Who decides morality?

Do you think morality comes from God, or is it just instilled in our brains because of evolution? Does morality change from era to era?

Do you think morality comes from God, or is it just instilled in our brains because of evolution? Does morality change from era to era?

I think non-religious people underestimate the difficulty of providing a foundation for what is right and wrong.

Even those atheists who argue there is no such thing live their lives as if it exists, condemning acts of terrorism, immoral religious acts and indoctrination whilst valuing reason, science and intellectual honesty. The non-religious worldview, as I understand it, sees all life as a big jumble of atoms guided by the laws of nature, with no difference between good humans and bad humans.

It could be countered that religion provides a poor foundation for morality because of how awful the Bible, Qur'an, etc. is. I think this is beside the point. Even if religious morality is the most bunk idea in the history of ideas, this still leaves atheism with the problem of defining right and wrong.

Humans, being a social species should value other human life and therefore said acts are clearly contradictory to surviving as a species (as opposed to individuals).

There is clearly a difference between good and bad people, with the difference being the (potential) effect of their actions on the environment and indeed society.

My problem with these sorts of responses is that they just push the question back one step further. Why is species survival important (and not the survival of all other species)? Why do the consequences of actions matter? This is not self-evident to some in the world.

Also, the fact that humans are a social species does not mean we should be social, anymore than the fact that humans are naturally aggressive means we should be aggressive.

Well, species that are usefu to humans would indeed be important to survive.

Without the survival of a species, that species no longer exists, and so is important! (I do hope that was self explanatory)

Which people (or groups of people) do not agree with the survival of a group and/or species?

"Social animals are creatures that are greatly interactive with other members of its species, with an individual animal's success highly dependent on the overall cohesion and propagation of the group."

It's akin to me saying "the fact that humans have hands does not mean we should use them". Well, you don't have to use them but you'd be at a (great) disadvantage. The same can be said for humans.

I agree with all of the above, but on whose authority are you saying that the survival of a species is not just important but good?

The mutual agreement of humans, which although can change, I very much doubt the underlying principles ever will.

Being pedantic however, I don't believe I ever stated that it's good

But this isn't a firm foundation for morality, not least because not everybody agrees on what is right and wrong. Underlying principles have changed (like worshipping God) and will likely change in the future (e.g., look at sexual ethics).

To be terse, the underlying principle essentially is "harming other humans and/or useful species unncessarily is looked down upon".

And on what authority is that based on?