Study of similarities/differences in moral views of religious and non-religious people

[durangodawood]

Yeah, consider a Mayfly. It spends about 3 years as a nymph under the water. All that time it is eating, growing, using oxygen, swimming to the best location for its survival, avoiding predators, and generally living. It then emerges out of the water and sheds its exoskeleton and becomes a dun, then after a day or two, it sheds again and becomes an Imago. At this stage, it doesn't even have the parts to eat. Then it mates, falls to the water and dies, and is snapped up by a trout. Obviously, if it spent those three years sacrificing its values consistently it would never reach the stage where it can pass on its genes and that is just about all there is to a Mayfly's life. Be born, eat, survive, mate, die.

Exactly. The mayfly (and my example of the ants) are showing us how useless sweeping generalizations about animals can be in promoting a moral philosophy for humans. That was my point, not that ants should offer some kind of model for human society. If I said that, it was a mistake, but I dont think I did.

Yes, that was sloppy of me. What I should have written is that the group does not exist as an entity in its own right. No additional rights are gained by joining a group. I'm talking about natural, inalienable rights, not vested rights. Just as the Universe is an abstraction and does not exist as an entity in its own right. It is the sum total of all entities, their attributes, their actions, and their relationships. When we look out, we don't see the universe, we see objects like stars, clouds, rainbows, the moon, the milky way if we're lucky to live out in the sticks as I do. We see that there is a multitude of objects for us to perceive. We form the concept "universe" because it serves a very important cognitive function. It's the granddaddy of all concepts, our concept for existence as a whole. It comes from the Latin uni meaning one and versus meaning turning, universus, turning into one or whole.

I can see youre trying to explain the difference between "exists" and "exists as an entity in its own right". I completely agree human individual and human groups are different, as you point out. But Im not seeing different categories of existence among them. I see human groups as real, effecting change in the world including in human minds, and not reducible to the various individuals. Of course they are a different kind of thing than individuals. But not different in terms of existing or not.

Overall, I'm seeing a tendency in objectivism as you present it, to make these huge categorical statements to serve as a foundation for erecting the philosophy. I seem to find those categorical statements wanting, and distracting whenever I encounter them.

Probably a lot but in the old days people got together, hired a teacher, built a little schoolhouse, and their kids got educated and probably a lot better than kids today. Go read the letters of the teenagers who fought in the civil war. Man, those kids could write and so beautifully. Obviously, they were able to do it and it wasn't prohibitively expensive. But now that the government is involved, it's way more expensive. People care about their kid's education and they don't need the government to get involved. Back then they didn't have to pay half their income to the government in taxes so they could afford it. I have learned far more on my own since leaving school than I ever learned in it. I remember taking a philosophy course in college. It was philosophy 101. No mention of the axioms, the issue of metaphysical primacy or causality as should be in a 101 class. Instead it was a course on the various fallacies, and the teacher was bored and so was I because he never showed how it was related to my life. It was concrete bound, anti-conceptual learning, just rote memorization and I remembered it just long enough to take the test. But I'm sure it was the approved method of teaching philosophy according to some committee somewhere.

I was impressed by the Civil War letters too. But obviously Ken Burns did not present the letters of the illiterate or ineloquent for us to use in comparison. So its hard to draw a conclusion there about the state of education at the time.

Thats really sad about your philosophy course. My experience was very different. I took one (public) college philosophy course called "Existentialism in Literature and Film". The reading list was insane. But the prof was totally engaged and took all the student interactions very seriously. I think you would have loved it. You have a bad experience. I have a good one. Another case here of lets not generalize from anecdote.

It is a great bike but I wish it was steel. Still, for the price, it's excellent. Wish it had through axels though like my Wednesday. 650b makes the most sense for a guy like me who is only 5 ft. 8 inches tall. The Krampus is a rigid bike, right? We live a few miles east of the tour divide route, so I see a lot of them when I'm out cavorting about in the wilds. Mostly Salsa Fargos or Surly Krampus or ECRs with a few Ogres thrown in.

Yeah the Krampus is 29x3" wheels, fully rigid. I did put a suspension handlebar on it just to take the edge off little drops, especially now that Im in the 50+ old person category. The Gorilla Monsoon is amazingly versatile. That 2.0 to 2.4 tire range allows for lots of very different types of riding. I live in SW Colorado, so there's lots to explore here. I also have Brompton folding bike for overseas bike tours where inserting short train segments into my route is important. Just detach luggage, stick the folded bike on the luggage rack. So easy. 16" wheels and 6 speeds but you can do big days on it. Last trip was Kyushu Japan.

 

[Not David]

Ayn Rand's objectivism can be dismissed as a seriously thought out worldview just by this wikipedia article alone:

Objectivism's rejection of the primitive - Wikipedia

This is just bigotry substituting for a just and fair treatment of native peoples.

She also had a very childish view of environmental concerns, placing the issue in stark, and false, dichotomies (between supposedly misanthropic tree huggers vs. her rapacious anarcho-capitalism, ignoring all the other possible alternatives).

Never understood why Conservatives like her, she was not even Christian!!!

 

[durangodawood]

Never understood why Conservatives like her, she was not even Christian!!!

She was completely anti Christian.

Many Christians like her though because she validates their politics.

 

[Bradskii]

[T]he present research investigated whether there are reliable similarities as well as differences between believers and disbelievers in the moral values and principles they endorse.

[The studies] show that disbelievers (vs. believers) are less inclined to endorse moral values that serve group cohesion (the binding moral foundations). By contrast, only minor differences between believers and disbelievers were found in endorsement of other moral values

[R]esults also show that disbelievers (vs. believers) have a more consequentialist view of morality in both countries [US and Sweden]. A consequentialist view of morality was also associated with another presumed antecedent of disbelief—analytic cognitive style.

The paper is a bit dense with academese, but here is a summary in Live Science.

The moral compasses of atheists and believers are different in a few key ways, a new study finds.

In some aspects, the moral compass was incredibly alike between the two groups; they both highly rated fairness and protecting the well-being of vulnerable people, for instance, and both highly endorsed liberty but not oppression. However, the groups diverged when it came to matters of group cohesion, such as valuing loyalty and respecting authority, the study found.

"Virtually everyone," atheists and believers alike, scored high on these two values, showing that they valued protecting the vulnerable and being fair toward others; and they saw these values as moral issues, Ståhl said. However, he found differences between believers and disbelievers on the other three values: authority (respecting authority figures, such as police, parents and teachers), loyalty (being loyal to one's group, such as a country — not burning a country's flag, for instance) and sanctity (not doing anything perceived as degrading, usually in a sexual sense, such as being promiscuous).

[Both] groups scored low on amorality, disagreeing with statements such as "I am willing to be unethical if I believe it will help me succeed."

That's a coincidence. I literally just closed a chapter from tbe book 'Behave' by Robert Sapolski before logging on to the forum and it discussed exactly that subject. And it is his considered opinion that the causes of a given individual following a particular moral path that indicates conservatism or liberalism are biological.

And that both liberals and conservatives will often agree when it comes to gut reaction responses. But that the conservative will stick with that original view and construct internally cohesive arguments to back up their position despite being presented with variable scenarios (think the Trolley Problem for example). Whereas the liberal will often adjust her position when thinking about variables and consequences.

 

[Whyayeman]

... Hitler, through his actions, forfeited any rights he had. I think that rights are inalienable but they can be forfeited, by violating the rights of others, you abandon the whole concept of rights. You can not violate individual rights like Hitler and then turn around and claim any individual rights.

If rights are inalienable they cannot be forfeited. I think the point about the example of Hitler or Mao - or Stalin too if you like - must be that they represent an extreme case. What I suggested is not far from the Christian tenet of 'judge not that you be not judged'.

For me that means trying to maintain my own and society's highest humane standards which I understand are applicable to every other human being.

It is not Hitler's claim to humane treatment that is important. What counts for me is my own and society's obligation to maintain the highest standards of conduct.

This could be considered as a religious value, but since I have no religion I consider it to be something common to every civilised culture. In short morality is not invented by or limited to religion.

 

[Bradskii]

This could be considered as a religious value, but since I have no religion I consider it to be something common to every civilised culture. In short morality is not invented by or limited to religion.

When I was young, if my mother heard of someone doing something immoral, her commment would be: 'Well, that's not very Christian'. I was well into my teens before I realised that immorality wasn't specific to Christian teaching (CofE in my case). Yet we still hear comments such as 'This country was built on Christian principles!'.

I'm an atheist, but I would bet that 90% of my moral positions would match those of most Christians (and the exceptions would invariably be matters concerned with sex). There is a lot more that unites us than divides us. And which allows us to exist in a relatively stable society. So we agree that stealing and murder is wrong for example.

