A problem for Skeptics: Morality

[PsySpi]

Consider the statement-

We have no soul, there are no higher powers, we live in a material universe there is no judgement.

Now, what reason have I, rationally to do anything but that which gives me gain? Why help people, why not murder? What basis for our morals?

It is an old problem and I have not seen a good answer to it. I am aware atheists and skeptics are as moral as anyone else but I do not see the basis used.

[wollery]

Simple self interest.

If I go around murdering other people then what's to stop other people trying to murder me. It's in my interest to treat people well, just as it's in their interest to treat me well.

It's called the golden rule, and it's far simpler and easier to follow than an abstract and arbitrary set of rules set out by a handful of priests.

I assume that you are a christian, in which case I must ask, do you follow the biblical instruction to not boil a kid in its mother's milk? How about the requirement to stone to death a rape victim who doesn't scream loudly enough?

If not then you aren't following the moral code laid out by your god.

And how about the ratio of religious to non religious prison inmates? If the religious are more moral then surely there should be a greater proportion of non religious people in prison than in the general populace. In fact the reverse is true, the proportion of non religious inmates is far lower than the proportion in the general populace.

[Lord Muck oGentry]

Consider the statement-

We have no soul, there are no higher powers, we live in a material universe there is no judgement.

Now, what reason have I, rationally to do anything but that which gives me gain? Why help people, why not murder? What basis for our morals?

It is an old problem and I have not seen a good answer to it. I am aware atheists and skeptics are as moral as anyone else but I do not see the basis used.




You will probably get differing answers from skeptics about the nature and basis of moral obligation. There is plenty of room for disagreement about what gives other persons moral worth.

However, one thing on which I should expect to see some agreement is this: no morality can be grounded in the threat of eternal torture at the command of a supernatural despot. He may be able to get his way, but that cannot make his way the right way.

If you want to pursue the subject, try a search on the Euthyphro question and the distinction between moral obligation and prudential obligation, which is first~year material in moral philosophy. Or you may want to have a look at this

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles_watts/why_do_right.html

and at the rest of the Internet Infidels site.

[tkingdoll]

PsiSpy,

If you read Richard Dawkins' book The God Delusion, you will get a more than thorough answer to your question.

In the book, Dawkins demostrates how morality does not come from religion or God at all, in fact quite the opposite. Humans are moral because it benefits us as a species. The God of the bible teaches the opposite of modern morality, so atheists had it right all along.

I can't do his arguments justice, just read the book.

[PsySpi]

Simple self interest.

If I go around murdering other people then what's to stop other people trying to murder me. It's in my interest to treat people well, just as it's in their interest to treat me well.

It's called the golden rule, and it's far simpler and easier to follow than an abstract and arbitrary set of rules set out by a handful of priests.



Isn't that from Christianity though? ;D



I assume that you are a christian, in which case I must ask, do you follow the biblical instruction to not boil a kid in its mother's milk? How about the requirement to stone to death a rape victim who doesn't scream loudly enough?

If not then you aren't following the moral code laid out by your god.



No, Christianity is the new testament, not just the old.


And how about the ratio of religious to non religious prison inmates? If the religious are more moral then surely there should be a greater proportion of non religious people in prison than in the general populace. In fact the reverse is true, the proportion of non religious inmates is far lower than the proportion in the general populace.

Maybe they find God while in prison?

[PsySpi]

but no one has yet explained why a human should act so without religion, just what is wrong with morality based of religion.

Why should we not act selfishly? Answers relating to the benefit of the species still dont answer why an INDIVIDUAL should.

[tkingdoll]

Have you read the bible? It condones rape, murder, theft, torture, plus more. What Christian morality? There is none. If people are 'good', it's in spite of the bible, not because of it.

[PsySpi]

Have you read the bible? It condones rape, murder, theft, torture, plus more.

Where?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

but no one has yet explained why a human should act so without religion, just what is wrong with morality based of religion.

Why should we not act selfishly? Answers relating to the benefit of the species still dont answer why an INDIVIDUAL should.


If you have a careful look at the discussion upthread, you will see that at least one poster has given an answer to the question why we should ( ought to, in the moral sense) behave in certain ways: Wollery mentions self~interest. Others would give different answers. As I suggested, that is because skeptics may differ in their moral thinking.

The point about our performance as a species is factual, not moral. Roughly, it is an attempt to answer the question " How could we have got, and kept, the habit of putting the interests of others, at least sometimes, before our own?" without assuming that this could happen only because of religion. This shouldn't cause you too much difficulty, since you accepted in your opening post that atheists and skeptics can behave morally. Obviously, that moral behaviour cannot be the effect of religious belief.

