WHY do religions teach morals?

[charles brough]

Its either a moral code or a moral doctrine, but all religions propose some moral system.

Is it necessary or not? Are we innately moral because we evolved as social beings? Do women teach and protect their children because of religion? Do men protect the group because of religion? This is the normal way we humans behave.

Even so, moral teachings of religion are important because they define and shape our moral nature so we better agree on what is right and wrong.

Marriage, for example . . . we evolved as polygamous creatures but we establish monogamy to build a more functional society. When society breaks down, so does monogamy and people become more polygamous. . .

[Quath]

I think religions take moral stances for two main reasons.

One is that a major part of a religion is to address the problem of evil, which is to explain why bad things happen. This explanation has a great chance to propose what is right and wrong. This can be grand like Original Sin or Nirvana. Or it can be as mundane as people saying that God doesn't like poop on the battlefield and will leave you if you don't cover it (Deuteronomy 23:9-14). This last one probably came about after a major loss on the battlefield and people asked why did this bad thing happen. The poop was blamed and a new moral law was enacted and credited to God.

The second reason is that some people want to shape society. If a man tells a woman to serve her husband, she will want to know why she should. If the man tells her that God said so, well you have a new moral law attributed to religion.

The unfortunate result of a lot of this is that people don't understand how morality can work without hard rules to follow. We have a very innate biological imperative to work well with others and to express empathy. So just rules are not really what keeps us moral.

I also don't think of monogamy as a great thing of society. I see lots of room for ethical non-monogamy in our culture without any claim that it is breaking down.

[charles brough]

We have a very innate biological imperative to work well with others and to express empathy. So just rules are not really what keeps us moral.

I agree. We evolved through millions of years of evolution as small group (social) primates with an innate take-care-of-the-group nature.

I also don't think of monogamy as a great thing of society. I see lots of room for ethical non-monogamy in our culture without any claim that it is breaking down.

Not only do ideological based moral system serve to "spell out" the common moral nature so it is interpreted more evenly but it is used to nudge our innate nature in ways that help the survival of our large groups (nations and societies). That is what has happened. Our societies have used religions for the last five-thousand years to nudge us from a more polygamous life style to a more monogamous one. And when you go back and study the history of all the great civilizations, you find they rise and fall, and it was when monogamy broke down, that they declined.

[connermt]

Its either a moral code or a moral doctrine, but all religions propose some moral system.

Is it necessary or not? Are we innately moral because we evolved as social beings? Do women teach and protect their children because of religion? Do men protect the group because of religion? This is the normal way we humans behave.

Even so, moral teachings of religion are important because they define and shape our moral nature so we better agree on what is right and wrong.

Marriage, for example . . . we evolved as polygamous creatures but we establish monogamy to build a more functional society. When society breaks down, so does monogamy and people become more polygamous. . .

Religions are basically organized structures for people to belong to. People need rules. Seems no big surprise really as to why these religions teach confining/controlling ideas such as morals.

[charles brough]

Religions are basically organized structures for people to belong to. People need rules. Seems no big surprise really as to why these religions teach confining/controlling ideas such as morals.

seems to me that is what I wrote but in less detail. Other primate social groups don't need ideological based rules, but we do because we don't live in small hunting/gathering size groups any more like they do. What is important is that the rules are ideological and the ideology is shaped to our social instincts. We are innately moral. Moral systems only clearify and codify our moral nature.

[connermt]

Religions are basically organized structures for people to belong to. People need rules. Seems no big surprise really as to why these religions teach confining/controlling ideas such as morals.

seems to me that is what I wrote but in less detail. Other primate social groups don't need ideological based rules, but we do because we don't live in small hunting/gathering size groups any more like they do. What is important is that the rules are ideological and the ideology is shaped to our social instincts. We are innately moral. Moral systems only clearify and codify our moral nature.

If it seems that way, great!
But, some of us do live in small groups. Small groups within larger groups within larger groups. Some rules do trickle down, but that doesn't mean a smaller group could have its own, individual rules.

