4 ms·

People are never satisfied. Murder in particular has declined dramatically over the last centuries. There are some exceptions, though, such as Stalin's USSR, H

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
Can you explain how your post relates to mine? I honestly cannot tell whether you agree, disagree, or merely said something about the same topic :)
- trashtester 8y ago
  It was a response to the first sentence. I happen to think that in many ways, the western world has actually moved in the right direction under christianity. You present the existence of theft and murder as a boolean yes/no situation. I think such argument are misleading. For these statistics, it only makes sense to present the RATES of theft and murder for each system. As an athetist myself, I'm very aware of the urge to try to construct an utopia from first principles by revolutionary means. But I happen to think that this is very, very dangerous. It can easily take murder rates to less than 10 per 100k to killing a significant percentage of the population, as seen many times during last century. It is not that I think that religion is very different from other cultural sources of value. I happen to consider relgion to actually BE part of culture. But just because the epistemology of religion is likely wrong, from a scientific point of view, I think the cultures that we live in, including much of a christian baggage has proved that it can sustain a fairly good society. As an analogy, linux is not perfect, but if random people start modifying code in the kernel more at less at random and without deep understanding, the stability is likely to suffer. Society is like the social operating system, and if it breaks down, everything breaks down. EDIT: If you didn't notice, the argument above is pretty much the argument for atheistic liberal-conservativism.
  - mercer 8y ago
    This is pretty much my perspective too, and why I'm very hesitant to declare religion the 'obvious' root of so many problems, and its decline a solution/victory, despite the fact that I'm pretty much an atheist myself too. EDIT: "Chesterton's Fence" comes to mind.
    - trashtester 8y ago
      Yes, its basically the same principle. Though I think we can never truely understand all aspects of society, just like you probably can't simultaneously understand everything that happens within a modern computer. Even if you have the IQ you don't have the time and capacity. So in practice, I think we are left to make incremental attempts at improvements, while trying to make changes both small and reversible. In computer science terms, this is gradient decent. It may not allow us to reach all global minima, but it is much more likely to lead to a good place than large semi-random changes.
  - the_af 8y ago
    > As an athetist myself, I'm very aware of the urge to try to construct an utopia from first principles by revolutionary means. But I happen to think that this is very, very dangerous. Sorry, I simply don't see where anyone is talking about revolutionary utopias here, or first principles, or totalitarian anything. If you want to argue that non-religious value systems inevitably lead to genocide, feel free to do that -- and good luck with that, I'm uninterested in that argument.
    - trashtester 8y ago
      I'm not arguing that non-religous value systems inevitably leads to genocide. All I'm saying, is that the western culture we have inherited, has proven to be pretty good at providing a good life for most people. As we discover that the foundation of the religous belief system is wrong, we need be careful about how we dispense with the rules that have been justified in religous dogma up until now. I think it can go wrong in two ways: 1. The far right atheists can argue that without Jesus, there is no objective reason for universal empathy, which we can use to justify extreme selfishness, eugenics, racism, etc. 2. Left wingers, on the other hand, can argue that ONLY empathy and happiness matters when we dispense with the supernatural soul. Because the religous reasons for free will are wrong, we should not treat individuals as moral agents, but instead treat all unwanted behaviour or unwanted outcomes as health problems or something caused by unfair treatment by society. In small doses, I don't see either view as a big problem. But there have been cases where they have been taken to the extreme, and that went blody on both sides. Scientifically, I think both views are simplifications to the point of being just wrong. In order to function as a society and as individuals, we need a balance between individual responsibility and empathy where it is due. I think it is possible to reach this conclusion through science and philosophy, but that this is extremely difficult, and even more difficult to communicate to the electorate. Which is why I argue that we should not change our moral rules too quickly, even if the traditional justification for them fall away. Btw, it may very well be that we more or less agree on this. The discussion started further up, in response to the claim that moral behaviour (not killing) was a consequence of "being an empathic person", and nothing else.

the_af 8y ago

Can you explain how your post relates to mine? I honestly cannot tell whether you agree, disagree, or merely said something about the same topic :)

trashtester 8y ago
It was a response to the first sentence. I happen to think that in many ways, the western world has actually moved in the right direction under christianity. You present the existence of theft and murder as a boolean yes/no situation. I think such argument are misleading. For these statistics, it only makes sense to present the RATES of theft and murder for each system. As an athetist myself, I'm very aware of the urge to try to construct an utopia from first principles by revolutionary means. But I happen to think that this is very, very dangerous. It can easily take murder rates to less than 10 per 100k to killing a significant percentage of the population, as seen many times during last century. It is not that I think that religion is very different from other cultural sources of value. I happen to consider relgion to actually BE part of culture. But just because the epistemology of religion is likely wrong, from a scientific point of view, I think the cultures that we live in, including much of a christian baggage has proved that it can sustain a fairly good society. As an analogy, linux is not perfect, but if random people start modifying code in the kernel more at less at random and without deep understanding, the stability is likely to suffer. Society is like the social operating system, and if it breaks down, everything breaks down. EDIT: If you didn't notice, the argument above is pretty much the argument for atheistic liberal-conservativism.
- mercer 8y ago
  This is pretty much my perspective too, and why I'm very hesitant to declare religion the 'obvious' root of so many problems, and its decline a solution/victory, despite the fact that I'm pretty much an atheist myself too. EDIT: "Chesterton's Fence" comes to mind.
  - trashtester 8y ago
    Yes, its basically the same principle. Though I think we can never truely understand all aspects of society, just like you probably can't simultaneously understand everything that happens within a modern computer. Even if you have the IQ you don't have the time and capacity. So in practice, I think we are left to make incremental attempts at improvements, while trying to make changes both small and reversible. In computer science terms, this is gradient decent. It may not allow us to reach all global minima, but it is much more likely to lead to a good place than large semi-random changes.
- the_af 8y ago
  > As an athetist myself, I'm very aware of the urge to try to construct an utopia from first principles by revolutionary means. But I happen to think that this is very, very dangerous. Sorry, I simply don't see where anyone is talking about revolutionary utopias here, or first principles, or totalitarian anything. If you want to argue that non-religious value systems inevitably lead to genocide, feel free to do that -- and good luck with that, I'm uninterested in that argument.
  - trashtester 8y ago
    I'm not arguing that non-religous value systems inevitably leads to genocide. All I'm saying, is that the western culture we have inherited, has proven to be pretty good at providing a good life for most people. As we discover that the foundation of the religous belief system is wrong, we need be careful about how we dispense with the rules that have been justified in religous dogma up until now. I think it can go wrong in two ways: 1. The far right atheists can argue that without Jesus, there is no objective reason for universal empathy, which we can use to justify extreme selfishness, eugenics, racism, etc. 2. Left wingers, on the other hand, can argue that ONLY empathy and happiness matters when we dispense with the supernatural soul. Because the religous reasons for free will are wrong, we should not treat individuals as moral agents, but instead treat all unwanted behaviour or unwanted outcomes as health problems or something caused by unfair treatment by society. In small doses, I don't see either view as a big problem. But there have been cases where they have been taken to the extreme, and that went blody on both sides. Scientifically, I think both views are simplifications to the point of being just wrong. In order to function as a society and as individuals, we need a balance between individual responsibility and empathy where it is due. I think it is possible to reach this conclusion through science and philosophy, but that this is extremely difficult, and even more difficult to communicate to the electorate. Which is why I argue that we should not change our moral rules too quickly, even if the traditional justification for them fall away. Btw, it may very well be that we more or less agree on this. The discussion started further up, in response to the claim that moral behaviour (not killing) was a consequence of "being an empathic person", and nothing else.