By William Markiewicz
Morality is one of humanity's main philosophical preoccupations but it doesn't belong so much to philosophy as to religion; it is what gives religions their universal power. The very concept of morality is different for each; no philosophy serves morality but for philosophers morality should serve philosophy. For religion, morality is identified with God himself, thus it is the supreme value.
Why, in all religions, is God moral? As only the human is sentient/compassionate I think that empathy, compassion, are expressions of superior evolutionary level. So empathy is not a fruit of some theory but comes from inside, from human innate 'higher' instinct and religion was its first possible outlet. The naturally empathetic individuals became gurus and prophets to transmit what they carried in them to the less empathetic majority crowd. Empathy at its core is not philosophical because philosophy tends to explain everything while empathy is logically unexplainable. Empathy entered the world of religion -- built religion -- primarily because religion explains very little. Gratuitous virtue is an abstract concept. Reward is promised but not guaranteed. St. John of the Cross in his beautiful poem, Saint Francis of Assisi, Sufi mystics, Jewish mystics, all spoke of gratuitous love for God with no reward expected.
"God, I am not afraid of your hell and I don't need your paradise. Why do I continue to serve you? Because I love you." -- Balshemtov.
TirukKural, long before Christianity said: "The narrow minded say: 'be good to the virtuous ones' but who will offer consolation to those who don't deserve it?" One pharaoh, I don't remember which, described how a Phoenician who didn't recognize the pharaoh laughed in front of him at the Egyptians, calling them stupid, because they were saving drowning enemy soldiers who had lost the battle. The pharaoh thought to himself, "And I am proud of this kind of stupidity."
Morality, compassion, empathy, is an attitude toward the weak. The strong don't need morality in order to function; common sense is enough. In the mythical societies of gods and giants there was no need for morality because each individual was an efficient fortress. Morality makes sense when there is a division into strong and weak. The first facsimile morality begins at the biological level -- protection of the young. Of course this is still self interest. True morality earns its appellation and its titre de noblesse in situations which disregard self-interest. In many cases it is rewarded against all odds, therefore morality is not an anomaly but a very respectable notion. Being an instinct, moral behaviour cannot be wrong. Athenian democracy and Christianity have merit in that they codified it.
Christianity is the most 'empathetic' religion of all as it introduced the concept of 'love' into its fabric. Other religions emphasized 'justice' and 'pity' which is not necessarily love because it is more distant. Still the Greeks, long before Christianity, released prisoners right after the battle. Hate and cruelty toward the enemy were virtually unknown. Democracy born in Athens introduced the concept of sharing power rather than grabbing power. Who was stronger and who was weaker was irrelevant. So, democracy is the only non-religious expression of morality. Let's remark that democracy, like religion, doesn't explain itself, it affirms only its moral superiority. Later came communism which abandoned the notion of empathy in favour of the more ancient concept of 'justice.'
The democratic view of justice is based on compassion rather than on punishment. Let's imagine a situation where one person guilty of horrendous crimes is hidden among the innocent and it is impossible to detect him. In a totalitarian society the whole group may be perpetually imprisoned or even liquidated just to make sure that the guilty one doesn't escape. In a society where democracy and/or Christianity prevails, the group will be released sooner or later because "It is better to release one hundred guilty than to punish one innocent." Of course I am talking about those who practice, not only preach.
We know how morality expresses itself, we know its tremendous power over us if we are empathetic, but it still doesn't explain to us what exactly is morality. It's an instinct, like sex and other hungers, like fear of death. In sum it joins the herd of our most intimate enigmas.
Morality is one of humanity's main philosophical preoccupations but it doesn't belong so much to philosophy as to religion; it is what gives religions their universal power. The very concept of morality is different for each; no philosophy serves morality but for philosophers morality should serve philosophy. For religion, morality is identified with God himself, thus it is the supreme value.
