It would appear, to me at least, that morality was evolved (as opposed to authoritatively imposed) and arises from two primary behaviors, which were likely required for our survival as hominids: Empathy and Reciprocity. One involves Care, the other Consequences. Of one thing we may be certain, we didn't obtain our moral values from an ancient book, which represents the antithesis or moral behavior.

Necessity is the mother of invention. As people came together to form communities the need for rules to establish acceptable behavior within their society became a necessity, hence the invention of moral conduct. This I think would predate any ruling government, laws, and religion.

If it were possible to stop a genocide or murder, then why wouldn't I do so?

Sure, I'd stop harms if I had the power to.

Societal morality is nothing more than an emergent consensus on the part of society's members of what is helpful and harmful in having the kind of society that most of its members desire. That invariably tends to zero in on some form of civil, stable, orderly society where people have as much freedom as possible in the "pursuit of happiness".

Since genocide and murder are pretty unambiguously huge harms to the kind of society I want to live in, I would stop them in a heartbeat, given the opportunity and means.

The morality claimed by religion is simply a co-opting of societal mores and norms, perhaps with a few bolted-on additional requirements. They claim then to be the source of (and to be indispensible to nurturing and protecting) something that is already in existence.

Now it is tempting to say this is all shameless appropriation of something that exists, no thanks to religion. However, there is the little problem that society has a lot of religious people in it, and those people, as members of society, do contribute to our mores and ethics -- just not in the way they imagine that they do. Then the question becomes, is societal morality better or worse for this influence? I think it's probably a wash.

On the one hand, some religious people have used religious arguments to argue against equal rights for various groups, to advocate the heaping of shame and hatred on innocents, to push regressive, primitive notions of what is desirable or undesirable. But then so have some areligious people. On the other hand, some religious people have used religious arguments to argue the very opposite. As have some areligious people.

So in terms of religion's actual impact on actual morality, I'm willing to give them something of a pass on an overall basis. Something of a pass, because I still hold a suspicion that it might net out a bit negative. I just don't see any way to substantiate that intuition.

But what I don't give them a pass on is the notion that morality is authored (and enforced) by their deity, for the good of the deity and not for the good of humanity. That's at cross-purposes to morality in that it's largely disconnected from actual real world cause and effect.

People who claim their morality is based on the bible don't read the bible.

Good question. And I think it's more simply grounded that most people realize. In essence, it's the intellectualism required to understand that the best path for you to reach your highest potential is through understanding and cooperation with our fellow citizens, leading to the elimination of personal conflict that works against this. Religions have co-opted/corrupted this to mean pretty much the same thing, but only in context to their beliefs.

This is a really good answer to your question.

Imo morality comes from logic. If murder, rape,and theft were acceptable, a society wouldn't be able to function due to lack of trust. Think about when you're on road: you're trusting that everybody isn't going to drive like jackasses and get mad when they do. This is because they are violating that trust.

On of my first posts: "How can you be a moral person and be an atheist?"

"How can you be a moral person and be an atheist?

Morality or ethics comes into being because of mankind's social nature, our need to get along with one another, work together well, and to hold together as a society. Ethics is what makes our lives worthwhile in this world.

Real morality comes from empathy and self-respect.

Morality has been traced back to natural selection. Bats are a common example - the group helps out the isolated.

Your first paragraph is on a good trajectory, then you kind of confuse it with outcomes of religion. Try to simplify the conversation.

I would stop it but sometimes I feel like Thanos and think that our population needs to be cut in half at times

Morals and the concept of right and wrong have been documented since the ancient Greek societies. That's at least 500 years prior to the stories of the bible. So these concepts predate Christianity.

Empathy

Morality needs no higher being with supernatural standards. The ancient book called Bible is not the source of morality. Morality comes from the interaction of diverse culture. How you treated other people by not harming them, respect their being is the core of morality. the principles that transcends and agreed upon, governed and determined by law by which everyone can depends for justice. Not that an imaginary being up there watching you all the time even if your in the toilet. Thats bullshit!

You have two questions in this one post.
Morality is a survival characteristic. We have to get along with each other to survive. One person sells food, and another makes and sells tools. The farmer needs tools, and the tool maker needs to eat. One son needs to marry and procreate with anothers daughter. When one does not conform, we separate the individual.

mostly longterm efficacy and survival with dashes of massive self interest

Morality much like sin is a worthless expression. Too me it's about actions and consequences. If the consequences are untenable, then the action is wrong. If you are willing to face the consequences, go for it. Consequences can be small and personal or big and societal. It's about accepted behavior that actually has no inherent value - positive or negative.

In answer to the question above, who wpuld say they would not stop genocide or murder. I am an opposite and believe humans are moral, empathetic, and care about fellow humans naturally. I don't believe in good and evil as a force of nature, but I do believe in cause and effect.
I took a class once on serial killers, as had an interest in this. Most had childhoods that were pretty horrific. I also think we come with varied personalities and resilience to become a psychopath or one not empathic. Trump actually seems to have anti sicial personality disorder or maybe just narsacistic personalty disorder and I don't know much about his upbringing, but seems it wasn't one that nurtured the lovingness and connection most children grow into. I don't think morality comes through being religious but in spite of it.

You. And the rest of humanity.

The only good thing about living in a country full of christians is that they are not true christians.

For genocide, yes. For murder, it would entirely depend on the situation. This would be more and more true the bigger the chance where I would be the replacement of the murder victim.

Things ---> language ---> description ---> action

They did always instill in us with "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" daily.

Hard question, but probably some mix of mirror neurons, and seeing everyone else as similar to yourself. Some speculate that it's an overgeneralizated genetic trait that was originally evolved to protect close family.

Of course not.

Free will is far more important than stopping people killing each other......