Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →
↑ ↓
CEMB → Forum → News and Events → International news and issues → Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts

Qur'anic studies today
April 23, 2024, 06:50 AM
Do humans have needed kno...
April 20, 2024, 12:02 PM
Lights on the way
by akay
April 19, 2024, 04:40 PM
اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
April 19, 2024, 12:50 PM
Do humans have needed kno...
April 19, 2024, 04:17 AM
What's happened to the fo...
by zeca
April 18, 2024, 06:39 PM
New Britain
April 18, 2024, 05:41 PM
Iran launches drones
April 13, 2024, 09:56 PM
عيد مبارك للجميع! ^_^
by akay
April 12, 2024, 04:01 PM
Eid-Al-Fitr
by akay
April 12, 2024, 12:06 PM
Mock Them and Move on., ...
January 30, 2024, 10:44 AM
Pro Israel or Pro Palesti...
January 29, 2024, 01:53 PM

Theme Changer

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

 (Read 11765 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #30 - May 01, 2012, 01:50 PM
    Quote from: Lynna on May 01, 2012, 01:47 PM
    If you are only doing good for a reward is it truly good?


    Yeah....

    Everyone does stuff for rewards. I work hard at school to get the reward of a good job eventually.

    If you give to charity to feel warm and fuzzy inside, then your reward is feeling good.
    Self ban for Ramadan (THAT RHYMES)

    Expect me to come back a Muslim. Cool Tongue j/k we'll see..
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #31 - May 01, 2012, 02:06 PM
    @Chepea 

    Perhaps if you do it to feel warm and fuzzy  it is still very good. yes

    But what if you really hate giving charity and the only reason  you give it is so you wfl get the reward of heaven and avoid the punishment of hell?
    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #32 - May 01, 2012, 02:08 PM
    ^ I think that's a myth.

    When I give some spare change to a homeless person, it isn't premeditated self-indulgence. Though I certainly appreciate my own luck and lot in life, it's not enjoyable comparing my life with that homeless person and doesn't inspire much of a warm fuzzy feeling at all if I hand them a few coins. Actually, I think the event compounds what guilt and sorrow I might already feel. It reminds me of it. It breaks the enchantment of blissful ignorance when I'm casually going about my buisness and forces the tragedy to the forefront of my thoughts.

    I wonder where the idea that we give only for ourselves comes from. It seems to only exist in theory. It doesn't seem to describe the average occurence in practice.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #33 - May 01, 2012, 02:19 PM
    Quote from: Lynna on May 01, 2012, 02:06 PM
    Perhaps if you do it to feel warm and fuzzy  it is still very good. yes

    But what if you really hate giving charity and the only reason  you give it is so you wfl get the reward of heaven and avoid the punishment of hell?

    Then you did what you hated and it benefited others as well as yourself, so good on you!  Afro
    Self ban for Ramadan (THAT RHYMES)

    Expect me to come back a Muslim. Cool Tongue j/k we'll see..
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #34 - May 01, 2012, 02:23 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on May 01, 2012, 02:08 PM
    ^ I think that's a myth.

    When I give some spare change to a homeless person, it isn't premeditated self-indulgence. Though I certainly appreciate my own luck and lot in life, it's not enjoyable comparing my life with that homeless person and doesn't inspire much of a warm fuzzy feeling at all if I hand them a few coins. Actually, I think the event compounds what guilt and sorrow I might already feel. It reminds me of it. It breaks the enchantment of blissful ignorance when I'm casually going about my buisness and forces the tragedy to the forefront of my thoughts.

    Then why, exactly, do you do it?

    If you do it cuz you'd feel bad otherwise, then you're just avoiding guilt, right?

    And if you're doing it out of compassion, then I still maintain that it's no better than doing it out of a sense of duty.

    Quote from: Ishina on May 01, 2012, 02:08 PM
    I wonder where the idea that we give only for ourselves comes from. It seems to only exist in theory. It doesn't seem to describe the average occurence in practice.


    I think we "spontaneously" give for the benefit of society. Maybe it's advantageous that we're more equitable or something. :/
    Self ban for Ramadan (THAT RHYMES)

    Expect me to come back a Muslim. Cool Tongue j/k we'll see..
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #35 - May 01, 2012, 02:33 PM
    Quote from: chepea on May 01, 2012, 02:23 PM
    Then why, exactly, do you do it?

    I don't, exactly, know.