Why, in all religions, is God moral? As only the human is sentient/compassionate I think that empathy, compassion, are expressions of superior evolutionary level. So empathy is not a fruit of some theory but comes from inside, from human innate 'higher' instinct and religion was its first possible outlet. The naturally empathetic individuals became gurus and prophets to transmit what they carried in them to the less empathetic majority crowd. Empathy at its core is not philosophical because philosophy tends to explain everything while empathy is logically unexplainable. Empathy entered the world of religion -- built religion -- primarily because religion explains very little. Gratuitous virtue is an abstract concept. Reward is promised but not guaranteed. St. John of the Cross in his beautiful poem, Saint Francis of Assisi, Sufi mystics, Jewish mystics, all spoke of gratuitous love for God with no reward expected.
"God, I am not afraid of your hell and I don't need your paradise. Why do I continue to serve you? Because I love you." -- Balshemtov.
TirukKural, long before Christianity said: "The narrow minded say: 'be good to the virtuous ones' but who will offer consolation to those who don't deserve it?" One pharaoh, I don't remember which, described how a Phoenician who didn't recognize the pharaoh laughed in front of him at the Egyptians, calling them stupid, because they were saving drowning enemy soldiers who had lost the battle. The pharaoh thought to himself, "And I am proud of this kind of stupidity."
Morality, compassion, empathy, is an attitude toward the weak. The strong don't need morality in order to function; common sense is enough. In the mythical societies of gods and giants there was no need for morality because each individual was an efficient fortress. Morality makes sense when there is a division into strong and weak. The first facsimile morality begins at the biological level -- protection of the young. Of course this is still self interest. True morality earns its appellation and its titre de noblesse in situations which disregard self-interest. In many cases it is rewarded against all odds, therefore morality is not an anomaly but a very respectable notion. Being an instinct, moral behaviour cannot be wrong. Athenian democracy and Christianity have merit in that they codified it.
Christianity is the most 'empathetic' religion of all as it introduced the concept of 'love' into its fabric. Other religions emphasized 'justice' and 'pity' which is not necessarily love because it is more distant. Still the Greeks, long before Christianity, released prisoners right after the battle. Hate and cruelty toward the enemy were virtually unknown. Democracy born in Athens introduced the concept of sharing power rather than grabbing power. Who was stronger and who was weaker was irrelevant. So, democracy is the only non-religious expression of morality. Let's remark that democracy, like religion, doesn't explain itself, it affirms only its moral superiority. Later came communism which abandoned the notion of empathy in favour of the more ancient concept of 'justice.'
The democratic view of justice is based on compassion rather than on punishment. Let's imagine a situation where one person guilty of horrendous crimes is hidden among the innocent and it is impossible to detect him. In a totalitarian society the whole group may be perpetually imprisoned or even liquidated just to make sure that the guilty one doesn't escape. In a society where democracy and/or Christianity prevails, the group will be released sooner or later because "It is better to release one hundred guilty than to punish one innocent." Of course I am talking about those who practice, not only preach.
We know how morality expresses itself, we know its tremendous power over us if we are empathetic, but it still doesn't explain to us what exactly is morality. It's an instinct, like sex and other hungers, like fear of death. In sum it joins the herd of our most intimate enigmas.
Moral codes
Codified morality is generally distinguished from custom, another way for a community to define appropriate activity, by the former's derivation from natural or universal principles. Some religious communities see the Divine as providing these principles through revelation, sometimes in great detail. Such codes may be called laws, as in the Law of Moses, or community morality may be defined through commentary on the texts of revelation, as in Islamic law. Such codes are distinguished from legal or judicial right, including civil rights, which are based on the accumulated traditions, decrees and legislation of a political authority, though these latter often invoke the authority of the moral law.
Morality can also be seen as the collection of beliefs as to what constitutes a good life. Since throughout most of human history, religions have provided both visions and regulations for an ideal life, morality is often confused with religious precepts. In secular communities, lifestyle choices, which represent an individual's conception of the good life, are often discussed in terms of "morality." Individuals sometimes feel that making an appropriate lifestyle choice invokes a true morality, and that accepted codes of conduct within their chosen community are fundamentally moral, even when such codes deviate from more general social principles.
