Why aren't you a murderer?

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by S485122

I am active in a union and thus spend a lot of free time in a very stressful way as well. The direct benefits for me are nihil, on the contrary. Other groups of which I am a member tend to be stressfull as well.

Are you willing to quit your job for your union work if your union leaders asked you to? What motivates your service?

There have been times where I gave more than 20 % of my salary (and thus earnings) to various causes : a political group, a non commercial radio, several political papers, several activist groups of which I was a member... And I see a lot of other people doing the same.

Is this consistent behavior on your part? Do you disagree with my point that such behavior is less likely?

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Maybe a better question than "what keeps you from murdering?" (and which would more accurately reflect the intent of my question) would be "where do you base your moral system?"

If one were to ask, "When did you acquire your moral system?" my answer would be that, as best I can recall, I acquired it partly before I have specific memories, and partly at various times since I began to remember events.

My own empathy with feelings of other people led me to consciously conclude that the Golden Rule (which I'd already been taught in various venues) was soundly based on human nature. I found that all musing about ways in which I would want to be treated by others naturally led to the conclusion that I should treat others the same ways in which I wanted them to treat me.

Is morality what society at large says it is?

Society at large says many things, some inconsistent, about morality.

Is it what just feels right to your sensibilities?

Well, it needs to feel right, but that's not "just" the only criterion.

Is it based on principles you've discovered in your lifetime which you cherish?

Partly. However, I've rarely ever thought of any such principle that I'd not already heard or read from other people, so it's a matter of discovering which of those I wind up cherishing.

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Thank you for this clarification. By the way, I meant "naturalistic" in exactly that sense.

Fine.

I think the first thing we need to do is make sure we are using the same meaning of equivalent. I would define "equivalent" to mean that two things happen: (1) the followers act the same in moral situations, and (2) the followers define which situations are moral by similar criteria. [Or, perhaps better, the same person, under either belief system, would act similarly.]

Okay.

I suppose that there are two people on the planet, one who believes and one who doesn't, who act pretty much the same and believe pretty much the same things. On the other hand, I do think that (on average) sincere followers of religion will, even in everyday life, act quite differently (on average) than those who sincerely do not believe in God.

I don't see why such believers/nonbelievers would act much differently whenever they shared the same moral system aside from belief-in-God. (Differences attributable directly to such belief, such as whether or not attending religious services or whether or not meditating upon nonreligious readings, that have no significant moral dimension in and of themselves shouldn't count.)

I'd go so far as to say that there are some behaviors which sincere believers will perform which non-believers will not, and vice versa. For example, in my church all of the positions are lay positions. We are not payed for anything we do. Currently I am in a position which consumes a lot of my time and is very stressful to me. I see the benefits it has on my fellow brothers (when I think deeply about it), but at the same time I wouldn't be sad to have someone else fill the position. If I didn't believe in God, would I sacrifice of my time in this way? (*Especially* when I am not seeing the benefits?)

As you've already been told, sure, a nonreligious person could be willing to serve in some unpaid stressful volunteer job that benefits others -- it's done all the time. I'm surprised that you seem not to have envisioned that.

If you specify that the nonreligious person is "not seeing the benefits", whereas the religious person does see "the benefits it has on my fellow brothers", then you aren't specifying a fair comparison of equivalent situations -- it's biased in favor of the religious person. "Seeing the benefits" some job has on other people is not an exclusive attribute of religious people.

For an alternate example, non-believers couldn't (sincerely) kill others under the (mistaken) belief that God has commanded such acts.

No, but I think that both the nonreligious and the religious can come up with numerous justifications for killing, too many for that single difference to be significant.

(Not to mention the cases in which mentally-ill people have killed because they thought God had commanded it, but most religious folks would not consider such people to be authentic believers.)

[Mini-Geek]

http://www.physorg.com/news127399170.html

But then he tried another variation: Before doing the test, he asked one group of subjects to name 10 books they had read in high school. He asked another group to name as many of the Ten Commandments as they could remember. The group that listed the books followed the same pattern as the earlier test--they all cheated a little. But the group that named the commandments was different: Nobody cheated at all!

"Just the act of contemplating morality eliminated cheating," Ariely explains.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

I don't see why such believers/nonbelievers would act much differently whenever they shared the same moral system aside from belief-in-God. (Differences attributable directly to such belief, such as whether or not attending religious services or whether or not meditating upon nonreligious readings, that have no significant moral dimension in and of themselves shouldn't count.)

