Why can't people see ...

David Gould said:

... that acting morally in a social group is on average better for you than if you act immorally?

Once this is acknowledged by everyone, we can move on to the next point (which I came to understand after reading Shermer's book 'The Science of Good and Evil'), which is that being moral is the most efficient and effective way of acting moral.




Sorry: I am getting a little bugged by some of the threads on the board at the moment.

Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

I know what you mean.

I think the Buddhists have come closest to answering this by recognizing the significance placed on selfish human cravings.

That said, as with most things, education, living example and persistent examination of these issues seem to be the key to promoting morality.

David Gould said:

... that acting morally in a social group is on average better for you than if you act immorally?

<snip>

Sorry: I am getting a little bugged by some of the threads on the board at the moment.

Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

Because they have been told, and believed w/o question, that they are unworthy, full of sin (whatever that definition may be), loathsome, less than worms, etc, etc.

Oh, and I love your cat. Looks a bit like mine.

David Gould said:

Why can't people see

... that acting morally in a social group is on average better for you than if you act immorally?

Once this is acknowledged by everyone, we can move on to the next point (which I came to understand after reading Shermer's book 'The Science of Good and Evil'), which is that being moral is the most efficient and effective way of acting moral.




Sorry: I am getting a little bugged by some of the threads on the board at the moment.

Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

As an attempt at a partial answer to your question; not everyone carries the same moral values. In addition, many people confuse being politically correct with moral behavior. Often the two are very far separated but again, the ability to determine when that is depends largely on one's own interpretation of moral values. Probably the most influential factor is that people react more positively to peer attitude and acceptance than to the knowledge that they have been true to their own interpretation of morality.

David Gould said:

... that acting morally in a social group is on average better for you than if you act immorally?

Once this is acknowledged by everyone, we can move on to the next point (which I came to understand after reading Shermer's book 'The Science of Good and Evil'), which is that being moral is the most efficient and effective way of acting moral.




Sorry: I am getting a little bugged by some of the threads on the board at the moment.

Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

Perhaps the very idea of thinking like that is a bit 'too religious' for many people , and seeing as many people are taught right from an early age to "look after number one" it doesn't cross their minds.

Also it could be because humans are often on their own , and people often let you down , so individualism becomes the norm.........thoughts of 'doing good' for the benefit of others sounds very lame as a reason to "be better for you" , it's quicker , easier and much more immediately beneficial to rob , lie , manipulate and just take...........not to mention pleasurable.Just examine your dark side sometime..............

BTW( I speak of a person who thinks this way , not how I live )

David Gould said:

... that acting morally in a social group is on average better for you than if you act immorally?

Once this is acknowledged by everyone, we can move on to the next point (which I came to understand after reading Shermer's book 'The Science of Good and Evil'), which is that being moral is the most efficient and effective way of acting moral.




Sorry: I am getting a little bugged by some of the threads on the board at the moment.

Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

I read that book earlier this summer. Interesting stuff, but I was a tad disappointed that it wasn't as scientific as I'd hoped. I was hoping for lots of antropological evidence tracing the (pardon the pun) evolution of morality from early man to modern times. Instead, a lot of the book was basically Shermer's opinion on a wide range of topics, including free will VS determinism, and "Can we be good without God". Don't get me wrong. It was fascinating reading, but I was expecting something a bit different.

Dear David Gould,I did answer your question,but it looks as if my answer got lost.I often asked that question WHY can`t people see? It would be so easy,all that is needed would be Love,love for God,our Creator,and love for our fellow-men and fellow-women.The result and the reward would be tremendious.Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself,I tried it and it works.You know the saying:"People will treat you as they find you." And if you love God and keep telling Him and showing Him,it will be amazing how you whole life changes.Perhaps one day people will try and find what a difference it makes.Sincere greetings from Emmy,a sister in Christ.

Emmy said:

Dear David Gould,I did answer your question,but it looks as if my answer got lost.I often asked that question WHY can`t people see? It would be so easy,all that is needed would be Love,love for God,our Creator,and love for our fellow-men and fellow-women.The result and the reward would be tremendious.Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself,I tried it and it works.You know the saying:"People will treat you as they find you." And if you love God and keep telling Him and showing Him,it will be amazing how you whole life changes.Perhaps one day people will try and find what a difference it makes.Sincere greetings from Emmy,a sister in Christ.

Click to expand...

Does anyone remember the exact wording of the GK Chesterton quote: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting . . . "

David Gould said:

Ah, I have foolishly been ambiguous. Sorry, everyone.

What I was getting at was that morality can develop through the mechanisms proposed in evolutionary theory, not that people are in general not being moral. My personal opinion from observation is that most people are moral (by any reasonable definition of the word) most of the time.

Maybe I have now added to the ambiguity sufficiently to confuse.

Click to expand...

Athough you say nothing in this thread about your stance on free will or free acts by people I am going on past posts of yours to respond.

If you feel that we have no free will, then any act or behavior really has no "morality" included. Your definition creates somewhat of a problem for this aspect of morality. Why do people act moral most of the time? If morals were totally evolutionary why are there times when people act immorally? How if morality is evolutionary in nature be even considered moral or immoral?

The key here is the golden rule. When you see someone whos actions who disagree with try to understand why they do it, place yourself in thier shoes and be honest with yourself. You might be surprised what you are willing to do under the right conditions.

For example; If your family was starving would you steal for food? If a loved one was about to be murdered would you kill to prevent it? If you could save a loved one would you lie? Would you forgive someone for these crimes if you knew these were the reasons they had? Think about it and be honest with yourself. If you say no to all four questions are you really a moral person? If you say know to any of them just how moral are you really?

My answers would be maybe to the first three and yes to the fourth just to let you know where I stand here. Yes to the first three would be only as a last resort but can not be ruled out. The fourth is a no brainer, anyone who really loves others will sacrifice part of themselves for the ones they love.

CaDan said:

Does anyone remember the exact wording of the GK Chesterton quote: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting . . . "

Click to expand...

It goes... "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, its been tried and found magically delicious."

David Gould said:

... that acting morally in a social group is on average better for you than if you act immorally?

Once this is acknowledged by everyone, we can move on to the next point (which I came to understand after reading Shermer's book 'The Science of Good and Evil'), which is that being moral is the most efficient and effective way of acting moral.




Sorry: I am getting a little bugged by some of the threads on the board at the moment.

Have a nice day.

Click to expand...

Hmm.

Defectors tend to experience, at the very least, short-term gains.

However, I think you've missed something important. Outcomes are secondary; in fact, being moral is better than not being moral, no matter the outcome. I have lived both lives; this one's better. I'm poorer than I used to be, but I'm happier.

CaDan said:

Does anyone remember the exact wording of the GK Chesterton quote: "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting . . . "

Click to expand...

"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and left untried."

seebs said:

"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and left untried."

Click to expand...

I was close.

Whats the other thing I was thinking of... losers never cheat and cheaters always win just doesn't sound right.

Emmy said:

Dear David Gould,I did answer your question,but it looks as if my answer got lost.I often asked that question WHY can`t people see? It would be so easy,all that is needed would be Love,love for God,our Creator,and love for our fellow-men and fellow-women.The result and the reward would be tremendious.Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself,I tried it and it works.You know the saying:"People will treat you as they find you." And if you love God and keep telling Him and showing Him,it will be amazing how you whole life changes.Perhaps one day people will try and find what a difference it makes.Sincere greetings from Emmy,a sister in Christ.

Click to expand...

I'm happy that this works for you but it would seem to indicate that, first a belief in God and then a love for God, is necessary before morality can be the primary governing factor of one's behavior. Perhaps it is only that you tend to treat others well, a lesson you attribute to God, that causes others to treat you well in return.

Some of the nicest, most considerate, moral people I have known have been atheists. Certainly no belief in God or "a god" is necessary for morality to exist and in many cases, I've witnessed less moral behavior from those who believe most strongly in the Christian religion. Certainly it's not specific to Christians, but some seem to conclude that because they believe in God and Christianity that they are given an extra measure of latitude by God in their behavior, especially toward those who don't share their belief.

I visit a number of different forums and if I had to pick one as having the worst overall behavior toward others, I'm sad to conclude that it would be right here at CF. That's not to say that I haven't met a great number of people with vast patience, great intelligence and extreme politeness, but it's more than offset by others who, though they consider themselves Christians, treat others with scant respect and seem to feel a need to mock and debase those who possess dissimilar opinions, (this thread, to date, and many others excluded). Before anyone concludes that those dissimilar opinions are religiously based, let me assure you that my most memorable examples had little to do with religion. People seem more inclined to viciously and disrepectfully defend their politics, diet and a small number of other topics than they do their religious beliefs but I have also seen a number of examples where religion is defended against respectful questions with rudeness and blatant condemnation.

Morality, it seems, has no requirement for any specific religious beliefs nor any religious beliefs. All that is required is the ability to assess behavior that would be offensive to one's self, and the ability to refrain from such behavior toward others. Put much more eligantly, it's the old and trusty Golden Rule, (as pointed out by others), "do unto others as you would have others do unto you".

The concept of morality can become less straight-forward when religion becomes entangled with it as other values and ideas become inter-mixed. The idea that two people who dearly love one another are living immorally because they have failed to undergo a particular cerimony is perhaps one small example.

Hopefully, I haven't lost touch with the scope of the thread and if I have, I offer my apology.

Beastt you are completely correct, Christianity is not the source of morality. The Christian God is. Christians have no more morality ability than anyone else. We are equally equipped with the morality factor ingrained within from God. It is how one uses it, as to whether you can see the fruit or not.

seebs said:

"Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it has been found difficult and left untried."

Click to expand...

Thats a great line.

Untried meaning untested? Ie. when the going gets tough the christian throws out the christian way (ie. turn the other cheek, love your enemies, casting the first stone).

Oncedeceived said:

Beastt you are completely correct, Christianity is not the source of morality. The Christian God is. Christians have no more morality ability than anyone else. We are equally equipped with the morality factor ingrained within from God. It is how one uses it, as to whether you can see the fruit or not.

Click to expand...

I disagree.

Morality is not a substance requiring a "source".

It is not even something that can be regulated or specifically defined...as some have already stated in this thread.

Some of the tales reflecting the qualities and behavior of the Christian God, for instance, do not match what I find moral or ethical. In fact, if a human were to behave in the same manner as written, they may easily be defined as a selfish bigot or a genocidal tyrant.

Your mileage may vary.