Moral codes are often complex definitions of moral and immoral that are based upon well-defined value systems. Although some people might think that a moral code is simple, rarely is there anything simple about one's values, ethics, etc. or, for that matter, the judgment of those of others. The difficulty lies in the fact that morals are often part of a religion and more often than not about culture codes. Sometimes, moral codes give way to legal codes, which couple penalties or corrective actions with particular practices. Note that while many legal codes are merely built on a foundation of religious and/or cultural moral codes, often they are one and the same.
Examples of moral codes include the Golden Rule; the Five Precepts and the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism (see Śīla); the ancient Egyptian code of Ma'at; the ten commandments of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; the yamas and niyama of the Hindu scriptures; and the ten Indian commandments.
Another related concept is the moral core which is assumed to be innate in each individual, to those who accept that differences between individuals are more important than posited Creators or their rules. This, in some religious systems and beliefs (e.g. Taoism and Gnosticism), is assumed to be the basis of all aesthetics and thus moral choice. Moral codes as such are therefore seen as coercive—part of human sex politics.
Codified morality is generally distinguished from custom, another way for a community to define appropriate activity, by the former's derivation from natural or universal principles. Some religious communities see the Divine as providing these principles through revelation, sometimes in great detail. Such codes may be called laws, as in the Law of Moses, or community morality may be defined through commentary on the texts of revelation, as in Islamic law. Such codes are distinguished from legal or judicial right, including civil rights, which are based on the accumulated traditions, decrees and legislation of a political authority, though these latter often invoke the authority of the moral law.
Morality can also be seen as the collection of beliefs as to what constitutes a good life. Since throughout most of human history, religions have provided both visions and regulations for an ideal life, morality is often confused with religious precepts. In secular communities, lifestyle choices, which represent an individual's conception of the good life, are often discussed in terms of "morality." Individuals sometimes feel that making an appropriate lifestyle choice invokes a true morality, and that accepted codes of conduct within their chosen community are fundamentally moral, even when such codes deviate from more general social principles.
Moral codes are often complex definitions of moral and immoral that are based upon well-defined value systems. Although some people might think that a moral code is simple, rarely is there anything simple about one's values, ethics, etc. or, for that matter, the judgment of those of others. The difficulty lies in the fact that morals are often part of a religion and more often than not about culture codes. Sometimes, moral codes give way to legal codes, which couple penalties or corrective actions with particular practices. Note that while many legal codes are merely built on a foundation of religious and/or cultural moral codes, often they are one and the same.
Examples of moral codes include the Golden Rule; the Five Precepts and the Noble Eightfold Path of Buddhism (see Śīla); the ancient Egyptian code of Ma'at; the ten commandments of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; the yamas and niyama of the Hindu scriptures; and the ten Indian commandments.
Another related concept is the moral core which is assumed to be innate in each individual, to those who accept that differences between individuals are more important than posited Creators or their rules. This, in some religious systems and beliefs (e.g. Taoism and Gnosticism), is assumed to be the basis of all aesthetics and thus moral choice. Moral codes as such are therefore seen as coercive—part of human sex politics.
Bibliography
• Walker, Martin G. LIFE! Why We Exist...And What We Must Do to Survive (LIFE Why We Exist... Wiki Book Page) ([1] Web Site), Dog Ear Publishing, 2006, ISBN 1-59858-243-7
• Trompenaars, Fons. Did the Pedestrian Die? ISBN 1-84112-436-2
• Stace, Walter T. (1937, Reprinted 1975 by permission of MacMillan Publishing Co. Inc.). The Concept of Morals. New York: The MacMillan Company. ISBN 0-8446-2990-1.
References
1. ^ Johnstone, Megan-Jane (2008). Bioethics: A Nursing Perspective. Elsevier Health Sciences. pp. 102–103. ISBN 978-0729538732.
2. ^ Superson, Anita (2009). The Moral Skeptic. Oxford University Press. pp. 127–159. ISBN 978-0195376623.
