6 ms·

I'd suggest what keeps man from eating man, on the scale that lions eat zebras, is a general belief in a authority higher than man.

gaoshan 10y ago
You should ask, "what keeps lions from eating lions" if you want to go that route and then see what happens to your higher authority argument.
- 0x445442 10y ago
  No argument was made. Just a statement of belief in a general belief.
  - charlieflowers 10y ago
    Not true. An argument was clearly made.
    - 0x445442 10y ago
      Fair enough, your using definition number 1 of the word argument here. I'm using definition number 2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/argument http://www.thefreedictionary.com/argument My statement was not meant to be an argument or statement of fact but rather a suggestion or hypothesis, which is why I used the word suggest.
Pamar 10y ago
Interestingly enough, this has been scientifically investigated - I posted about this yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13724476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13724476
- FabHK 10y ago
  Interesting article. Note that it only talks about improving cooperation "within" the circle, i.e. among "co-religionists", as the article puts it. I think you'd find increased cooperation within many other types of groups. What we should aim for, of course, is to expand this circle of concern ever further, beyond religion. So, just want to clarify that this might have been an benefit of religion in earlier days, but is by no means an argument for them today.
- 0x445442 10y ago
  Yeah, the sticky point I've always found in the man is just a higher evolved animal position is the arbitrariness of cooperation. That is to say, any expectation one human has of another seems arbitrary to me without a base set of rules set forth by a higher authority. The writings of C.S. Lewis crystallized a lot of this in my mind.
  - FabHK 10y ago
    I'm really disturbed by that mindset. Surely, you are not saying that without belief in some sort of God, you personally would cease cooperation and rape and murder and steal? I'm an atheist, but I certainly have no desire or intention or plan to cease cooperation. Just the opposite, I think it's extremely important, and it is also extremely important that we cherish and enforce and cultivate it. As just a little example, for me some sort of communal health insurance covering everyone is a matter of course, as for most citizens of developed nations. (I'm aghast at the fact that many people oppose it in the USA, and I note in passing that it appears to be mostly religious people.) Next, I have the same expectation of basically everyone I encounter (except some sociopaths, against one has to guard appropriately). Finally, I think there are many good reasons for it, and the position that man is ("just") a higher evolved animal is not at all incompatible with it.
    - 0x445442 10y ago
      > I'm really disturbed by that mindset. Surely, you are not saying that without belief in some sort of God, you personally would cease cooperation and rape and murder and steal? No I'm not saying a belief in God is necessary for what we would agree upon as moral behavior. However, I could easily see the case being made by individuals who might think that what we agree on as morally correct behavior being nothing more than our arbitrary beliefs. And that, from their perspective, rape or pedophilia makes them feel good in the way eating red meat makes them feel good. So on a spectrum with complete moral bliss on the far left and complete degeneracy on the far right, I think we live somewhere on the left side. Furthermore I think a big reason we live there and not right of center is the wide spread belief in a higher authority/authorities. > Next, I have the same expectation of basically everyone I encounter (except some sociopaths, against one has to guard appropriately). Why? From where is your sense of "Fair Play" derived? Does it all boil down to the non-aggression principle and if so, from where is that derived?
jib 10y ago
I'd suggest that isn't the case. I don't need a parent figure for me to fear or appease in order to act kindly to others, nor do I expect them to need one to act kindly to me.
FabHK 10y ago
Wouldn't we then expect homicide rates in religious USA and Pakistan to be much lower than in secular Sweden? I don't think your claim withstands any scrutiny.
- 0x445442 10y ago
  > Wouldn't we then expect homicide rates in religious USA and Pakistan to be much lower than in secular Sweden? If you were able to control for all other conditions, possibly but not necessarily. Thus I don't think comparing homicide rates in the USA, Pakistan and Sweden proves or disproves anything.
  - FabHK 10y ago
    First, you grant that other conditions have influence too, and not only as much, but more influence, than religious beliefs. So, comparing homicide rates across countries disproves that more religion is necessary or sufficient for an ethical life. (Let me note in passing that fairly secular northern Europe also has much lower rates of abortions, STDs, teenage pregnancies, and other societal ills, than other, more religious societies.) Second, if we look at long term trends, violence has come down over the millennia, as religiosity has decreased (see Pinker's Better Angels). Third, I concede that under certain circumstances in primitive societies you might achieve a reduction in crime by introducing certain religious beliefs (whether they're falsehoods or not). However, we should not strive for that, but for enlightened societies where that is not necessary anymore.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
Havoc 10y ago
>I'd suggest what keeps man from eating man Not really the point I was making with the lion/zebra thing, but regardless: >is a general belief in a authority higher than man. For some, certainly. I'd venture that it's only one route available. I certainly don't believe in any higher authority whatsoever nor do I even believe that good & evil are particularly sound concepts (Moral Relativism), yet most people that know me will probably judge me a good person.
olavk 10y ago
Animals typically don't kill and eat their own species, so in these matters humans fare a lot worse than most animals. Given that a belief in a higher authority is one of the things causing humans to kill each other, it seems this theory is wrong.
- naasking 10y ago
  > Animals typically don't kill and eat their own species I think you'll be surprised by the amount of cannibalism in the animal kingdom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism_(zoology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism_(zoology)

gaoshan 10y ago

You should ask, "what keeps lions from eating lions" if you want to go that route and then see what happens to your higher authority argument.

