Unlike theists whose morality is relative to what their religion tells them, our sense of morality is absolute.
Not really. An atheists sense of morality is just based on the society they grew up in instead of the religion they were indoctrinated with. But that morality isn’t absolute, it changes a lot depending on your circumstances and way of life and everyone’s a bit different in that regard.
I’ve found that a lot of that finds its roots in their absolutism about everything.
Humankind is absolutely wicked, god loves us endlessly, afterlife is for eternity, hell is beyond imaginable punishment, also forever, if you’ve looked at a woman you’ve already committed adultery,…
Always the thing pushed to its utmost extreme.
Leaving very little wiggle room or nuance. And I think that’s by design. These people get pushed (under threat of eternal punishment) and brainwashed to spread their ideology which is very hard because it’s batshit, so they have pre-emptively hype up their argument. Again, drive it to its formulaic extreme. Otherwise none of this gets even less of a chance to land.
(Source: used to be one of em)
It is astonishing how difficult it can be for some religious people to understand basic concepts of “don’t be an asshole” without religion.
I talked to a muslim woman once, who asked if I was not afraid that my then girlfriend would cheat on me, because we both weren’t religious. She basically said if you’re afraid of a godly punishment then you can find trust and peace in a relationship.
I plainly answered that you do not need fear of any god to be considerate and careful with someone. Nor does this necessitate morals. And if she would betray me, then she simply would be an asshole and not the right person for me.
It went back and forth like this for a while, because she seems to have been astonished that people can have happy relationships built on mutual trust without fearing magical sky people.
I’ll entertain the spirit of the question.
Most “good choices” and “bad choices” are fairly easy to figure out. Would you want this thing done to you? If no, then do not do that thing. That’s going to cover the vast majority of cases.
There are some exceptions. Sometimes one might need to balance the needs of the many against the needs of the few. Sometimes one might be presented with a set of all-bad options. Those situations are vanishingly rare, and usually limited to circumstances where group consensus can help one determine which choice is acceptable to the greatest number.
But it’s not always easy, and it’s not always clear. I actually had a version of this conversation at a wedding with a guy who had his master’s degree in philosophy and another guy who was a devout Christian who was suffering a profound crisis of faith because his toddler nephew had just died of a brain aneurism.
The crisis-experiencing Christian asked me “Isn’t it scary when there aren’t clear answers?”
And my answer was “Yes, frequently. I often wish that there was an obvious or comforting answer to the terrifying conundrums of reality. But there often isn’t, and it’s my job as an adult to figure out what to do in those situations. Work out the moral calculus of what kind of world I want to create, try to work towards that world, and try to cope when reality won’t cooperate in the ways that I wish it would.”
Sometimes it’s a cold universe out there, and you’ve got to build yourself a fire out of coherent philosophy to get through the night. Relying on dogma is a lot like a shot of brandy; it might make you feel warm for a while, but eventually the cold will get to you, and you’ve got to have that sustaining fire or else you’re going to freeze to death.
I’ve always hated this question, because christians like the guy in the picture don’t draw their morality from the bible. They decide on their moral framework, then read the bible to find verses that support it. I don’t see anyone adhering to the mixed thread fabrics rule.
Yes, but, the scary part is that they don’t think they’re doing that! They’ve looked into the Tome of Ambiguous Stories and come out of it with whichever outcomes fit their fancy, but whichever Rorschach Lesson they learn, it carries with it the seal of Word of God.
So they can read the book (or have it read to them), come to a conclusion that vibes right, and then believe they were told that lesson by an infallible, ineffable, authority figure. One who can’t refute their claimed charge.
Not a great position to debate from.
I never buy blended fabrics. I didn’t take much else from the bible except for the rule on blended fabrics, and the verse about a bear that mauled 42 boys for mocking a bald guy. These are the only lessons I live by.
Ezekiel 23:20 is my daily affirmation
Lol. TIL there’s a bible verse about horse jizz.
That section is weird cross between fetish erotica and hate porn:
"That faithless country is like a woman that… does depraved things. Things like, uh, what’s the most depraved I can come up with? IDK, donkey dick? I’m sure really lusty women like donkey dick. So this faithless woman just really, really enjoys donkey dick. And jizz, loads of jizz. Love that- I mean, she loves that. Not me. I’m severely disgusted by the vivid image of her just going to town on that big, nice-
Shit, gotta rewrite the page. Maybe keep it less graphic so I can actually finish writing it. Anyway, yeah, such a dirty woman.
What was I writing about anyway?"
A radical new take on religion, I dig it.