[tkingdoll]

Have you read the bible? It condones rape, murder, theft, torture, plus more.

Where?

Oh boy, are you in for a surprise. I guess you haven't read it then? All of it, I mean, not the cherrypicked parts the church likes to feed you.

OK, here's a website for you to do your own research, I've started you by linking to just the cruelty in Exodus, but every chapter is there :

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/cr_list.html

[kath23]

It is an old problem and I have not seen a good answer to it. I am aware atheists and skeptics are as moral as anyone else but I do not see the basis used.


Some of us are just intrinsically lovely :)

What I mean is, maybe I'm just a really good person and don't even have to try to be good? ;D

Lol maybe not.

Personally any good I do (or times I refrain from being evil) is due to a mixture of shame, guilt, and yes, a fear of getting caught.

These are all socially inculcated, by my atheist, socialist parents largely.

I just wanna be a good person, you know? ;D
Love
Kath
P.S. On the other hand, I have to admit there's something about the whole idea of 'morals' I find hard to take seriously. Hence instead of having a moral code I tend to try to embody qualities such as being warm, friendly, or generally adorable :)

[wollery]

Isn't that from Christianity though? ;DIt may have been mentioned somewhere in the bible, but it's also mentioned in just about every religious text in existence, many of which predate christianity, so no, it's not "from" christianity, and it can be taught with absolutely no recourse to any divinity.


No, Christianity is the new testament, not just the old.

So the old testament rules don't apply? That's cherrypicking your moral code according to modern mores and what suits you personally. Seems that you're ignoring your god's moral code, which begs the question, if your moral code doesn't come from your god then where does it come from?


Maybe they find God while in prison?

It's possible. But would you admit that it's also possible that the statistics reflect the actual state, and that a larger proportion of religious people commit crimes?

[Dr B]

In my humble opinion religion is corrosive and divisive. It is a cancer of the human race. I hope in a few thousand years it will have evolved out >:D

If it were down to religion, we would still all be in caves and mud huts.....I say send the christians (any religion) back!!!!

[PsySpi]

Have you read the bible? It condones rape, murder, theft, torture, plus more.

Where?

Oh boy, are you in for a surprise. I guess you haven't read it then? All of it, I mean, not the cherrypicked parts the church likes to feed you.

OK, here's a website for you to do your own research, I've started you by linking to just the cruelty in Exodus, but every chapter is there :

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/ex/cr_list.html



Instead, the cherry picked parts atheists like to feed you? ;D

try this: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.org/

(unfortunately you must pay to download it which is disappointing, and ruins the effect, but there is a sample of it on there which shows how easy the points are to dispute.)


Besides, all of those are human actions. God does what must be done for tha ultimate good.

[wollery]

So the rules laid down by god in Leviticus are fine by you. Remember, these are divinely proscribed rules.

And as for skepticsannotatedbible, it has the entire bible, good bits as well as bad, and the quran and the book of mormon. It simply highlights the relevant passages.

I love the way the Christian "corrected version" of skepticsannotatedbible charges for the privilege! ;D

[PsySpi]

Isn't that from Christianity though? ;DIt may have been mentioned somewhere in the bible, but it's also mentioned in just about every religious text in existence, many of which predate christianity, so no, it's not "from" christianity, and it can be taught with absolutely no recourse to any divinity.


from the wonderous "skeptics annotated bible ::)" itself!
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/lk/6.html#31



Good stuff-
As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise."
The Golden Rule: Treat others as you would like to be treated.


Isn't this the golden rule OF christianity? Haven't you just, in acknowledging its widespread use provided evidence?
In which texts that predate christianity? Evidence please?




No, Christianity is the new testament, not just the old.

So the old testament rules don't apply? That's cherrypicking your moral code according to modern mores and what suits you personally. Seems that you're ignoring your god's moral code, which begs the question, if your moral code doesn't come from your god then where does it come from?

They apply, but tempered by the ones of the new. The new testament is a revision by God to the old and therefore takes precedence. Its interesting that there are almost no bad things in the new compared to the old.




Maybe they find God while in prison?

It's possible. But would you admit that it's also possible that the statistics reflect the actual state, and that a larger proportion of religious people commit crimes?


Proof?

