4 ms·
> lives much closer to family (intentional choice) Living close to family is surely the single thing most could do to immediately improve their happiness. (wh
by JeremyNT 6mo ago
> lives much closer to family (intentional choice)
Living close to family is surely the single thing most could do to immediately improve their happiness.
(while not all of us are lucky to have welcoming family, the way people in the US are willing to uproot themselves and move across the country where they know nobody is extremely harmful to their senses of community)
- retired 6mo agoAs someone that can’t afford to live close to family this hits me in the feelings. Would love it if the government would do something about it.
- eloisant 6mo agoIt's also something that has nothing to do with religion. I am always surprised to see how religion people sometimes think you can't care about other people or your family if you don't believe in a bearded guy in the sky.
- GS523523 6mo agoThe difference is, like Jesus taught, religious people will care for others expecting nothing in return (reward is from God), but secular people will, even if it's as small as the narcissistic satisfaction of "look at me I'm such a good person." As soon as the cost-benefit of caring for family goes deeply negative, there's no reason to keep doing so.
- eloisant 6mo agoOK, you did it again! Exactly what I'm talking about. You think that without religions we're just selfish calculating bastards. We're not, I promise.
- GS523523 6mo agoHow do you make decisions without calculations? we're all calculators, aren't we? Can you provide a reason to care for someone that has nothing to do with religion and nothing to do with a personal/societal gain?
- Gander5739 6mo agoCommon decency.
- GS523523 6mo agoThat's exactly His argument - you're telling yourself "it's the decent thing to do" but it's actually "doing this makes me feel like a decent person."
- Gander5739 6mo agoBut is there really a difference? You can can argue that any apparently selfless act is driven by a desire for self-satisfaction, but from an external view the outcome is the same in either case. You claim that, because for religious believers this desire to help people is driven by faith rather than what you would term self-interest, it's somehow more resolute. But I'm unconvinced that that is the case, nor that people consciously or not, weigh up decisions to care for others in such a calculating manner. If the divine impetus made you infallibly caring, I would perhaps concede the point, but I haven't see much evidence of that so far.
- GS523523 6mo agoRight, the desire of religious believers to help others is also self-interest. But the difference is that the expected reward comes from God, not from others. That makes it more resolute, because for the secular person if the cost of the care greatly outweighs the benefit of "common decency", then there is no reason to continue. Whereas, for a religious believer, the benefit of carrying out God's will is immeasurable. As for your last point - we're all sinners and we're not perfect. The calculation is there, but the individual's faith and/or abilities might be lacking.
- kelnos 6mo agoWow, that's a load of garbage. Clearly you have some bigotry against people who don't follow your religion. Hard to take any of your opinions on this topic seriously.