3 ms·

Why do I have a responsibility to other people in a materialistic universe? Why shouldn't I just do what I please no matter the harm to anyone else? I've heard

Why do I have a responsibility to other people in a materialistic universe? Why shouldn't I just do what I please no matter the harm to anyone else? I've heard the usual arguments from the new atheists on this topic and have found them unpersuasive (although I am agnostic myself)

jolux 6y ago
It’s pretty hard to live socially without any concept of a responsibility to other people, and I think you would find yourself alone pretty fast. Of course if you didn’t care, there are a lot of other answers to why you should strive not to harm others but ultimately if it’s the thing you most want to do and you don’t care about the consequences that’s not really different whether there’s a god or not, is it?
- hnracer 6y ago
  Yes let's suppose I'm a psychopath who is purely interested in self-maximization. I have an opportunity to steal money without getting caught. Why wouldn't I do it? If there's a hell then sure I can understand (it would become self maximizing to be legitimately good), otherwise why wouldn't I? I can feign responsibility and make the right moves to get want I want. Again, I can be ruthlessly self-maximizing.
  - tux1968 6y ago
    Yes, a psychopath is just being true to his nature in that case. There's no "responsibility" to other people, just actions and consequences. Those of our ancestors who had a bond with their tribe, and took care of each other, did better and reproduced more than the selfish loners. And most of us are left with those successful strategies baked into us. You're free to choose a different path (if it is even a choice), and there will be no comic-book judgement day... but if the past is anything to go by, it's often a losing strategy. It might not be as clean a getaway as you hoped.
    - hnracer 6y ago
      I agree with most of what you wrote here. I would argue two things though (1) modern society is very different from tribal society, I can use intelligence to extract/steal benefit from this new environment without the same social cost that my ancestors would've born in the environment they were adapted for, (2) psychopathy, thievery, jealousy, cheating, lying, etc, are all so common that we may even think they were selected for and evolved, so appealing to selective benefit is not too persuasive for me
  - wolfram74 6y ago
    Taking the long view, collaboration is necessary to live in an environment more hedonistic than primitive technology guy [0]. Collaboration has associated costs, hedging against betrayal, communicating intent, all that jazz. The more people believe they are forced into collaboration with a psychopath, the higher those costs get and the less interesting collaboration happens. Acting like an asshole forces people to live in an asshole universe. [0]https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAL3JXZSzSm8AlZyD3nQdBA/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAL3JXZSzSm8AlZyD3nQdBA/vid...
  - jolux 6y ago
    If there’s a hell you can always ask for forgiveness later though, and a lot of Christians believe that Christ died for our sins and they will be washed away if we acknowledge him. If you’re an utter psychopath who will always maximize benefit to themselves, then I don’t quite understand why you care about hell. It’s pretty easy to construct hypotheticals under which ethics are void, but I don’t think they tell us a lot about how we should live our lives as non-psychopaths with a sense of self-preservation.
    - hnracer 6y ago
