Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers

Previous page 1 2 34 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #60 - May 01, 2012, 10:15 PM

Yes, it's generally obvious what they mean, but the point is that they prefer to choose something which makes it sound nice. This is akin to religious belief. Rather than looking at something objectively, invent a comforting myth about it that makes you feel better.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- Prince Spinoza
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #61 - May 01, 2012, 10:20 PM

Well you shouldn't be surprised if you already know they do everything for the purpose of making themselves feel better.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #62 - May 01, 2012, 10:22 PM

I'm not at all surprised.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- Lynna
- Pub Regular
- Seek peace. Endure. Find joy.
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #63 - May 01, 2012, 11:49 PM

Quote from: Prince Spinoza on May 01, 2012, 10:20 PM
Well you shouldn't be surprised if you already know they do everything for the purpose of making themselves feel better.

Quote from: osmanthus on May 01, 2012, 09:57 PM
If all actions are selfish then the purpose served by calling them that would be accuracy of definition. Some people might think that is relevant. Also, if in practice all actions performed by people are selfish in one way or another, that doesn't preclude the theoretical possibility of an action which is not. That would provide the contrast you require, even if it never actually occurs.

This idea that everything is done for a selfish purpose is kind of interesting. Today I've thought periodically to see if I could figure it out.

I was thinking of different cases. For example I support peoples right to choose even if this might evolves choices I think are contrary to their good. This happens when patients choose to refuse treatment. This is a legal right in the country where I live. I as a nurse will stand by them as a advocate sometimes with great difficulty but it's my duty and it is right. Sometimes offenders speak
to me in confidence because they can about matters I'd rather not know but I"m bond by my position as long as the information doesn't compromise the facility are it's staff. It however is my duty to fulfill this position. In these cases is it in my best interest?

I think the answer is both yes and no.

On a personal level sometimes it is very difficult. This perhaps by every 5 to 6 years I change my field of practices. This way it changes my stress level. I get to deal with something new.

For the greater good of the community somebody has to do what nurses do. That benefits me personally. There are people who think being a nurse is a calling some of these people are atheists.

But there are other things like stopping to help someone on the side of the road with a flat or trouble with their vehicle. Perhaps you'll never see them again. How is that selfish?

Or that everyone one in town pulls over and stops when a funeral party passes. Respect and concern for a family in moarning that you don't know.

I suppose you could argue that it makes an orderly society.

That could exist without compassion and empathy but would it be the best place for humans.

If at first you succeed...try something harder.

Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
- Prince Spinoza
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #64 - May 02, 2012, 03:10 AM

Quote from: asbdsp on May 01, 2012, 10:14 PM
What if they're walking truly randomly?

Is this about the time you 'slipped and fell' on a pineapple while all your clothes were 'in the wash'?
- Absurdist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #65 - May 02, 2012, 03:55 AM

Quote from: osmanthus on May 01, 2012, 09:46 PM
Well, it tells us that those who claim that people act selflessly are wrong.

Just to clarify, I never said people act selflessly (the way you define it). All I said is that acting out of internal feelings is more ethical than acting out of a desire for a reward. I've even avoided calling it altruism.
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #66 - May 02, 2012, 04:30 AM

Quote from: chepea on May 01, 2012, 06:55 PM
I think in this context, what's more important is how much the receiver benefits.

Not when the discussion is about the nature and motivations of the giver.

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #67 - May 02, 2012, 04:40 AM

Quote from: osmanthus on May 01, 2012, 09:24 PM
Ok, but how do you feel if you don't give them anything? Better than when you give, or worse?

I'd obviously feel bad if I had nothing to give. But it's an afterthought. The argument seems to be that people give because of self-interest, not that giving benefits the self afterwards. That's two different things in my mind. Just because something makes you feel good doesn't necessarily mean you did it just so you could feel good afterwards.

Quote from: osmanthus on May 01, 2012, 09:27 PM
Duty tends to be the result of inflexible dogma of one sort or another, and the inflexibility tends to ensure stability. Compassion is an emotional reaction, and in general I think it's fair to say that emotional reactions are notorious for their instability. So, it seems to me that you could just as well argue that compassion is fickle and subject to change, and duty is going to be a better guide in practice, for a lot of people anyway.

