Are you religious?

[ch33zw1z]

Empathy?

Yea, totally...wait...what? Empathy is a human emotion regardless of whether or not you have a soul. The common misconception here is that without some sort of religion, people will be animals. Simply not true.

 

[Jeff7]

Empathy?

Yeah...what about it?
Empathy is just the ability to imagine what another person might be feeling in a certain situation.
You can also experience something similar by listening to a comedian. They describe a situation, you imagine what that scenario would be like, then see the absurdity or silliness of it, and laugh.

Nothing mystical or magical about it.

 

[mk]

Yea, totally...wait...what? Empathy is a human emotion regardless of whether or not you have a soul. The common misconception here is that without some sort of religion, people will be animals. Simply not true.

Quite a few other species exhibit empathetic behavior. It's not just a human emotion.

The point was that I find it scary when people ask in all seriousness (not necessarily referring to mattpegher's post) why one should refrain from torturing or killing others (humans or other animals) if there was no supernatural system in place to punish you for doing so. Sounds like a sadistic personality or a psychopath.

A common answer is a utilitarian view: don't hurt others because in a society where hurting others is the norm you might get hurt as well. This is perfectly valid IMO but I find it odd that more people aren't concerned by the questions.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Quite a few other species exhibit empathetic behavior. It's not just a human emotion.

The point was that I find it scary when people ask in all seriousness (not necessarily referring to mattpegher's post) why one should refrain from torturing or killing others (humans or other animals) if there was no supernatural system in place to punish you for doing so. Sounds like a sadistic personality or a psychopath.

A common answer is a utilitarian view: don't hurt others because in a society where hurting others is the norm you might get hurt as well. This is perfectly valid IMO but I find it odd that more people aren't concerned by the questions.

Indeed. I get to have this same discussion with family members, every T-day and Xmas.

 

[mattpegher]

Perfect that is the appropriate response. Empathy and stable environment are the usual responses. I'm not saying that I personally require a soul to justify ethics, just that that is the argument. Personally though I am still more stuck on the concept of evil as a human interpretation devoid of any meaning without human perception. I continue to try and explore this metaphysically.

 

[Jeff7]

Quite a few other species exhibit empathetic behavior. It's not just a human emotion.

The point was that I find it scary when people ask in all seriousness (not necessarily referring to mattpegher's post) why one should refrain from torturing or killing others (humans or other animals) if there was no supernatural system in place to punish you for doing so. Sounds like a sadistic personality or a psychopath.

A common answer is a utilitarian view: don't hurt others because in a society where hurting others is the norm you might get hurt as well. This is perfectly valid IMO but I find it odd that more people aren't concerned by the questions.

Ah, ok, now I have a slightly better idea of what you were saying with your one-word post earlier.

Yes, I'm generally concerned by it as well. It assumes that everyone has the mentality of a misbehaving toddler - don't do bad things or else you'll get spanked, otherwise it's a free-for-all.
"Don't do bad things, or god's gonna getcha! You know...eventually. After you die. But he'll totally do it!"

 

[ch33kym0use]

Are you religious?

Not excessively.

 

[mattpegher]

Unfortunately atheistic morality seems to lose some causality when proposed that you could perform an act that would have no effect on society, would be undetected by others and not ultimately have a negative effect on the self. Such an act is not hard to suppose. You find yourself in the desert, and happen upon a mentally ill transient who possesses a bottle of water. The amount of water is such that only one of you will survive without it. Do you take the water by force possibly killing the person. You are somewhere where his body will never be found. You "obviously" have a greater value to society than he does. If you fail to do so you will surely die.

 

[Onceler]

Everything has a sort of consiousness even trees.
Morality is not only human.

 

[mattpegher]

Ah, ok, now I have a slightly better idea of what you were saying with your one-word post earlier.

Yes, I'm generally concerned by it as well. It assumes that everyone has the mentality of a misbehaving toddler - don't do bad things or else you'll get spanked, otherwise it's a free-for-all.
"Don't do bad things, or god's gonna getcha! You know...eventually. After you die. But he'll totally do it!"

I don't mean to imply that one position is better than the other. I am just searching for an answer to this quandary.

 

[mk]

Are religious morals good because God says so or does God merely inform us of what is good?

 

[HeXen]

Are religious morals good because God says so or does God merely inform us of what is good?

whats good is only what we deem to our feelings that makes us feel good/positive.
Emotions are the basis for what we consider good or bad. without them we would only have instinct, like insects do for isntance

 

[MotionMan]

Are religious morals good because God says so or does God merely inform us of what is good?