    Quote from: chepea on May 01, 2012, 02:23 PM
    And if you're doing it out of compassion, then I still maintain that it's no better than doing it out of a sense of duty.

    Better in what way? It seems obvious to me that an act of compassion is a much better measure of a person than an act of duty. Duty is fickle and subject to change and requires only thoughtless obedience. Compassion implies an act born of the deeper and genuine inner workings of an individual's character.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #36 - May 01, 2012, 02:36 PM
    Quote from: chepea on May 01, 2012, 02:19 PM
    Then you did what you hated and it benefited others as well as yourself, so good on you!  Afro


    Interesting  reply. I don't  actually  believe in hell. Nor do I totally agree with you. Motivation for action is important otherwise the person  would be a hypocrite.
    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #37 - May 01, 2012, 02:56 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on May 01, 2012, 02:33 PM
    I don't, exactly, know.
    Better in what way? It seems obvious to me that an act of compassion is a much better measure of a person than an act of duty. Duty is fickle and subject to change and requires only thoughtless obedience. Compassion implies an act born of the deeper and genuine inner workings of an individual's character.


    Your opinion is your opinion and that is all it is.

    Both compassion and a sense of duty have there place.

    Compassion for fellow is something that all should have. The ability to understand and empathize with other. Can an individual act in every case in the way they'd like? Perhaps not. But feeling should be there.

    Duty to act for the community helps  prevent social crimes. Taking that duty seriously is important. Duty to humanity is what can prevent genocide. Duty to community is what can prevent crimes in public places.
    If at first you succeed...try something harder.

    Failing isn't falling down. Failing is not getting back up again.
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #38 - May 01, 2012, 03:02 PM
    Yeah well that's just, like, your opinion, man.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #39 - May 01, 2012, 03:15 PM
    Rain by Somerset Maugham totally nails the compassionless zealot.

    A seventy page short story that says more than most novels.
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #40 - May 01, 2012, 03:41 PM
    some one starts a thread with
    Quote
    Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers


    What you guys are talking about??  are you guys crazy?   
    Highly religious people are NOT people., They didn't grow up., The stuck in that childish mindset.,  They are children in old skins and old age..
    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     
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #41 - May 01, 2012, 03:48 PM
    Quote from: yeezevee on May 01, 2012, 03:41 PM
    some one starts a thread with
    What you guys are talking about??  are you guys crazy?  
    Highly religious people are NOT people., They didn't grow up., The stuck in that childish mindset.,  They are children in old skins and old age..


    ....and THAT's what people mean when they refer to "arrogant atheists".  Roll Eyes

    (unless you're being sarcastic YZV, in which case I apologise.)
    Self ban for Ramadan (THAT RHYMES)

    Expect me to come back a Muslim. Cool Tongue j/k we'll see..
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #42 - May 01, 2012, 03:53 PM
    @Ishina,

    Quote
    I don't, exactly, know.

    Smiley

    Quote from: Ishina on May 01, 2012, 02:33 PM
    Better in what way?

    Ask the person who claims that doing things for a reward is "unethical".

    Quote
    It seems obvious to me that an act of compassion is a much better measure of a person than an act of duty. Duty is fickle and subject to change and requires only thoughtless obedience. Compassion implies an act born of the deeper and genuine inner workings of an individual's character.

    I disagree. Compassion and duty both have their place. If a person hates giving to charity (as Lynna pointed out in a hypothetical), then if s/he has a strong sense of duty, it serves far better than her sense of compassion.

    Duty isn't fickle when the one you're dutiful towards is consistent and constant (if you get my drift). I'm not sure why you said that. Smiley
    Self ban for Ramadan (THAT RHYMES)

    Expect me to come back a Muslim. Cool Tongue j/k we'll see..
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #43 - May 01, 2012, 03:56 PM
    Quote from: Lynna on May 01, 2012, 02:36 PM
    Interesting  reply. I don't  actually  believe in hell. Nor do I totally agree with you. Motivation for action is important otherwise the person  would be a hypocrite.

    But so are actual results. Tongue

    And you don't believe in Hell? Huh? I thought you were a Jehovah's Witness (BTW, The Watchtower quoted my brother in one of their articles Cheesy haha).

    But anyway, if a person did believe in Hell and Heaven, wouldn't it be foolish not to take those into consideration when they are deciding what to do with surplus cash?
    Self ban for Ramadan (THAT RHYMES)

    Expect me to come back a Muslim. Cool Tongue j/k we'll see..
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #44 - May 01, 2012, 04:11 PM
    Quote from: chepea on May 01, 2012, 03:53 PM
    I disagree. Compassion and duty both have their place.