I think to call compassion an emotional reaction of the kind that is unstable and fickle is to over-simplify it. And if you can call a compassionate act an emotional reaction, then it is one symptomatic of much deeper and stable inclination and compulsions. One born of the merits of one's character.

And duty to what? Actions or attitude motivated by duty are only as good as that which is the object one defers to. Duty to an authority figure? History is plagued with examples of where that has been abused or where one will do terrible things despite their own inner convictions and conscience. Duty to a nation or ideology is equally bad and can be one of the most divisive and dangerous things in the world.

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #68 - May 02, 2012, 07:29 AM

Quote from: Abood on May 02, 2012, 03:55 AM
Just to clarify, I never said people act selflessly (the way you define it). All I said is that acting out of internal feelings is more ethical than acting out of a desire for a reward. I've even avoided calling it altruism.

Ok, but would you agree that acting out of internal feelings is still a form of reward-seeking behaviour? If yes, why would it necessarily be more ethical? If no, what is it?

Quote from: Ishina on May 02, 2012, 04:40 AM
I'd obviously feel bad if I had nothing to give. But it's an afterthought. The argument seems to be that people give because of self-interest, not that giving benefits the self afterwards. That's two different things in my mind. Just because something makes you feel good doesn't necessarily mean you did it just so you could feel good afterwards.

I think they're not really different, if you consider the act as a sort of conditioned response. Even if you don't consciously analyse the situation like "Oh hey I should give them something, because that'll make me feel better" you're still a social animal, so you could be expected to act in ways that will make you feel good without having to think them through all the time.

As I see it, that is basically the primary function of emotions as they relate to social interactions: to make people (or any other critter) tend to do things that are beneficial, however you measure that. They're the stuff that takes care of things when you're not thinking, so to speak. Doesn't work perfectly all the time of course, but can be a handy guide in a lot of circumstances.

Quote
I think to call compassion an emotional reaction of the kind that is unstable and fickle is to over-simplify it. And if you can call a compassionate act an emotional reaction, then it is one symptomatic of much deeper and stable inclination and compulsions. One born of the merits of one's character.

Can be, yes, but I'm not sure it's necessarily like that.

Quote
And duty to what? Actions or attitude motivated by duty are only as good as that which is the object one defers to. Duty to an authority figure? History is plagued with examples of where that has been abused or where one will do terrible things despite their own inner convictions and conscience. Duty to a nation or ideology is equally bad and can be one of the most divisive and dangerous things in the world.

Yeah sure, but this gets back to practical results. Here we're not talking about burning witches at the stake or any such silliness. We're talking about the giving of charity. I still haven't seen any comparisons of how much charity is given by religious and non-religious people.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- Absurdist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #69 - May 02, 2012, 08:04 AM

I don't believe in the selfishness vs. altruism dichotomy. I believe people give to charity and generally want to help others as a way to form a human connection and reaffirm the fact that we share a common experience in this life that unites us. You can argue that this makes us happy and is therefore ultimately self-rewarding, but that oversimplifies things and misses the point.

The difference between giving out of compassion and giving because you seek an external reward is that the former forms a human bond, a relationship, and the giver becomes concerned with the person he or she gave to. Someone who gives for some sort of external reward might not care at all about what happens to the person in need, he or she can give money and be happy to be rewarded, without considering what happened to the person in need.

Therefore, even practically speaking, it's better to give out of compassion than just to be rewarded. If people gave because they had external incentives they might not care at all about the consequences of their actions. They might be giving and giving and the money be drained somewhere by some corrupt officials, and they wouldn't know about it.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #70 - May 02, 2012, 08:21 AM

Quote from: Abood on May 02, 2012, 08:04 AM
I don't believe in the selfishness vs. altruism dichotomy. I believe people give to charity and generally want to help others as a way to form a human connection and reaffirm the fact that we share a common experience in this life that unites us. You can argue that this makes us happy and is therefore ultimately self-rewarding, but that oversimplifies things and misses the point.

Bloody hippies.

Personally, I like the ruthless lucidity of stripping things down to the bare bones. I am well aware that everyone, myself included, has a tendency to want to ascribe some level of greatness and nobility to themselves, and are quite happy to do this by self-delusion if nothing else works.

Quote
The difference between giving out of compassion and giving because you seek an external reward is that the former forms a human bond, a relationship, and the giver becomes concerned with the person he or she gave to. Someone who gives for some sort of external reward might not care at all about what happens to the person in need, he or she can give money and be happy to be rewarded, without considering what happened to the person in need.