3. ^ "Amorality". Dictionary.com. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amorality. Retrieved 2010-06-18. "having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong"
4. ^ "amoral". Wiktionary. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amoral#Adjective. Retrieved 2010-09-09. "(of people) not believing in or caring for morality and immorality"
5. ^ "Amoral". WordIQ. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Amoral. Retrieved 2010-09-09. "...amoral persons either do not possess ethical notions at all as a result of an unusual upbringing or inborn traits (see the so-called Antisocial personality disorder) or else do not subscribe to any moral code. This latter may in turn mean strong individualistic leanings that do not get codified into a universally applicable system. Someone may maintain that he will do as he likes and let others do the same, if they so desire, without turning this into a general principle as, for example, Kant's categorical imperative would require. Because whoever says so only expresses his personal preference or informs about the way he is going to act, the position is consistent. An amoralist might also make a stronger point that moral systems are arbitrary and unfounded on the whole, which is an epistemic or anthropological claim and not an ethical one. For this principled sort of amoralist, see Stirner and to a degree Marquis de Sade."
6. ^ The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
7. ^ John Deigh in Robert Audi (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995.
8. ^ Oxford Dictionary of philosophy, 2008, p240
9. ^ Chapouthier, Georges, To what extent is moral judgment natural ?, European Review (GB), 2004, Nr12(2), pp179-183
10. ^ Moral Relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
11. ^ Green, Celia (2004). Letters from Exile: Observations on a Culture in Decline. Oxford: Oxford Forum. Chapters I-XX.
12. ^ "When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions that Liberals may not Recognize", Haidt and Graham (<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z">doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z</a>)
13. ^ Peterson, Christopher, and Martin E. P. Seligman. Character Strengths and Virtues. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
14. ^ Shermer, Michael. "Transcendent Morality". The Science of Good and Evil. ISBN 0805075208. http://books.google.com/books?id=eevvWAcMBaAC&pg=PA19&dq=shermer+exegesis&ei=EIC1SNOiE4uWyATTmaj2Bg&sig=ACfU3U3KFh8kP8Ns8-YgpqBuI03N1JrpEg.
15. ^ Bekoff, Marc and Jessica Pierce Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press 2009)
16. ^ O’Connell, Sanjida (July 1995). "Empathy in chimpanzees: Evidence for theory of mind?". Primates 36 (3): 397–410. doi:10.1007/BF02382862. ISSN 0032-8332.
17. ^ Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals.
18. ^ Giacomo Rizzolatti et al. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions, Cognitive Brain Research 3 131–141
19. ^ Vedantam, Shankar. "If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056_pf.html. Retrieved 2010-05-13.
20. ^ de Wied M, Goudena PP, Matthys W (2005). "Empathy in boys with disruptive behavior disorders". Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines 46 (8): 867–80. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00389.x. PMID 16033635.
21. ^ Fernandez YM, Marshall WL (2003). "Victim empathy, social self-esteem, and psychopathy in rapists". Sexual abuse : a journal of research and treatment 15 (1): 11–26. doi:10.1023/A:1020611606754. PMID 12616926.
22. ^ Harenski CL, Antonenko O, Shane MS, Kiehl KA. (2010). A functional imaging investigation of moral deliberation and moral intuition. Neuroimage. 49: 2707–2716. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.062 PMID 19878727
23. ^ doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.003
24. ^ Haidt, Jonathan and Graham, Jesse (2006). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize (DOC) Social Justice Research.
25. ^ Morality: 2012: Online Only Video: The New Yorker
26. ^ Why conservatives and liberals talk past each other on moral issues. | Dangerous Intersection
27. ^ Chomsky, Noam (2002-07-02). "Terror and Just Response". ZNet. http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/11934.
28. ^ Schivone, Gabriel Matthew (2007-08-03). "On Responsibility, War Guilt and Intellectuals". Counterpunch. http://www.counterpunch.org/schivone08032007.html. Interview.
29. ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society (Baltimore, Maryland) 7. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html.
30. ^ Gerson Moreno-Riaño; Mark Caleb Smith, Thomas Mach (2006). "Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health". Journal of Religion and Society (Cedarville University) 8. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html.
