This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Religious are only moral because they get eternal life....

#1kts123Posted 7/26/2011 2:50:05 PM
Non-believers are only moral because it stokes their pride.

N - O - Oh no he DIDN'T!

Bam.
#2kozlo100Posted 7/26/2011 2:51:35 PM
Alternatively: Everyone is moral because empathy is an intrinsic human trait.
---
The problem, then, is that if subjective worlds are experienced too differently, there occurs a breakdown in communication. -- Philip K. Dick
#3RetrotasticPosted 7/26/2011 3:00:32 PM(edited)
It wasn't intrinsic in the Aztecs or the Nazi's and they were humans. But in any case it says something like that in the Bible.
#4anavriNPosted 7/26/2011 2:58:26 PM
Alternatively: Everyone is moral because empathy is an intrinsic human trait.

I agree.
But I should add: of course people still act 'moral' due to fear of punishment (either in this life and any perceived next), but at this point, it becomes morally moot and it is merely an act of opportunism instead.
---
§ 157. Der Gedanke an den Selbstmord ist ein starkes Trostmittel: mit ihm kommt man gut über manche böse Nacht hinweg.
#5Hustle KongPosted 7/26/2011 3:00:31 PM
What Kozlo said. If anything, my attempts to act rightly only increase my sense of humility.
---
Shooting Game never die.
It prays that the clover of luck be always in your mind.
#6BtVSFanPosted 7/26/2011 5:58:31 PM
From: kozlo100 | #002
Alternatively: Everyone is moral because empathy is an intrinsic human trait.

Except not everyone is moral, and many are not empathetic. Consider, empathy is developmental, so there is a large segment of the population, specifically young infants, who don't even meet your empathy criteria of morality. Moreover, disorders such as Antisocial Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and Sociopathy all present with a lack of empathy. Neither of your claims, that all humans are moral or that empathy is an intrinsic human trait, really hold water. Also worth considering, empathy does not necessarily lead to morality. Just because you are able to understand and feel the emotions of others does not mean that you will act upon that understanding in a moral way, empathetic understanding could just as easily be used for manipulation. Finally, there is a Philosophical problem with saying that all humans are moral. If all humans are moral, what way is there to distinguish immoral acts? Are we going to say that murderers and rapists are moral? At a certain point you have to make a distinction, and out the window goes the notion of universal morality.
---
Someone's carryin' a bullet for you right now, doesn't even know it. The trick is, die of old age before it finds you - Mal
http://i36.tinypic.com/23yqa.jpg
#7Arcadia__personPosted 7/26/2011 7:17:03 PM
OK, I'm pretty sure he was talking about why moral people are moral, not saying that literally every human being is moral...
---
"Impossible is just a word people use to make themselves feel better when they quit." -Skies of Arcadia
#8KNessJMPosted 7/27/2011 12:39:20 AM
Moreover, disorders such as Antisocial Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and Sociopathy all present with a lack of empathy. Neither of your claims, that all humans are moral or that empathy is an intrinsic human trait, really hold water.

If empathy is a standard trait, then giving examples of psychological and neurological disorders which preclude it isn't a refutation. These are seen as abnormal states for a reason. The absence of traits in a small percentage of people doesn't mean that the traits are not standard.
---
Quote of the Week: "He who is attached to things will suffer much."
#9BtVSFanPosted 7/27/2011 12:50:01 AM
From: KNessJM | #008
Moreover, disorders such as Antisocial Personality Disorder, Narcissistic Personality Disorder, and Sociopathy all present with a lack of empathy. Neither of your claims, that all humans are moral or that empathy is an intrinsic human trait, really hold water.

If empathy is a standard trait, then giving examples of psychological and neurological disorders which preclude it isn't a refutation. These are seen as abnormal states for a reason. The absence of traits in a small percentage of people doesn't mean that the traits are not standard.


Yeah, except he wasn't saying that it was a "normal" trait, he was saying that it was intrinsic and universal, I've provided some counterexamples to refute that claim.
---
Someone's carryin' a bullet for you right now, doesn't even know it. The trick is, die of old age before it finds you - Mal
http://i36.tinypic.com/23yqa.jpg
#10kts123(Topic Creator)Posted 7/27/2011 7:45:31 AM(edited)
Yeah, except he wasn't saying that it was a "normal" trait, he was saying that it was intrinsic and universal, I've provided some counterexamples to refute that claim.

Uhm no, he said: "Alternatively: Everyone is moral because empathy is an intrinsic human trait." which isn't far flung from "Everyone likes sex because it helps the species survive." You're picking straws by finding a few people with mental disorders. Normal people like sex, normal people have empathy, normal people know what I mean by "normal people" and "everyone."

And for that matter, I contend, morality has been deeply linked (empirically) to the experience of emotion. To completely void someone of morality, they would likely be unable to function altogether. Sociopaths and the like still have an inherit moral sense. In fact many sociopaths will try to "justify" their own behavior, hence they understand morality, even if in a skewed way.

Finally, there is a Philosophical problem with saying that all humans are moral. If all humans are moral, what way is there to distinguish immoral acts? Are we going to say that murderers and rapists are moral? At a certain point you have to make a distinction, and out the window goes the notion of universal morality.

Firstly, morality can be experienced universally by all humans while not being an intrinsic property of the universe. Subjective morality can (in concept) arise from selection pressures, in the same sense we might say the concept of identity came about due to selection pressures. That is, there's a difference between "universal" and "universally experienced by all members of a particular species." Morality, if formed by evolution, might be entirely contradictory and entirely philosophically unsound, yet so deeply rooted in our nature we require it to survive and are physiologically incapable of functioning without it.

And third:

Objective morality with knowledge of Christ shows that moral acts are those that fall within line of the nature of God, while immoral acts are those things contrary to the nature of God. With morality actually being defined in terms of God's will, and our moral compass being naturally tuned to seek his nature (even if it falls out of tune from time to time.)