Therefore, even practically speaking, it's better to give out of compassion than just to be rewarded. If people gave because they had external incentives they might not care at all about the consequences of their actions. They might be giving and giving and the money be drained somewhere by some corrupt officials, and they wouldn't know about it.

Ok, but this still doesn't address the practical results in terms of total amount of good done. There has been a lot of speculation about the possibility that, in evolutionary terms, religion is an example of adaptive behaviour that provides benefits without being correct as such. If the dogma/threats/rewards/whatever work better as motivations in practice, could that not be a better result?

Note that I don't know if they actually do work better or not. I just think it's something that should be seriously considered before blithely adopting a self-serving attitude of ethical superiority about all this.

Also, how many people really follow up to see what happened to the people they "helped"? A lot of the time it's just something that is done on the spur of the moment and more or less forgotten soon after.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #71 - May 02, 2012, 08:32 AM

Quote from: osmanthus on May 02, 2012, 07:29 AM
I think they're not really different, if you consider the act as a sort of conditioned response. Even if you don't consciously analyse the situation like "Oh hey I should give them something, because that'll make me feel better" you're still a social animal, so you could be expected to act in ways that will make you feel good without having to think them through all the time.

As I see it, that is basically the primary function of emotions as they relate to social interactions: to make people (or any other critter) tend to do things that are beneficial, however you measure that. They're the stuff that takes care of things when you're not thinking, so to speak. Doesn't work perfectly all the time of course, but can be a handy guide in a lot of circumstances. [...]

Obviously we do act in self-interest at times, both consciously and subconsciously. I'm not denying that part. But you can just as easily say "Oh hey I should give them something, because that'll make them feel better." There are myriad ways to approach such a transaction or have an internal dialogue in such a moment in the universe.

All the rationalising in this thread is in retrospect. Such rationalising (or subconscious compulsion) doesn't seem to be a prelude that is present in practice in the situations where an act of compassion has been invited, like for example giving spare change to a homeless person. When I do so, I'm not suspended in a dilemma where I'm rationalising or thinking about a payoff, or anticipating it on any level of the consciousness. I don't feel that the fleeting feeling of pleasure afterwards is the prize. It seems to be of too trivial benefit to be a primary motivational factor. Nor does it even seem to be guaranteed. To me, that's more of an uncertain, unsolicited and superfluous bonus rather than a motivation.

We don't need to attach any self-interest on the end or the beginning all times merely because it's sometimes there in some cases. I have the capacity to do it, and there are good reasons to do it, and someone else will benefit from me doing it, therefore I'll do it. It doesn't seem to me that self-interest is a necessary condition or essential ingredient in the sequence of the transaction.

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
- Da_Dude
- Still chillin'
- Ex-Muslim
- Chill Man
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #72 - May 02, 2012, 08:36 AM

This report is something I totally expected lol.

I think the drive behind it is important, seen so many people in my life time who are religious who only do good things for/to other people solely for what they can get out of it. It used to anger me so much when I was religious that people had this attitude.

I don't know why I never fit the mold in this regards, as I couldn't understand why people who were religious generally seemed to have this attitude as to me it was like, why wouldn't you help a person regardless of whether or not you'll be rewarded? I just couldn't understand it at all, and it was one tiny aspect that made me walk away from the religion all the more 'cause why should people go to heaven for good deeds when they only do it to get into heaven, it's BS religious politics. If someone wanted to help me out and they only did it 'cause they wanted to score brownie points with Allah or God or whoever, I wouldn't want that person's help or kindness 'cause it's BS, not genuine and I don't care for religious BS.

The whole attitude of: Ok so I'll do such and such for the barakaat I will get for it, or I will do such and such so that my position in Jannah will be higher.

It's not genuine, it's a farce, pretense of kindness when it's completely selfish, that of what can I get for being nice/ for helping out/ for generosity or kindness. It's all complete BS based on religious selfishness.
- Absurdist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #73 - May 02, 2012, 08:46 AM

Quote from: osmanthus on May 02, 2012, 08:21 AM
Bloody hippies.

