Скачать или смотреть Philosopher Shelly Kagan vs. Apologist William Lane Craig on Morality

A morality of reflection and reason vs. a morality of religion and dogma. There are reasons for morality that do not require a mythical being beyond space and time. As Sam Harris stated we humans do not need bad reasons (religious superstition) to be good when humans have good natural reasons and ability to be good.

Shelly Kagan is professor of philosophy and Henry R. Luce Professor of Social Thought and Ethics at Yale University.


"Most Americans appear to believe that without faith in God, we would have no durable reasons to treat one another well. The political version of this morality claim is that our country was founded on "Judeo-Christian principles," the implication being that without these principles we would have no way to write just laws.

It is, of course, taboo to criticize a person's religious beliefs. The problem, however, is that much of what people believe in the name of religion is intrinsically divisive, unreasonable, and incompatible with genuine morality. The truth is that the only rational basis for morality is a concern for the happiness and suffering of other conscious beings. This emphasis on the happiness and suffering of others explains why we don't have moral obligations toward rocks. It also explains why (generally speaking) people deserve greater moral concern than animals, and why certain animals concern us more than others. If we show more sensitivity to the experience of chimpanzees than to the experience of crickets, we do so because there is a relationship between the size and complexity of a creature's brain and its experience of the world. We have to realize that we decide what is good in our religious doctrines. We read the Golden Rule, for instance, and judge it to be a brilliant distillation of many of our ethical impulses. And then we come across another of God's teachings on morality: If a man discovers that his bride is not a virgin on their wedding night, he must stone her to death on her father's doorstep (Deuteronomy 22: 13-21). If we are civilized, we will reject this as utter lunacy. Doing so requires that we exercise our own moral intuitions, keeping the real issue of human happiness in view. The belief that the Bible is the word of God is of no help to us whatsoever.

As we consider how to run our own society and how to help people in need, the choice before us is simple: Either we can have a 21st-century conversation about morality and human happiness—availing ourselves of all the scientific insights and philosophical arguments that have accumulated in the last 2,000 years of human discourse—or we can confine ourselves to an Iron Age conversation as it is preserved in our holy books."
Sam Harris
The fact that all living primates typically live in social networks makes it highly likely that the last common ancestor of living primates already lived in social networks, and that sociality formed an integral part of the adaptive nature of primate origins. A characterization of primate sociality within the wider mammalian context is therefore essential to further our understanding of the adaptive nature of primate origins. Here we determine correlates of sociality and nonsociality in rodents as a model to infer causes of sociality in primates.
Anthropological Institute and Museum, University of Zürich