9 ms·

> I saw that the only group of people able to preserve a minimum of humanity in conditions of starvation and abuse were the religious believers, the sectarians

> I saw that the only group of people able to preserve a minimum of humanity in conditions of starvation and abuse were the religious believers, the sectarians (almost all of them), and most priests. I am an atheist and don't need religion to tell me it is wrong to kill another man, or so I've always believed. This makes me think about the value of religion in our troubled history, and in shaping our culture. Because would I still be moral if I hadn't eaten for 5 days? I'm not sure.

trashtester 8y ago
Why is it wrong to kill another man? I claim that most atheist that think they know the answer to this question, base it on a naive understanding of their own underlying value system. (PS. I'm also an atheist)
- monsieurbanana 8y ago
  For some reason your comment seems incredibly haughty to me. By all means, enlighten me. Why is it wrong to kill a man? My personal reason is that I am an empathic person.
  - simula67 8y ago
    > Why is it wrong to kill a man? It is not wrong to kill a man. It is only wrong to murder a man > My personal reason is that I am an empathic person. Lots of things can override empathy. Anger, jealousy, ambition etc. 'Do whatever you feel like' does not sound like much of a moral framework to me
    - brobdingnagians 8y ago
      I think that's a good point that lots of things can override empathy. It would require something much stronger to not be overridden by _any_ circumstance encountered in life. (Even being married can be difficult, and it requires a strong belief in marriage and the value of it, to continue working at it and seeking the joy you believe you can have.) Religion with a belief in immortality and eternal justice with eternal possibility of happiness gives a very strong reason to live a certain way in order to get eternal happiness (which is, in some ways, an extension of the idea that living a certain way in this life brings happiness, cooperation, prosperity, industriousness).
      - the_af 8y ago
        I'm unconvinced: religious beliefs seem to get overridden all the time. Religious people can be thieves, murderers, adulterers, and engage in all sort of practices frowned up by their respective religions. Religion offers no stronger assurance than random personal beliefs or empathy.
        trashtester 8y ago
        I don't know. From my point of view, it seems that empathy-oriented morality tends to divide people into an in-group (worthy of empathy) and an out-group(not worthy). In a situation where there is a perceived conflict of interest between the worthy and the not worthy, this can become quite murderous. Within in-groups, though, empathy is very useful if not overdone. You can have too much, though. My wife is pretty much unable to rinse the wounds when the children hurt themself, because of the short term pain an antiseptic causes when applied. A rule based ethics can, at least in some cases, be more resilient to these issues. Of course, rule based ethics can be of the type "sodomites shall be stoned". And below all that: What values do we use when evaluating what ethical systems are better, and where do THOSE values come from?
        the_af 8y ago
        You have a point about rule based ethics. But none of this helps religion-based values in particular. Atheists can and do reason out of rules too; and both atheists and religious people make decisions out of empathy too. What you describe about in-groups and out-groups happens all the time with religious communities. Even people sharing the same religion suddenly become "unworthy". > And below all that: What values do we use when evaluating what ethical systems are better, and where do THOSE values come from? Precisely. If you don't believe in any gods, where do you suppose religious value systems come from? :)
        mercer 8y ago
        I think the 'atheist society' experiment is too young to jump to conclusions quite yet.
    - trashtester 8y ago
      Why is it wrong to murder a man? Does the statement hold under all conditions? For instance, say that a single man legally controls all food in an isolated village, and he is not willing to share. Maybe he is a disgusting man that nobody likes, and your children are about to starve to death. Is it ok to kill that man, in order to prevent your children from starving to death, by taking his food? Whether the answer is yes or no, what id the reasoning behind the answer? Regardless of the answer, I don't judge. I consider both answers valid. Extreme situations like this, just like the gulags, cuts away all moral superstructures and pretences, and reveals your true values. For one person "not murdering" can be fundamental, for another "ensure the survival of your childeren" can be more important.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
    - the_af 8y ago
      > Lots of things can override empathy Yes, lots of things can override empathy in some people. Likewise, lots of things can override religious beliefs in some people, making them kill another person. So what's the conclusion? There's almost no moral framework that cannot be overridden for some people under certain circumstances. I've seen no evidence religion is a stronger foundation for principles.
