Vanity/Morality/Desire/Influence/Knowledge/Imagination/Conciousness/Sense Organs/Present Environment
"Vanity of vanities; all is vanity." - Solomon.
"Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality." - Gandhi.
If morality serves as the basis of vanity, then I think the basis of morality is desire; the basis of desire is influence; the basis of influence is knowledge; the basis of knowledge is imagination; the basis of imagination is our sense organs reacting to our present environment, and the extent of how concious we are of this happening.
The more open ones mind is to foreign influences, the more bigger and detailed its imagination can potentially become. It's loves influence on our ability to reason that governs the extent of our compassion and empathy, because it's love that leads a concious mind most willing to consider anything new (your parents divorcing and upon dating someone new your dad goes from cowboy boots only to flip flops for example). Thus the extent of its ability—even willingness to imagine the most amount of potential variables, when imagining themselves as someone else; and of how detailed it is. This is what not only makes knowledge in general so important, but especially the knowledge of selflessness and virtue. Because our imagination needs to be exercised by let's say reading books or imagining yourself in someones shoes as a couple examples.
When one strikes us accross the cheek, and we stike back in retaliation, we appeal to the more instinctive, barbaric mammal within all of us. But when we lower our hand, and offer our other cheek in return, we appeal to the logical, reasonable thinking being within all of us instead.
I think the only evidence needed to prove my claim made in the title is to use the "skin" that holds the wine of the knowledge of everything we've ever presently known as a species: observation. If we look at our world around us, we can plainly see a collection of capable, concious beings on a planet, presently holding the most capacity to not only imagine selflessness to the extent we can, but act upon this imagining, and the extent we can apply it to our environment, in contrast to anything—as far as we know—that's ever existed; God or not.
What would happen if the wine of our knowledge of morality was no longer kept separate from the skin we use to hold the knowledge of everything else: observation, and poured purely from the perspective of this skin? Opposed to poured into the one that its always been poured into, and thats kept it seperate at all in the first place: a religion. There's so much logic within religion, that's not being seen as such because of the appearance it's given when it's taught and advocated, being an entire concept on what exactly life is, and what the influences of a God or afterlife consist of, our failure to make them credible enough only potentially drawing people away from the value of the extremes of our sense of selflessness—even the relevance of the idea of a God or creator of some kind; becoming stigmatized as a result.
There's a long-standing potential within any consciously capable being—on any planet, a potential for the most possible good, considering its unique ability of perceiving anything good or evil in the first place. It may take centuries upon centuries of even the most wretched of evils and collective selfishness, but the potential for the greatest good and of collective selflessness will have always have been there. Like how men of previous centuries would only dream of humans flying in the air like the birds do, or the idea of democracy.
"We can't beat out all the hate in the world, with more hate; only love has that ability." - Martin Luthing King Jr.
"Morality is the basis of things, and truth is the substance of all morality." - Gandhi
"Respect was invented, to cover the empty place, where love should be." - Leo Tolstoy
"Never take an oath at all. Not to heaven (God and an afterlife), or Earth (humans)...Let what you say be simply ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ (regarding these influences); anything more than this comes from evil (a worry, a need, a fear for oneself; a selfishness, i.e., a religion). - Jesus, Matt 5:33
"The hardest to love, are the ones that need it the most." - Socrates
And ultimately what I'm trying to say here, is that ironically, the people that would be seeing the psychology and sociology within religion, by seeing the words and the logic they connotate as nothing but that—aren't. Because again ironically, the people that see the value and potential to it, aren't teaching along with they way people like even Jesus advocated for it to be taught: to never see anything man made as unquestionably true. To see things as true, of course, but never where it's no longer up for question, and that it's no longer capable of error.
Obviously a big claim regarding Jesus, but it makes perfect sense if you consider the extent "oath-taking"—I like to call it—divides us. Whether it be the division between nations all the way down to things like racism or slander and collective hate. And if you consider the potential of the opposite, of the masses being taught to never be lead to feel as though they would kill, harm, hate, or be iniquitous in general for the sake of any man made thing—or to always be re-examining their life as Socrates put it, then I can't help but to think this would undoubtedly hold the most potential for unity, in contrast to any amount of the opposite.
Personally, I feel that morality is a spook but, for the sake of discussion, I'm just gonna speak about it as if it's not.
I appreciate the empiricist take, but this chain of influence feels a bit too reductive. While sensory perception and imagination certainly play roles in moral reasoning, this seems to ignore the evolutionary and social dimensions of morality. This is understandable to do if you're religious, but I find it incomplete when framed through empiricism. Moral Foundations Theory suggest that moral instincts (e.g., care/harm, fairness/cheating) evolved to address group survival challenges. If we stop at desire, I can see how that could account for morality's deep ties to communal needs and power structures, but glossing over this and boiling it down to sense perception seems too narrow. Is this what you meant regarding psychology and sociology?
I think this framing creates a false binary between instinct and reason. You may have had a particular context in mind here, but the context matters too much to not specify. For marginalized people facing systemic violence, self-defense or resistance isn't "barbarism"—it can be a necessary act of survival or even, arguably, a moral imperative. While self-control can be virtuous in some cases, retaliation isn’t inherently immoral; it depends on the circumstances. I assume you can agree with this, as your core thesis seems to be a utilitarian one rather than deontological
This feels anthropocentric, which I understand, if you're religious, but altruism exists in many non-human species—primates share resources, elephants mourn their dead, and dolphins help injured peers. While humans have unique capacities for abstract reasoning, selflessness isn’t exclusive to us. Moreover, even human altruism often has roots in reciprocal benefits or social expectations.
I'm confused about your goal/purpose with this. Is your primary argument that people ought to utilize religious frameworks for morality, or that they don't need to? Or something else? It seems to me that you raise a good argument for secular ethics, but I get the feeling you didn't intend to.
Framing morality as love is sweet, and nice to read, but moral decisions often involve competing values—like justice or autonomy—that can conflict with love. Additionally, centering love risks excluding those who struggle with traditional notions of empathy due to trauma or neurodivergence.