      If I'm a self-maximizing psychopath then of course I wish to avoid hell. Nobody wants that. You are right about the escape clause in Christianity. What I would say is that a nonzero chance of hell is more of a deterrent than a zero chance of hell.
      - erik_seaberg 6y ago
        Is this escape clause really in their doctrine? Pascal’s wager doesn’t make sense if you’re allowed to change your mind after getting a live demo of hell.
      - jolux 6y ago
        I guess I just don’t think that there is a significant number of people who would be mastermind criminals and serial killers and whatever if not for believing in god. Maybe I’m wrong.
  - azernik 6y ago
    Psychopathy is considered a disease because it is quite rare. For most people and for the broader culture, the reaction of a psychopath to a given cultural cue isn't a primary consideration.
claudeganon 6y ago
Simply because people are capable of understanding causality? Even in a fully atheistic framing, a human society that embraced this kind of nihilism would drastically raise the ambient level of misery for everyone. Even if it’s your intent to selfishly push in this direction, a world where everyone else does the same would be far less enjoyable for you. Prosocial behavior is also selfish to the extent that encourages the same in others and accrues the corresponding comforts to you.
- hnracer 6y ago
  I am not talking about whether I want society overall to embrace this framing. From a selfish perspective, of course I do not want that. I'm talking about myself only. I can act purely self-maximizing and reap the gains while society pays the cost (an externality). I can feign kindness etc to extract the prosocial benefit to myself when it's required. I am a small fish in a big pond, I can take take take from society without fundamentally altering the way society treats me. If I am a psychopath why should I not act in this manner?
  - jolux 6y ago
    I reject the idea that god-fearing psychopaths act more ethically. It feels like a non sequitur.
  - claudeganon 6y ago
    If you’re a psychopath, you probably do act in that manner, so that’s irrelevant? What curbs psychopaths behavior is their ability to calculate the risk posed by engaging in varying degrees of antisocial behavior versus the rewards gained by engaging in less of it and preserving their ability to exploit and harm others. And this is largely determined by their intelligence and upbringing. The vast majority of people aren’t psychopaths though because evolution selected for traits like the capacity for empathy and remorse over amorality. These act as natural checks on antisocial behavior because it’s generally miserable to live in counter to these impulses, although humans have developed many clever means for overriding them (e.g. certain drugs, like amphetamines, and various violent or cult-like ideologies).
loopz 6y ago
You are incarnate. You can either doubt it can happen again, or doubt your own existence.
perfmode 6y ago
you’re right about materialism. the issue is, there is a mountain of marginalized evidence and experience suggesting we are not in a materialistic universe. when we behave in accordance with materialism, we create suffering. there is no logic to refute your argument at its face. what we should doubt is the premise of the reality of materialism. i understand my message may not come across clearly
nkingsy 6y ago
Your parents and theirs before them went to great lengths to preserve their dna. Anyone who doesn’t care about this won’t reproduce and will be erased from this biological spaceship. It comforts me that my blood traces back to the beginning of life on earth, and the only way I can even make sense of the blink of an eye that is life is in this context.