[PsySpi]

In my humble opinion religion is corrosive and divisive. It is a cancer of the human race. I hope in a few thousand years it will have evolved out >:D

If it were down to religion, we would still all be in caves and mud huts.....I say send the christians (any religion) back!!!!


What about those "highly" religious people Hitler, Stalin and Mao?

You say religion is the source of evil, a cancer and I as some many respond "what of they?"

[PsySpi]

So the rules laid down by god in Leviticus are fine by you. Remember, these are divinely proscribed rules.

See my other post.



And as for skepticsannotatedbible, it has the entire bible, good bits as well as bad, and the quran and the book of mormon. It simply highlights the relevant passages.
Just like the church does?


I love the way the Christian "corrected version" of skepticsannotatedbible charges for the privilege! ;D

I admit that is highly unfortunate.

[Dr B]

What about those "highly" religious people Hitler, Stalin and Mao?
You say religion is the source of evil, a cancer and I as some many respond "what of they?"


Psyspi - exceptions do not prove rules. Hitler was religious actually, and as for Bush, Saddam, Blair....well dont get me started......You are using irrelvant reasons to try to make a point that no one else argued??? :D

Religion is a virus of the mind (Dawkins) those who are infected the worse cause the biggest misery on this planet.

I did not say religion is the source of all evil - you made that point up yourself - i said it was analogous to cancer and corrosion - and indeed it is.

[PsySpi]

What about those "highly" religious people Hitler, Stalin and Mao?
You say religion is the source of evil, a cancer and I as some many respond "what of they?"


Psyspi - exceptions do not prove rules. Hitler was religious actually, and as for Bush, Saddam, Blair....well dont get me started......You are using irrelvant reasons to try to make a point that no one else argued??? :D

Religion is a virus of the mind (Dawkins) those who are infected the worse cause the biggest misery on this planet.

I did not say religion is the source of all evil - you made that point up yourself - i said it was analogous to cancer and corrosion - and indeed it is.


Prove hitler was religious.

Stalin and Mao were not religious, and in fact attacked religion.

What is the source of all evil?

[Dr B]

Prove hitler was religious.

I do not need to prove it as it is your irrelevant reason that you provided. However, he had a deep understanding of religious meaning as he used the same techniques in his speeches to get the country behind him. Thus showing how religion influenced him. However, in the context of this discussion it means nothing - its tangential.



Stalin and Mao were not religious, and in fact attacked religion .

Bush, Blair, Saddam, current Iranian loon (forgot his name) etc are deeply religious....and your point is????



What is the source of all evil?


Why you asking me - you mentioned it? Your memory is the source of error.

[PsySpi]

Prove hitler was religious.

I do not need to prove it as it is your irrelevant reason that you provided. However, he had a deep understanding of religious meaning as he used the same techniques in his speeches to get the country behind him. Thus showing how religion influenced him. However, in the context of this discussion it means nothing - its tangential.



Stalin and Mao were not religious, and in fact attacked religion .

Bush, Blair, Saddam, current Iranian loon (forgot his name) etc are deeply religious....and your point is????



What is the source of all evil?


Why you asking me - you mentioned it? Your memory is the source of error.


You say Buch and Blair equate to Hitler and Stalin?

[seren]

Now, what reason have I, rationally to do anything but that which gives me gain? Why help people, why not murder? What basis for our morals?

It is an old problem and I have not seen a good answer to it.


I'm just putting that there so I focus on the question you ask.

Right, firstly, I think Psyspi is correct to say that the New Testament does "override" the old. I believe Jesus said (I'm severely paraphrasing here), ignore the other rules, only the ten commandments apply. If one is addressing a Christian, it's therefore best to discuss the dodginess of the New Testament, not the old.

Now, the question. I think I'd like to know why you are asking. Do you believe atheists are amoral? Or do you recognise that people can be moral without a belief in god(s), and wonder how? Or do you expect that atheists, although capable of some kindness, will show fewer morals? It would be useful to know if this is curiosity or if you are wanting atheists to "prove" something.

Like Kath, my morality is a mixture of my upbringing- specifically the views of my parents, the society I was born into, my experiences in life, and thinking about issues. It is open to revision based on evidence.

Your question assumes that human beings as essentially selfish, brutish creatures who without guidance would merely rip each other to shreds. I think that assumption needs questioning first. I am an atheist, and have no desire to maim, slaughter, rape, pillage or blow up anybody or anything. Perhaps, then, your assumption about our "base state" of being is incorrect?

The question isn't why shouldn't people murder other people, it's why do people murder other people. It's the murdering that's abnormal, isn't it?