At least I know why they’re anti-gay now.
I had a guy I worked with ask me “ if you don’t believe in god whats stopping you from raping and murdering people?” I said “because I don’t want to do any of those things” I definitely looked at that dude weird after that
“Nothing, do you have a sister? Where does she live?”
I am a natural born asshole and don’t think debating with the religiously impaired is a useful exercise.
My favorite answer is a question: So without God, you would murder, rape and steal? No? Well, then it seems to me you don’t need God to know what is morally correct.
Unless they say yes…
Yeah a decent amount would. Even more would say no but do it anyways… Even back in the days when everyone believed they were eternally damned if they killed someone or worse.
Even better…
I already commit all the rapes and thefts I want to commit. 0. If you actually want to rape/steal than you’re probably too far gone for Christ’s forgiveness anyways.
If you actually want to rape/steal than you’re probably too far gone for Christ’s forgiveness anyways.
Actually, at least in scripture, facing and resisting temptation is a virtue. There is a whole story about Jesus going into the desert to expose himself to the devil’s temptation just to flex his morally superior willpower.
On a Christian blues album I listened to as a kid, there was also a song (“Fireproof”, I think?) that has the devil tempt the narrator in various ways, with the result always being “Ain’t no way, devil: I’ve been washed in the blood of the lamb. Ain’t no use, I’m fireproof.”
It’s a whole theme. In the flavour I grew up with, there was this undercurrent of “we’re constantly fighting a spiritual war”, so facing temptation was a battle, and defying it a victory in that war.
Of course, that encouraged talking up the severity of the temptation you faced to make your victory look even greater, Caesar style: “Look at this strong, vicious adversary that the superior Roman Legions (under my command) overcame!” I’d credit that parish with many things, but excessive honesty is not among them.
Shame about the album though, it was a banger.
If you actually want to rape/steal than you’re probably too far gone for Christ’s forgiveness anyways.
Unfortunately they tell themselves that Jesus forgives all, so they don’t think they have to deal with consequences of their actions
I’ve thought about this a lot actually, but I figured it out. So when you’re presented with a good choice and a bad choice, you go for the good one. Works every time.
That the point : we are choosing
Actually, applying a dogma is not being a good jew/christian/muslim. Theologists justify almost everything in “God let us choose between Good and Evil”. Ironically, their is many learning in the thora/bible/quran that underline the need to not being dogmatic
I love what Penn Jillette has to say on the subject:
I HAVE ALREADY KILLED AND RAPED EVERY SINGLE PERSON I ACTUALLY WANT TO KILL AND RAPE.
The number of my victims is ZERO, and if your number is not zero you are sick and should be kept away from society.
I agree with Penn, but I can’t help but think that if I was given a Death Note, I would feel morally obligated to write quite a few names in it. Names of people who are personally responsible for a great amount of suffering in the world.
It’s not that I want to kill people. It’s that if I had a guaranteed way of stopping these people with no personal risk, I would feel obligated to do so, even if it meant killing them.
Killing in defense of innocent people is morally upright nearly without question, so you’d be clean either way.
But I’m with you that if I had a death note things would he different.
Someone make a spin of that old capitalist mindset meme with the button “press to get 1 million bucks but a random person dies” and they spam the shit out of it. But now it’s you (and me) hammering away at that “you get nothing but a random billionaire or pedophile dies” buzzer.
Turn on the news and start slamming the button until i see what i want
What was Ross supposed to do? Sorry I’m not a fan of the Simpsons so I didn’t get the reference
Don’t look at me like that Stan Smith from American dad.
It’s from Futurama. These are aliens who live 1,000 light-years from Earth, and therefore get broadcasts from Earth 1,000 years after they air.
The full line being shown here is, “This is ancient Earth’s most foolish program. Why does Ross, the largest Friend, not simply eat the other five?” to which the other alien replies, “Perhaps they are saving that for sweeps.”
I think he should of handled it by hiring a single female lawyer…
That’s kind of the second part, about removing them from society. Death is one mechanism for achieving that.
Fair. But different than “wanting to kill” someone. You want to remove harm. Like the whole purpose of prison, leper colonies, community shaming, etc
I’ve been trying to reframe things like this in my mind.
Instead of contemplating if the world would be better if they were gone, I tell myself that my wish would be for them to just be a good person.
I’m not trying to be righteous. But I think, framed like that, a good person would choose the latter. And if it really came down the power to disappear somebody, I think most people would err on the side of good.
But retribution and vengeance are strong in our lizard brains.