[Dantalion]

Religions are basically organized structures for people to belong to. People need rules. Seems no big surprise really as to why these religions teach confining/controlling ideas such as morals.

seems to me that is what I wrote but in less detail. Other primate social groups don't need ideological based rules, but we do because we don't live in small hunting/gathering size groups any more like they do. What is important is that the rules are ideological and the ideology is shaped to our social instincts. We are innately moral. Moral systems only clearify and codify our moral nature.

If it seems that way, great!
But, some of us do live in small groups. Small groups within larger groups within larger groups. Some rules do trickle down, but that doesn't mean a smaller group could have its own, individual rules.

that is only true if those own, individual rules do not directly attack those of the larger group. there is a certain amount of freedom given to each individual and primary group when it comes to Norms, Values, Goals and Expectations.
However, when these deviate from the NVGE of the larger and dominant group in a way that hinders or endangers the NVGE of said group and every social member not belonging to the first primary group, they will be negatively enforced or marginalised.

every social construct ( peer group, school, family, company etc) teaches morals, and religion is a social construct, so there you go.

It follows from that however, that it's flat out wrong to assert that religion is absolutely required as a source or continuation of morals, something a lot of theists tend to overlook, but in comes basic understanding of sociology to fix this little oversight.

[connermt]

Religions are basically organized structures for people to belong to. People need rules. Seems no big surprise really as to why these religions teach confining/controlling ideas such as morals.

seems to me that is what I wrote but in less detail. Other primate social groups don't need ideological based rules, but we do because we don't live in small hunting/gathering size groups any more like they do. What is important is that the rules are ideological and the ideology is shaped to our social instincts. We are innately moral. Moral systems only clearify and codify our moral nature.

If it seems that way, great!
But, some of us do live in small groups. Small groups within larger groups within larger groups. Some rules do trickle down, but that doesn't mean a smaller group could have its own, individual rules.

that is only true if those own, individual rules do not directly attack those of the larger group. there is a certain amount of freedom given to each individual and primary group when it comes to Norms, Values, Goals and Expectations.
However, when these deviate from the NVGE of the larger and dominant group in a way that hinders or endangers the NVGE of said group and every social member not belonging to the first primary group, they will be negatively enforced or marginalised.

every social construct ( peer group, school, family, company etc) teaches morals, and religion is a social construct, so there you go.

It follows from that however, that it's flat out wrong to assert that religion is absolutely required as a source or continuation of morals, something a lot of theists tend to overlook, but in comes basic understanding of sociology to fix this little oversight.

Good post. I agree totally and would add that morality isn't universal. Meaning, what's moral in one part of the world might not be in another part of the world.

[4gold]

Its either a moral code or a moral doctrine, but all religions propose some moral system.

Is it necessary or not? Are we innately moral because we evolved as social beings? Do women teach and protect their children because of religion? Do men protect the group because of religion? This is the normal way we humans behave.

Even so, moral teachings of religion are important because they define and shape our moral nature so we better agree on what is right and wrong.

Marriage, for example . . . we evolved as polygamous creatures but we establish monogamy to build a more functional society. When society breaks down, so does monogamy and people become more polygamous. . .

You essentially restated the doctrine of depravity in socio-evolutionary terms, rather than religious terms, but your point was the same: that humans are born naturally resistant to do what is moral, yet we do what is moral anyway.

Your answer to why we choose what is moral when we are naturally resistant to it seems to be answered with "to build a more functional society", do I have that correct? If so, do you mind me asking what metric you are using to determine if a society is more functional?

It seems religions teach morals for the same reason atheists teach morals...to answer the question of why we do the opposite of what we are naturally inclined to do.

[Quath]

Naturally, we are selfish and caring. We feel good when we do things that help others. We also feel good when we get special things just for our self. It's in our biology.

So we don't need to know why we do good things because that part is biological (and the longer explanation is part of evolution and game theory).

I think moral teachings are more for handling the cases when caring and selfishness comes into conflict.