Religion
In reply to the discussion: Why Science Can’t Replace Religion [View all]MineralMan
(146,286 posts)Sometimes it's religion-based, but mostly it's society-based or culture-based. Actually, so is religion. Oddly enough, most religions have come up with very similar moral codes. So have most cultures and societies. Long before the Judeo-Christian deity was created, societies had well-develop ethical and moral systems. Societies and cultures never exposed to those Judeo-Christian ethics and morals, oddly enough, had very similar ones, developed by their own culture, along with their religions.
Humans are able to understand causal relationships. All humans. It stands to reason that humans discovered very early, say, that stealing some other human's food brought a response that made it clear that stealing wasn't an acceptable thing. Same with adultery, at least within the boundaries of whatever that culture found to be normal. Murder? Same thing, really, and even today, killing the "others" isn't considered to be morally wrong by many. We're still doing it, willy-nilly.
No, science doesn't explain morality. It simply describes it and points to factors that play a role in it. No explanation is necessary. Every culture of humans has an ethos and moral standard. It's a human thing. So, it's a natural thing to study. But no explanation of how it all started is necessary. It's inherent in human society, and independent of religious mythology.
A lot of science is descriptive. Indeed, most of science is descriptive. Religion is prescriptive. Huge difference.