Edit: these next few comments were intended for the thread on the Pope's comments on gay marriage, but they found their way into this post. I'll leave them as-is as they have some relevance to what's above.

But some of you say that homosexuality is wrong. But whereas some acts (such as stealing and murder) may well affect us all individually and in a negative way, a same sex couple living together doesn't. It may outrage you or offend you in some way but - and I'll be brutally honest here - I could care less about that.

And if that couple wants a formal recognition of their love for each other in the form of a marriage, then I see no difference to that and what my wife and I wanted. And if a priest or vicar does not want to perform that ceremony from a religious viewpoint then I totally support their position. If I were gay then I wouldn't want someone who had a religious objection to me becoming married to officiate in any case

 

[Whyayeman]

Yes, I agree with all that.

The BBC has a five minute piece on its Radio 4 output, 'Thought for the Day' as part of its mandate to broadcast religious content. Christians of many denominations as well as other faiths are represented in the fair and balanced way of the BBC; yet people comment that atheist views are never represented.

I have no such reservations; there is never any content that I don't essentially agree with. Broadly speaking religious and non-religious morality is the same thing. So your mother, like mine was a little bit wrong, but also completely right, because not being very christian is just being not very moral.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

If rights are inalienable they cannot be forfeited. I think the point about the example of Hitler or Mao - or Stalin too if you like - must be that they represent an extreme case. What I suggested is not far from the Christian tenet of 'judge not that you be not judged'.

Sure they can. A person acting on the premise of death has no need for values or rights. Do you suppose that a person attempting to rob someone at knifepoint, upon seeing that person pull out a gun in self defense could rationally cry "don't kill me. I have the right to my life"?

My worldview has a different maxim: Judge and be prepared to be judged.

For me that means trying to maintain my own and society's highest humane standards which I understand are applicable to every other human being.

Well, My society's standards are wrong. Most of my fellow countrymen believe in the morality of self sacrifice and they think, or rather, they've been taught that this is compatible with human life. I follow the morality of life which teaches one to live his life and enjoy it, not sacrifice it.

It is not Hitler's claim to humane treatment that is important. What counts for me is my own and society's obligation to maintain the highest standards of conduct.

Hitler held a view that included the sanction of the initiation of force against the innocent. The morality of life forbids this, absolutely. Hitler operated on the morality of death. Who would I be to deny him his achievement?

This could be considered as a religious value, but since I have no religion I consider it to be something common to every civilised culture. In short morality is not invented by or limited to religion.

That's true. Morality is a code of values to guide one's thinking and actions for the purpose of living the best life possible. These values are not determined by any religion, leader, group, or person. They are determined by nature but they must be discovered by man by means of reason.

 

[Bradskii]

These values are not determined by any religion, leader, group, or person. They are determined by nature but they must be discovered by man by means of reason.

The example I have used before is that of incest. Almost all societies have regarded it as wrong. And might have had a good idea of the practical reasons why. But...if nature was such that it was beneficial for mammals to breed with close relatives and that there were negative consequences in having sex outside your family group, then that's how we would have evolved. And incest would be seen to be entirely natural and having sex with a non-family member would seem abhorrent.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

The example I have used before is that of incest. Almost all societies have regarded it as wrong. And might have had a good idea of the practical reasons why. But...if nature was such that it was beneficial for mammals to breed with close relatives and that there were negative consequences in having sex outside your family group, then that's how we would have evolved. And incest would be seen to be entirely natural and having sex with a non-family member would seem abhorrent.

That's a good example. The facts of reality are what determines that incest is bad, not man, and this is a fact that definitely has to be discovered by reason. But didn't Noah's daughters come upon their father in his tent, drunk and have sex with him? And if the story were true, wouldn't it mean that it was through incest that the world population was restored?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

She was completely anti Christian.

Many Christians like her though because she validates their politics.

Yes, they think they can have their cake and eat it too.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

You're wrong about the history. I was referring to the Convention of Kanagawa of 1854. Commodore Perry told the Japanese to open their country to trade or be prepared for war. And that's how capitalism actually worked in American history, not according to Ayn Rand's fantasy ideal.

And that was repeated over and over, whether it was against Asian countries, liberated slave colonies (Haiti), or Americans organizing for collective bargaining. There's plenty of real violence behind capitalism.

