A post today in religiousdebate
Sep. 11th, 2002 10:10 amThis was a comment I posted in the
religiousdebate group, but which I want to copy here for posterity.
----------
Our nature comes from the fact that we are primates.
Primates, just like other kinds of intelligent carnivorous mammals - felines, canines, cetaceans, etc. - are capable of cruelty (violence for the sake of sport or pleasure). This comes out in many ways, both overt and subtle.
Primates are also very social animals with fairly rigid heirarchies but also strong cooperation instincts.
Desmond Morris hit on something very powerful when he noted, in The Naked Ape and its sequel The Human Zoo, that many of the things humans do which religion has traditionally called sinful are elements of natural primate behavior that are counter to the intense kinds of cooperation that enabled agriculture and civilization.
For example, primates are in general non-monogamous, and humans have strong natural tendencies in this regard as well. However, strong pair-bonding between male and female is necessary for raising children, especially in post-tribal agricultural or urban societies. So marriage is largely a survival strategy.
A really interesting example here is that polygamy is favorable economically in agricultural settings, where large numbers of children are needed, while monogamy is favorable economically in urban settings, where children become more of a hindrance. Historically, societies have favored, allowed, or tolerated polygamy until a large portion of the population was urban -- in which case a shift towards expected monogamy occured. Contrast the situation in ancient Judea, which traditionally allowed polygamy, with the situation in classical Greece and Rome, which was heavily urbanized and which favored monogamous marriage. When Judea too became heavily urbanized, a shift towards favoring monogamy took place -- and was particularly reflected in early Christian morality.
Agricultural societies are also historically much more likely to look unfavorably upon homosexuality, which could be seen from an economic viewpoint as denying society the benefit of one's reproductive capability. Tolerance towards homosexuality has only evolved in urban settings, where reproduction is not a social duty.
So, a case could be made that moral codes reflect the economic and emotional needs of human beings. If this is the case, then we do ourselves a disservice by remaining tied to ancient moral codes.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
----------
Our nature comes from the fact that we are primates.
Primates, just like other kinds of intelligent carnivorous mammals - felines, canines, cetaceans, etc. - are capable of cruelty (violence for the sake of sport or pleasure). This comes out in many ways, both overt and subtle.
Primates are also very social animals with fairly rigid heirarchies but also strong cooperation instincts.
Desmond Morris hit on something very powerful when he noted, in The Naked Ape and its sequel The Human Zoo, that many of the things humans do which religion has traditionally called sinful are elements of natural primate behavior that are counter to the intense kinds of cooperation that enabled agriculture and civilization.
For example, primates are in general non-monogamous, and humans have strong natural tendencies in this regard as well. However, strong pair-bonding between male and female is necessary for raising children, especially in post-tribal agricultural or urban societies. So marriage is largely a survival strategy.
A really interesting example here is that polygamy is favorable economically in agricultural settings, where large numbers of children are needed, while monogamy is favorable economically in urban settings, where children become more of a hindrance. Historically, societies have favored, allowed, or tolerated polygamy until a large portion of the population was urban -- in which case a shift towards expected monogamy occured. Contrast the situation in ancient Judea, which traditionally allowed polygamy, with the situation in classical Greece and Rome, which was heavily urbanized and which favored monogamous marriage. When Judea too became heavily urbanized, a shift towards favoring monogamy took place -- and was particularly reflected in early Christian morality.
Agricultural societies are also historically much more likely to look unfavorably upon homosexuality, which could be seen from an economic viewpoint as denying society the benefit of one's reproductive capability. Tolerance towards homosexuality has only evolved in urban settings, where reproduction is not a social duty.
So, a case could be made that moral codes reflect the economic and emotional needs of human beings. If this is the case, then we do ourselves a disservice by remaining tied to ancient moral codes.