It’s that if I had a guaranteed way of stopping these people with no personal risk, I would feel obligated to do so
I understand the impulse. But I might also posit that an individual with the power to kill with impunity will quickly become a tool of national media and demagoguery. We’re seeing this play out in the age of Trump, with people like Laura Loomer and Steven Miller whispering in his ear to devastating consequence.
Anyone who claims they’d be more clear-eyed, more level-headed, and more rational need only go back a president or two to Joe Biden (genocide in Gaza) and Barack Obama (drone striker in chief, from Libya to Afghanistan). You’re going to have a modern day Allen Dulles on your shoulder, telling you all about how you’re going to be greeted as a Liberator once you put down the pen. And you’re going to kill a whole lot of people for reasons that make you feel good, but end up doing a lot of evil.
If nothing else, consider how many folks in NATO countries would have - if given the Death Note - immediately scribbled the names of a dozen world leaders from rival countries? And then a dozen political leaders from rival parties? And then a dozen national celebrities and media figures with rival ideologies? And then what would the consequences of this be? Did Iranian government become better when Khomanie’s name ended up in the book?
FFS, they explore this in the Anime. Light ends up killing a lot of good people simply because he’s personally resentful or fearful of being caught.
So, if Jeffrey Epstein was alive, the person that wants to kill him because he raped their daughter is sick and should be kept away from society?
Killing innocent people, and killing for self-defense are different.
I think the person who thinks Jeffrey Epstein would deserve to live is sick.
They didn’t say that people like that shouldn’t have consequences, drastic and significant ones, but they may disagree with the specifics.
Additionally, raping and murdering is what the quote is saying is wrong. The original quote does not state an opinion on using death as a penalty for these acts. For such a consequence, one could argue that it is necessary to distinguish murder and capital punishment as two separate acts, with the latter being justified.
Finally, the quote is meant to point out to most people that regardless of their religious beliefs, they have a moral compass that is not contingent on their religious beliefs and that most people’s compass will generally point in similar directions. One could then conclude that religion is not required to know right from wrong.
I agree with you, but it’s assuming the justice system functions. What happens when it no longer punishes those who need punished most?
Edit: original with horrible typos for posterity: I agree with you, but it’s assuming the justice system functions. What happens when it ninkonger ounushes those who need ounished most?
Learning new words today
Wow, that was nearly unreadable with how badly those typos were. I’m not sure what happened there. Lol.
Wanting to kill someone and wanting someone to be killed are quite different.
Wanting someone to face justice and wanting them dead are also quite different.
I suppose you’re right, for people that believe in “justice” administered by state. As an anarchist, I view states as fictional entities, like fiat currency, they’re not real (tho can have real effects), and are therefore not entitled to kill or imprison anyone for any reason, let alone to maintain order as they see it.
Also, wanting to kill and feeling the need to kill, such as in self-defense are different too.
There used to be some people i wanted to kill, but theyve all died of other causes at this point lmao
Mine overdosed.
Yeah, “other causes” 😉
That’s the name of their gun lol.
Mine is named “natural causes.”
If you need the threat of eternal punishment to be a good person, then you are not a good person.
This argument is the same that Kant made. Kant defended the notion that a person should do the correct thing for the sole reason that it is the correct thing.
Like putting the shopping cart back where it belongs
The shopping cart wants to be free!
Okay, but the assumption of correctness is a consequence of accrued education and experience.
What is the correct response to being slapped? Do you return in kind? Do you kill the perpetrator to restore your honor? Do you turn the other cheek? Do you call the police? Do you bluster, remain stoic, or cry out in pain? Do you apologize or argue? Do you stand your ground, advance, or flee? What is the correct action? There are a dozen different answers.
The premise of a Biblical Law (and, really, all laws and customs) is to establish a single assumed acceptable response. And the real threat of failing to follow this law isn’t “eternal damnation” (an idea that wasn’t really even canonical until the turn of the millennium) but social ostracism and legal reprisal.
The existence of a consequence also doesn’t establish whether or not you’re a good person. The purpose of consequences is to encourage good conduct. You follow the rules because you believe they are righteous. And you enforce the rules because you believe they are righteous. You recognize goodness of a general public as a predicate for social safety and economic prosperity. And you hold to an “eternal reward/punishment” as a consequence that goes above any individual actor’s failure to identify or prosecute bad behavior, because you see the net consequence of bad conduct in the aggregate as a kind-of Hell On Earth for the rest of your people.
That’s why Hobbes and Locke and even Machiavelli posit a better rationale for virtuous conduct than Kant. They see past the “honor system” and recognize the real macro consequences. Societies that fail to meet some basic standards of decency devolve into miserable, violent slums and cultish backwaters. They are damned in life long before they face a judgement after death.