0x445442 10y ago
No argument was made. Just a statement of belief in a general belief.
- charlieflowers 10y ago
  Not true. An argument was clearly made.
  - 0x445442 10y ago
    Fair enough, your using definition number 1 of the word argument here. I'm using definition number 2. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/argument http://www.thefreedictionary.com/argument My statement was not meant to be an argument or statement of fact but rather a suggestion or hypothesis, which is why I used the word suggest.

Pamar 10y ago

Interestingly enough, this has been scientifically investigated - I posted about this yesterday: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13724476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13724476

FabHK 10y ago
Interesting article. Note that it only talks about improving cooperation "within" the circle, i.e. among "co-religionists", as the article puts it. I think you'd find increased cooperation within many other types of groups. What we should aim for, of course, is to expand this circle of concern ever further, beyond religion. So, just want to clarify that this might have been an benefit of religion in earlier days, but is by no means an argument for them today.
0x445442 10y ago
Yeah, the sticky point I've always found in the man is just a higher evolved animal position is the arbitrariness of cooperation. That is to say, any expectation one human has of another seems arbitrary to me without a base set of rules set forth by a higher authority. The writings of C.S. Lewis crystallized a lot of this in my mind.
- FabHK 10y ago
  I'm really disturbed by that mindset. Surely, you are not saying that without belief in some sort of God, you personally would cease cooperation and rape and murder and steal? I'm an atheist, but I certainly have no desire or intention or plan to cease cooperation. Just the opposite, I think it's extremely important, and it is also extremely important that we cherish and enforce and cultivate it. As just a little example, for me some sort of communal health insurance covering everyone is a matter of course, as for most citizens of developed nations. (I'm aghast at the fact that many people oppose it in the USA, and I note in passing that it appears to be mostly religious people.) Next, I have the same expectation of basically everyone I encounter (except some sociopaths, against one has to guard appropriately). Finally, I think there are many good reasons for it, and the position that man is ("just") a higher evolved animal is not at all incompatible with it.
  - 0x445442 10y ago
    > I'm really disturbed by that mindset. Surely, you are not saying that without belief in some sort of God, you personally would cease cooperation and rape and murder and steal? No I'm not saying a belief in God is necessary for what we would agree upon as moral behavior. However, I could easily see the case being made by individuals who might think that what we agree on as morally correct behavior being nothing more than our arbitrary beliefs. And that, from their perspective, rape or pedophilia makes them feel good in the way eating red meat makes them feel good. So on a spectrum with complete moral bliss on the far left and complete degeneracy on the far right, I think we live somewhere on the left side. Furthermore I think a big reason we live there and not right of center is the wide spread belief in a higher authority/authorities. > Next, I have the same expectation of basically everyone I encounter (except some sociopaths, against one has to guard appropriately). Why? From where is your sense of "Fair Play" derived? Does it all boil down to the non-aggression principle and if so, from where is that derived?

jib 10y ago

I'd suggest that isn't the case. I don't need a parent figure for me to fear or appease in order to act kindly to others, nor do I expect them to need one to act kindly to me.

FabHK 10y ago

Wouldn't we then expect homicide rates in religious USA and Pakistan to be much lower than in secular Sweden? I don't think your claim withstands any scrutiny.

0x445442 10y ago
> Wouldn't we then expect homicide rates in religious USA and Pakistan to be much lower than in secular Sweden? If you were able to control for all other conditions, possibly but not necessarily. Thus I don't think comparing homicide rates in the USA, Pakistan and Sweden proves or disproves anything.
- FabHK 10y ago
  First, you grant that other conditions have influence too, and not only as much, but more influence, than religious beliefs. So, comparing homicide rates across countries disproves that more religion is necessary or sufficient for an ethical life. (Let me note in passing that fairly secular northern Europe also has much lower rates of abortions, STDs, teenage pregnancies, and other societal ills, than other, more religious societies.) Second, if we look at long term trends, violence has come down over the millennia, as religiosity has decreased (see Pinker's Better Angels). Third, I concede that under certain circumstances in primitive societies you might achieve a reduction in crime by introducing certain religious beliefs (whether they're falsehoods or not). However, we should not strive for that, but for enlightened societies where that is not necessary anymore.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

Havoc 10y ago

>I'd suggest what keeps man from eating man Not really the point I was making with the lion/zebra thing, but regardless: >is a general belief in a authority higher than man. For some, certainly. I'd venture that it's only one route available. I certainly don't believe in any higher authority whatsoever nor do I even believe that good & evil are particularly sound concepts (Moral Relativism), yet most people that know me will probably judge me a good person.

olavk 10y ago

Animals typically don't kill and eat their own species, so in these matters humans fare a lot worse than most animals. Given that a belief in a higher authority is one of the things causing humans to kill each other, it seems this theory is wrong.

naasking 10y ago
> Animals typically don't kill and eat their own species I think you'll be surprised by the amount of cannibalism in the animal kingdom: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism_(zoology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannibalism_(zoology)