I would suggest that human beings are fundamentally moral creatures because we have the capacity to empathise. Sane people with no axe to grind and no coercion generally don't kill. So a sane atheist with no political dogma and no coercion will not kill, as much as a deeply religious peace-loving person will not kill. What do they have in common? They're human.



I'd also like to add that morality isn't static or universal. It isn't a set of rules you "have" or "don't have", it's a range of relative social practices and ideas to grease the cogs of society. You can certainly have those without God, no?

[Cuddles]

What is the source of all evil?


Me.

On a more serious note, I think you have cause and effect seriously confused. Of course Christian morals are the same as everyone elses, as are the reasons for having them. So are all other relgions' morals. All religious texts are just rules based on whatever rules were culturally sensible at the time. Rules on murder, rape, theft and so on are basically the same everywhere and so all moral codes look similar on these issues. Of course, ideals have changed with time, so when the old testament was written it was OK to kill someone from a different tribe because that was normal practice. With more civilised times came the rules we all follow today.

If you look at the different rules from religions that originated in different places it is obvious that they are mostly merely following common sense, with a few differences just down to different codes of law and tradition. Some people don't eat pigs, because rotten pig is much worse than most meat and would cause problems in hot places. Some people cover all their skin, because if they didn't they'd all die of skin cancer. Some people are circumsised because it helps prevent disease. Religion didn't make up these rules for fun, they are there because everyone did them anyway. Think of the king in The Little Prince, he only gave comands that he new would be followed, like telling the sun to rise at the right time.

[PsySpi]

Now, what reason have I, rationally to do anything but that which gives me gain? Why help people, why not murder? What basis for our morals?

It is an old problem and I have not seen a good answer to it.


I'm just putting that there so I focus on the question you ask.

Right, firstly, I think Psyspi is correct to say that the New Testament does "override" the old. I believe Jesus said (I'm severely paraphrasing here), ignore the other rules, only the ten commandments apply. If one is addressing a Christian, it's therefore best to discuss the dodginess of the New Testament, not the old.

Now, the question. I think I'd like to know why you are asking. Do you believe atheists are amoral? Or do you recognise that people can be moral without a belief in god(s), and wonder how? Or do you expect that atheists, although capable of some kindness, will show fewer morals? It would be useful to know if this is curiosity or if you are wanting atheists to "prove" something.


Are moral and wonder how, I suppose.



Like Kath, my morality is a mixture of my upbringing- specifically the views of my parents, the society I was born into, my experiences in life, and thinking about issues. It is open to revision based on evidence.

Your question assumes that human beings as essentially selfish, brutish creatures who without guidance would merely rip each other to shreds. I think that assumption needs questioning first. I am an atheist, and have no desire to maim, slaughter, rape, pillage or blow up anybody or anything. Perhaps, then, your assumption about our "base state" of being is incorrect?

The question isn't why shouldn't people murder other people, it's why do people murder other people. It's the murdering that's abnormal, isn't it?

I would suggest that human beings are fundamentally moral creatures because we have the capacity to empathise. Sane people with no axe to grind and no coercion generally don't kill. So a sane atheist with no political dogma and no coercion will not kill, as much as a deeply religious peace-loving person will not kill. What do they have in common? They're human.


I think this discussion would work better as one about human actions, nature and rationality rather than religion Vs Atheism.


As an example- If you could kill someone you did not know, gain from that a great reward and never be caught, would you?

We remove the threat of punishment, and also religion. What is left to stop you. Empathy, which is advantageous to our survival, but why in this case sould we listen to empathy, which is just a survival mechanism? It benefits you to kill the person and you loose nothing. The loss effects people you do not even know. Therefore the only thing holding you back is emotions. Which are irrational. Therefore you do not kill for an irrational (emotional) reason.

Is there a rational reason not to kill the example?

Or have we found an area where it is "wrong" to be rational, and where things should be decided emotionally.

This is not a problem for anyone governed by emotion. But it is for those who claim reason beats emotion.

[Dr B]

You say Buch and Blair equate to Hitler and Stalin?


No. I say that Bush and Blair got religion and this is a big problem as the USA see themselves as superior to other nations that do not share their cultural values - including religion. Like in missionary times - they see themselves as coverting the world to their religion.......its ridiculous nonsense.

If religion is a cancer, i want to train as a surgeon.... ;)

[chillzero]

As an example- If you could kill someone you did not know, gain from that a great reward and never be caught, would you?