Personally, I like the ruthless lucidity of stripping things down to the bare bones. I am well aware that everyone, myself included, has a tendency to want to ascribe some level of greatness and nobility to themselves, and are quite happy to do this by self-delusion if nothing else works.

My point is that selfishness and altruism exist on a continuum. Sure, giving out of compassion will make you feel good, but it's less selfish than giving because someone promised you a reward. In the former you actually care about the well-being of others, whereas in the latter the well-being of others, if you care about it at all, is secondary.

Quote
Ok, but this still doesn't address the practical results in terms of total amount of good done. There has been a lot of speculation about the possibility that, in evolutionary terms, religion is an example of adaptive behaviour that provides benefits without being correct as such. If the dogma/threats/rewards/whatever work better as motivations in practice, could that not be a better result?

I get what you're saying, but I disagree. Religion is unethical. It takes compassion and the human connection out of the equation. People don't kill because they fear God's punishment, people give to charity because they seek God's reward. It's as if people are sociopaths without being ordered around. And that's exactly where nihilism comes from. Nihilism is a reaction to religion; it accepts the assertion by religious people and their apologists that without religion people would have no meaning and no morality. We need to transcend religion completely and affirm life. Not only because we value the truth, but more importantly because it's the ethical thing to do. Religion turns people into sociopaths who value nothing but themselves.
- Da_Dude
- Still chillin'
- Ex-Muslim
- Chill Man
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #74 - May 02, 2012, 08:57 AM

Quote from: osmanthus on May 02, 2012, 08:21 AM

Also, how many people really follow up to see what happened to the people they "helped"? A lot of the time it's just something that is done on the spur of the moment and more or less forgotten soon after.

From experience Osmanthus, many people do follow up to see what happened to the people they helped. To give an example, when I was attacked a number of years ago by friends of my X, one of the cops who did my case and wrote up the statement etc... her kindness was more than she had needed to be (according to cop standards 'cause I've dealt with other one's who really couldn't give a shit what happens to you or anything of the sort), and it was her kindness in the situation that really helped me get through, and she continued in her kindness even well after I had moved away from that area and years later still called me up on occasion just to see how I was going.

There are many other examples I could give you, where people have been compassionate and have followed up even years later. People don't forget about the person forever, there have been homeless people that I've helped out in the past that I wonder about years later (even a decade later) and wonder if they are ok. Sometimes it's impossible to do follow up, especially if the person doesn't keep in contact or if there is no way to find out who they were or where they are. Sometimes it would be unwise to follow up, but that doesn't mean a person doesn't care or that a person forgets about that person, it just means that in that circumstance following up would actually do oneself and/or the person damage rather than good.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #75 - May 02, 2012, 09:20 AM

Quote from: Abood on May 02, 2012, 08:46 AM
My point is that selfishness and altruism exist on a continuum.

Agreed.

Quote
Sure, giving out of compassion will make you feel good, but it's less selfish than giving because someone promised you a reward. In the former you actually care about the well-being of others, whereas in the latter the well-being of others, if you care about it at all, is secondary.

Ah. Well personally, I've often performed charitable acts of one form or another (can be money some other form of assistance) without really giving a shit about the person in question. Not really. It's a sort of "throw it out there because it might do some good" sort of thing, but if it doesn't that's cool too. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it. I'll probably never know anyway, in a lot of cases.

Quote
I get what you're saying, but I disagree. Religion is unethical. It takes compassion and the human connection out of the equation. People don't kill because they fear God's punishment, people give to charity because they seek God's reward. It's as if people are sociopaths without being ordered around.

I think you're taking a very narrow view of religious people here. What you're saying does apply to some of them, sure. I'd dispute that it applies to all, and I'm not sure if it even applies to most.

You can't assume that just because a religious person sees it as their duty to give charity, that means that compassion and human connection have been taken out of the equation. A lot of the time they'll see giving as being genuinely the right thing to do, even if they do see their deity's wishes as being an added incentive for them to do the right thing.

You may be thinking more of Muslims you've known, whereas I've had a fair bit to do with Anglicans and various other sorts. With the latter, there are no specified amounts that you have to give and no specific threats if you don't give amounts which nobody has specified anyway. Their God wont send you to Hell if you don't give charity. He might be slightly disgruntled about it, but that's about all.