    I didn't say they don't both have their place. I'm talking about their value when placed comparatively in this context.

    Quote from: chepea on May 01, 2012, 03:53 PM
    If a person hates giving to charity (as Lynna pointed out in a hypothetical), then if s/he has a strong sense of duty, it serves far better than her sense of compassion.

    I don't see how this contradicts what I just said. If someone hates giving to charity, they are already of dubious moral character in my eyes. But I question the likelyhood of such a hypothetical person existing anyway. Sounds more like a larger than life Grinch character than a plausible example.

    Quote from: chepea on May 01, 2012, 03:53 PM
    Duty isn't fickle when the one you're dutiful towards is consistent and constant (if you get my drift). I'm not sure why you said that.

    Nobody is constant. People change.
    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #45 - May 01, 2012, 06:55 PM
    @Ishina,

    Quote from: Ishina on May 01, 2012, 04:11 PM
    I didn't say they don't both have their place. I'm talking about their value when placed comparatively in this context.

    My bad. Smiley I think in this context, what's more important is how much the receiver benefits.

    If duty makes you give more, then that's clearly better for everybody. If you're generous because you think you'll be rewarded for it, and this concept of "reward" doesn't, in another situation, make you act at the expense of someone else (as a reward system in terms of a finite life may, see examples below), then I don't think it's 'unethical'. (Not that you said such a thing, but someone else did. Smiley )

    Quote
    I don't see how this contradicts what I just said. If someone hates giving to charity, they are already of dubious moral character in my eyes. But I question the likelyhood of such a hypothetical person existing anyway. Sounds more like a larger than life Grinch character than a plausible example.

    I can't think of anybody who *hates* giving to charity, but I can think of people who hoard away more money than anyone needs, or who loot their country's finances when they're like 70 years old and couldn't even do much with all that money. Practically speaking, it's the same thing.

    But that also makes me wonder how much I *need* a laptop or a phone...

    Quote
    Nobody is constant. People change.

    I meant God Tongue Sorry, I thought I was being obvious...
    Self ban for Ramadan (THAT RHYMES)

    Expect me to come back a Muslim. Cool Tongue j/k we'll see..
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #46 - May 01, 2012, 09:14 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on May 01, 2012, 10:43 AM
    I don't think emotion and reasoning are totally seperate things in practice. I think situational emotional response can be molded or disciplined by the more advanced and realised mental processing and wisdom one aquires. Anger managment, for example, can be trained to the degree that its fruits become evermore natural and instinctive. We do it anyway growing up from impulsive child to a more stable adult. To varying degree of course.

    Yes I agree with all of that. Reasoning generally wont get you far on its own.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #47 - May 01, 2012, 09:21 PM
    Quote from: strangestdude on May 01, 2012, 10:49 AM
    They way I interpreted your post was a cynical critique of compassion. Sorry if I interpreted it wrong.

    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.


    Quote
    I don't see how you came to that conclusion.

    We can easily say that if someone acts in their self-interest they will do X or related choices in this scenario, but if they are act out of altrusim then they will to Y or related choices.

    Sure you can, but it still provides no explanation for the supposed altruism. You're just throwing a word that sounds nice at the problem and refusing to dig any deeper.


    Quote
    The problem with equating everything as self-interest is - like Simon points out - it has no predictive capability. It explains without utitility, and doesn't take into account that most people use self-interest to mean being primarily concerned with one's own physical and psychological survival and well-being. I wouldn't describe someone who pushes a child out of the way of moving vehicle and dies in the process as acting in their self-interest.

    Well no, on its own it doesn't have predictive capability, but is that the core issue? You cannot use it to distinguish between certain cases on its own, but that does not mean it must be false.

    I agree that the term "self interest" would not usually be used to describe the sort of case you mention. I said exactly the same thing myself earlier. However, simply saying that it can be described as "altruism" doesn't get you far either.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #48 - May 01, 2012, 09:24 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on May 01, 2012, 02:08 PM
    When I give some spare change to a homeless person, it isn't premeditated self-indulgence. Though I certainly appreciate my own luck and lot in life, it's not enjoyable comparing my life with that homeless person and doesn't inspire much of a warm fuzzy feeling at all if I hand them a few coins. Actually, I think the event compounds what guilt and sorrow I might already feel. It reminds me of it. It breaks the enchantment of blissful ignorance when I'm casually going about my buisness and forces the tragedy to the forefront of my thoughts.