I think this is also why there’s more “criminality” in opressed communities. Why would I work or sacrifice to uphold a system that is unfair to me? If I don’t believe in it, if I don’t see benefit from it, why should I attach my own ethics to it?
the assumption of correctness is a consequence of accrued education and experience
Not really, no.
Would you want x done to you?
If not, don’t do it to others.
It’s as simple as that.
Would you want x done to you? If not, don’t do it to others.
I wouldn’t want to get bombed. Therefore, I refuse to defend Ukraine against Vladimir Putin, because it might involve bombing other people.
I wouldn’t want to get fired, therefore I will not remove a direct report who is sexually harassing a coworker.
I wouldn’t want to gain weight, therefore I will refuse to feed my young child.
We’re taking about morally good and bad here.
Killing people in self defense might be necessary, but that doesn’t make it good.
Killing people is morally bad, even if it’s someone no one in their right mind would hesitate to murder if given the opportunity, like Putin.
I agree with the first person about morality determining how to respond socially. For example, why is killing someone in self defense necessary? Why shouldn’t you just run? Responding to violence with violence could be bad if someone else thinks that you weren’t in enough legitimate danger. Similarly, is it ok to kill if you are protecting someone else? What if the person you were protecting did not feel that killing was necessary?
might be necessary
If it’s truly necessary, there’s no option to run - no alternatives - it’s your life or theirs.
We’re taking about morally good and bad here.
Morality varies widely by individual and culture.
Killing people is morally bad
Pro-Life folks have been saying this for decades.
Ffs, Zionists have been saying this.
You need more than just platitudes to build a moral foundation
Regardless, ancient scripture is no foundation for morality. It’s simply what people came up with thousands of years ago before moral foundations got properly built. It took all that time to develop because tradition held humanity back.
ancient scripture is no foundation for morality
By what standard?
It’s simply what people came up with thousands of years ago before moral foundations got properly built
-
Killing people is wrong. This is an immortal and unquestionable truth that everyone has always agreed upon
-
We didn’t have a proper moral foundation until very recently, so disregard everything older than several hundred years ago.
What?
-
I can’t believe someone made such a good post and still got downvoted for it. It’s not a disagree button…
I didn’t downvote the other person… but isn’t it kind of a disagree button? What are the buttons for, if not to vote up the things you like, down the things you don’t, and thus float the “best” to the top?
I guess one can respectfully disagree, given that we’re kinda debating philosophy, or one can structurally disagree, and maybe those result in different kinds of voting behaviour.
People are getting downvoted for pointing out the obvious logical fallacy in the op too, so yeah.
If there’s no Mom, what’s stopping you from pooping your pants?
Religious nuts wouldn’t understand this response.
Because it’s waaay to clever.
I helped out a random stranger the other day. Not gonna tell the long story but He kept saying God must have guided me and God must be looking out for me too.
I didn’t want to get into with him but No bro. I helped you because I saw you needed help. And figured I was in a position to do so. I had some extra time that day and just happened to be where you were.
Wasn’t God.
I help people when I can because why not ? The relief on someone’s face is enough payment. Plus I feel guilty when I don’t help when I can. Not from fear of damnation but my empathy requires I do something.
Strangers have helped me in the past. I know how much of a difference that can make.
It’s just frustrating to have your own “good” behaviors constantly assumed to be caused by God.
No. I chose to help. Me. No one else was involved. Isn’t that a better lesson anyway? That there are people who help from a place of support rather than fear of judgement. ? Or some divine force ?
Next time you can say “God got you in trouble”
all hail daannii, god of helping strangers
Sounds good to me! All bow down to daanii or be purged! PURGE THE HERETICS!
Praise Daanii!
Daannii, Patron Saint of Stranger Helping
Amen!
Great news! You’re all welcome to the new Church of Daannii I’ve started. We live purely for the glory of Daannii’s sacrifice to strangers.
(Also, please remember to bring your 10% tithe each week.)
Praise Daannii!
Unlike Detective J.J. Bittenbinder, the Demonic Herald of Stranger Danger.
Holy shit this has to be how Christianity happened
Who knows how many saints were just atheists showing some common decency and empathy.
Sounds like something a Heretic would say……
Same here. Help when you can.
A lot of those religious types scare me that one of the first things they’d do without consequences is murder and rape.
The irony is that empathy is such a foreign concept, yet “love thy brother” is kind of a big highlight to that whole Bible thing.