Quote
And that's exactly where nihilism comes from. Nihilism is a reaction to religion; it accepts the assertion by religious people and their apologists that without religion people would have no meaning and no morality. We need to transcend religion completely and affirm life. Not only because we value the truth, but more importantly because it's the ethical thing to do. Religion turns people into sociopaths who value nothing but themselves.

Does it? How would you explain religious people who are not sociopaths and do not only value themselves?

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- Absurdist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #76 - May 02, 2012, 09:23 AM

I'm not saying religious people are all sociopaths, or even that most of them are. Religious people can be ethical despite their religion, not because of it.
- strangestdude
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #77 - May 02, 2012, 10:31 AM

Quote from: osmanthus on May 01, 2012, 09:21 PM
That is basically what it was. However, I'd say it's a lucid critique that just happens to appear cynical if you want to blindly believe something else which, of course, a lot of people do. Believing inspiring things is more comforting than deconstructing them.

An alternative to religion;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2nfXfTg92E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dWNW-NXEudk
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #78 - May 03, 2012, 06:33 AM

You're so sweet, y'know?

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #79 - May 03, 2012, 06:50 AM

Quote from: Abood on May 02, 2012, 09:23 AM
I'm not saying religious people are all sociopaths, or even that most of them are. Religious people can be ethical despite their religion, not because of it.

What about the case of a religious person who is encouraged to perform an ethical act by their religion?

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #80 - May 05, 2012, 07:58 AM

I'm still curious to know how a religious person who is encouraged by their religion to perform an ethical act can only be ethical in spite of their religion, and not because of it.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- Absurdist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #81 - May 05, 2012, 08:47 AM

Quote from: osmanthus on May 05, 2012, 07:58 AM
I'm still curious to know how a religious person who is encouraged by their religion to perform an ethical act...

That's an assumption you made that I didn't. I don't think people are unethical without religion. I think that even those who do things because of religion, if they lose it, they realize they can be compassionate and truly ethical without it. People don't turn into sociopathic monsters when they stop believing in a higher power ordering them around.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #82 - May 05, 2012, 09:20 PM

You specifically stated that "Religious people can be ethical despite their religion, not because of it". I made no assumption. It was you who claimed that religious people cannot be ethical because of their religion. That was as far as your claim went.

I agree that people can do ethical things without religion. Hey, I do them myself sometimes. The problem I have here is that you're taking something can be applied to specific circumstances and just using it as a blanket piece of dogma that can be applied willy-nilly.

Take some real examples. 4:34 says a Muslim man can hit his wife if he thinks she is getting uppity. If a Muslim man does not hit his wife, regardless of how uppity she is getting, then you have a case where you can say that he is being ethical in spite of his religion, not because of it. In that case, making such an assertion is supportable.

OTOH, if a Muslim gives charity because Islam tells him he has to, and if you assume the actual act of giving charity is an ethical act, then in this situation you cannot realistically claim that he is behaving ethically in spite of his religion, and not because of it. Making that claim in that situation would simply be illogical. In this situation, it is clear that he is behaving ethically because of his religion. This applies whether you happen to like it or not, and regardless of how much you would like to feel superior.

I'm quite happy to give religious people a bollocking when they behave unethically because of their religion, as they unfortunately do quite often. However, this is not always the case and it does pay to keep the relevant distinctions in mind, instead of just repeating your favourite article of faith whenever you feel like putting them down.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- Absurdist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #83 - May 05, 2012, 11:46 PM

Quote from: osmanthus on May 05, 2012, 09:20 PM
You specifically stated that "Religious people can be ethical despite their religion, not because of it". I made no assumption. It was you who claimed that religious people cannot be ethical because of their religion. That was as far as your claim went.

Yes, but you said that a religious person can be ethical because of his or her religion, which is not something I said. My point is precisely that ethical religious people would continue being ethical even if they lost their religion. A person who gives to charity because he or she believes God ordered people to give to charity isn't going to stop doing that if he or she stopped believing in God. I don't think people who are unethical without religion become ethical with it. Bad people, when religious, tend to interpret their religion in a way that benefits them.

And I don't see how that would make me feel superior. If anything, it means that being ethical is only human. There is absolutely nothing divine or special in any way about it.
- osmanthus
- Cave dwelling
- Pub Regular
- Fingerer of piglets
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #84 - May 06, 2012, 08:58 AM

Oh ok. Well there are going to be shades of grey to this sort of thing in practice. I'll try an analogy. Say you have a friend who is a decent sort but, shock horror, aint perfect. They'll generally behave more or less ethically but may need some reminding occasionally. IOW, they're human.