      - simula67 8y ago
        > Yes, lots of things can override empathy in some people. Likewise, lots of things can override religious beliefs in some people, making them kill another person. So what's the conclusion? That they are both very useful in restraining murder ?
        the_af 8y ago
        Yes, both are useful, but more importantly, neither can prevent murder. So while it's true that "lots of things can override empathy", it's also true lots of things can override religious beliefs (not to mention when those beliefs are used to justify the murder). Having empathy for others is not the same as doing "whatever you feel like", by the way.
        simula67 8y ago
        Empathy is an emotion and is not sufficient to restrain murder. You should use everything you can to restrain it. It is not either or. That is my point. Plenty of irreligious mass murderers out there by the way
        the_af 8y ago
        Empathy can be sufficient to restrain murder, but sometimes fails. Religious sentiments can also succeed at preventing murder, but many times fail as well. You can indeed use every tool at your disposal to restrain murder -- well, any tool you can believe in, of course. > Plenty of irreligious mass murderers out there by the way Yes, there are irreligious murderers. Also plenty of religious murderers, and lots of nasty actions have been committed in the name of religion. So what conclusion can we draw from it, other than "both religious and irreligious value systems have been shown to be not enough to prevent murder"? You single out empathy, but in fact every value system fails.
  - trashtester 8y ago
    Empathy is part of agreeableness, one of 5 "big" personality traits. It is perhaps the biggest predictor that a person has a left-leaning political view. In the article, communits party workers were listed as the first group to lose their humanity. Personally, I don't believe in any objective source of morality, but rather that morality is a superstructure on top of the more fundamental values of individuals in a given population/culture. If everyone followed their deepest values directly, it would lead to a chaotic society, so morality represents a compromize that we may be willing to follow if others also do so. The degree to which we follow this morality, depends on the degree to which it promotes our deeper value systems. If our environment changes, our actions will (slowly or quickly) adapt. At the most fundamental level, I think these values are expressions of selfish replicators (genes and memes), as well as some random elements. Unless a moral axiom is actually within this bottom level value system (which could be the case for religious values), we will be willing to break them, if the right situation occurs. Generally, we are not fully aware of these fundamental values. It is only when we are experiencing extreme conditions that we meet our true selves in this way. When we do this, we are often surprised, and sometimes we refuse to even believe it, which can be a cause of PTSD. Note that everything above is descriptive. This is my hypothesis, it does not hold any value judgement, and is not intended to. From introspection, I don't think "do not kill" is part of my most fundamental values. I think the reason I have that value, is a result of how my deeper values interact with a western european society, and that it might change if I lived under very different circumstances. On the other hand, I think I have an appetite for (scientific) truth, even when brutal, that may very well be fundamental.
  - finnthehuman 8y ago
    The role of empathy in decision making is allowing us to understand the other, and bring their mental state into our own larger decision making process. Empathy in and of itself is not a decision making tool. I suspect you really do have firmer grounding for your position, but haven't performed the introspection necessary to figure out the boundaries of your position, or how to articulate them. And that's fine. Many people have the luxury to never be tested. If we take the reductive approach of only using empathy, we wind up doing whatever it is that the other wants. Such a system has no room for doing what we think is the right response to the situation, because it has no mechanism for determining responses beyond those considered by the other. It leaves no room for personal self-determination because it has no way to evaluate our wants against another's. And has no way to handle a situation where you empathize with two people holding conflicting desires. I know I'm unfairly stretching an idea past it's breaking point, but that's sort of my point... There must be a higher-order decision making process. Frankly, I consider the way people frequently speak of "empathy" as an attempt to hide that process. Hiding it from just me, the world, or maybe from themselves too.
    - trashtester 8y ago
      Well put. Especially the last part. "empathy" when used by certain groups, especially SJWs, can assume an almost religous ideal, very similar to "faith" used by Christians or Moslims. For religous people, experiencing doubt is turn into a test of faith, and if you pass the test, you are seen as extra virtous. For SJW, if you really feel hateful and resentful towards someone (ie the opposite of empathy), you can reclaim your virtue by showing even more empathy for the people that are seen as victimized or oppressed by the person or group they hate or resent. Similarly, "empathy" can be used by fundamentalists to justify pretty much the same things that religious fundamentalists can justify by "faith". For instance: - to display virtue, often with the intent to gain status - to separate in-group from out-group (often with poor justification) - to punish members of the out-group when they "transgress" - dehumanize the outgroup. Sometimes to the extent that they do not deserve to be treated according to ethical rules. - to deny or make taboo science that contradict their dogma (sociobiology, iq research) - to classify certain positions as heretical or evil (if you believe X is a fact, even if it is a proven fact, you are a nazi, and must be neutralized) - to promote ideas that contradict scientific facts when it promotes the "cause" (ie tabula rasa, ghost in the machine)
  - ramblerman 8y ago
    > My personal reason is that I am an empathic person. But is that a result of your cultural upbringing, or something innate. I would argue the former, in which case culture and religion actually do matter more than we think. Would you be an emphatic person if you grew up in a different time and place.
    - trashtester 8y ago
      I think it has been shown to be a fact that both culture and genes affect this. Psychopathy has a large genetic component, and strips a person of most empathy. At intermediate levels, we call it sociopathy, etc. For the cultural aspect, there are two interpretations: 1) Humans (non psychopaths) are born to feel empathy, and you only take that away if you inflict harm on the person 2) Humans (non psychopaths) are born with some latent capacity to develop empathy, but it must be actively taught in order to develop From my experience as a father, it seems like empathy develops without much actual teaching. Maybe teaching it can boost it, but at least for my children that has not been needed so far. But empathy is very definitive limits. It is much easier to feel it towards smaller children, cute pets, etc, and not very easy for children to feel empathy towards authority figures, scary/ugly animals. Also, when hungry, sleepy, scared or angry empathy seems to vanish. I think this is typical. Nobody feels empathy for everyone all the time. And it is when dealing with people that you DON'T feel empathy for, that you are most likely to break ethical rules or convensions. And with (my) children, teaching them to behave morally when not feeling empathy, that requires dedicated effort from the parent.
  - Koshkin 8y ago
    Being empathic to an enemy soldier running towards you pointing the bayonet at you would get you killed.
    - the_af 8y ago
      ...but empathy might help prevent the war and that particular situation in the first place?
- maxZZzzz 8y ago
  > Why is it wrong to kill another man? "Why" implies to me that there is or should be a rationale. Our culture stores a lot of behavior and spreads it by the means appropriate. Some need rationale most do not. Killing feels evil and is considered morally wrong. But in reality mankind, like many species, decided at some point, that killing its own should generally be avoided and is therefore allowed only under very specific circumstances.
- crankylinuxuser 8y ago
  It's a society-wide majority opinion of tit-for-tat.
  - trashtester 8y ago
    tit-for-tat is an optimal (and Nash Equillibrium) strategy for recurring prioner's dilemma if you don't how many games you will play. If you know the number of games, or it is the last game, always-defect is the Nash Equillibrium. Depending on social circumstances (such as in a Gulag), murder can be the Nash equillibrium strategy if you optimize for survival. It's just that such circumstances are outside of the experience of most people, and most people today cannot even imagine it.
- Double_a_92 8y ago
  Because I would not like to be killed by me if I were that man (or any other living being). Plus it causes distress in family and friends of that man. Which I also wouldn't like for myself. And it also destroys the trust in the community around you if everybody could/is actively killing other people. Which is an evolutionary disadvantage.
  - trashtester 8y ago
    Those make good reasons under most circumstances, especially in civilized societies. In other societies, the conditions can be the opposite. In societies without an effective police force, the norm is that an honor culture develops, where avenging a murder with another murder is not only a right but in fact a duty. In such societies, the first murder can actually be considered heroic, if there is no effective retribution, and the second murder is essentially always heroic. Morality is much more dependant on our society than many think. If anarchist actually get their way, an honor society will emerge from the chaos fairly quickly. (Examples: Current clan societies, such as northern Pakistan, Afghanistan, histoircal clan societies (vikings etc), hunter-gatherers, criminal gangs, etc,etc).
zuzuleinen 8y ago
Maybe it's not about knowing that is wrong to kill someone, but something else. Fear of God? Belief in a greater good? Who knows
- LoSboccacc 8y ago
  don't underestimate the soothing/empowering effects of rituals, rotes and congregations. even without a deep belief, the routine itself can keep you going: this can be compared to accounts from prisoner camp survivors; it's often mentioned 'falling into the routine' as part of holding up and moving forward.
- smackay 8y ago
  It's much simpler than that. You are a part of something that's bigger than yourself. Whether it's a team, a congregation or a community. The advantage that religions have is that they are to a certain extent aspirational in that you have a set of goals you want to live by. I think that makes it easier to deal with immediate or short-term adverse conditions because there is a long-term objective. However this is not restricted to religions, warrior codes appear to be remarkably effective in dealing with extreme adversity.
liotier 8y ago
> I am an atheist and don't need religion to tell me it is wrong to kill another man You do - but religion can be non-theistic. As an atheist, you nevertheless strive towards ideals that have ultimately no reason but your belief in them... That is religion - it is personal and it does not require supernatural beings.
- mehwoot 8y ago
  ideals that have ultimately no reason but your belief in them It's a pretty big claim that ethics has "no reason but your belief in it". There are plenty of logical reasons why one would want to behave ethically, even self interest, beyond you simply believing it.
  - carlmr 8y ago
    That self interest is usually rooted in how society would react to your behavior. So in the end if it's society basing the idea that something is immoral on religion, you're still indirectly basing it on religion.
    - JohnStrangeII 8y ago
      I don't want to defend a naturalistic perspective on morals, which is unfortunately popular nowadays and leads to a lot of immorality, but there are definitely bio-logical reasons for not killing others in your group. Humans are altruistic, group-based apes whose survival depends on collaboration. Originally, this might have been small groups only. Today society is based on the collaboration between (nearly all) nations, because modern technology and labour division would break down entirely within about six weeks without massive global trade and shipping. There are also some moral principles that follow directly from factual matters, provided some very basic first assumptions are made. Theories of just resource distribution and social justice are of that kind. The principles that get things going are very basic, e.g. reciprocity, generality of moral statements, and fairness in the sense of trade/bargaining/exchange fairness get you very far. It is a myth that religion provides values, as it can be shown very easily by historical comparison that it never has. The values defended by major religions such as Christianity and Islam have changed over the centuries again and again. Modern Christian values, for instance, mostly come from the enlightenment movement and were not endorsed at all earlier. (Christianity is just an example, AFAIK this is true for all religions.) Churches and 'holy men' have always had a vested interest in selling their values as a product of their religion, though, and they are very good at selling this false story to the public.
lkrubner 8y ago
He's talking about you when he mentions the sectarians. I'm not sure of what the original Russian word was, but I assume it was meant to cover militants of any kind, those of strong belief. Marta Hillers makes a similar point about the mass rape which the Russian soldiers engaged in when they conquered eastern Germany. From what she saw, all Russian soldiers engaged in rape, except for the militant Communists, who felt that such actions were immoral and would bring lasting shame on Communism. People of strong belief are rare. Martin Luther said that only one man in ten was a true Christian, and most modern sociology has tended to agree that only 10% to 15% of the public has the kind of strong beliefs that continue to guide behavior during adverse circumstances.
- Fins 8y ago
  Original word is сектант which literally means a member of a sect. Generally, that would imply a believer from a smaller/non-traditional Christian denomination (i.e. baptists, pentecostals etc.) as opposed to Russian Orthodox.
malmsteen 8y ago
> I am an atheist and don't need religion to tell me it is wrong to kill another man, or so I've always believed. nah it's not the point / goal of religion here it has nothing to do here with killing someone else or not. It's the fact of believing in "something else" outside of this world which gives you a reason to stay human (in a way that can include but not limited to 'not killing someone'). Basically if there's only "here and now" there's no point to be a good person or keep your animal instincts leashed. if there's "something else outside or after" there's a "superstitious" point to self-preserve your humanity ('for later')...

