• 189 results
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
Avatar image for admirallogic
#1 Posted by AdmiralLogic (4131 posts) - - Show Bio

Note: Yes I know some people will say this belongs in the religion thread but this is a specific question and something I'd prefer to actually know I got answered for me then debated over a couple months with twelve different people. I also know that atheist is simply someone who doesn't believe in a God, while what I'm referring to is someone who doesn't believe in a life after death situation which is much broader of a term.

So here's the conundrum:

There have been multiple times where I have run across people who are atheists in the religion thread and in other sites who have essentially said "If someone has to fear eternal damnantion to do good things they aren't really good." or the other common one "Why should you have to get the promise of heaven to do good works."

Now, to memory, all these people didn't believe in an afterlife or a soul. Essentially completely in disbelief of the supernatural. So if I put myself in the shoes of someone with those belief's I come up with this scenario: If there is no God, no Hell, and no Heaven, or even any form of life after I die, what is the point of having any form of moral compass? I can do whatever I want as long as it benefits me more then it harms me throughout my life, since after I die I won't have to worry about anything.

There is also the fact that with these same belief that there is no afterlife, suicide is an extremely appealing option for people of high stress levels and depression. Heck I'd have probably done it as a child if I wasn't Catholic, either that or someone else would have died. The other possibility was that I'd do as I mentioned in the scenario which is simply do whatever I found convenient, if that meant manipulating people into doing what I want then that's what would happen. Fortunately it didn't, but it was a plausible scenario.

I simply do not understand where a moral compass is if an individual does not believe in an afterlife of one form or another. So for any in that situation please enlighten me to your reasoning. And even if you aren't in that same situation, if you think you figured out their reasoning, please tell me anyway. Could be useful for an extra view.

Avatar image for lordwhiskers
#2 Posted by LordWhiskers (731 posts) - - Show Bio

Religion isn't synonymous with morality.

Avatar image for admirallogic
#3 Posted by AdmiralLogic (4131 posts) - - Show Bio

Religion isn't synonymous with morality.

Then please explain your judgement of morality. That response has no information for me to get any form of understanding for the answer to my question.

Avatar image for klaa2
#4 Posted by Klaa2 (187 posts) - - Show Bio

My moral compass is my conscious, and I prefer following my conscious to following God.

Avatar image for admirallogic
#5 Posted by AdmiralLogic (4131 posts) - - Show Bio

@klaa2 said:

My moral compass is my conscious, and I prefer following my conscious to following God.

Then what is your conscious? And would you advise all follow this alone? As many people possess warped sense of guilt, and thus can feel terrible for doing things that are not bad, but others may not even be bothered by committing mass murder.

I need details not vague comments.

Avatar image for just_banter
#6 Posted by Just_Banter (12418 posts) - - Show Bio

If there is no God, no Hell, and no Heaven, or even any form of life after I die, what is the point of having any form of moral compass? I can do whatever I want as long as it benefits me more then it harms me throughout my life, since after I die I won't have to worry about anything.

And to that I say, if you actually would be like this if you weren't religious, your parents didn't raise you properly. That's not meant as an insult, or Ad hominem, but straight up truth. It's a natural human instinct to have compassion, and it's natural for humans to want to help each other; we're social creatures after all. I legitimately find it disgusting that you'd forgo being a decent human being if you weren't rewarded when you die for it. What's so wrong with being a good person for the sake of being a good person, or helping someone just because you want too?

Avatar image for deactivated-5a04a566e9ae3
#7 Edited by deactivated-5a04a566e9ae3 (12864 posts) - - Show Bio

I'm not trying to be edgy, but there is no point to anything. We're thrown into existence for a time and then we die, and we know **** all about what happens then. That's utterly terrifying to many people. So terrifying that it prevents them from living a productive life. This is why people make up stories(religion). It gives them a sense of purpose or meaning and it helps them get on with it. More power to them. I only dislike these stories when people use them to justify savagery.