So there's some sort of situation and for whatever reason, maybe they're pissed off or something, they're looking like they'll do something they really shouldn't. You have a word to them and nudge them in the right direction, and they end up doing the right thing.

Question: in this situation, would you say your friend had behaved ethically in spite of your advice, not because of it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm betting you wouldn't say that. You'd probably say something along the lines of your friend had come to their senses, as a result of a combination of being basically ethical and being lovingly kicked in the arse by your good self.

The religion thing is similar, at least sometimes. Religious people can be reminded, by some aspect of their religion, of what they should be doing instead of what they were inclined to do at that particular time.

It seems to me that the only way you can really claim that nobody will ever be ethical because of their religion (which is what "Religious people can be ethical despite their religion, not because of it" amounts to) is if you think that all religious doctrine is invariably 100% unethical. In reality no religion is that perfect, so even in the case of highly religious people who follow every aspect of their religion unquestioningly, they'll have to end up acting ethically some of the time when some parts of their religious doctrine just happen (purely by accident, obviously) to be ethical.

Re the superiority: I have to say that for someone who claims not to feel superior, you sure did seem to be placing a lot of emphasis on the importance of the ethically superior nature of non-religious people. You weren't the only one either, so I'm not just having a go at you.

Those who were claiming it was ethically superior to act without expectation of reward really did seem remarkably quick to latch onto the obvious reward of feeling ethically superior, and quite reluctant to relinquish that reward. I couldn't help thinking that the general tone of that emphasis bore a similarity to the tones often produced by religious sectarianism. IOW, it sounded rather like "Those heathens may be doing the right thing, but we're better than them because we're doing it for better reasons".

I really do think it is important to bear the results in mind as well as the motivation. There are more than enough negative results on this planet to keep even the most jaded bastard content. Personally, I'm inclined to take the good results any way I can get them. If some religious person is encouraged, or reminded, or nudged, or however you want to put it, to do the right thing by some aspect of their religion then as far as I'm concerned that's not something I feel the need to argue with. I'll happily pat them on the back and praise whichever non-existent entity they are currently enthused about, just because it's a good result. One thing I will not do is start carping about the ethical inferiority of what they have just done.

Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West.
- Absurdist
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #85 - May 06, 2012, 09:37 AM

Quote from: osmanthus on May 06, 2012, 08:58 AM
Oh ok. Well there are going to be shades of grey to this sort of thing in practice. I'll try an analogy. Say you have a friend who is a decent sort but, shock horror, aint perfect. They'll generally behave more or less ethically but may need some reminding occasionally. IOW, they're human.

So there's some sort of situation and for whatever reason, maybe they're pissed off or something, they're looking like they'll do something they really shouldn't. You have a word to them and nudge them in the right direction, and they end up doing the right thing.

Question: in this situation, would you say your friend had behaved ethically in spite of your advice, not because of it?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm betting you wouldn't say that. You'd probably say something along the lines of your friend had come to their senses, as a result of a combination of being basically ethical and being lovingly kicked in the arse by your good self.

But religion doesn't lead people to come to their senses, it doesn't appeal to compassion, it doesn't appeal to ethical principles through reason. Religion is authoritarian. "Do this or you'll go to hell." The analogy would be something like me telling my friend I'd beat the shit out of him if he doesn't do as I tell him, that thing being something I think is ethical. And would my ethical friend really do what I tell him to do if I decided to order him around? Seems more likely he'd feel aggravated and tell me to fuck off, making the situation even worse.

Threatening to punish someone doesn't work to make them more ethical. What works, as you drew in your analogy, is appealing to compassion.

And even if threatening violence worked, is it ethical to do that? Is it ethical for someone to tell their friend they're going to beat the shit out of them if they don't give money to charity? Or is that not a "practical" question?

