impact does a belief in moral truth, right and wrong, effect the way society develops? If a society is nihilistic in its cultural and ontological understanding, are bad things more likely to happen.