6 ms·

> 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 o

> 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.
        the_af 8y ago
        But religious society isn't young, and we can already observe how it failed to prevent theft and murder. More importantly, if you don't believe in any god, religious and secular value systems must at the very least have a common root (which isn't a god). How atheists behave can also be observed now, regardless of how young the "society": some commit crimes, some don't. Some follow strict value systems, some don't. Some are empathic, some aren't. Some are monsters, some are heroes. Some are flawed, common people. Just like religious people ;)
        trashtester 8y ago
        People are never satisfied. Murder in particular has declined dramatically over the last centuries. There are some exceptions, though, such as Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Germany and Mao's China. They each killed many, many millions. All three thought they could create a utopia by turning traditional morality upside down. It is unlikely that the murder rate will ever reach absoulte 0 (unless we have an extremely totalitarian state, such as a chip operated into every individual to monitor their actions), but it is much better to have murder rates of below 10 per 100k than to have them in the 100s or 1000s per 100k, like we had through much of history.
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.

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.
      - the_af 8y ago
        But religious society isn't young, and we can already observe how it failed to prevent theft and murder. More importantly, if you don't believe in any god, religious and secular value systems must at the very least have a common root (which isn't a god). How atheists behave can also be observed now, regardless of how young the "society": some commit crimes, some don't. Some follow strict value systems, some don't. Some are empathic, some aren't. Some are monsters, some are heroes. Some are flawed, common people. Just like religious people ;)
        trashtester 8y ago
        People are never satisfied. Murder in particular has declined dramatically over the last centuries. There are some exceptions, though, such as Stalin's USSR, Hitler's Germany and Mao's China. They each killed many, many millions. All three thought they could create a utopia by turning traditional morality upside down. It is unlikely that the murder rate will ever reach absoulte 0 (unless we have an extremely totalitarian state, such as a chip operated into every individual to monitor their actions), but it is much better to have murder rates of below 10 per 100k than to have them in the 100s or 1000s per 100k, like we had through much of history.

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.