As mini-geek pointed out, pondering on morals itself has a moral dimension. Institutionalizing such pondering has (in my opinion) significant effects on behavior.

While studies cannot prove causation, we can see significant correlation. For example, successful marriages are more likely (depending on the religion).

To take a slight sidetrack: You mention that you follow the golden rule. I applaud you on that, as it is an important principle. And yet, by itself, (as I understand morality) it is incomplete. For example, suppose (for sake of argument) you are Hamlet, you have strong reasons to believe that your mother's new husband killed your father and took the kingdom. You cannot prove murder, and there are no legal recourses. What do you do? Do you kill your step-father (which, according to society at the time would be not only acceptable, but the noble thing to do to avenge your father)? Or do you not revenge yourself? According to the golden rule, you would do to him what you'd want done to you. But whether or not you'd want someone to commit revenge upon yourself for murder would depend on other moral factors, how you feel about revenge and justice, the death penalty, etc...

As you've already been told, sure, a nonreligious person could be willing to serve in some unpaid stressful volunteer job that benefits others -- it's done all the time. I'm surprised that you seem not to have envisioned that.

You are right. I concede your point. There are many mothers who freely give their time for school meetings, men who work in the community at soup kitchens, etc... all of which are valuable and good endeavors.

I guess I could have focused on the fact that every member in our church has a calling, which implies that all of us are actively serving. So, while it is true that individuals in and out of churches can actively serve, there isn't an institutionalized pressure for everyone to serve.

If you specify that the nonreligious person is "not seeing the benefits", whereas the religious person does see "the benefits it has on my fellow brothers", then you aren't specifying a fair comparison of equivalent situations ...

I think you misread my quotation. I was talking about myself, and how sometimes when I don't see the benefit of my actions I'm tempted to quit.

No, but I think that both the nonreligious and the religious can come up with numerous justifications for killing, too many for that single difference to be significant.

(Not to mention the cases in which mentally-ill people have killed because they thought God had commanded it, but most religious folks would not consider such people to be authentic believers.)

I wouldn't necessarily agree they were insincere or inauthentic. Just insane. But your point is well taken (and I meant for it to be implicit in my words, so I thank you for making it explicit).

Best,
Zeta-Flux

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

While studies cannot prove causation, we can see significant correlation. For example, successful marriages are more likely (depending on the religion).

Be careful, there. If we are to grant consideration of correlations between religious belief and _desirable_ behaviors/results, then for fairness and honesty we have to also consider the correlations between religious belief and _undesirable_ behaviors/results such as Inquisitions, suicide attacks, lying to justify invasions of foreign countries, and so on.

To take a slight sidetrack: You mention that you follow the golden rule.

Correction: I said I figured out that it was "soundly based". I view it as one of several worthy ideals, but am certainly not perfect in following that ideal.

I applaud you on that, as it is an important principle. And yet, by itself, (as I understand morality) it is incomplete.

Of course. There have to be other principles, for at least the reason that not every situation lends itself to drawing a parallel between treatment of others and treatment of oneself.

For example, suppose (for sake of argument) you are Hamlet, you have strong reasons to believe that your mother's new husband killed your father and took the kingdom. You cannot prove murder, and there are no legal recourses. What do you do? Do you kill your step-father (which, according to society at the time would be not only acceptable, but the noble thing to do to avenge your father)?

Zzzzt. Society at large is inconsistent about morals, as I said earlier, so it's not qualified to guide.

Or do you not revenge yourself? According to the golden rule, you would do to him what you'd want done to you.

There's a hierarchy here. Firstly, I'd want not to be killed, so that rules out killing someone else.

But whether or not you'd want someone to commit revenge upon yourself for murder would depend on other moral factors, how you feel about revenge and justice, the death penalty, etc...

... or about, ahem, self-preservation.

So, life imprisonment instead of execution. (Yes, I know you said there are no legal recourses. But I'm not Hamlet, and a penitentiary is not the only possible venue for imprisonment.)

Also, I've been cautious about revenge ever since I read The Count of Monte Cristo. (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1184)

So, while it is true that individuals in and out of churches can actively serve, there isn't an institutionalized pressure for everyone to serve.

I guess you didn't get your birthday drawn as #2 in the 1969 Selective Service lottery. :-)

I think you misread my quotation. I was talking about myself, and how sometimes when I don't see the benefit of my actions I'm tempted to quit.