jolux 6y ago

It’s pretty hard to live socially without any concept of a responsibility to other people, and I think you would find yourself alone pretty fast. Of course if you didn’t care, there are a lot of other answers to why you should strive not to harm others but ultimately if it’s the thing you most want to do and you don’t care about the consequences that’s not really different whether there’s a god or not, is it?

hnracer 6y ago
Yes let's suppose I'm a psychopath who is purely interested in self-maximization. I have an opportunity to steal money without getting caught. Why wouldn't I do it? If there's a hell then sure I can understand (it would become self maximizing to be legitimately good), otherwise why wouldn't I? I can feign responsibility and make the right moves to get want I want. Again, I can be ruthlessly self-maximizing.
- tux1968 6y ago
  Yes, a psychopath is just being true to his nature in that case. There's no "responsibility" to other people, just actions and consequences. Those of our ancestors who had a bond with their tribe, and took care of each other, did better and reproduced more than the selfish loners. And most of us are left with those successful strategies baked into us. You're free to choose a different path (if it is even a choice), and there will be no comic-book judgement day... but if the past is anything to go by, it's often a losing strategy. It might not be as clean a getaway as you hoped.
  - hnracer 6y ago
    I agree with most of what you wrote here. I would argue two things though (1) modern society is very different from tribal society, I can use intelligence to extract/steal benefit from this new environment without the same social cost that my ancestors would've born in the environment they were adapted for, (2) psychopathy, thievery, jealousy, cheating, lying, etc, are all so common that we may even think they were selected for and evolved, so appealing to selective benefit is not too persuasive for me
- wolfram74 6y ago
  Taking the long view, collaboration is necessary to live in an environment more hedonistic than primitive technology guy [0]. Collaboration has associated costs, hedging against betrayal, communicating intent, all that jazz. The more people believe they are forced into collaboration with a psychopath, the higher those costs get and the less interesting collaboration happens. Acting like an asshole forces people to live in an asshole universe. [0]https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAL3JXZSzSm8AlZyD3nQdBA/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCAL3JXZSzSm8AlZyD3nQdBA/vid...
- jolux 6y ago
  If there’s a hell you can always ask for forgiveness later though, and a lot of Christians believe that Christ died for our sins and they will be washed away if we acknowledge him. If you’re an utter psychopath who will always maximize benefit to themselves, then I don’t quite understand why you care about hell. It’s pretty easy to construct hypotheticals under which ethics are void, but I don’t think they tell us a lot about how we should live our lives as non-psychopaths with a sense of self-preservation.
  - hnracer 6y ago
    If I'm a self-maximizing psychopath then of course I wish to avoid hell. Nobody wants that. You are right about the escape clause in Christianity. What I would say is that a nonzero chance of hell is more of a deterrent than a zero chance of hell.
    - erik_seaberg 6y ago
      Is this escape clause really in their doctrine? Pascal’s wager doesn’t make sense if you’re allowed to change your mind after getting a live demo of hell.
    - jolux 6y ago
      I guess I just don’t think that there is a significant number of people who would be mastermind criminals and serial killers and whatever if not for believing in god. Maybe I’m wrong.
- azernik 6y ago
  Psychopathy is considered a disease because it is quite rare. For most people and for the broader culture, the reaction of a psychopath to a given cultural cue isn't a primary consideration.

claudeganon 6y ago

Simply because people are capable of understanding causality? Even in a fully atheistic framing, a human society that embraced this kind of nihilism would drastically raise the ambient level of misery for everyone. Even if it’s your intent to selfishly push in this direction, a world where everyone else does the same would be far less enjoyable for you. Prosocial behavior is also selfish to the extent that encourages the same in others and accrues the corresponding comforts to you.

hnracer 6y ago
I am not talking about whether I want society overall to embrace this framing. From a selfish perspective, of course I do not want that. I'm talking about myself only. I can act purely self-maximizing and reap the gains while society pays the cost (an externality). I can feign kindness etc to extract the prosocial benefit to myself when it's required. I am a small fish in a big pond, I can take take take from society without fundamentally altering the way society treats me. If I am a psychopath why should I not act in this manner?
- jolux 6y ago
  I reject the idea that god-fearing psychopaths act more ethically. It feels like a non sequitur.
- claudeganon 6y ago
  If you’re a psychopath, you probably do act in that manner, so that’s irrelevant? What curbs psychopaths behavior is their ability to calculate the risk posed by engaging in varying degrees of antisocial behavior versus the rewards gained by engaging in less of it and preserving their ability to exploit and harm others. And this is largely determined by their intelligence and upbringing. The vast majority of people aren’t psychopaths though because evolution selected for traits like the capacity for empathy and remorse over amorality. These act as natural checks on antisocial behavior because it’s generally miserable to live in counter to these impulses, although humans have developed many clever means for overriding them (e.g. certain drugs, like amphetamines, and various violent or cult-like ideologies).

loopz 6y ago

You are incarnate. You can either doubt it can happen again, or doubt your own existence.

perfmode 6y ago

you’re right about materialism. the issue is, there is a mountain of marginalized evidence and experience suggesting we are not in a materialistic universe. when we behave in accordance with materialism, we create suffering. there is no logic to refute your argument at its face. what we should doubt is the premise of the reality of materialism. i understand my message may not come across clearly

nkingsy 6y ago

Your parents and theirs before them went to great lengths to preserve their dna. Anyone who doesn’t care about this won’t reproduce and will be erased from this biological spaceship. It comforts me that my blood traces back to the beginning of life on earth, and the only way I can even make sense of the blink of an eye that is life is in this context.