Well, I would say that that was evil if you are portraying it accurately. You keep bringing up as examples of captialism what Objectivism rejects as capitalism and I'm told you the reasons why. The initiation of force can not coexist with capitalism, i.e., free trade, which is why you are seeing the economy failing in The US and elsewhere.

What you define as "Capitalism" has never existed.

Yes, I've already stated this myself. That does not mean it can't though. We do not hold that man is evil by nature. We hold that man has free will and his fundamental choice is to act on the premise of life as the standard of value or death.

Ayn Rand's objectivism can be dismissed as a seriously thought out worldview just by this wikipedia article alone:

Objectivism's rejection of the primitive - Wikipedia

This is just bigotry substituting for a just and fair treatment of native peoples.

She also had a very childish view of environmental concerns, placing the issue in stark, and false, dichotomies (between supposedly misanthropic tree huggers vs. her rapacious anarcho-capitalism, ignoring all the other possible alternatives).

Really, Wikipedia is not a good source. Yes, objectivism calls pre-scientific, pre-rational cultures pre-scientific and pre-rational. What's wrong with that. But Objectivists point to ancient Greece as a rare exception. They were no doubt primitive compared to today and they were there at the beginning of science and respect for reason but they did respect science and reason.

Wow, your use of the term "anarch-capitalism" demonstrates that your views of Objectivism can be dismissed as seriously thought out. You need to do your homework.

How about an answer to my question. When people refuse to answer the question I asked you, it really tells us a lot.

 

[Bradskii]

That's a good example. The facts of reality are what determines that incest is bad, not man, and this is a fact that definitely has to be discovered by reason. But didn't Noah's daughters come upon their father in his tent, drunk and have sex with him? And if the story were true, wouldn't it mean that it was through incest that the world population was restored?

I think that's a problem for those who take Genesis literally. Personally, I give the story of Noah's daughters about as much credence as Paciphae and the Cretan bull. Which is even more off putting.

I'd imagine the Greeks would have just as much trouble explaining where the Minotaur came from to their kids as Christians would have explaining how the earth was repopulated.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I think that's a problem for those who take Genesis literally. Personally, I give the story of Noah's daughters about as much credence as Paciphae and the Cretan bull. Which is even more off putting.

I'd imagine the Greeks would have just as much trouble explaining where the Minotaur came from to their kids as Christians would have explaining how the earth was repopulated.

I'm sure they had some story to explain it. I do think the Greeks had better monsters.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Exactly. The mayfly (and my example of the ants) are showing us how useless sweeping generalizations about animals can be in promoting a moral philosophy for humans. That was my point, not that ants should offer some kind of model for human society. If I said that, it was a mistake, but I dont think I did.
[QUOTE/]

I can see youre trying to explain the difference between "exists" and "exists as an entity in its own right". I completely agree human individual and human groups are different, as you point out. But Im not seeing different categories of existence among them. I see human groups as real, effecting change in the world including in human minds, and not reducible to the various individuals. Of course they are a different kind of thing than individuals. But not different in terms of existing or not.[QUOTE/]

I have made a couple of sweeping generalizations (actually they are universal principles) 1. All living organisms need values in order to live. This is absolutely true. As a living organism, this principle applies to man too. This is absolutely true. 2. Any organism which consistently sacrificed its values will die. This is absolutely true. I'm talking about acting on the principle that sacrifice is a moral virtue. I'm not talking about doing nice things and having good will. I'm talking about placing the good of others above one's self interest as a guiding principle as altruism does. This principle is absolutely at odds with what the facts tell us about life. Life is a process of self-sustaining, selft-generated actions. This means that in order to live an organism must be the primary beneficiary of its own actions. This is absolutely true. Any man who acted consistently on the premise that his life and values come second would, if he was consistent, have to give up all of his values to others since there is always someone somewhere that is in need. Not only is this impractical, it is evil because it makes what a man must do to live and enjoy his existence the opposite of what he must do if he wants to be moral. It completely divorces values from life and that is why I say it is the morality as death. Think about it, what would be the ultimate sacrifice. It would be to die. Any moral code which holds death as a moral virtue has death as its purpose. Objectivism holds that man's life, the individual's life, as the standard of value.

Now to tie this back to the OP. Collectivism certainly has altruism or the good of others as its moral base. If the good of the group is the standard of value and the individual is required to put the group first what does that actually mean? Given that the group is just an aggregate of a number of individuals, then the group is everyone but you as an individual. It means sacrifice by all to all. It means that every other individual has a claim on you that is above your own interests. Therefore it abrogates the very concept of goodwill. You must sacrifice your good for the good of the group( other individuals) whether you feel any goodwill or not. That is why it can never lead to group cohesion. Now given the relevant facts pertaining to man's life, I.e., that he must act in order to live and he must be the beneficiary of his actions, there is no rational justification for such a moral standard. Objectivism rejects this because we recognize that there is no clash of interests among rational men and women. A rational man is one who recognizes that you can't consume more than you produce and if you want values from others you must offer value in exchange and not sacrifice yourself to others nor others to yourself.

I find it amazing that no one has disputed my statement that both believers and non-believers share the same basic moral premise.

I'm not the one who brought up insects, that was you and others, in an effort to try and defend the morality of altruism for humans. I don't base my morality on insects and other animals for the very valid reason that these animals have no need of morality since they do not reach the conceptual level of consciousness. They don't have to choose in the face of alternatives, they act automatically to further their own life. Therefore to base one's morality on what other animals do is to commit the fallacy of the stolen concept since the concept of morality presupposes choice. Where no choice is possible, no morality exists.

Overall, I'm seeing a tendency in objectivism as you present it, to make these huge categorical statements to serve as a foundation for erecting the philosophy. I seem to find those categorical statements wanting, and distracting whenever I encounter them.[QUOTE/] What do you find wanting about the axioms of existence, consciousness and identity as the foundation of knowledge. Does not all knowlege presuppose that there is something to know and something possessing consciousness to know it? Is existence not concurrent with identity, to be is to be something and to be something of a specific nature. What is missing in regards to a foundation of philosophy. Oh yeah, the issue of the orientation of the relationship between conscious subject and the objects it is aware of, also known as the primacy of existence. These four concepts lie at the base of knowledge and identify the preconditions of knowledge. So what is wanting? What could be more fundamental or broader as a base than the axiom of existence.?

Yeah the Krampus is 29x3" wheels, fully rigid. I did put a suspension handlebar on it just to take the edge off little drops, especially now that Im in the 50+ old person category. The Gorilla Monsoon is amazingly versatile. That 2.0 to 2.4 tire range allows for lots of very different types of riding. I live in SW Colorado, so there's lots to explore here. I also have Brompton folding bike for overseas bike tours where inserting short train segments into my route is important. Just detach luggage, stick the folded bike on the luggage rack. So easy. 16" wheels and 6 speeds but you can do big days on it. Last trip was Kyushu Japan.
[QUOTE/]

I live in south central Colorado. Are you familiar with the turkey springs/Brockover mesa trails in Pagosa? One of the best places I've ever ridden. Awesome for bikepacking except not much in the way of water to be had. A few stinky reservoirs that I shudder to filter. Yeah, I'm turning 54 in a few days and I've devinitely cooled my jets regarding taking risks mountainbiking. It's one of those things that if you do it for any length of time you'll eventually have an injury requiring surgery. I'm much more into long explorations on the gravel bike these days than the technical stuff. I like to ride somewhere, camp and then ride back the next day.

 

[Bradskii]

Mayflies keep getting mentioned. Which reminds me of the two mayflies having a chat. And one says: 'Ah yeah, me and the boys had some good times. But hey, I'm going back what...15, 20 minutes?'

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Mayflies keep getting mentioned. Which reminds me of the two mayflies having a chat. And one says: 'Ah yeah, me and the boys had some good times. But hey, I'm going back what...15, 20 minutes?'

I've always liked Mayflies. They are so elegant. I always get a little thrill when I find one on the screen in the morning. In Florida they have a massive hatch of Green drake Mayflies this time of year. In the morning they will be covering everything and they fall like heavy snow to the water where the fish happily gobble them. Over an inch long they are.

 

[durangodawood]

I'm not the one who brought up insects, that was you and others, in an effort to try and defend the morality of altruism for humans.

I defy you to find where I said or even implied that insects provide a good example for human morality. In fact I specifically told you I reject that. Did you think I was lying? If so, there's not much of a conversation to be had here.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

You're the one who brought up ants and that they sacrifice themselves for the colony in an effort to validate altruism in humans, or am I mistaken?

 

[Whyayeman]

I am having trouble trying to get my head around human morality. Ants' social conscience and mayfly ethics will have to wait.

I have never found Genesis any use for anything. To me it is just full of fairy stories!