As for the moral compass thing, well, I can only speak for myself. I don't follow any religions or believe in deities or spirituality or a divine reward. I just feel bad when I hurt people physically or verbally(if unprovoked). I feel like a scumbag if I steal. I would feel like shit if I cheated on my partner. That might be social conditioning. Right and wrong might just be social constructions, who knows?

I think it's best not to dwell on these things too much. Consciousness can cripple, as they say. Stop worrying about things you can't know and can't control. Just live your life.

✌️️❤️

Avatar image for seagod
#8 Edited by SeaGod (4734 posts) - - Show Bio

As a atheist myself I have to say I without religion it hasn't had any effect on my morality. While I call myself Christian just for the holidays and the fact the rest of my family is I have a hard time in believing in stuff said in the bible. Now as for the question of morality just because the afterlife isn't a concern for me doesn't mean I'm not worried about the present. I treat people kind cause I was raised to be nice. I'm not gonna kill or commit suicide as it is the easy way about. You can get much better revenge through legal and less bloody methods. As for suicide it isn't anything more than pride of not letting people who drove me to such lengths getting their way or getting the last laugh. Seriously religion has nothing to do with morality as there are plenty of religious people that are bad people. It may just be a example of nature beating nurture.

Avatar image for cosmic_templar
#9 Posted by Cosmic_Templar (2571 posts) - - Show Bio

@admirallogic: Morality is a human concept. And it has probably existed before the concept of religion or theism. As long as we have empathy and we know the consequences of our actions on others, we have a choice to help others or be charitable. Humans aren't born to be singular beings, we are pack animals and selfishness isn't our driving force. We have an innate desire to help others.

Avatar image for klaa2
#10 Posted by Klaa2 (187 posts) - - Show Bio

@admirallogic: Some people just aren't good people and the only value they see in any act is how it benefits them. That's one of the major reasons that religion exists. You can get away with a crime, but make it a sin and there's no escape. Also, why help someone if there's nothing in it for you? You have to make them think that God saw them do it and will reward them for it later.

Avatar image for klaa2
#11 Posted by Klaa2 (187 posts) - - Show Bio

@cosmic_templar: I used to think that, but now I realize that deep down the reason I help others and try to make others happy is because it makes me happy. Selfishness is still the driving force behind all that I do except when it comes to my instinctual desire to protect my family.

Avatar image for tinyford
#12 Posted by TinyFord (467 posts) - - Show Bio

@admirallogicSaid:

If there is no God, no Hell, and no Heaven, or even any form of life after I die, what is the point of having any form of moral compass?

With all due respect to you as catholic I'm a protestant and we ourselves don't even see this conundrum as such, it's a major part of the protestant movement away from Catholic that we believe that even if Jesus was to return to earth and convict every single person in the entire world and condemn them to hell He would still be worthy of all affection and all praise because He's God. Which brings us to the question, are you living on a moral road for the reward of perfect life, or for being with God? The comparison could arise, "if heaven was the most perfect place ever, every perfect thing you have ever known was there, But God wasn't... Would you still want to go?"

You see we religious folk don't live morally for the reward of life or fear of death, we do it because we want to be with God. And if He was in hell for all eternity, I can tell you that I would live the most immoral life known to man just to be with Him.

Religion isn't synonymous with morality.

Sure, but why not? according to Darwinism or literally every theory despising religion we are faced with the fact of "survival of the fittest". Every single being has to adapt to survive, so if we take the Tsunami's in Japan or Haiti... If we look at those incidents we can conclude "those people were such losers, they didn't build on the right place and therefore deserved to die". But this is not how we see it, so Darwinism can't be right can it? Which means there has to be something more to us, or else according to Darwin we will kill off ourselves because we can't let the weak survive and humans will become extinct.

So even if religion isn't synonymous with morality, it doesn't explain why morality exists in the first place with someone not religious

@klaa2 said:

My moral compass is my conscious, and I prefer following my conscious to following God.

With all due respect, if your conscious was formed by chance over millions of years with just some chemicals getting together accidentally then how can you honestly claim to trust your own conscious as your moral compass? If anything there would be so many factors that come together and prove that it would be better to go anti-conscious if it all was just formed by chance that I would scientifically have to conclude "when you feel bad, you did something right and hen you feel good, you might've done something wrong".