What you're arguing is that the ends justify the means, which I think is unethical. There are ethical as well as unethical ways to get people to do ethical acts. And yes, the acts themselves would be ethical, regardless of the way the person doing them was made to do them, i.e. whether someone appealed to their compassion or threatened them with violence, but the person would not be ethical. An ethical person is not only someone who does an ethical act, but rather someone who does an ethical act by the use of their own ethical reasoning. If you think that means I'm putting myself higher than others, so be it. I don't see it as such, but I have no desire to get into that argument because it really is irrelevant. Making me out to be some smug guy with a holier-than-thou attitude is not going to detract from my argument, and is a logical fallacy.
- yeezevee
- Pub Regular
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #86 - May 06, 2012, 09:59 AM

Quote from: Abood on May 06, 2012, 09:37 AM

Threatening to punish someone doesn't work to make them more ethical. What works, as you drew in your analogy, is appealing to compassion.

That may be true but but if you are physically strong enough and have the ability to use their mouth then "Threatening people with punishment to make them listen to you and work for you will work"., The so-called religious leaders start with compassion gather foolish followers and increase their steam power., once the have that mob with them then they will threaten any one who questions them., Some of them turn in to criminals and some stay as good people ..

Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything
I renounced my faith to become a kafir,
the beloved betrayed me and turned in to a Muslim
- Lynna
- Pub Regular
- Seek peace. Endure. Find joy.
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #87 - May 06, 2012, 01:23 PM

Quote from: Abood on May 06, 2012, 09:37 AM
But religion doesn't lead people to come to their senses, it doesn't appeal to compassion, it doesn't appeal to ethical principles through reason. Religion is authoritarian. "Do this or you'll go to hell." The analogy would be something like me telling my friend I'd beat the shit out of him if he doesn't do as I tell him, that thing being something I think is ethical. And would my ethical friend really do what I tell him to do if I decided to order him around? Seems more likely he'd feel aggravated and tell me to fuck off, making the situation even worse.

Threatening to punish someone doesn't work to make them more ethical. What works, as you drew in your analogy, is appealing to compassion.

And even if threatening violence worked, is it ethical to do that? Is it ethical for someone to tell their friend they're going to beat the shit out of them if they don't give money to charity? Or is that not a "practical" question?

What you're arguing is that the ends justify the means, which I think is unethical. There are ethical as well as unethical ways to get people to do ethical acts. And yes, the acts themselves would be ethical, regardless of the way the person doing them was made to do them, i.e. whether someone appealed to their compassion or threatened them with violence, but the person would not be ethical. An ethical person is not only someone who does an ethical act, but rather someone who does an ethical act by the use of their own ethical reasoning. If you think that means I'm putting myself higher than others, so be it. I don't see it as such, but I have no desire to get into that argument because it really is irrelevant. Making me out to be some smug guy with a holier-than-thou attitude is not going to detract from my argument, and is a logical fallacy.

You're first of all assuming that all religions threaten people with hell. This in its self is quite an assumption. That is not the case with all religions in their actual doctrine nor is it the case in how religion is taught to all religions people. You are being as arrogant and self righteous as I suppose the people that you would condemn for thinking all atheists are unethical because they do not believe in God. The thing is Abood you are making a wide sweeping general statement about a situation where there are many variables. Perhaps you are very young and lack life experience. When dealing with humans things are seldom simple. There many life experiences that shape a person. Be careful about your prejudices least you be shown to lack compassion.

If at first you succeed...try something harder.

Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
- Prince Spinoza
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #88 - May 06, 2012, 06:20 PM

So has anyone here become 'less ethical' since leaving religion? Have they done things they wouldn't have done with a 'reminder' from religion about what the right thing to do is? Personally I can't say I have, at all. Gone the other way, I think. But yeah, if anyone has - speak up please.
- Prince Spinoza
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
Reply #89 - May 06, 2012, 06:23 PM

Quote from: osmanthus on May 06, 2012, 08:58 AM

I really do think it is important to bear the results in mind as well as the motivation. There are more than enough negative results on this planet to keep even the most jaded bastard content. Personally, I'm inclined to take the good results any way I can get them. If some religious person is encouraged, or reminded, or nudged, or however you want to put it, to do the right thing by some aspect of their religion then as far as I'm concerned that's not something I feel the need to argue with. I'll happily pat them on the back and praise whichever non-existent entity they are currently enthused about, just because it's a good result. One thing I will not do is start carping about the ethical inferiority of what they have just done.

Depends how short-sighted you want to be. Even if it produces better results in the immediate future, that doesn't mean religious obligation is conducive to a better world in the long run.
Previous page 1 2 34 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »