I disagree that community automatically equals morality. People can cooperate for both moral and immoral reasons, and the collectivist socio-political philosophy can often lead to a mob mentality. This mob mentality can also serve to suppress the values of the individual.

The social contract is flawed because it demands that following morals should result in the best possible result for everyone, yet we will still choose to save the life of a family member over our retirement money. This implies that to us having that person around is more important than our ability to minimize financial conflict, which means that there is a deeper reason for why we develop our moral attitudes.

Durkheim was getting paid by the word..

care to elaborate on that?

how would anyone know if morality or religion came first in human history?

I never said that moral judgments aren't reflective of moral positions. What I did say was that when we make a moral judgment, and specifically when we construct a model of ethics, we reason. We're interpreting the feelings from which the morals are derived i.e. A is bad because A causes B, and A is worse than C because C only causes D, and so on.

I know of no human coummunity that is held together by hate. I also don't know if we would even call such a gathering of humans, a community.

We certainly created the doctrines, scriptures, and traditions from which most religions are based, but I don't think we created morality. You think the origins of morality are religious? I'm thinking religions came after the fact - we had morality before any religious endeavor. Hm.

I wasn't saying that you said moral judgments aren't reflective of moral positions. I was trying to say that I see little to no difference between morals and moral judgments.

How about Al-Qaeda, KKK, Neo-Nazis, and other hate groups? A community is defined as a unified group of people cooperating or communicating for common interests. People can form communities based on love and compassion or hate and fear. I prefer the former, but the point needs to made. The hatred or fear of a common enemy can be a powerful unifier.

If we didn't create morality then who or what did?

How are you certain that we created religion (which I agree with) and not certain that we created moral prescriptions?

I also think that religion came after morality, because the judgment of good and bad actions is more necessary for our survival.

how would anyone know if morality or religion came first in human history?

How would anyone know if the will to be educated or school systems came first? Well, it seems to me as though it would be necessary that there be a will to learn and be educated before school systems came about. Don't you think?

Which do you think came first - our need to urinate, or toilets? I'm thinking the former.

To be sure, these analogies are in reference to religious institution.

so out of religion and morality, which one is the toilet? i guess i dont see the analogy here...

people seem to need religion. i define religion as a structure or container for connection to their inner being, and can also be developed as a self actualization tool of sorts, and good morality would come out of it if it is a good foundation, or bad morals would come out of it if it is a bad foundation. it serves as a path for people who are on a common course and will be reaching a certain goal (which would be either death, rebirth or the afterlife, depending on the point of view)

but i dont think there is a need for morality-i think it is already there, whether or not it is being observed. religion could be used to support morality, and it is often used to combat and destroy it. religion was not already there, either people had to make it up or a god provide it for them.

Religion would be the toilet for our need to compartmentalize, understand, apply practical value to, and perhaps faciliate, morality. Assuming we need to do any or all of those things - I suspect that's debatable. I think people can do these things without religion, but I think religion can definitely help.

What do you mean when you say, "i don't think there is a need for morality - i think it is already there"? In any case, I think I agree with most you have written.

"In this fathom long body, I declare is the world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world and the path leading to the cessation of the world."

The Buddha

Nihilistic asceticism straight from the horse's mouth.

For instance, when the Buddha speaks about the end of the world, he says that it cannot be reached by traveling through the physical universe, but only by putting an end to suffering (saṃsāra), where "one is not born, does not age, does not die, does not pass away, and is not reborn" Accordingly, salvation is not understood in world-denying terms or as an escape from the physical universe, but rather as an inner transformation that takes place within one's own psychophysical organism: "It is, friend, in just this fathom-high carcass endowed with perception and mind that I make known the world, the origin of the world, the cessation of the world, and the way leading to the cessation of the world." (S.I.62; A.II.47-9).

I think the OP was asking: From where does morality come from - what is morality's biological (or otherwise) root? And to answer that thoroughly, I think we would need a lot more information. I think there is correlation with our emotional patterns, but I'm not quite sure why we feel the need to act on those emotional patterns.

Perhaps there are theories or models already out to explain some, if not all, of this. Does anyone know of any that are supported by relevant experts?

Morals create humans. (?) For humans do not exist merely biologically. Babies are born helpless. Language is already a structure.

I found one writer whose works helped me a lot was sociologist Peter Berger, whose book The Social Construction of Reality was very influential. I also got a lot from some of his later books.

Morals create humans. (?) For humans do not exist merely biologically. Babies are born helpless. Language is already a structure.

Thanks, Zetherin.

I think it's easy for people to forget how much of "themselves" they have inherited. They are immersed in the language, technology, and behavior patterns of their society. Thoughts that are both original and socially significant are few and far between. Most humans exercise their apparent individuality by identifying themselves with thoughts already "on the market." But a young person can hardly do better. 99% of the worth of a person is not in the least novel. And a great "immoralist" like Nietzsche would have starved without his university pension. I doubt that Nietzsche did any farming. (Ayn Rand made some good points, but she did not address herself to social reality. She is as much an idealist (in this sense) as the collectivists she despises. I do find Ayn Rand's ideals more appealing, just as I treasure those of Nietzsche.)

We are eager to forget our intense embeddedness because it offends our sense of autonomy and self-creation, and this ideal of autonomy and/or self-creation is one more instance of such embeddedness.

We are all outnumbered. Morals keep most of us un-murdered and un-raped.

Every known human civilization has speculated the existence of a higher power such as Morality and God. We are aware of ourselves in a way that no other animal has ever been. We make judgements about our actions and ponder on existential thought. But why do humans think this way? Why do we have an internal need to be morally correct people? And to be ironic, why am I asking this question?