Are man made things to be trusted?

Ok this may seem complicated but it makes sense if ya think about it. Go back to the cave man days, no technology, primitive way of thinking, survival his only concern. Boom one day he DISCOVERS fire, hundreds of years later " why are we here?" "what created us?) so the CREATE a theory of god. Years later religions form to show homage to these "God/s". The the followers of these religions create the theory of morals, ethics, guilt, shame, love, blashemy etc etc . Basicaly what i am getting at is that all the stuff that stops people doing things like morals and ethics are merely man made used to make people do wat the preists want they wanted them to do. God, religion, morals etc wouldnt exist if humans hadnt thought of them. fire, maths, physics, chemestry , alchemy etc would still exist however. What would you trust some thing man made which we all know isnt one of the best things in the world or natural things which dont hinder but allows progress without " moral " conflict.

Morals (cultural morals not absolute) serve to improve the stability of a society more then anything else.
Lets take some of the commandments :
'though shalt not kill"
"though shalt not steal'
'don't covet thy neighbor'
All serve to lower crime, deceitfulness and generally increase stability. The people who spread morals generally don't see them as serving stability, people (priests/prophets) will spread them because it is Good and/or is the word of God. We should not fear them because they generally lead to better societies in the long run.
We must not trust them completely however, because they are basically arbitrary, and those who try to mix ruthless logic with their morals will end up with awful consequences (the spanish inquisition, Hitler communism).

When do we trust them and when do we fear them? We must as a rule of thumb, not question them too much because they promote stability. However, as soon as a ruler creates change with the arbitrary moral as a the justification, we must question and fear it as it an arbitrary change and thereby creates instability.

Yea Dumbteem - That was very good. I have nothing at all to add to that.

instead of morales why cant we replace them with something else that would provid stability. Get rid of the morals and ther willbe less conflict among people becuase morales are a matter of opinion. Morals do provide some stability but that is only if u have the same morals as other people.

Actually I think what I said is a bit innaccurate.. Its not so much that (again cultural) morals provide stability, but removing them creates instability.
For example take the confederate states. Their cultural moral might be "blacks are ignorant/stupid, we educated whites have the right to govern them because we know what we're doing". Trying to remove this moral caused the civil war, IE a great deal of instability.
This is why in removing archaic morals, (present examples, say 'Marriage is the union of man and woman' or 'marriage only involves 2 individuals'. Although ultimately we may aim to remove these morals, this must be done slowly and in a way in which instability (like mass demonstrations and strikes) is limited.

Though I think we may need to be clear on the kind of morals we're talking about. Because naming all morals bad and wanting to remove all of them is not a good idea IMO.

lol i agree that it needs to be aslow process, but im not insisting on taking these morals completley away. The civil war came about the removal of a moral which people had diffrent opinions on, if we take waway the morales whiich people have different opinions on and replace them with a one set rule wouldnt there be less coflict like the catholics and the prodestants who are always fighing on conflicting moral and religouse veiws

"replace them with a one set rule wouldnt there be less coflict like the catholics and the prodestants who are always fighing on conflicting moral and religouse veiws"
What kind of rule? I mean most likely not everyone will agree with that rule and voilà, instability.

not everyone right no agrees with the set of morals " voila" still "instability". Are u saying that the world right now with all its morals is stable.

"not everyone right no agrees with the set of morals " voila" still "instability". Are u saying that the world right now with all its morals is stable."
It is more stable then if say, Iraq's government pronouced itself completely devoid of religion, the US made polygamy legal and France allowed everyone to practive religion freely.

We must move towards removing cultural morals, but their's no rush. It must be done slowly and only when appropriate. They must be pragmatically removed, not removed out of sheer ideology.

i gotto say thats a gd point, but lets forget the division of morality. No cultural, no religous just morality. Religion shouldnt be abolished cuase it gives comfort yes with all the storys of god a so on. Cultural influence should not be abolished either, becuase it gives a sense of being , a little bit of pride in ones country. The morales involed in both however should be reconciderd. A patriot deciding that it is right to attack and abuse someone from another country becuase he feels as if that foreign person threatens his culture. A evangalist cristian, catholic or watever, killing a docter who works at an abortion clinic becuase she feels it is the right thing to do. These morals are the ones which cause the corruption and instability. These are as we know forbidden by law. Which is one set rule against them. The problem arises when theres different opionions on morales were each person has different ones about different things and when these conflisct they also cuase instability. On may find it right to persecute jews were as one may not, and then u come to the quistion of finding what morals are good and bad... can u convict some one of a crime if they thought it was moraly gd... yes with one set rule... dont murder...dont steal blah blah blah

Morales are part of our fibre we know what is good and bad at least when the situation is clear-cut We do not necesarily need religion to provide that for us. But religion for years did a fair job of forcing morals on people ie. the threat of hell. the only alternative is a code of laws which we have is you go against the law you risk punishment so the state for some has replaced the church in that manner and this seems the best way to go as we have many religions under one roof.

I think what might be nice though is a choice ie. if you disagree with the laws in your area you would have an option to move elsewhere so you may live more as you choose.

Until we are all the same we will never truely agree on all things.

gd point... another quistion about morales,... are morals merly something that is an individual and can varie between individuals or is there a universal right and wrong

I think there are two kinds of morals :
- cultural (or religious) ones. Things like homosexuality is bad, polygamy is bad, killing infidels is good etc.. These are dependent on the person and come from tradition.
- the other type is fairly hypothetical and is the fruit of reason not tradition, and 'should' be universal. For me this would be any act which is done with selfless intent (not everyone agrees, for Kant it is "any act which if generalized would benefit society" )

i agree with that there are diff types of morality

Going back to the start of this thread, yes, here is mankind seeking to live in harmony with the nature environment. His greatest worry is providing food , shelter and not being eaten by a pride of lions (european descedents) or killed by other humans>Now we have poluted our water and air from our greed for material wealth, our preoccupation with money & wealth has formed our greatest worry is we will be attacked by other humans (the bomb, terrorist, lawlessness) or that some dread disease we have provided the neccessary environment for, will grow & spread in our bodies. Then their are those who fear that they will lose their material poccessions, their hair & grow fat, ugly or bald becoming impinent(sp)? Are we truely any better off?