No.
Why would I put my mental health at risk, and be unable to live with myself for anything other than self preservation? Nothing gives me the right to assume my life has any greater value than anyone else's, so I have no right (or wish) to deprive them of that life.

Nothing to do with religion.

[tkingdoll]

I call troll, folks. There's no way someone would claim to have psychic powers (considered by Christianity to be Satanic) and then claim to be religious to this degree.

[Melanie]

Oh but they would, Teek. It's true that many bible passages decry the use of such powers. But Spiritualism in it's original form claimed to be based on Christian testament in the bible - claiming that all references to reincarnation (and more) had been excised by the council of nicea, and more. The (spiritualist) inference is that it was an attempt to keep the power from the people, so to speak. If the man-in-the-street knew how to contact god and the spirits direct then what influence would the church elders have left?

Also, several passages in the currently-existing version bible do refer positively to contacting spirits - St Paul's Letter to the Corinthians being the most prominent example. 'Test the spirits to be see if they be of god' and all that. The letter is a clear lesson on the use of one's psychic ability.

(The bible can be used to prove any point of view, depending which bits of it you pick out.)

[Dr B]

I never trust a book that does not have a citation index ;D ;D :angel:

[Mojo]

Consider the statement-

We have no soul, there are no higher powers, we live in a material universe there is no judgement.

Now, what reason have I, rationally to do anything but that which gives me gain? Why help people, why not murder? What basis for our morals?

It is an old problem and I have not seen a good answer to it. I am aware atheists and skeptics are as moral as anyone else but I do not see the basis used.


It's more of a problem for the religious. As you say, atheists and skeptics are as moral as everyone else, or, perhaps a better way of expressing it, appear to be as moral as anyone else. There is a difference, though: atheists are behaving morally because that is how they feel they ought to behave; it appears that at least some religious people behave morally simply because they are afraid of the consequences of doing otherwise.

The fact that some people have to ask why anyone would behave morally without the threat of damnation hanging over their head tells us something about the people asking the question.

[PsySpi]

I call troll, folks. There's no way someone would claim to have psychic powers (considered by Christianity to be Satanic) and then claim to be religious to this degree.



Umm, I'm not actually claiming to be hyper religious. I even pointed out that it WASN'T a religious discussion so much as one about rationality.

And most psychics claim their powers come from God or are used with Gods permission. Its ONLY certain fundamentalist branches, NOT Christians in general who believe they are demonic in nature.

[PsySpi]

Consider the statement-

We have no soul, there are no higher powers, we live in a material universe there is no judgement.

Now, what reason have I, rationally to do anything but that which gives me gain? Why help people, why not murder? What basis for our morals?

It is an old problem and I have not seen a good answer to it. I am aware atheists and skeptics are as moral as anyone else but I do not see the basis used.


It's more of a problem for the religious. As you say, atheists and skeptics are as moral as everyone else, or, perhaps a better way of expressing it, appear to be as moral as anyone else. There is a difference, though: atheists are behaving morally because that is how they feel they ought to behave; it appears that at least some religious people behave morally simply because they are afraid of the consequences of doing otherwise.

The fact that some people have to ask why anyone would behave morally without the threat of damnation hanging over their head tells us something about the people asking the question.


See my rephraising of the problem.

[seren]

As an example- If you could kill someone you did not know, gain from that a great reward and never be caught, would you?

What if you could not kill the person, ask them where they got whatever it was, and go and get some, and more, and more, for yourself?

Or maybe I could make friends with the person and get a steady supply of rewards and company to boot. Maybe even love. :-*


Is there a rational reason not to kill the example?

Or have we found an area where it is "wrong" to be rational, and where things should be decided emotionally.

I don't know that murder is the most rational response to the scenario. In fact, I think that's a very emotional response. Sudden urge to have something, envy, rage, coveting. Again we're back to this base line of brutish behaviour. Rationality might instead make you stop and think how to get the most out of the situation.

[Cuddles]

I never trust a book that does not have a citation index ;D ;D :angel:


I never trust a book that has more words than pictures.

[median]

Books have words? :D

[mlpoulter]

A problem for the religious: morality

Assume that we have a soul and we live in a universe with a purpose that is watched over by judgemental higher powers, who have set out their prescribed behaviour in a holy book.

By what rational argument is the higher power(s) a moral authority? If a national leader has the power of life and death over everyone in his country, and uses it to enforce his views of what is right, that does not make him moral, just a dictator.

If your self-interest combined with the threat of reward or punishment prevents you from killing, stealing, raping etc. then how is your behaviour moral, as opposed to being like an animal that has been trained to do whatever a master wants?

I did not seen a good rational answer to this when I did a degree including moral philosophy and philosophical theology. I am aware that people can be morally good despite being religious.



Consider the statement-

We have no soul, there are no higher powers, we live in a material universe there is no judgement.

Now, what reason have I, rationally to do anything but that which gives me gain? Why help people, why not murder? What basis for our morals?

It is an old problem and I have not seen a good answer to it. I am aware atheists and skeptics are as moral as anyone else but I do not see the basis used.

[mlpoulter]

PsyPsi, there is a well-established philosophical point that "ought" propositions (e.g. how you ought to behave) are not the same as purely descriptive "is" propositions. You say that this makes "ought" judgements irrational, which is a step too far. One can still use rationality to examine the consequences of a choice, and to evaluate supposed principles of moral decision-making. The philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote a very influential theory about this. Even if rational argument doesn't uniquely determine the moral choice, that would mean there are non-rational, not irrational, factors.

You ask for evidence that the Golden Rule predates Christianity. Try this WikiPedia link for starters: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

I would also recommend reading about the Kohlberg experiments on moral development.

[Admin]

Why should we not act selfishly? Answers relating to the benefit of the species still dont answer why an INDIVIDUAL should.


Such actions are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Cooperating (being altruistic etc.) undoubtedly developed as an evolutionarily stable strategy in human evolution: the benefits of cooperating outweigh the costs in the long run.

Some good points have been raised in this thread - good posts too mlpoulter. Welcome to UKS. O0

[QueigBladecaster]

Why should we not act selfishly? Answers relating to the benefit of the species still dont answer why an INDIVIDUAL should.


It could be argued that a human being (or any other creature for that matter) never commits an act that is not selfish in some way.

Morality would seem to come from the benefit to ones self that that morality brings. to take killing as an example, a person who kills others for their own benefit may be less likely to be included in a social group/pack/tribe call it what you will.

Human beings, being a 'pack' animal in many extents would be at a disadvantage in this situation so the rational, logical and selfish thing to do is not to kill for your own benefit. This would also go some way to explain the ability to justify killing for the benefit of the social group/pack/tribe/country/religion etc (i.e. during warfare which is not generally seen to be immoral).

[Admin]

I would say that morality arose in early human societies as a way of stabilising social behaviour within the group. So it has a social function rather than an individual one.

Morality is based on the concerns for oneself and kin, concern for others, and a need for a system of social justice. This leads to a system of reciprocal altruism where the social group benefits as a whole which in turn benefits individuals within the group.

Systems of morality are also dependent on deference to authority. There’s always a hierarchical system of authority behind morality. Now, religious groups tend to think that morality is provided by religion and so giving up religion would lead to moral corruption; but I think that a good case could be made that religion arose out of morality!

Anyway, these ‘group values’ were adapted for way back in our evolutionary history and the sort of altruism we see today, like giving to charity etc., which seems to have no benefit to ourselves (although a case can be made that it does) is a manifestation of our ‘hard wired’ behaviour inherited from our hunter-gatherer past.

We still behave in the same ways as in the past although out social circumstances have changed completely.

[Cuddles]

It could be argued that a human being (or any other creature for that matter) never commits an act that is not selfish in some way.

I have to admit I am highly cynical and tend to this line of thinking, but I don't think it is quite the whole story. Altruistic behaviour evolved because of selfishness, since helping someone would, on average, also benefit yourself. However, I think it has now gone further than this. Think of sex. This evolved purely for reproduction, but once it existed it's characteristics allowed it to be used for entirely unrelated things, mainly pleasure, that have no bearing at all on successful evolution. Morality is the same. The same behaviour that tells us to save a member of our own tribe also tells us to save a random child that is no relation and will not provide any benefit to ourselves. Reciprocal altruism is a perfectly sensible evolutionary strategy, and I think most people can undertand and agree with this. It is important to take it that step futher though, and realise that once altruism exists as a behaviuor it is almost impossible to restrict it only to cases where it is obvious we will benefit, and so we end up with the apparently irrational behaviour known as morality.

[Corpse Cruncher]

It is the same argument for atheist and morality. Religion has the claimed rights that morality is a religious phenomena. Where as faith is neither or has any claimed parts from any body.

Moral is a sense of right or wrong and with each person that moral sense varies tremendously. Then you have society led morals, a cause where the society around you influences that sense of right and wrong.

What is right or wrong is not so easily defined or can be.