8 ms·

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 encoun

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.

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.