31. ^ Gary F. Jensen (2006) Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations: A Closer Look http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.html http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2006-7.pdf Journal of Religion and Society, Volume 8, ISSN 1522-5658 http://purl.org/JRS
32. ^ KERLEY, KENT R., MATTHEWS, TODD L. & BLANCHARD, TROY C. (2005) Religiosity, Religious Participation, and Negative Prison Behaviors. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (4), 443–457. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00296.x
33. ^ SAROGLOU, VASSILIS, PICHON, ISABELLE, TROMPETTE, LAURENCE, VERSCHUEREN, MARIJKE & DERNELLE, REBECCA (2005) Prosocial Behavior and Religion: New Evidence Based on Projective Measures and Peer Ratings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (3), 323–348. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00289.x
34. ^ Regnerus, Mark D. & Burdette, Amy (2006) RELIGIOUS CHANGE AND ADOLESCENT FAMILY DYNAMICS. The Sociological Quarterly 47 (1), 175–194. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2006.00042.x
35. ^ eg a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations
36. ^ As is stated in: Doris C. Chu (2007). Religiosity and Desistance From Drug Use. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2007; 34; 661 originally published online Mar 7, 2007; DOI: 10.1177/0093854806293485
37. ^ For example:
o Albrecht, S. I., Chadwick, B. A., & Alcorn, D. S. (1977). Religiosity and deviance:Application of an attitude-behavior contingent consistency model. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16, 263–274.
o Burkett, S.,& White, M. (1974). Hellfire and delinquency:Another look. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,13,455–462.
o Chard-Wierschem, D. (1998). In pursuit of the “true” relationship: A longitudinal study of the effects of religiosity on delinquency and substance abuse. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation.
o Cochran, J. K.,& Akers, R. L. (1989). Beyond hellfire:An explanation of the variable effects of religiosity on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 198–225.
o Evans, T. D.,Cullen, F. T.,Burton, V. S.,Jr.,Dunaway, R. G.,Payne, G. L.,& Kethineni, S. R. (1996). Religion, social bonds, and delinquency. Deviant Behavior, 17, 43–70.
o Grasmick, H. G., Bursik, R. J., & Cochran, J. K. (1991). “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”: Religiosity and taxpayer’s inclinations to cheat. The Sociological Quarterly, 32, 251–266.
o Higgins, P. C., & Albrecht, G. L. (1977). Hellfire and delinquency revisited. Social Forces, 55, 952–958.
o Johnson, B. R.,Larson, D. B.,DeLi,S.,& Jang, S. J. (2000). Escaping from the crime of inner cities:Church attendance and religious salience among disadvantaged youth. Justice Quarterly, 17, 377–391.
o Johnson, R. E., Marcos, A. C., & Bahr, S. J. (1987). The role of peers in the complex etiology of adolescent drug use. Criminology, 25, 323–340.
o Powell, K. (1997). Correlates of violent and nonviolent behavior among vulnerable inner-city youths. Family and Community Health, 20, 38–47.
38. ^ Baier, C. J.,& Wright, B. R. (2001). “If you love me, keep my commandments”:A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,38,3–21.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality"
• Walker, Martin G. LIFE! Why We Exist...And What We Must Do to Survive (LIFE Why We Exist... Wiki Book Page) ([1] Web Site), Dog Ear Publishing, 2006, ISBN 1-59858-243-7
• Trompenaars, Fons. Did the Pedestrian Die? ISBN 1-84112-436-2
• Stace, Walter T. (1937, Reprinted 1975 by permission of MacMillan Publishing Co. Inc.). The Concept of Morals. New York: The MacMillan Company. ISBN 0-8446-2990-1.
References
1. ^ Johnstone, Megan-Jane (2008). Bioethics: A Nursing Perspective. Elsevier Health Sciences. pp. 102–103. ISBN 978-0729538732.
2. ^ Superson, Anita (2009). The Moral Skeptic. Oxford University Press. pp. 127–159. ISBN 978-0195376623.
3. ^ "Amorality". Dictionary.com. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/amorality. Retrieved 2010-06-18. "having no moral standards, restraints, or principles; unaware of or indifferent to questions of right or wrong"
4. ^ "amoral". Wiktionary. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/amoral#Adjective. Retrieved 2010-09-09. "(of people) not believing in or caring for morality and immorality"
5. ^ "Amoral". WordIQ. http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Amoral. Retrieved 2010-09-09. "...amoral persons either do not possess ethical notions at all as a result of an unusual upbringing or inborn traits (see the so-called Antisocial personality disorder) or else do not subscribe to any moral code. This latter may in turn mean strong individualistic leanings that do not get codified into a universally applicable system. Someone may maintain that he will do as he likes and let others do the same, if they so desire, without turning this into a general principle as, for example, Kant's categorical imperative would require. Because whoever says so only expresses his personal preference or informs about the way he is going to act, the position is consistent. An amoralist might also make a stronger point that moral systems are arbitrary and unfounded on the whole, which is an epistemic or anthropological claim and not an ethical one. For this principled sort of amoralist, see Stirner and to a degree Marquis de Sade."
6. ^ The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
7. ^ John Deigh in Robert Audi (ed), The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy, 1995.
8. ^ Oxford Dictionary of philosophy, 2008, p240
9. ^ Chapouthier, Georges, To what extent is moral judgment natural ?, European Review (GB), 2004, Nr12(2), pp179-183
10. ^ Moral Relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
11. ^ Green, Celia (2004). Letters from Exile: Observations on a Culture in Decline. Oxford: Oxford Forum. Chapters I-XX.
12. ^ "When Morality Opposes Justice: Conservatives Have Moral Intuitions that Liberals may not Recognize", Haidt and Graham (<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z">doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z</a>)
13. ^ Peterson, Christopher, and Martin E. P. Seligman. Character Strengths and Virtues. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.
14. ^ Shermer, Michael. "Transcendent Morality". The Science of Good and Evil. ISBN 0805075208. http://books.google.com/books?id=eevvWAcMBaAC&pg=PA19&dq=shermer+exegesis&ei=EIC1SNOiE4uWyATTmaj2Bg&sig=ACfU3U3KFh8kP8Ns8-YgpqBuI03N1JrpEg.
15. ^ Bekoff, Marc and Jessica Pierce Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals (Chicago, The University of Chicago Press 2009)
16. ^ O’Connell, Sanjida (July 1995). "Empathy in chimpanzees: Evidence for theory of mind?". Primates 36 (3): 397–410. doi:10.1007/BF02382862. ISSN 0032-8332.
17. ^ Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals.
18. ^ Giacomo Rizzolatti et al. (1996). Premotor cortex and the recognition of motor actions, Cognitive Brain Research 3 131–141
19. ^ Vedantam, Shankar. "If It Feels Good to Be Good, It Might Be Only Natural". The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/27/AR2007052701056_pf.html. Retrieved 2010-05-13.
20. ^ de Wied M, Goudena PP, Matthys W (2005). "Empathy in boys with disruptive behavior disorders". Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines 46 (8): 867–80. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00389.x. PMID 16033635.
21. ^ Fernandez YM, Marshall WL (2003). "Victim empathy, social self-esteem, and psychopathy in rapists". Sexual abuse : a journal of research and treatment 15 (1): 11–26. doi:10.1023/A:1020611606754. PMID 12616926.
22. ^ Harenski CL, Antonenko O, Shane MS, Kiehl KA. (2010). A functional imaging investigation of moral deliberation and moral intuition. Neuroimage. 49: 2707–2716. doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2009.10.062 PMID 19878727
23. ^ doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.03.003
24. ^ Haidt, Jonathan and Graham, Jesse (2006). When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize (DOC) Social Justice Research.
25. ^ Morality: 2012: Online Only Video: The New Yorker
26. ^ Why conservatives and liberals talk past each other on moral issues. | Dangerous Intersection
27. ^ Chomsky, Noam (2002-07-02). "Terror and Just Response". ZNet. http://www.zmag.org/znet/viewArticle/11934.
28. ^ Schivone, Gabriel Matthew (2007-08-03). "On Responsibility, War Guilt and Intellectuals". Counterpunch. http://www.counterpunch.org/schivone08032007.html. Interview.