You see if the conscious created itself, then it cannot be trusted because it could've been set in place the worst possible combination, but if someone created the conscious and programmed it, then that someone might maybe know more about the coding than we do?

Avatar image for elpizo
#13 Posted by Elpizo (218 posts) - - Show Bio

As an Atheist, my moral compass stems from me just observing the world around me. I see how people react when people do wrong things to them and I do not want to do the same or be treated in the same manner. Plus, there is no reason to have to worry about doing ill to others when I am worried about making sure this is the best life I can possibly have

Avatar image for tinyford
#14 Posted by TinyFord (467 posts) - - Show Bio

@elpizo: the last sentence of your post... I believe that was the OP's entire point

Avatar image for tinyford
#15 Edited by TinyFord (467 posts) - - Show Bio

@cosmic_templar: we have an innate force to help others??

You know that that will be our downfall right? If Darmin proved anything it was that if one cares about the others we will become extinct because survival of the fittest doesn't work that way

Avatar image for admirallogic
#16 Posted by AdmiralLogic (4131 posts) - - Show Bio

@tinyford:

I was utilizing the thinking that there was no God in the very scenario I put out. So my scenario remains a reasonable reaction if that thinking were the truth. No God or afterlife, no supernatural, then there is no real moral code, and thus selfishness is the only thing for a person to have.

As for the conundrum with Heaven, if it were the most perfect place ever, then God would be there, problem solved. So being worthy of such a thing would still be a goal, it's just that being especially worthy also requires that they're doing it out of graciousness. Which is significantly better then out of fear.

Avatar image for cosmic_templar
#17 Posted by Cosmic_Templar (2571 posts) - - Show Bio

@tinyford: There would still be morality without religion.

Avatar image for mylittlefascist
#18 Edited by MyLittleFascist (31809 posts) - - Show Bio

@tinyford:

If we look at those incidents we can conclude "those people were such losers, they didn't build on the right place and therefore deserved to die". But this is not how we see it, so Darwinism can't be right can it?

No. We evolved as a social species. As in, we are the dominant species specifically because of our programmed desire to share knowledge and aid others (and in turn also be aided) within reason.

With all due respect, if your conscious was formed by chance over millions of years with just some chemicals getting together accidentally then how can you honestly claim to trust your own conscious as your moral compass? If anything there would be so many factors that come together and prove that it would be better to go anti-conscious if it all was just formed by chance that I would scientifically have to conclude "when you feel bad, you did something right and hen you feel good, you might've done something wrong".

Conscience and reasoning IS untrustworthy, but it's the only option you have. There is no other. Any time you form a belief or opinion, you are using reasoning. Any time you attempt to convince others of this opinion, you are using reasoning. Again there is no getting around this. Even belief in religion relies on your own potentially fallible reasoning.

Online
Avatar image for elpizo
#19 Posted by Elpizo (218 posts) - - Show Bio

@tinyford: Not really because I don't do anything to hurt others in order to benefit myself, and I don't help others to benefit anything since at the end there is nothing for me except the life I lived

Avatar image for lukespeedblitz
#20 Edited by lukespeedblitz (1609 posts) - - Show Bio

@sprior93 said:

I'm not trying to be edgy, but there is no point to anything. We're thrown into existence for a time and then we die, and we know **** all about what happens then. That's utterly terrifying to many people. So terrifying that it prevents them from living a productive life. This is why people make up stories(religion). It gives them a sense of purpose or meaning and it helps them get on with it. More power to them. I only dislike these stories when people use them to justify savagery.

As for the moral compass thing, well, I can only speak for myself. I don't follow any religions or believe in deities or spirituality or a divine reward. I just feel bad when I hurt people physically or verbally(if unprovoked). I feel like a scumbag if I steal. I would feel like shit if I cheated on my partner. That might be social conditioning. Right and wrong might just be social constructions, who knows?

I think it's best not to dwell on these things too much. Consciousness can cripple, as they say. Stop worrying about things you can't know and can't control. Just live your life.

✌️️❤️

Are you a nihilist?

Avatar image for klaa2
#21 Posted by Klaa2 (187 posts) - - Show Bio

@tinyford: You don't understand how evolution works at all. It isn't about random chance or accidents, it's about generation after generation of determining what works best. You and I aren't random assortments of chemicals, we're the latest model, and what evidence is there that we were coded by some higher intelligence? That'd be cool and all, but it seems silly to believe it much less think that you know what the higher consciousness wants from you.

Avatar image for admirallogic
#22 Posted by AdmiralLogic (4131 posts) - - Show Bio

@elpizo said:

As an Atheist, my moral compass stems from me just observing the world around me. I see how people react when people do wrong things to them and I do not want to do the same or be treated in the same manner. Plus, there is no reason to have to worry about doing ill to others when I am worried about making sure this is the best life I can possibly have

So we get back to, what benefits me best is what I should do.

@admirallogic: Morality is a human concept. And it has probably existed before the concept of religion or theism. As long as we have empathy and we know the consequences of our actions on others, we have a choice to help others or be charitable. Humans aren't born to be singular beings, we are pack animals and selfishness isn't our driving force. We have an innate desire to help others.

Not exactly. If we were truly as much pack animals as you seem to think there would be far less destruction within each other. But that is not the case.

@sprior93 said:

I'm not trying to be edgy, but there is no point to anything. We're thrown into existence for a time and then we die, and we know **** all about what happens then. That's utterly terrifying to many people. So terrifying that it prevents them from living a productive life. This is why people make up stories(religion). It gives them a sense of purpose or meaning and it helps them get on with it. More power to them. I only dislike these stories when people use them to justify savagery.

As for the moral compass thing, well, I can only speak for myself. I don't follow any religions or believe in deities or spirituality or a divine reward. I just feel bad when I hurt people physically or verbally(if unprovoked). I feel like a scumbag if I steal. I would feel like shit if I cheated on my partner. That might be social conditioning. Right and wrong might just be social constructions, who knows?

I think it's best not to dwell on these things too much. Consciousness can cripple, as they say. Stop worrying about things you can't know and can't control. Just live your life.

✌️️❤️

Again it's back to, whatever benefits me most, I should do. But based on your reasoning for why religion exists, it should be something which justifies the actions of that religions designer and condemns any attacks towards them. However it isn't, and many religions even require self denial and punishment.

If there is no God, no Hell, and no Heaven, or even any form of life after I die, what is the point of having any form of moral compass? I can do whatever I want as long as it benefits me more then it harms me throughout my life, since after I die I won't have to worry about anything.

And to that I say, if you actually would be like this if you weren't religious, your parents didn't raise you properly. That's not meant as an insult, or Ad hominem, but straight up truth. It's a natural human instinct to have compassion, and it's natural for humans to want to help each other; we're social creatures after all. I legitimately find it disgusting that you'd forgo being a decent human being if you weren't rewarded when you die for it. What's so wrong with being a good person for the sake of being a good person, or helping someone just because you want too?

Well if those things do not exist then there actually is no such thing as decent unless some other supernatural thing exists. And, we really aren't as social as people think. There is a lot of introverts in this world, as well as people who are essentially completely the opposite of pack animals (those who Anti social personality disorder) who can actual excel at becoming superior in business then the social people, meaning those feelings of being decent actually get you essentially nowhere unless some other force is at play, whereas a good psychopath can become far more successful.

Avatar image for lukespeedblitz
#23 Posted by lukespeedblitz (1609 posts) - - Show Bio

How would a moral compass evolve?

Avatar image for admirallogic
#24 Posted by AdmiralLogic (4131 posts) - - Show Bio

@klaa2 said:

@tinyford: You don't understand how evolution works at all. It isn't about random chance or accidents, it's about generation after generation of determining what works best. You and I aren't random assortments of chemicals, we're the latest model, and what evidence is there that we were coded by some higher intelligence? That'd be cool and all, but it seems silly to believe it much less think that you know what the higher consciousness wants from you.

There are a lot of variations on how evolution works. Random chance is actually one of them. It is considerably more in depth, but to explain it here would take up way to much room and time.

