Religion increases self-control

[Bronzeage]

Why does this better person think it is right to act morally?

You'd have to ask them.

I asked you because you created two theoretical people who exhibit the same behavior, but judge one to be better than the other. I thought you would have some insight into the non-believer, since you pretty well had the Christian pegged.

 

[Keith&Co.]

In the case you mention your kid getting punched in the balls was something that he absolutely had to avoid, so the external pressure made him stop what he was doing, but if he could have lived with the consequences he might not have stopped...

But the question of whether he 'could have lived with the consequences' is one he answered internally.
And took control of his own behavior.

I'd think people who are truly demonstrating self control are doing so even when they don't particularly need to.

What an odd definition.

 

[rousseau]

You'd have to ask them.

I asked you because you created two theoretical people who exhibit the same behavior, but judge one to be better than the other. I thought you would have some insight into the non-believer, since you pretty well had the Christian pegged.

I'm not sure I understand your meaning. I agreed with you that the theoretical atheist who only acts morally because of laws isn't isn't any better than the theoretical Christian who only acts morally because of religion. I then extended the idea, and said that, rather the case is that people who act morally because they want to are better (or I guess, more moral) than people who are only moral because of an external thing.

So the 'better' person in my case isn't an atheist, it's just a person who's not a dick. Why they act morally? Probably because they understand what suffering is.

 

[rousseau]

But the question of whether he 'could have lived with the consequences' is one he answered internally.
And took control of his own behavior.

I'd think people who are truly demonstrating self control are doing so even when they don't particularly need to.

What an odd definition.

Maybe you're right.

I think the conversation could get a lot weirder, but I'll just leave it at that.

 

[Bronzeage]

I asked you because you created two theoretical people who exhibit the same behavior, but judge one to be better than the other. I thought you would have some insight into the non-believer, since you pretty well had the Christian pegged.

I'm not sure I understand your meaning. I agreed with you that the theoretical atheist who only acts morally because of laws isn't isn't any better than the theoretical Christian who only acts morally because of religion. I then extended the idea, and said that, rather the case is that people who act morally because they want to are better (or I guess, more moral) than people who are only moral because of an external thing.

So the 'better' person in my case isn't an atheist, it's just a person who's not a dick. Why they act morally? Probably because they understand what suffering is.

There is some confusion.

In an earlier post, you said,

The person who is acting morally because it's the right thing to do is better than the person who is acting morally because they have to.

How do we judge the hierarchy of goodness and relate it to an understanding of suffering as motive.

For example, the Christian may have taken that brotherhood thing to heart and firmly believe he/she is truly related to all other humans. This means any injury done to any person is the same as done to a biological brother or sister. They would have an acute awareness of the consequences of all actions, and thus work diligently to not harm others.

The person who is not a dick, maybe just a very timid person who fears retribution and thus is very careful not to offend anyone.

So, in the case of the Christian, true love for people is the motivation, while in the non-dickish person, they are motivated by fear of injury.

Is it possible to find one better than the other?

 

[rousseau]

I'm not sure I understand your meaning. I agreed with you that the theoretical atheist who only acts morally because of laws isn't isn't any better than the theoretical Christian who only acts morally because of religion. I then extended the idea, and said that, rather the case is that people who act morally because they want to are better (or I guess, more moral) than people who are only moral because of an external thing.

So the 'better' person in my case isn't an atheist, it's just a person who's not a dick. Why they act morally? Probably because they understand what suffering is.

There is some confusion.

In an earlier post, you said,

The person who is acting morally because it's the right thing to do is better than the person who is acting morally because they have to.

How do we judge the hierarchy of goodness and relate it to an understanding of suffering as motive.

For example, the Christian may have taken that brotherhood thing to heart and firmly believe he/she is truly related to all other humans. This means any injury done to any person is the same as done to a biological brother or sister. They would have an acute awareness of the consequences of all actions, and thus work diligently to not harm others.

The person who is not a dick, maybe just a very timid person who fears retribution and thus is very careful not to offend anyone.

So, in the case of the Christian, true love for people is the motivation, while in the non-dickish person, they are motivated by fear of injury.

Is it possible to find one better than the other?

The moral difference between two people is what they would do in any given situation assuming no repercussion. Put any ideological party on a sidewalk where they find a wallet full of cash, what they do with the wallet determines their moral character.

Going back to the original point I was making in response to "Christians having more self control" ... well of course they have more self control, they have a creator threatening them with suffering. That means that those Christians without a moral conscience will tend to act morally anyway, at the same time as Christians that do have a moral conscience. Acting morally because of potential repercussions does not make you a 'good' person, it just means you're too afraid to be a bad person.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The moral difference between two people is what they would do in any given situation assuming no repercussion.

How can you possibly divorce moral actions from repercussions? The repercussions are the whole point of morality.
If there's no repercussion for standing up for what's right then everyone would do it...or not, but it'd be meaningless.

If i turn the wallet in, i don't have free money. That's a repercussion.


I think you might better consider 'assuming no witnesses.'

 

[Bronzeage]

The person who is acting morally because it's the right thing to do is better than the person who is acting morally because they have to.

The moral difference between two people is what they would do in any given situation assuming no repercussion. Put any ideological party on a sidewalk where they find a wallet full of cash, what they do with the wallet determines their moral character.

Going back to the original point I was making in response to "Christians having more self control" ... well of course they have more self control, they have a creator threatening them with suffering. That means that those Christians without a moral conscience will tend to act morally anyway, at the same time as Christians that do have a moral conscience. Acting morally because of potential repercussions does not make you a 'good' person, it just means you're too afraid to be a bad person.

What is a moral conscience?

How do you arrive at the conclusion Christians have more self control because they fear a creator's wrath? Why isn't it because of love for their fellow man?

Does anyone on this planet who acts in socially acceptable ways not have some threat of retribution hanging over them, if they fail to do so?

Is there really a boundary between, "This is wrong because it will cause me harm," and "This is wrong because it will cause harm to someone else"? Is there some spectrum, with self harm and harm to others at each end?

 

[rousseau]

How do you arrive at the conclusion Christians have more self control because they fear a creator's wrath? Why isn't it because of love for their fellow man?

I didn't. I arrived at the conclusion that both types you mention exist.

Does anyone on this planet who acts in socially acceptable ways not have some threat of retribution hanging over them, if they fail to do so?

Yes.

Is there really a boundary between, "This is wrong because it will cause me harm," and "This is wrong because it will cause harm to someone else"? Is there some spectrum, with self harm and harm to others at each end?

Yes there is a boundary, but I don't know about the spectrum. The difference is that in the first case if you remove the harm, the morality disappears. The result is the same, though, which would be the purpose of Christianity and law, to make immoral fuckers behave.

 

[rousseau]

The moral difference between two people is what they would do in any given situation assuming no repercussion.

How can you possibly divorce moral actions from repercussions? The repercussions are the whole point of morality.
If there's no repercussion for standing up for what's right then everyone would do it...or not, but it'd be meaningless.

If i turn the wallet in, i don't have free money. That's a repercussion.

I think you might better consider 'assuming no witnesses.'

Let's just replace 'repercussion' with 'negative repercussion' then.

 

[Bronzeage]

I didn't. I arrived at the conclusion that both types you mention exist.

Does anyone on this planet who acts in socially acceptable ways not have some threat of retribution hanging over them, if they fail to do so?

Yes.

Is there really a boundary between, "This is wrong because it will cause me harm," and "This is wrong because it will cause harm to someone else"? Is there some spectrum, with self harm and harm to others at each end?

Yes there is a boundary, but I don't know about the spectrum. The difference is that in the first case if you remove the harm, the morality disappears. The result is the same, though, which would be the purpose of Christianity and law, to make immoral fuckers behave.

The purpose of all morals are to make moral fuckers behave. Who is it on this planet who does not have the threat of retribution for their actions?

Morality is the threat. Without it, there is no morality. It would be like saying, "bring me a glass of water without the glass."

 

[rousseau]

I didn't. I arrived at the conclusion that both types you mention exist.



Yes.

Is there really a boundary between, "This is wrong because it will cause me harm," and "This is wrong because it will cause harm to someone else"? Is there some spectrum, with self harm and harm to others at each end?

Yes there is a boundary, but I don't know about the spectrum. The difference is that in the first case if you remove the harm, the morality disappears. The result is the same, though, which would be the purpose of Christianity and law, to make immoral fuckers behave.

The purpose of all morals are to make moral fuckers behave. Who is it on this planet who does not have the threat of retribution for their actions?

Morality is the threat. Without it, there is no morality. It would be like saying, "bring me a glass of water without the glass."

For the record, I don't think we've disagreed about anything during this conversation.

I'd say moral codes and moral laws exist to make people behave, but following moral law is different from being a moral person. In the absence of threatening moral code or law, when you're faced with an important decision with moral implications, where does the guidance spring from? You have to base your decision on some form of reasoning: if your internal logic works toward the end of reducing suffering, you're a moral person. In reality I could break into someone's house and profit a lot of money without being caught, the reason I don't isn't because of the fear of retribution, it's because it's a dick thing to do and I wouldn't want to cause people unnecessary suffering.

 

[jonJ]

So the 'better' person in my case isn't an atheist, it's just a person who's not a dick. Why they act morally? Probably because they understand what suffering is.

I act morally because I don't see any long-term advantage in acting immorally. And because I am prosperous and healthy enough to be able to give some weight to my long-term advantage, rather than having to scrabble for short-term survival. Affluence is a great moraliser.

 

[Bronzeage]

I didn't. I arrived at the conclusion that both types you mention exist.



Yes.

Is there really a boundary between, "This is wrong because it will cause me harm," and "This is wrong because it will cause harm to someone else"? Is there some spectrum, with self harm and harm to others at each end?

Yes there is a boundary, but I don't know about the spectrum. The difference is that in the first case if you remove the harm, the morality disappears. The result is the same, though, which would be the purpose of Christianity and law, to make immoral fuckers behave.

The purpose of all morals are to make moral fuckers behave. Who is it on this planet who does not have the threat of retribution for their actions?

Morality is the threat. Without it, there is no morality. It would be like saying, "bring me a glass of water without the glass."

For the record, I don't think we've disagreed about anything during this conversation.

I'd say moral codes and moral laws exist to make people behave, but following moral law is different from being a moral person. In the absence of threatening moral code or law, when you're faced with an important decision with moral implications, where does the guidance spring from? You have to base your decision on some form of reasoning: if your internal logic works toward the end of reducing suffering, you're a moral person. In reality I could break into someone's house and profit a lot of money without being caught, the reason I don't isn't because of the fear of retribution, it's because it's a dick thing to do and I wouldn't want to cause people unnecessary suffering.

In your case, the burden of your conscience for harming someone else is threat enough to keep you in line. Try as we might, we can't feel other people's pain and suffering, only imagine how it would feel to us.

 

[arkirk]

Religion increases religious control, not self control. The notion of self control implies a rationality that results in the achievement of discipline, continuity, and actions in line with the individual's preferences. Some stumble onto a religion that seems to somehow match their preferences only to discover over time...it was just a few of their preferences that was the basis of their accepting the religion.

There has been a lot of talk about the threat of morality. That in itself is based on the notion of an absolute morality where violations bring consequences in the form of punishment. That type of thinking leads to fear of being wrong, hence fear of taking chances and considering actions for oneself. If you can't prove something is "moral" (and you can't) then you can accept somebody's idea of morality and blindly live in fear of that....not a very good idea and also very destructive of the autonomy necessary for self discipline.

Critical thinking is not taught by Religion.

 

[Bronzeage]

Religion increases religious control, not self control. The notion of self control implies a rationality that results in the achievement of discipline, continuity, and actions in line with the individual's preferences. Some stumble onto a religion that seems to somehow match their preferences only to discover over time...it was just a few of their preferences that was the basis of their accepting the religion.

There has been a lot of talk about the threat of morality. That in itself is based on the notion of an absolute morality where violations bring consequences in the form of punishment. That type of thinking leads to fear of being wrong, hence fear of taking chances and considering actions for oneself. If you can't prove something is "moral" (and you can't) then you can accept somebody's idea of morality and blindly live in fear of that....not a very good idea and also very destructive of the autonomy necessary for self discipline.

Critical thinking is not taught by Religion.

According to wikipedia, there are 41,000 Christian denominations. If we can safely assume there once was only one, then at least 40,999 different people had some kind of critical thought.

 

[free radical]

Does Belief in God Cause More Self Control? | Through the Wormhole

Scorching hugs,
Your friendly neighborhood Devil's Advocate

So the religious are more willing to swallow any shyt..
What else is new?