29. ^ Paul, Gregory S. (2005). "Cross-National Correlations of Quantifiable Societal Health with Popular Religiosity and Secularism in the Prosperous Democracies: A First Look". Journal of Religion and Society (Baltimore, Maryland) 7. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html.
30. ^ Gerson Moreno-Riaño; Mark Caleb Smith, Thomas Mach (2006). "Religiosity, Secularism, and Social Health". Journal of Religion and Society (Cedarville University) 8. http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-1.html.
31. ^ Gary F. Jensen (2006) Department of Sociology, Vanderbilt University Religious Cosmologies and Homicide Rates among Nations: A Closer Look http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2006/2006-7.html http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/pdf/2006-7.pdf Journal of Religion and Society, Volume 8, ISSN 1522-5658 http://purl.org/JRS
32. ^ KERLEY, KENT R., MATTHEWS, TODD L. & BLANCHARD, TROY C. (2005) Religiosity, Religious Participation, and Negative Prison Behaviors. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (4), 443–457. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00296.x
33. ^ SAROGLOU, VASSILIS, PICHON, ISABELLE, TROMPETTE, LAURENCE, VERSCHUEREN, MARIJKE & DERNELLE, REBECCA (2005) Prosocial Behavior and Religion: New Evidence Based on Projective Measures and Peer Ratings. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44 (3), 323–348. doi:10.1111/j.1468-5906.2005.00289.x
34. ^ Regnerus, Mark D. & Burdette, Amy (2006) RELIGIOUS CHANGE AND ADOLESCENT FAMILY DYNAMICS. The Sociological Quarterly 47 (1), 175–194. doi:10.1111/j.1533-8525.2006.00042.x
35. ^ eg a survey by Robert Putnam showing that membership of religious groups was positively correlated with membership of voluntary organisations
36. ^ As is stated in: Doris C. Chu (2007). Religiosity and Desistance From Drug Use. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 2007; 34; 661 originally published online Mar 7, 2007; DOI: 10.1177/0093854806293485
37. ^ For example:
o Albrecht, S. I., Chadwick, B. A., & Alcorn, D. S. (1977). Religiosity and deviance:Application of an attitude-behavior contingent consistency model. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 16, 263–274.
o Burkett, S.,& White, M. (1974). Hellfire and delinquency:Another look. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,13,455–462.
o Chard-Wierschem, D. (1998). In pursuit of the “true” relationship: A longitudinal study of the effects of religiosity on delinquency and substance abuse. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Dissertation.
o Cochran, J. K.,& Akers, R. L. (1989). Beyond hellfire:An explanation of the variable effects of religiosity on adolescent marijuana and alcohol use. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 198–225.
o Evans, T. D.,Cullen, F. T.,Burton, V. S.,Jr.,Dunaway, R. G.,Payne, G. L.,& Kethineni, S. R. (1996). Religion, social bonds, and delinquency. Deviant Behavior, 17, 43–70.
o Grasmick, H. G., Bursik, R. J., & Cochran, J. K. (1991). “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”: Religiosity and taxpayer’s inclinations to cheat. The Sociological Quarterly, 32, 251–266.
o Higgins, P. C., & Albrecht, G. L. (1977). Hellfire and delinquency revisited. Social Forces, 55, 952–958.
o Johnson, B. R.,Larson, D. B.,DeLi,S.,& Jang, S. J. (2000). Escaping from the crime of inner cities:Church attendance and religious salience among disadvantaged youth. Justice Quarterly, 17, 377–391.
o Johnson, R. E., Marcos, A. C., & Bahr, S. J. (1987). The role of peers in the complex etiology of adolescent drug use. Criminology, 25, 323–340.
o Powell, K. (1997). Correlates of violent and nonviolent behavior among vulnerable inner-city youths. Family and Community Health, 20, 38–47.
38. ^ Baier, C. J.,& Wright, B. R. (2001). “If you love me, keep my commandments”:A meta-analysis of the effect of religion on crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,38,3–21.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morality"