trashtester 8y ago

Why is it wrong to kill another man? I claim that most atheist that think they know the answer to this question, base it on a naive understanding of their own underlying value system. (PS. I'm also an atheist)

monsieurbanana 8y ago
For some reason your comment seems incredibly haughty to me. By all means, enlighten me. Why is it wrong to kill a man? My personal reason is that I am an empathic person.
- simula67 8y ago
  > Why is it wrong to kill a man? It is not wrong to kill a man. It is only wrong to murder a man > My personal reason is that I am an empathic person. Lots of things can override empathy. Anger, jealousy, ambition etc. 'Do whatever you feel like' does not sound like much of a moral framework to me
  - brobdingnagians 8y ago
    I think that's a good point that lots of things can override empathy. It would require something much stronger to not be overridden by _any_ circumstance encountered in life. (Even being married can be difficult, and it requires a strong belief in marriage and the value of it, to continue working at it and seeking the joy you believe you can have.) Religion with a belief in immortality and eternal justice with eternal possibility of happiness gives a very strong reason to live a certain way in order to get eternal happiness (which is, in some ways, an extension of the idea that living a certain way in this life brings happiness, cooperation, prosperity, industriousness).
    - the_af 8y ago
      I'm unconvinced: religious beliefs seem to get overridden all the time. Religious people can be thieves, murderers, adulterers, and engage in all sort of practices frowned up by their respective religions. Religion offers no stronger assurance than random personal beliefs or empathy.
      - trashtester 8y ago
        I don't know. From my point of view, it seems that empathy-oriented morality tends to divide people into an in-group (worthy of empathy) and an out-group(not worthy). In a situation where there is a perceived conflict of interest between the worthy and the not worthy, this can become quite murderous. Within in-groups, though, empathy is very useful if not overdone. You can have too much, though. My wife is pretty much unable to rinse the wounds when the children hurt themself, because of the short term pain an antiseptic causes when applied. A rule based ethics can, at least in some cases, be more resilient to these issues. Of course, rule based ethics can be of the type "sodomites shall be stoned". And below all that: What values do we use when evaluating what ethical systems are better, and where do THOSE values come from?
        the_af 8y ago
        You have a point about rule based ethics. But none of this helps religion-based values in particular. Atheists can and do reason out of rules too; and both atheists and religious people make decisions out of empathy too. What you describe about in-groups and out-groups happens all the time with religious communities. Even people sharing the same religion suddenly become "unworthy". > And below all that: What values do we use when evaluating what ethical systems are better, and where do THOSE values come from? Precisely. If you don't believe in any gods, where do you suppose religious value systems come from? :)
        mercer 8y ago
        I think the 'atheist society' experiment is too young to jump to conclusions quite yet.
  - trashtester 8y ago
    Why is it wrong to murder a man? Does the statement hold under all conditions? For instance, say that a single man legally controls all food in an isolated village, and he is not willing to share. Maybe he is a disgusting man that nobody likes, and your children are about to starve to death. Is it ok to kill that man, in order to prevent your children from starving to death, by taking his food? Whether the answer is yes or no, what id the reasoning behind the answer? Regardless of the answer, I don't judge. I consider both answers valid. Extreme situations like this, just like the gulags, cuts away all moral superstructures and pretences, and reveals your true values. For one person "not murdering" can be fundamental, for another "ensure the survival of your childeren" can be more important.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]
  - the_af 8y ago
    > Lots of things can override empathy Yes, lots of things can override empathy in some people. Likewise, lots of things can override religious beliefs in some people, making them kill another person. So what's the conclusion? There's almost no moral framework that cannot be overridden for some people under certain circumstances. I've seen no evidence religion is a stronger foundation for principles.
    - simula67 8y ago
      > Yes, lots of things can override empathy in some people. Likewise, lots of things can override religious beliefs in some people, making them kill another person. So what's the conclusion? That they are both very useful in restraining murder ?
      - the_af 8y ago
        Yes, both are useful, but more importantly, neither can prevent murder. So while it's true that "lots of things can override empathy", it's also true lots of things can override religious beliefs (not to mention when those beliefs are used to justify the murder). Having empathy for others is not the same as doing "whatever you feel like", by the way.
        simula67 8y ago
        Empathy is an emotion and is not sufficient to restrain murder. You should use everything you can to restrain it. It is not either or. That is my point. Plenty of irreligious mass murderers out there by the way
        the_af 8y ago
        Empathy can be sufficient to restrain murder, but sometimes fails. Religious sentiments can also succeed at preventing murder, but many times fail as well. You can indeed use every tool at your disposal to restrain murder -- well, any tool you can believe in, of course. > Plenty of irreligious mass murderers out there by the way Yes, there are irreligious murderers. Also plenty of religious murderers, and lots of nasty actions have been committed in the name of religion. So what conclusion can we draw from it, other than "both religious and irreligious value systems have been shown to be not enough to prevent murder"? You single out empathy, but in fact every value system fails.
- trashtester 8y ago
  Empathy is part of agreeableness, one of 5 "big" personality traits. It is perhaps the biggest predictor that a person has a left-leaning political view. In the article, communits party workers were listed as the first group to lose their humanity. Personally, I don't believe in any objective source of morality, but rather that morality is a superstructure on top of the more fundamental values of individuals in a given population/culture. If everyone followed their deepest values directly, it would lead to a chaotic society, so morality represents a compromize that we may be willing to follow if others also do so. The degree to which we follow this morality, depends on the degree to which it promotes our deeper value systems. If our environment changes, our actions will (slowly or quickly) adapt. At the most fundamental level, I think these values are expressions of selfish replicators (genes and memes), as well as some random elements. Unless a moral axiom is actually within this bottom level value system (which could be the case for religious values), we will be willing to break them, if the right situation occurs. Generally, we are not fully aware of these fundamental values. It is only when we are experiencing extreme conditions that we meet our true selves in this way. When we do this, we are often surprised, and sometimes we refuse to even believe it, which can be a cause of PTSD. Note that everything above is descriptive. This is my hypothesis, it does not hold any value judgement, and is not intended to. From introspection, I don't think "do not kill" is part of my most fundamental values. I think the reason I have that value, is a result of how my deeper values interact with a western european society, and that it might change if I lived under very different circumstances. On the other hand, I think I have an appetite for (scientific) truth, even when brutal, that may very well be fundamental.
- finnthehuman 8y ago
  The role of empathy in decision making is allowing us to understand the other, and bring their mental state into our own larger decision making process. Empathy in and of itself is not a decision making tool. I suspect you really do have firmer grounding for your position, but haven't performed the introspection necessary to figure out the boundaries of your position, or how to articulate them. And that's fine. Many people have the luxury to never be tested. If we take the reductive approach of only using empathy, we wind up doing whatever it is that the other wants. Such a system has no room for doing what we think is the right response to the situation, because it has no mechanism for determining responses beyond those considered by the other. It leaves no room for personal self-determination because it has no way to evaluate our wants against another's. And has no way to handle a situation where you empathize with two people holding conflicting desires. I know I'm unfairly stretching an idea past it's breaking point, but that's sort of my point... There must be a higher-order decision making process. Frankly, I consider the way people frequently speak of "empathy" as an attempt to hide that process. Hiding it from just me, the world, or maybe from themselves too.
  - trashtester 8y ago
    Well put. Especially the last part. "empathy" when used by certain groups, especially SJWs, can assume an almost religous ideal, very similar to "faith" used by Christians or Moslims. For religous people, experiencing doubt is turn into a test of faith, and if you pass the test, you are seen as extra virtous. For SJW, if you really feel hateful and resentful towards someone (ie the opposite of empathy), you can reclaim your virtue by showing even more empathy for the people that are seen as victimized or oppressed by the person or group they hate or resent. Similarly, "empathy" can be used by fundamentalists to justify pretty much the same things that religious fundamentalists can justify by "faith". For instance: - to display virtue, often with the intent to gain status - to separate in-group from out-group (often with poor justification) - to punish members of the out-group when they "transgress" - dehumanize the outgroup. Sometimes to the extent that they do not deserve to be treated according to ethical rules. - to deny or make taboo science that contradict their dogma (sociobiology, iq research) - to classify certain positions as heretical or evil (if you believe X is a fact, even if it is a proven fact, you are a nazi, and must be neutralized) - to promote ideas that contradict scientific facts when it promotes the "cause" (ie tabula rasa, ghost in the machine)
- ramblerman 8y ago
  > My personal reason is that I am an empathic person. But is that a result of your cultural upbringing, or something innate. I would argue the former, in which case culture and religion actually do matter more than we think. Would you be an emphatic person if you grew up in a different time and place.
  - trashtester 8y ago
    I think it has been shown to be a fact that both culture and genes affect this. Psychopathy has a large genetic component, and strips a person of most empathy. At intermediate levels, we call it sociopathy, etc. For the cultural aspect, there are two interpretations: 1) Humans (non psychopaths) are born to feel empathy, and you only take that away if you inflict harm on the person 2) Humans (non psychopaths) are born with some latent capacity to develop empathy, but it must be actively taught in order to develop From my experience as a father, it seems like empathy develops without much actual teaching. Maybe teaching it can boost it, but at least for my children that has not been needed so far. But empathy is very definitive limits. It is much easier to feel it towards smaller children, cute pets, etc, and not very easy for children to feel empathy towards authority figures, scary/ugly animals. Also, when hungry, sleepy, scared or angry empathy seems to vanish. I think this is typical. Nobody feels empathy for everyone all the time. And it is when dealing with people that you DON'T feel empathy for, that you are most likely to break ethical rules or convensions. And with (my) children, teaching them to behave morally when not feeling empathy, that requires dedicated effort from the parent.
- Koshkin 8y ago
  Being empathic to an enemy soldier running towards you pointing the bayonet at you would get you killed.
  - the_af 8y ago
    ...but empathy might help prevent the war and that particular situation in the first place?
maxZZzzz 8y ago
> Why is it wrong to kill another man? "Why" implies to me that there is or should be a rationale. Our culture stores a lot of behavior and spreads it by the means appropriate. Some need rationale most do not. Killing feels evil and is considered morally wrong. But in reality mankind, like many species, decided at some point, that killing its own should generally be avoided and is therefore allowed only under very specific circumstances.
crankylinuxuser 8y ago
It's a society-wide majority opinion of tit-for-tat.
- trashtester 8y ago
  tit-for-tat is an optimal (and Nash Equillibrium) strategy for recurring prioner's dilemma if you don't how many games you will play. If you know the number of games, or it is the last game, always-defect is the Nash Equillibrium. Depending on social circumstances (such as in a Gulag), murder can be the Nash equillibrium strategy if you optimize for survival. It's just that such circumstances are outside of the experience of most people, and most people today cannot even imagine it.
Double_a_92 8y ago
Because I would not like to be killed by me if I were that man (or any other living being). Plus it causes distress in family and friends of that man. Which I also wouldn't like for myself. And it also destroys the trust in the community around you if everybody could/is actively killing other people. Which is an evolutionary disadvantage.
- trashtester 8y ago
  Those make good reasons under most circumstances, especially in civilized societies. In other societies, the conditions can be the opposite. In societies without an effective police force, the norm is that an honor culture develops, where avenging a murder with another murder is not only a right but in fact a duty. In such societies, the first murder can actually be considered heroic, if there is no effective retribution, and the second murder is essentially always heroic. Morality is much more dependant on our society than many think. If anarchist actually get their way, an honor society will emerge from the chaos fairly quickly. (Examples: Current clan societies, such as northern Pakistan, Afghanistan, histoircal clan societies (vikings etc), hunter-gatherers, criminal gangs, etc,etc).

zuzuleinen 8y ago

Maybe it's not about knowing that is wrong to kill someone, but something else. Fear of God? Belief in a greater good? Who knows

LoSboccacc 8y ago
don't underestimate the soothing/empowering effects of rituals, rotes and congregations. even without a deep belief, the routine itself can keep you going: this can be compared to accounts from prisoner camp survivors; it's often mentioned 'falling into the routine' as part of holding up and moving forward.
smackay 8y ago
It's much simpler than that. You are a part of something that's bigger than yourself. Whether it's a team, a congregation or a community. The advantage that religions have is that they are to a certain extent aspirational in that you have a set of goals you want to live by. I think that makes it easier to deal with immediate or short-term adverse conditions because there is a long-term objective. However this is not restricted to religions, warrior codes appear to be remarkably effective in dealing with extreme adversity.

liotier 8y ago

> I am an atheist and don't need religion to tell me it is wrong to kill another man You do - but religion can be non-theistic. As an atheist, you nevertheless strive towards ideals that have ultimately no reason but your belief in them... That is religion - it is personal and it does not require supernatural beings.

mehwoot 8y ago
ideals that have ultimately no reason but your belief in them It's a pretty big claim that ethics has "no reason but your belief in it". There are plenty of logical reasons why one would want to behave ethically, even self interest, beyond you simply believing it.
- carlmr 8y ago
  That self interest is usually rooted in how society would react to your behavior. So in the end if it's society basing the idea that something is immoral on religion, you're still indirectly basing it on religion.
  - JohnStrangeII 8y ago
    I don't want to defend a naturalistic perspective on morals, which is unfortunately popular nowadays and leads to a lot of immorality, but there are definitely bio-logical reasons for not killing others in your group. Humans are altruistic, group-based apes whose survival depends on collaboration. Originally, this might have been small groups only. Today society is based on the collaboration between (nearly all) nations, because modern technology and labour division would break down entirely within about six weeks without massive global trade and shipping. There are also some moral principles that follow directly from factual matters, provided some very basic first assumptions are made. Theories of just resource distribution and social justice are of that kind. The principles that get things going are very basic, e.g. reciprocity, generality of moral statements, and fairness in the sense of trade/bargaining/exchange fairness get you very far. It is a myth that religion provides values, as it can be shown very easily by historical comparison that it never has. The values defended by major religions such as Christianity and Islam have changed over the centuries again and again. Modern Christian values, for instance, mostly come from the enlightenment movement and were not endorsed at all earlier. (Christianity is just an example, AFAIK this is true for all religions.) Churches and 'holy men' have always had a vested interest in selling their values as a product of their religion, though, and they are very good at selling this false story to the public.

lkrubner 8y ago

He's talking about you when he mentions the sectarians. I'm not sure of what the original Russian word was, but I assume it was meant to cover militants of any kind, those of strong belief. Marta Hillers makes a similar point about the mass rape which the Russian soldiers engaged in when they conquered eastern Germany. From what she saw, all Russian soldiers engaged in rape, except for the militant Communists, who felt that such actions were immoral and would bring lasting shame on Communism. People of strong belief are rare. Martin Luther said that only one man in ten was a true Christian, and most modern sociology has tended to agree that only 10% to 15% of the public has the kind of strong beliefs that continue to guide behavior during adverse circumstances.

Fins 8y ago
Original word is сектант which literally means a member of a sect. Generally, that would imply a believer from a smaller/non-traditional Christian denomination (i.e. baptists, pentecostals etc.) as opposed to Russian Orthodox.

malmsteen 8y ago

> I am an atheist and don't need religion to tell me it is wrong to kill another man, or so I've always believed. nah it's not the point / goal of religion here it has nothing to do here with killing someone else or not. It's the fact of believing in "something else" outside of this world which gives you a reason to stay human (in a way that can include but not limited to 'not killing someone'). Basically if there's only "here and now" there's no point to be a good person or keep your animal instincts leashed. if there's "something else outside or after" there's a "superstitious" point to self-preserve your humanity ('for later')...