Avatar image for tinyford
#25 Posted by TinyFord (467 posts) - - Show Bio

@zetsumoto: I know it's untrustworthy if it is the only option you have but the OP want's to know if you have another option that is not untrustworthy would you trust it.

And if what you said about how we evolved is true, then Darwin was wrong, then it has to be survival of the social

Avatar image for cosmic_templar
#26 Posted by Cosmic_Templar (2571 posts) - - Show Bio

@tinyford said:

@cosmic_templar: we have an innate force to help others??

You know that that will be our downfall right? If Darmin proved anything it was that if one cares about the others we will become extinct because survival of the fittest doesn't work that way

We didn't get this far in life by being alone. If the human race didn't help each other we would have died out long ago.

Avatar image for klaa2
#27 Posted by Klaa2 (187 posts) - - Show Bio

@tinyford: One of the reasons scientists think chimps haven't advanced as much as we have is because we have better social skills and work together more efficiently. Your species won't survive if everyone is only out for themselves.

Avatar image for admirallogic
#28 Posted by AdmiralLogic (4131 posts) - - Show Bio

How would a moral compass evolve?

Theoretically it is whatever gets that creature at the top of the chain, so if kindness were to be reciprocated then manipulation comes next, appearing to be kind only so you can drain them dry and get a new source. Which would suggest psychopaths and sociopaths are actually more evolved then the rest of us.

Avatar image for lukespeedblitz
#29 Posted by lukespeedblitz (1609 posts) - - Show Bio

@admirallogic: How would it continue past several generations theoretically..? Especially in an animal kingdom where they kill the weak, rape etc.

Avatar image for mylittlefascist
#30 Posted by MyLittleFascist (31809 posts) - - Show Bio

@tinyford said:

@zetsumoto: I know it's untrustworthy if it is the only option you have but the OP want's to know if you have another option that is not untrustworthy would you trust it.

And if what you said about how we evolved is true, then Darwin was wrong, then it has to be survival of the social

You don't get it do you. There is no option that is "not untrustworthy", because ALL options come down to your own personal reasoning.

Survival of the fittest, and survival of the social are not mutually exclusive. If evolving social behaviors makes a species as a whole, more fit to survive; then that is what will happen.

Online
Avatar image for mylittlefascist
#31 Posted by MyLittleFascist (31809 posts) - - Show Bio

@lukespeedblitz said:

How would a moral compass evolve?

Theoretically it is whatever gets that creature at the top of the chain, so if kindness were to be reciprocated then manipulation comes next, appearing to be kind only so you can drain them dry and get a new source. Which would suggest psychopaths and sociopaths are actually more evolved then the rest of us.

Unless of course, that type of behavior is considered unacceptable and puts you in danger of being lynched/imprisoned/executed.

Online
Avatar image for just_banter
#32 Posted by Just_Banter (12418 posts) - - Show Bio

@admirallogic: What's decent and what isn't is subjective, but that by no means entails that it doesn't exist. I'm an introvert myself (91% introverted going by the Myers-Briggs), and I can still say for a fact that I have empathy for other people. Heck, we're literally biologically built to feel empathy. If you don't, and you're more than happy to throw peoples emotions aside, then you have ASPD, which, as is in the name, is a literal mental disorder. So, having a lack of empathy (or in other words, morality), is literally seen as having something wrong with you mentally. That should honestly be all the information you need. We're born and custom built to feel empathy and compassion for one another, and if you don't feel those things, somethings wrong with you.

We learn our morality from the people around us, and that in turn is further shaped by our own individual life experiences. I don't have to be threatened by eternal damnation to know that killing someone is wrong, because I reached that conclusion by myself. There's nothing supernatural about morality. It differs from person to person, sure, but over time, due to the law and common logic, it's gotten to the point where the difference are so minute that in the grand scheme of things, we can all agree that something is wrong and something else is right without a book having to spell it out for us. We're not that stupid.

Avatar image for elpizo
#33 Posted by Elpizo (218 posts) - - Show Bio

@admirallogic: Not really because it is not just benefitting me, but a whole number of people and there is no reward for it because once I'm dead that is it

Avatar image for admirallogic
#34 Posted by AdmiralLogic (4131 posts) - - Show Bio

@lukespeedblitz:

Actually killing the weak would be inefficient unless the weak have a lot of edible parts, what you want to kill are the strong with a weakness to whatever skills/capabilities you possess. Maximize how much food you obtain and you survive better.

Essentially this would take a long time to figure out. First would be one deciding, or possibly doing it on accident, to give another creature meat. This creature may for one reason or another reciprocate and this continues. However once this catches on and is engrained into their species, another creature may eventually not reciprocate as much and began giving less and receiving more due to the engrained instincts of the others. Essentially, they are manipulating them into giving them more for less just by their natural tendencies.

Avatar image for tinyford
#35 Posted by TinyFord (467 posts) - - Show Bio

@zetsumoto: no you don't get it, what the OP said was if there was a God, now if that was the case then there would no doubt be a totally trustworthy option...

If that option was available, would you still rely on your own reasoning?

Avatar image for cosmic_templar
#36 Posted by Cosmic_Templar (2571 posts) - - Show Bio

@admirallogic: There are wars because while selfishness isn't our driving motivation, it is one of our main reasons for doing things. However, if we didn't have religion we would still have empathy and free will. You seem to think that if we didn't have religion we would all do immoral things and commit crimes just to pursue our own goals.

Avatar image for admirallogic
#37 Posted by AdmiralLogic (4131 posts) - - Show Bio

@admirallogic said:
@lukespeedblitz said:

How would a moral compass evolve?

Theoretically it is whatever gets that creature at the top of the chain, so if kindness were to be reciprocated then manipulation comes next, appearing to be kind only so you can drain them dry and get a new source. Which would suggest psychopaths and sociopaths are actually more evolved then the rest of us.

Unless of course, that type of behavior is considered unacceptable and puts you in danger of being lynched/imprisoned/executed.

But it doesn't in actuality. Plenty of psychopaths are very successful in business since they don't feel the guilt of letting a useless employee go, or of running out another company, etc. But they can also hide that they don't care, and are often fairly intelligent in these matters.

Avatar image for lukespeedblitz
#38 Posted by lukespeedblitz (1609 posts) - - Show Bio

@admirallogic: I think the only way a moral compass could evolve is if you could argue some animal species could set up some chain of teaching. Not basic survival but certain complex social behavior. How it's engrained into a society is incredibly important.

Avatar image for mylittlefascist
#39 Edited by MyLittleFascist (31809 posts) - - Show Bio

@tinyford said:

@zetsumoto: no you don't get it, what the OP said was if there was a God, now if that was the case then there would no doubt be a totally trustworthy option...

If that option was available, would you still rely on your own reasoning?

First off, the OP never introduced that hypothetical. Secondly, it's impossible to not rely on your own reasoning regardless of whether or not God exists. The very choice to follow God (real or not real) is the result of your own personal reasoning.

Online
Avatar image for deactivated-5a04a566e9ae3
#40 Edited by deactivated-5a04a566e9ae3 (12864 posts) - - Show Bio

@lukespeedblitz: Nah, just a pessimist

Edit: Or rather, the philosophy of pessimism makes the most sense to me. But like I said, I don't dwell on this stuff much anymore. I went through all my existential crises when I was younger. Worrying about death and the afterlife and blah blah is exhausting and gets less and less relevant as I get older. I feel bad for people who agonize about this shit their whole lives.

Avatar image for mylittlefascist
#41 Edited by MyLittleFascist (31809 posts) - - Show Bio

@admirallogic said:
@zetsumoto said:
@admirallogic said:
@lukespeedblitz said:

How would a moral compass evolve?

Theoretically it is whatever gets that creature at the top of the chain, so if kindness were to be reciprocated then manipulation comes next, appearing to be kind only so you can drain them dry and get a new source. Which would suggest psychopaths and sociopaths are actually more evolved then the rest of us.

Unless of course, that type of behavior is considered unacceptable and puts you in danger of being lynched/imprisoned/executed.

But it doesn't in actuality. Plenty of psychopaths are very successful in business since they don't feel the guilt of letting a useless employee go, or of running out another company, etc. But they can also hide that they don't care, and are often fairly intelligent in these matters.

If that form of high functioning psychopathy were to become the norm, then they would lose all advantages they had, and the species as a whole would be even worse off due to no one being helping each other or being able to trust each other.

There's no such thing as more evolved/less evolved. Things evolve in different ways and adapt to specific conditions. You basically described a parasitic life-form. Parasites are not "more evolved" than the hosts, because they still rely on the hosts to survive.

Online
Avatar image for thekillerklok
#42 Posted by Thekillerklok (10089 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't go around stabbing people because that is stupid and wouldn't benefit me.

I don't go around Raping people because that is stupid and wouldn't benefit me.

I don't go around Stealing because that is stupid and wouldn't benefit me.

I don't Lie and cheat because Women might attack me with a shovel.

You get one life to live don't waste it.

Avatar image for admirallogic
#43 Posted by AdmiralLogic (4131 posts) - - Show Bio

@admirallogic: What's decent and what isn't is subjective, but that by no means entails that it doesn't exist. I'm an introvert myself (91% introverted going by the Myers-Briggs), and I can still say for a fact that I have empathy for other people. Heck, we're literally biologically built to feel empathy. If you don't, and you're more than happy to throw peoples emotions aside, then you have ASPD, which, as is in the name, is a literal mental disorder. So, having a lack of empathy (or in other words, morality), is literally seen as having something wrong with you mentally. That should honestly be all the information you need. We're born and custom built to feel empathy and compassion for one another, and if you don't feel those things, somethings wrong with you.

We learn our morality from the people around us, and that in turn is further shaped by our own individual life experiences. I don't have to be threatened by eternal damnation to know that killing someone is wrong, because I reached that conclusion by myself. There's nothing supernatural about morality. It differs from person to person, sure, but over time, due to the law and common logic, it's gotten to the point where the difference are so minute that in the grand scheme of things, we can all agree that something is wrong and something else is right without a book having to spell it out for us. We're not that stupid.

But scientifically and statistically speaking, a psychopath has significantly more potential for success then a person of social tendencies.

Again you come back to this notion that morality exists even though nothing supernatural does. However that means morality is a matter of science, thus making it something we can change to fit our needs. And thus, common logic says, a psychopath who can hide it is the real one who succeeds.

@elpizo said:

@admirallogic: Not really because it is not just benefitting me, but a whole number of people and there is no reward for it because once I'm dead that is it

But you recieve a temporary reward, and that is often what people want. Or ice cream and any other sweet or pleasure wouldn't be so often made. People want a reward, those who don't are either lying and really do want a reward, damaged, or are incredibly Holy, but more often its one of the first two

@admirallogic: There are wars because while selfishness isn't our driving motivation, it is one of our main reasons for doing things. However, if we didn't have religion we would still have empathy and free will. You seem to think that if we didn't have religion we would all do immoral things and commit crimes just to pursue our own goals.

First, I was actually referring to much lesser crimes, wars are another sort of matter. Second, most religions put restrictions on its members, explaining what is right and wrong to them (usually). If that did not exist then a lot more people really would do things that are immoral just to pursue their own goals.

Avatar image for admirallogic
#44 Posted by AdmiralLogic (4131 posts) - - Show Bio

I don't go around stabbing people because that is stupid and wouldn't benefit me.

I don't go around Raping people because that is stupid and wouldn't benefit me.

I don't go around Stealing because that is stupid and wouldn't benefit me.

I don't Lie and cheat because Women might attack me with a shovel.

You get one life to live don't waste it.

So, as long as it benefits you do it? In which case, if you could get away with said things, would that be fine?

Avatar image for mylittlefascist
#45 Posted by MyLittleFascist (31809 posts) - - Show Bio

@admirallogic:

a psychopath has significantly more potential for success then a person of social tendencies.

Parasites cannot thrive without hosts.

Online
Avatar image for tinyford
#46 Posted by TinyFord (467 posts) - - Show Bio

@zetsumoto: he did when he included God.. His entire statement was "why are you moral if you have no concequince for your morality" and by stating that he introduced a party that regulates morality, if He regulates morality then He is surely perfectly trustworthy.

If you were religious whichever entity you would know that choosing to believe is not neccessarily the case. When you get the chance Google Calvinism

Avatar image for mylittlefascist
#47 Edited by MyLittleFascist (31809 posts) - - Show Bio

@admirallogic said:
@thekillerklok said:

I don't go around stabbing people because that is stupid and wouldn't benefit me.

I don't go around Raping people because that is stupid and wouldn't benefit me.

I don't go around Stealing because that is stupid and wouldn't benefit me.

I don't Lie and cheat because Women might attack me with a shovel.

You get one life to live don't waste it.

So, as long as it benefits you do it? In which case, if you could get away with said things, would that be fine?

No, because it wouldn't benefit me if everyone else were doing it too. In fact it would make life very complicated and dangerous, therefore it's more beneficial as a whole if no one participated in such acts.

Online
Avatar image for admirallogic
#48 Posted by AdmiralLogic (4131 posts) - - Show Bio

@admirallogic said:
@zetsumoto said:
@admirallogic said:
@lukespeedblitz said:

How would a moral compass evolve?

Theoretically it is whatever gets that creature at the top of the chain, so if kindness were to be reciprocated then manipulation comes next, appearing to be kind only so you can drain them dry and get a new source. Which would suggest psychopaths and sociopaths are actually more evolved then the rest of us.

Unless of course, that type of behavior is considered unacceptable and puts you in danger of being lynched/imprisoned/executed.

But it doesn't in actuality. Plenty of psychopaths are very successful in business since they don't feel the guilt of letting a useless employee go, or of running out another company, etc. But they can also hide that they don't care, and are often fairly intelligent in these matters.

If that form of high functioning psychopathy were to become the norm, then they would lose all advantages they had, and the species as a whole would be even worse off due to no one being helping each other or being able to trust each other.

There's no such thing as more evolved/less evolved. Things evolve in different ways and adapt to specific conditions. You basically described a parasitic life-form. Parasites are not "more evolved" than the hosts, because they still rely on the hosts to survive.

False. Because a psychopath is indeed more evolved (if morality is not an issue) because they do get to pray on others, and if other humans who are social are gone, then so be it. After all humans are quite capable of surviving independently, just not reproducing independently. Of course then they wouldn't be the most evolved, and a new cycle would begin, possibly restarting the process.

Not technically, evolution is supposed to be adapting to a certain situation. So in this present situation, a psychopath really is more evolved if morality doesn't exist. Likewise, a parasite really would be more evolved if the circumstances dictated that they were so.

Avatar image for admirallogic
#49 Posted by AdmiralLogic (4131 posts) - - Show Bio

@admirallogic:

a psychopath has significantly more potential for success then a person of social tendencies.

Parasites cannot thrive without hosts.

And they're are plenty of them, just look at the responses on here, or the statistics of psychopaths to the rest of us. They can thrive in this world if they play their cards right, they already have the upper hand.

Avatar image for mylittlefascist
#50 Posted by MyLittleFascist (31809 posts) - - Show Bio

@tinyford said:

@zetsumoto: he did when he included God.. His entire statement was "why are you moral if you have no concequince for your morality" and by stating that he introduced a party that regulates morality, if He regulates morality then He is surely perfectly trustworthy.

If you were religious whichever entity you would know that choosing to believe is not neccessarily the case. When you get the chance Google Calvinism

No, no, no. Asking why I have morals despite a lack of divine consequences is exactly that. Nothing else.

Asking if I would follow a specific moral code if it were divinely enforced, is a completely separate question. The obvious answer is yes, but that wouldn't make me a "moral" person either.

How does Calvinism solve the issue? Any choice or conclusion you make is based on your own personal reasoning. God or no god, your own consciousness/reasoning is and will always be a middle-man. You cannot cut yourself out of the equation.

Online