    I wonder where the idea that we give only for ourselves comes from. It seems to only exist in theory. It doesn't seem to describe the average occurence in practice.

    Ok, but how do you feel if you don't give them anything? Better than when you give, or worse?
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #49 - May 01, 2012, 09:27 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on May 01, 2012, 02:33 PM
    Better in what way? It seems obvious to me that an act of compassion is a much better measure of a person than an act of duty. Duty is fickle and subject to change and requires only thoughtless obedience. Compassion implies an act born of the deeper and genuine inner workings of an individual's character.

    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.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #50 - May 01, 2012, 09:31 PM
    Well obviously everything people do is to soothe their 'spirit', it has to be that way. But that doesn't mean we can't differentiate between actions. Compassion and empathy are better things than material greed or dogma, in my opinion, far better.
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #51 - May 01, 2012, 09:32 PM
    Quote from: Ishina on May 01, 2012, 04:11 PM
    I don't see how this contradicts what I just said. If someone hates giving to charity, they are already of dubious moral character in my eyes. But I question the likelyhood of such a hypothetical person existing anyway.


    You need to get out more. Or maybe just visit America. I assure you with 99.9% certainty that quite a few such people exist here.
    Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #52 - May 01, 2012, 09:34 PM
    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on May 01, 2012, 09:31 PM
    Well obviously everything people do is to soothe their 'spirit', it has to be that way. But that doesn't mean we can't differentiate between actions. Compassion and empathy are better things than material greed or dogma, in my opinion, far better.

    Never said they weren't better, but thanks for admitting the obvious. So, you'd agree that people are motivated by minimising their own internal discomfort, even when they appear to be acting altruistically?
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #53 - May 01, 2012, 09:35 PM
    I know delightful Danes who recoil at the idea of giving to charity.

    They pay high taxes and the state provides for the needy. That is the deal.
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #54 - May 01, 2012, 09:41 PM
    Quote from: osmanthus on May 01, 2012, 09:34 PM
    Never said they weren't better, but thanks for admitting the obvious. So, you'd agree that people are motivated by minimising their own internal discomfort, even when they appear to be acting altruistically?

    Of course, I don't see how it could be otherwise. People do things to make themselves feel better (less worse, watever)  because well, what else could they possibly do? That doesn't tell us much, though.
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #55 - May 01, 2012, 09:46 PM
    Well, it tells us that those who claim that people act selflessly are wrong. Wink
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #56 - May 01, 2012, 09:53 PM
    I don't think so. A word is only useful if there are things that aren't it. If all actions are selfish then it serves no purpose to call them all that. We can refer to actions which don't have any gains beyond the baseline as 'selfless' and it will be meaningful, as long as people understand what we mean.
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #57 - 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.
    Devious, treacherous, murderous, neanderthal, sub-human of the West. bunny
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #58 - May 01, 2012, 10:07 PM
    Not really such a thing as 'accuracy of definition'. Words mean what people mutually understand them to mean. The same string of letters can even have different meanings. When people talk about selflessness in this context it's pretty obvious what they understand, and mean, by that word. To use a different definition in a counter argument is just to attack a strawman. And I think the argument by which people conclude that all actions are selfish does preclude the theoretical possibility of one which isn't. It's just an annoying way of saying things will do what they must. People do what they want because that's the only thing they can do. That's who they are.
  • Re: Highly religious people are less motivated by compassion than are non-believers
     Reply #59 - May 01, 2012, 10:14 PM
    Quote from: Prince Spinoza on May 01, 2012, 10:07 PM
    Not really such a thing as 'accuracy of definition'. Words mean what people mutually understand them to mean. The same string of letters can even have different meanings. When people talk about selflessness in this context it's pretty obvious what they understand, and mean, by that word. To use a different definition in a counter argument is just to attack a strawman. And I think the argument by which people conclude that all actions are selfish does preclude the theoretical possibility of one which isn't. It's just an annoying way of saying things will do what they must. People do what they want because that's the only thing they can do. That's who they are.


    What if they're walking truly randomly?
    Quote from: yeezevee on February 11, 2016, 02:05 PM
    how fuck works without shit??


    Let's Play Chess!

    harakaat, friend, RIP
  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »