Why should we act morally?

[jingwei]

Love of whom?

Love of all people.

 

[Philosoft]

Love of all people.

I don't love all people. At least, I can't come up with a definition of "love" that I would charitably extend to the 6+ billion human inhabitants of this planet.

 

[armed2010]

I don't love all people. At least, I can't come up with a definition of "love" that I would charitably extend to the 6+ billion human inhabitants of this planet.

For me, a more accurate term would be "tolerate", and thats stretching it even.

 

[Philosoft]

For me, a more accurate term would be "tolerate", and thats stretching it even.

Considering 5,999,999,750 or so of that total never even breach the fringes of my consciousness on a daily basis, I'm not sure any single word charitably describes my feelings toward "all people."

 

[Sydney49er]

not gonna read all the thread in here, so sorry if this has been mentioned - read 'mere christianity' by c s lewis. Basically says tha god made a rule in our brains to act nicly to each other as it helps society and that no matter what religion/race you are, then the rules are very similar..

 

[Buzz Dixon]

Anybody here ever read any of Douglas Hofstadter's books? In METAMAGICAL THEMAS (no, it is not a book on the occult but mathematics; the title is a play on "mathamatical") he has a chapter on Game Theory, in particular a strategy game called "The Prisoner's Dilema."

Here's how it works: You and a friend have been charged with a crime. If neither of you plead guilty, you spend two years in prison. If one of you pleads guilty and informs on the other, then that person spends a year in prison and the other person spends seven. If both players drop a dime on the other, then both spend five years in prison.

The challenge: Come up with a strategy that results in the least amount of prison time no matter what the other person does.

Hofstadter reports several teams of mathematicians tried various elaborate strategies of confessing, blaming, refusing to blame, etc., in a variety of patterns, but when all was said and done, the simplest strategy turned out to be the best for both players.

That strategy?

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

In round one, don't confess.

If your partner confesses, then in round two confess. The moment they stop confessing, you stop confessing. Confess only as a reactive choice, not a proactive one.

Follow that strategy, and regardless of what one's partner does, both sides spend the least amount of time in prison.

Don't try to get "even" by confessing when one doesn't have to; be willing to forgive and forget.

So if we treat others the way we want to be treated, and respond to bad behavior only so far as to correct the behavior, not inflict retribution, we come out ahead.

Sound familiar?

 

[CRitabe]

but independantly, of the morality of specific actions, why should an individual act morally?

To me, it seems quite simple - because for every action there is a reaction - or you will reap what you sow - or what goes around comes around - or however you choose to say it.

What you give out - individually or collectively - comes back. If you take something from someone else - something will be taken from you - if you lie to someone - you will be lied to - it is the universal order of life. So, I choose to give out what I would like to get back, not only from a personal perspective, but because I would like to see my species survive as well. We are all hooked together for better or worse, so don't become a kleptomaniac - please.

 

[Magisterium]

I was doing some light reading about the concept of morality, and I was curious, why should people act morally?

In short, because hell sucks!

(hell isn't only in the after-life)

 

[repentandbelieve]

Ok, you started out by saying that God works in mysterious ways, and that we can't comprehend him, so if something seems not to make sense, we should bow to God's superior wisdom and trust him that he wants the best for us. I pointed out exactly how and why that is intellectually unsatisfying and provides no resolution to any objection that could be brought against your beliefs. You responded by saying the exact same thing in slightly different words. I pointed out that saying the same thing back to me is unlikely to be convincing, and so you resolved that difficulty by saying the same thing back to me yet again... and so on.

You seem to be unable to grasp what I want from you. Here is what I want from you: I want a better reason to believe that your God is real and your religion is true than, "You're just not smart enough to understand God's mysterious ways, so who are you to reject him?" If that's all you have to offer, then why even bother saying it? It'll only be convincing to the people who already agree with you, and they don't need to be convinced. But if you have something more to offer, then we can have a discussion here.

And good job leaving out the Bible verses for once Remember, Scripture is only convincing to people who already believe it and people who don't know anything about it. Someone like me, who knows the Bible backwards and forwards and still doesn't believe a word of it, is not going to favorably respond to arguments constructed from the Bible.

Your arrogance is testimony against you. It causes me to believe that you do not know the Bible as well as you claim to. I find it interesting how, a person who claims to be so familiar with the bible, would also be so offended by it. I'm not really surprised by it, for even Satan knows scripture. I shall continue to use scripture as often as I see fit, and if it should fall upon deaf ears then so be it. In the wilderness Jesus responded to Satan three times by saying "It is written".

If the words "his ways are past finding out" (Rom 11:13) are unsatisfying to your intellect it it because you have exercised your intellect in only one direction. All the powers of the mind should be exercised. Perception, judgement, memory and all the reasoning powers should have equal strength in order that the mind should be well balanced. If all the attention and strenght are given to one, while others lie dormant, the development is strong in that one and will lead to extremes.

 

[Mekkala]

Your arrogance is testimony against you. It causes me to believe that you do not know the Bible as well as you claim to. I find it interesting how, a person who claims to be so familiar with the bible, would also be so offended by it. I'm not really surprised by it, for even Satan knows scripture. I shall continue to use scripture as often as I see fit, and if it should fall upon deaf ears then so be it. In the wilderness Jesus responded to Satan three times by saying "It is written".

If the words "his ways are past finding out" (Rom 11:13) are unsatisfying to your intellect it it because you have exercised your intellect in only one direction. All the powers of the mind should be exercised. Perception, judgement, memory and all the reasoning powers should have equal strength in order that the mind should be well balanced. If all the attention and strenght are given to one, while others lie dormant, the development is strong in that one and will lead to extremes.

You think I don't know the Bible as well as I say I do, because I don't fall on my knees and repent when you quote it at me. I see. Fascinating.

Evidently the only people who know the Bible are the ones who believe every word of it. That is, three years ago I knew the Bible backwards and forwards. Today, I don't know a single word of it -- because I don't believe it.

Wow. Who'da thunk that to know a book, one must find it completely intellectually satisfying? I'd have said that one can read a book and still find it intellectually unsatisfying, but I suppose that's just my fallible earthly understanding leading me wrong.

 

[zoe_uu]

In short, because hell sucks!

(hell isn't only in the after-life)

Fear... that's a good reason to be nice.