Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-09T20:49:20.499Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Society Needs Morality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 February 2011

Robert A. Hinde
Robert A. Hinde*
Affiliation:
St. John’s College, Cambridge CB2 1TP, UK. E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Morality must be resurrected in our societies. It must be a morality whose nature and sources are understood and are in keeping with current reality. Hitherto, morality has been seen as closely related to religion. That religious belief is helpful to many is indisputable, but religious narratives, treated literally, are unacceptable to modern minds, and the supposed nature of God, as discussed by sophisticated theologians, is inaccessible to everyman. Morality, based on an understanding of human nature as shaped by culture, offers hope for the future.

Type
Articles
Information
European Review , Volume 19 , Issue 1 , February 2011 , pp. 105 - 117
Copyright
Copyright © Academia Europaea 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

References and Notes

1.Hamilton, W. D. (1964) The genetical theory of social behaviour. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 7, pp. 1–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2.Trivers, R. L. (1974) Parent-offspring conflict. American Zoologist, 14, pp. 249–264.Google Scholar
3.Boyd, R. and Richerson, P. J. (2005) The Origin and Evolution of Cultures (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4.Hinde, R. A. (1987) Relationships: A Dialectical Perspective (Hove: Psychology Press).Google Scholar
5.Hinde, R. A. (2002) Why Good Is Good (London: Routledge). This paper summarises a broad literature. Further references can be found in References 4 and 5 of this list.Google Scholar
6.Hinde, R. A. (2010) Why Gods Persist, 2nd edn (London: Routledge).Google Scholar
7.Eisenberg, N. and Fabes, R. A. (1998) Prosocial behavior. In: W. Damon and N. Eisenberg (eds) Handbook of Child Psychology, 5th edn (New York: Wiley) 701–778; J. Bowlby (1969/82) Attachment and Loss, Vol. 1 Attachment (London: Hogarth).Google Scholar
8. Science does not deal with metaquestions, such as why the earth exists, any more than religion is concerned with why there are 12 forms of ice. But insofar as religion uses descriptions of psychologically created concepts it is a proper subject for scientific enquiry.Google Scholar
9.Boehm, C. (2000) The origin of morality as social control. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 7, pp. 149–183; E.E. Evans-Pritchard (1940) The Nuer (Oxford: Clarendon Press).Google Scholar
10.Adams, H. (1876) Essays on Anglo-Saxon Law (Boston MA: Little Brown).Google Scholar
11.Küng, H. and Kuschel, K.-J. (1993) A Global Ethic (London: SCM Press).Google Scholar
12.Hill, K. and Hurtado, M. (1996) Aché Life History (Hawthorne NY: Aldine de Gruyter).Google Scholar
13.Dawkins, R. (2006) The God Delusion (London: Bantam).Google Scholar
14.Dennett, D. C. (2006) Breaking the Spell (London: Viking).Google Scholar
15.Hitchens, C. (2007) God is not Great (London: Atlantic).Google Scholar
16.Eagleton, T. (2009) Reason, Faith, and Revolution (New Haven: Yale University Press).Google Scholar
17.Polkinghorne, J. (1994) Science and Christian Belief (London: SPCK.).Google Scholar
18.Armstrong, K. (2009) The Case for God (London: Bodley).Google Scholar
19.Karmiloff-Smith, A. (1992) Beyond Modularity (Cambridge MA: MIT).Google Scholar
20.Tremlin, T. (2005) Divergent religion: a dual process model of religious thought, behavior and morphology. In: H. Whitehouse and R. N. McCauley (eds) Mind and Religion (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira).Google Scholar
21.Boyer, P. (2005) A reductionist model of distinct modes of religious transmission. In: H. Whitehouse and R. N. McCauley (eds), Mind and Religion (Walnut Creek, CA: AltaMira).Google Scholar
22.Norenzayan, A., Smith, E. E., Kim, B. J. and Nisbett, R. E. (2002) Cultural preferences for formal versus intuitive reasoning. Cognitive Science, 26, pp. 653–684.Google Scholar
23.Hinde, R. A. (2007) Bending the Rules (Oxford: Oxford University Press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
24.Hinde, R. A. and Rotblat, J. (2003) War No More (London: Pluto).Google Scholar
25.Norenzayan, A. and Shariff, A. F. (2008) The origin and evolution of religious prosociality. Science, 322, pp. 58–62.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26.Backman, C. W. (1988) The self: a dialectical approach. Advances in Experimental Psychology, 21, pp. 229–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar