 |
| The Garden of Earthly Delights Hieronymus Bosch |
"His famous triptych with naked figures frolicking around — “The Garden of Earthly Delights” — seems a tribute to paradisaical innocence. The tableau is far too happy and relaxed to fit the interpretation of depravity and sin advanced by puritan experts. It represents humanity free from guilt and shame either before the Fall or without any Fall at all. For a primatologist, like myself, the nudity, references to sex and fertility, the plentiful birds and fruits and the moving about in groups are thoroughly familiar and hardly require a religious or moral interpretation. Bosch seems to have depicted humanity in its natural state, while reserving his moralistic outlook for the right-hand panel of the triptych in which he punishes — not the frolickers from the middle panel — but monks, nuns, gluttons, gamblers, warriors, and drunkards. Five centuries later, we remain embroiled in debates about the role of religion in society. As in Bosch’s days, the central theme is morality. Can we envision a world without God? Would this world be good? "
Thus begins Frans de Waal's essay "Morals without God?", a 2010 New York Times opinion piece which provides a foundation to understand that morality is not dependent on God or religion. Morality evolved along with humanity, our actions responding to a desire for nurture and care for those around us. Religion claims to be able to provide a solid basis for determining morality and many would claim that if not for religion, who or what is to stop a person from committing any horrendous action of their choosing? But when this question is studied, results find time and again that individuals who claim to be atheist or agnostic respond similarly to those who claim a religion. Why would a person without God respond similarly to a person with God, because your belief in right vs wrong and your decision to act according to what you believe to be right or wrong, lies in an ability to assert self control over your behavior. A person with God and a person without God have the same ability to decide what they believe is right or what they believe is wrong. One person decides to allow an external concept derived from a book dictate that moral code and the other chooses for themselves how to live. But each person can agree that if someone is drowning and you have the ability to save them, that you would.
Further, the article details how morality may developed as a result of our social instincts present since our primate ancestors. "Similarly, the latest experiments in primatology reveal that our close relatives will do each other favors even if there’s nothing in it for themselves. Chimpanzees and bonobos will voluntarily open a door to offer a companion access to food, even if they lose part of it in the process. And capuchin monkeys are prepared to seek rewards for others, such as when we place two of them side by side, while one of them barters with us with differently colored tokens. One token is “selfish,” and the other “prosocial.” If the bartering monkey selects the selfish token, it receives a small piece of apple for returning it, but its partner gets nothing. The prosocial token, on the other hand, rewards both monkeys. Most monkeys develop an overwhelming preference for the prosocial token, which preference is not due to fear of repercussions, because dominant monkeys (who have least to fear) are the most generous." Mammals and humans both derive pleasure by doing good, being social animals we desire providing for others as well as ourselves and empathize with other's pain.
Morality is not dependent upon God, it has only been strongly influenced by the concept. It is an evolutionary, human instinct to behave with respect to others, it is our choice to live that way.
Enjoy the article:
No comments:
Post a Comment