Study finds moral equality between religious and nonreligious

[Resha Caner]

You say that as if there are no atheists with issues about gay marriage.

Is that something we would be allowed to discuss here? I'd be interested to know what objections an atheist would have.

 

[Chany]

No, that middle statement is totally different from the other two. That other person does not have a right to decide for me if my life is worth living, and in that circumstance it's unlikely we're having a conversation about it.

If we have time for a conversation, he has time to help get me the heck out of the burning car.

You can't. The person is trapped and unable to move under the weight of the car's frame and possible cargo. By the time the necessary equipment arrives to remove the metal, the fire would have well engulfed the car and the driver.

You're trying to escape the moral dilemma via caveat. Of course you should help a person out of a car before they the fire reaches them if you can. Of course you should try to find alternatives to shooting the person.

However, in some cases, you can't. This is a dichotomy: you either shoot the driver who is incapable of killing themselves, or the driver will live for a few minutes and then burn to death.

 

[Chany]

How are we defining morality? I think that in most cases, atheists and religious can agree on most things, but many religious people feel that homosexuality is immoral, but I don't. (I didn't either when I was a Christian.)

So ...think that it may seem to a religious person that an atheist is immoral simply because the definition of morality differs a bit between religious and non-religious.

Morality is the origin and/or system of wrong and right actions, in the broadest sense. Where we go from there is pretty much the entirety of the argument. For example, I believe morality comes down to the well-being of conscious creatures. Others don't.

 

[keith99]

You can't. The person is trapped and unable to move under the weight of the car's frame and possible cargo. By the time the necessary equipment arrives to remove the metal, the fire would have well engulfed the car and the driver.

You're trying to escape the moral dilemma via caveat. Of course you should help a person out of a car before they the fire reaches them if you can. Of course you should try to find alternatives to shooting the person.

However, in some cases, you can't. This is a dichotomy: you either shoot the driver who is incapable of killing themselves, or the driver will live for a few minutes and then burn to death.

I'm pretty sure Hawkeye did not talk to Duncan before shooting him.

I found his action to be moral, skillful and quick thinking.

 

[Deidre32]

Morality is the origin and/or system of wrong and right actions, in the broadest sense. Where we go from there is pretty much the entirety of the argument. For example, I believe morality comes down to the well-being of conscious creatures. Others don't.

well being? can you clarify further?

 

[Deidre32]

In some cases, a person has a moral right to die. This person has the right to die by their own hand: for example, an extremely injured driver trapped in his burning car has the right to kill himself rather than burn alive.

It follows, then, that another person is morally permitted to shoot and kill the driver if the driver is incapable of doing it himself.

In some cases, it is morally okay to help a person commit suicide if the suicide itself is moral.

I don't take total issue with your examples except to say, nothing stays in a vacuum. These above scenarios will create an eventual slippery slope.

 

[CabVet]

This is the same study that we discussed here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7842547/

 

[keith99]

You say that as if there are no atheists with issues about gay marriage.

There seem to be far fewer.

Perhaps that is because atheists either have to come up with a reasonable reason for their stand or admit it is simply because of personal bias against a group that is different.

Would not surprise me if statistically atheists are far more opposed ot gay marriage than it seems and that the above does not change the attitudes simply as much as it changes being vocal.

 

[CabVet]

Is that something we would be allowed to discuss here? I'd be interested to know what objections an atheist would have.

We've discussed that here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7842162/

And nobody could come up with a good secular argument.

 

[Chany]

I'm pretty sure Hawkeye did not talk to Duncan before shooting him.

I found his action to be moral, skillful and quick thinking.

I don't have a problem with this necessarily either. However, I'm talking about the clear case scenario: consent is given and the person clearly wants to die before he is burned, but is physically incapable of doing so.

 

[Chany]

well being? can you clarify further?

Well-being refers the the mental, physical, and social health of the creature.

 

[Chany]

I don't take total issue with your examples except to say, nothing stays in a vacuum. These above scenarios will create an eventual slippery slope.

Why?

Also, keep in mind, the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. You have to draw clear, definite deductions from claim to claim. Otherwise, you're saying that I should never drink because eventually I'll become an alcoholic due to an increased amount of drinking that follows from having a drink.

 

[poolerboy0077]

inb4 invocation of the "Father of Lies."

 

[keith99]

Why?

Also, keep in mind, the slippery slope is a logical fallacy. You have to draw clear, definite deductions from claim to claim. Otherwise, you're saying that I should never drink because eventually I'll become an alcoholic due to an increased amount of drinking that follows from having a drink.

And you should never eat because that is the start of the path to obesity.

I'll take the slope to obesity over the cliff of starvation.

(Not in any way disagreeing with you, just taking the point a bit farther).

 

[Resha Caner]

And nobody could come up with a good secular argument.

Hmm. Well, thanks for the reference.

 

[quatona]

Study finds moral equality between religious and nonreligious

Study finds moral equality between religious, nonreligious | UIC News Center

The study found that religious and nonreligious people differed in only one way: how moral and immoral deeds made them feel. Religious people responded with stronger emotions – more pride and gratitude for their moral deeds, and more guilt, embarrassment and disgust for their immoral deeds.

What are the implications?

From the article I can´t seem to tell up to whom it was to judge a particular action moral/immoral.
In order to contemplate on the implications this would be important to know.

 

[CabVet]

From the article I can´t seem to tell up to whom it was to judge a particular action moral/immoral.
In order to contemplate on the implications this would be important to know.

No, you really don't. All you need to know is that the same standards were applied to both groups, and they were.

 

[quatona]

No, you really don't.

Yes, I do.
All you need to know is that the same standards were applied to both groups, and they were.[/quote]
1. I can´t seem read that from the article. Maybe you could point me to it?
2. Even if it´s accurate that "the same standards were applied to both groups", it would be important to know what those standards were, and where they were taken from.

 

[CabVet]

Yes, I do.

1. I can´t seem read that from the article. Maybe you could point me to it?
2. Even if it´s accurate that "the same standards were applied to both groups", it would be important to know what those standards were, and where they were taken from.

Helps if you read the actual paper instead of the press release:

Morality in everyday life

It's all there. Peer-reviewed, with control groups, etc.

 

[Paradoxum]

You think assisted suicide is good? If your friend was depressed and they wanted you to help them hold the gun steady would you do it?

Assisted Suicide... the legal concept. Ie: That is someone is suffering/ terminally ill they should have the choice to have help in dying, normally by a doctor.

(This is based on rational informed consent... which doesn't mean just assuming a depressed person is thinking rationally).

You didn't say you couldn't see the link before, so I assumed you had read it. It's a pretty short article, with no link to the actual study - just something about sending inquiries to the author (Linda Skitka, UIC professor of psychology).

Anyway, it sounds like it was based on self-reporting, which is largely why I'm not surprised by the result.

Yeah, I read the link. It didn't give much information.