I was responding to the part of your statement about yourself in which you _did_ see the benefit by pointing out that _if_ that part were applied to religious folks in general, but not to the nonreligious, that would be unfair.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Be careful, there. If we are to grant consideration of correlations between religious belief and _desirable_ behaviors/results, then for fairness and honesty we have to also consider the correlations between religious belief and _undesirable_ behaviors/results such as Inquisitions, suicide attacks, lying to justify invasions of foreign countries, and so on.

I'm more than willing to grant consideration to such issues. I believe there are positive and negative aspects to all belief systems. Also, as I said previously, not all religious/areligious belief systems are equivalent. Some will be correlated more with genecide, some will be correlated with peacefulness, etc... By the way, I'm not sure which scientific study you are thinking of which correlates a belief in God to lying as justification for invasion. ;) Having a few bad presidents who happen to believe in God does not a correlation make.

Correction: I said I figured out that it was "soundly based". I view it as one of several worthy ideals, but am certainly not perfect in following that ideal.

I'm sorry if you thought I was implying you were following it perfectly. ;)

Of course. There have to be other principles, for at least the reason that not every situation lends itself to drawing a parallel between treatment of others and treatment of oneself.

We agree.

Zzzzt. Society at large is inconsistent about morals, as I said earlier, so it's not qualified to guide.

We are getting somewhere. Are you saying that inconsistency disqualifies a source as a guide for morals? If so (or if not), what is the source you use?

There's a hierarchy here. Firstly, I'd want not to be killed, so that rules out killing someone else.

Fair enough. As was implicit in my thought-experiment, numerous justifications for one's course can be obtained. Others might justify killing the king because of the danger he poses to others. Others might believe revenge is the just thing to do. Others might believe God tells them he will be the one to revenge, so they shouldn't do anything. etc... I think thought experiment served its purpose to motivate other discussion. I am interested in your "hierarchy" though.

So, life imprisonment instead of execution. (Yes, I know you said there are no legal recourses. But I'm not Hamlet, and a penitentiary is not the only possible venue for imprisonment.)

I said no legal recourse. I didn't say you couldn't be clever and try to trick the king into being trapped somewhere, or something along similar lines. If life imprisonment is what you would feel is the most moral thing to do, that's a fine answer.

Also, I've been cautious about revenge ever since I read The Count of Monte Cristo. (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1184)

This is interesting to me. What about this work of fiction made you cautious? [Note: I too am "cautious about revenge." My high school English teacher thought it was weird that I thought Hamlet was wrong to go for revenge.]

I guess you didn't get your birthday drawn as #2 in the 1969 Selective Service lottery. :-)

The example I gave was completely left to the person's free will. I am free to accept or reject a calling and stay in good standing in my church. I am free to leave my church. I am not free to dodge the draft.

I was responding to the part of your statement about yourself in which you _did_ see the benefit by pointing out that _if_ that part were applied to religious folks in general, but not to the nonreligious, that would be unfair.

I still think you are misreading me. Also, I think your sentence is slightly off. I cannot follow the clauses [try adding the word "then" to your "if-then" construction]. I didn't talk about "unfairness", although you did. I didn't say, nor mean to imply, anything about whether noreligious people would serve even if they didn't see the benefit of their actions. I apologize if that is the impression my post caused. I already conceded the point that it was a bad example.

[ewmayer]

Thanks to an anonymous gerbil contributor for this. Nice quote - but alas, the clever folks who put this together misspelled "Atheists". Not exactly a huge credibility booster there. It's like some right-wing Christian driving around with a bumper sticker that loudly proclaims "God is Vole" or "Jesus Waves".

[Zeta-Flux]

ewmayer,

Great poster (minus the typo). [BTW, I'm in the first category. God isn't omnipotent, in the philosophical sense.]

[Xyzzy]

Nice quote - but alas, the clever folks who put this together misspelled "Atheists".

The Devil is in the details.

[ewmayer]

OK, I think I figured out what's going on with the godless grammarians - while it's not technically proper to assign degrees of atheisticalness [atheisticality? atheisticity?] to such a yes/no concept [rather like the common "less/more/most optimal" misuse] that is what our poster children are doing - e.g. to be "more godless" is to be "athier" than the next heathen, and to be the most godless of the lot is to be "the athiest atheist around."

[Zeta-Flux]

I think the word is atheistineity.

As one of my teachers once said: You can verbify nouns, but nouning weirds English.