Preliminary question:

Does the Bible allow for slavery?

MotionMan

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Unfortunately atheistic morality seems to lose some causality when proposed that you could perform an act that would have no effect on society, would be undetected by others and not ultimately have a negative effect on the self.

If it has no negative effect on you, how can you judge that it has a negative effect on the person? Isn't it rather up to that person to decide for himself what effects are "negative" and "positive"?

Such an act is not hard to suppose. You find yourself in the desert, and happen upon a mentally ill transient who possesses a bottle of water. The amount of water is such that only one of you will survive without it. Do you take the water by force possibly killing the person. You are somewhere where his body will never be found. You "obviously" have a greater value to society than he does. If you fail to do so you will surely die.

False premises. It is not a given that one person has more value than the other. Value is subjective.

Most people do not comprehend well the implications of moral subjectivism, and as a consequence they reach false conclusions about it based on poor reasoning.

 

[mk]

Preliminary question:

Does the Bible allow for slavery?

MotionMan

Yes, the Israelites are encouraged to take slaves from the neighboring tribes, Jewish slaves are also allowed but with some restrictions. There are also a lot of rules about the treatment of slaves.

In the NT slaves are told to be obedient to their masters, especially if the masters are Christian.

 

[MotionMan]

Yes, the Israelites are encouraged to take slaves from the neighboring tribes, Jewish slaves are also allowed but with some restrictions. There are also a lot of rules about the treatment of slaves.

In the NT slaves are told to be obedient to their masters, especially if the masters are Christian.

Second preliminary question, this time directed to people who follow what is said in the Bible:

Is slavery morally right (as implied by the Bible) or is it immoral (as 1st world societies apparently believe today)?

MotionMan

 

[mk]

Second preliminary question, this time directed to people who follow what is said in the Bible:

Is slavery morally right (as implied by the Bible) or is it immoral (as 1st world societies apparently believe today)?

MotionMan

Owning other people is morally reprehensible. This is my personal opinion, I don't believe there to be an ultimate lawgiver that makes it so.

 

[MotionMan]

Owning other people is morally reprehensible. This is my personal opinion, I don't believe there to be an ultimate lawgiver that declares it to be so.

Do you follow the teachings of the Bible?

MotionMan

 

[mk]

Do you follow the teachings of the Bible?

MotionMan

No, the Bible is a poor source of morality. You'd have to pick and choose passages that have value as moral guides and ignore all that don't. To do so would require one to use modern, extra-biblical morals to judge the Bible making it redundant in the process.

 

[MotionMan]

No, the Bible is a poor source of morality. You'd have to pick and choose passages that have value as moral guides and ignore all that don't. To do so would require one to use modern, extra-biblical morals to judge the Bible making it irrelevant in the process.

OK, but, then, my question was not directed to you.

MotionMan

 

[Onceler]

Preliminary question:

Does the Bible allow for slavery?

MotionMan

Yes

 

[Dr. Zaus]

OK, but, then, my question was not directed to you.

MotionMan

Is the bible a series of rules or the story of God's attempt to bring man to Him?

 

[MotionMan]

Is the bible a series of rules or the story of God's attempt to bring man to Him?

That is a very good question.

Ask someone who follows the Bible.

MotionMan

 

[mattpegher]

If it has no negative effect on you, how can you judge that it has a negative effect on the person? Isn't it rather up to that person to decide for himself what effects are "negative" and "positive"?


False premises. It is not a given that one person has more value than the other. Value is subjective.

Most people do not comprehend well the implications of moral subjectivism, and as a consequence they reach false conclusions about it based on poor reasoning.

You did notice the quotes? Value is very subjective, not one person here can say they value another (save possibly a child) more then they do themselves. In this paradox value need not be objective. Weigh within you what you would do, I simply ask what you would do and why, I will not judge. Be it psychological damage to self or defense of the innocent. I want to know your thought.

Ultimately what moral code is not subjective. If your thought is that no soul exists, then the only definition of amorality is that which disrupts stability of self (society). Or should we use that which causes evil. To define evil again atheistically is that which causes suffering to a sentient being. Sentience without a soul is simply self awareness. Self awareness cannot be an all or none phenomenon so all living things must be self aware to a metered extent.

I apologize if I find more questions than answers.


I seek not to teach but to learn.

 

[dennilfloss]

Yes I am. Practicing (as opposed to lapsed) Catholic.