SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Here's a discovery that could make secular parents say hallelujah: Children who grow up in non-religious homes are more generous and altruistic than children from observant families. ...
A series of experiments involving 1,170 kids from a variety of religious backgrounds found that the non-believers were more likely to share stickers with their classmates and less likely to endorse harsh punishments for people who pushed or bumped into others.
The results "contradict the common-sense and popular assumption that children from religious households are more altruistic and kind toward others," according to a study published this week in the journal Current Biology.
Worldwide, about 5.8 billion people consider themselves religious, and religion is a primary way for cultures to express their ideas about proper moral behavior — especially behavior that involves self-sacrifice for the sake of others.
-- submitted from IRC
(Score: 5, Interesting) by bziman on Sunday November 08 2015, @12:35AM
I've had religious people ask me what keeps me from thieving and murdering with a god telling me what to do. I always reply that I know right from wrong, and that they frighten me that fear of retribution is the only thing they have controlling them.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by mrpg on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:06AM
Right from wrong, that's Ethics, we need more of that. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethics [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:29AM
A better source, the best source on the internet is Stanford's Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [stanford.edu]
Go ahead, type something into the search box. A big question, a small one, there will be something of value for your.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:17AM
that I know right from wrong
Yes, and you came up with your morals all on your own. It's just pure coincidence that they both align with religious morals and the de-facto morals of the society you live in!
Sarcasm aside, morals aren't intrinsic. They're imposed on you by your society and culture; whether or not those morals can be classified as 'religious' is completely irrelevant. See: Why do atheists believe in religion? [blogspot.com] and Jaroslav Hašek and the kernel-monitor meme [blogspot.com].
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Sunday November 08 2015, @03:21AM
Modded up - that Moldbug character's posts are well worth reading.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 08 2015, @09:50AM
It's just pure coincidence that they both align with religious morals and the de-facto morals of the society you live in!
Except they don't; not always. I hold many beliefs that a grand majority of society does not share, but it could still be said that society helped me come to those conclusions by creating the issues in the first place.
When my moral code does align with something some religion said, it's often not for the same reasons. Religion often tells you to do something or refrain from doing something without explaining why it's a good idea. You can come up with perfectly secular and logical reasons to have some moral code. Sure, I came upon many of these ideas more quickly because they had already been discussed by society and implemented within it. But religion is just an irrelevancy in this case, because people usually demand explanations, and a growing number of people won't accept "Because a magical sky daddy that can't even be proven to exist said so!" Religion is part of society, and not the other way around, so I would have just left it at "society".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @12:58PM
I hold many beliefs that a grand majority of society does not share
I'd like an example. Unless you're going to say you're completely OK with murder or rape I don't believe for a second you hold any beliefs that are unacceptable in modern society. To be a functioning member of a society you need to adopt its morals.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:07PM
Well, you're just silly. I don't think possessing child pornography should be illegal, and think that that whether rape occurred should be determined on a case-by-case basis in a courtroom rather than relying on inflexible age of consent laws. I think absolutely all drugs should be legalized. I believe in absolute freedom of speech; if someone yells "fire" in a crowded theater when there is no fire and people panic, any damage they cause while panicking is their own fault and not the fault of the speaker. There, you have a few examples where I disagree with a grand majority of society (some of those cause more disagreement than others).
Unless you were only referring to beliefs that no one other than yourself holds, but in that case, there are probably very few such beliefs. I'm sure a few people believe that murder and rape are okay.
To be a functioning member of a society you need to adopt its morals.
Bullshit. People challenge society all the time. You can agree with many of society's rules but disagree with some or many of its rules and still be functioning. What you just said is complete nonsense.
I'm honestly dumbfounded that you could say something so blatantly absurd.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:28PM
hold any beliefs that are unacceptable in modern society
where I disagree with a grand majority of society
Unacceptable in modern society, not disagreed with by the grand majority of society.
In the examples you've given, there is not one where you disagree with the fundamental values of society. You are just weighing them differently than others would. You value personal liberty more than security; a valid (and accepted) stance to take.
What you just said is complete nonsense.
I do not see how, and you've not presented much of an argument why I would be wrong. If you live in a society, you need to act according to its morals (codified in law). Those who do not follow these laws (morals) on a structural basis are removed from society. It does not even matter if people believe in the morals, as long as they act according to them. Of course people 'rebel against the system'. But they do so from within the system.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:04PM
Unacceptable in modern society, not disagreed with by the grand majority of society.
I said "I hold many beliefs that a grand majority of society does not share" and you replied to it as if you disagreed with that, so I thought you were speaking of mere disagreement.
What do you mean by "unacceptable"? Illegal? I don't know of any beliefs that are outright illegal to have, at least not in many first world countries. So I don't know what you're talking about.
I do not see how, and you've not presented much of an argument why I would be wrong. If you live in a society, you need to act according to its morals (codified in law).
Well, you didn't really present any reason for me to believe that they can't be functioning members of society.
And laws are different from morality. Just because something is illegal that doesn't mean a majority of society finds it wrong. It could just be that a select few plutocrats pushed a lot of laws through while the public was being entertained by bread and circuses and distracted by hot topics like immigration. Don't confuse morality with law, even if you're talking about society. If you do, you don't have a very useful definition of morality from my standpoint.
Those who do not follow these laws (morals) on a structural basis are removed from society.
You seem to assume that the laws are perfectly enforced or even well enforced. That is not often not the case. So even someone who has beliefs that are "unacceptable" to society can be a functioning member of society, even if it's just because they hide what they believe.
Still need to know what "unacceptable" means exactly, however. Since the topic is about beliefs, it doesn't make much sense to me.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @11:17PM
There are plenty of places where being okay with gay marriage, polyandry (not to be confused with polygyny) or people having the right to commit suicide, will get you ostracized (at best), or tortured and then killed.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Refugee from beyond on Sunday November 08 2015, @11:55AM
Except when they don't. Who is allowed to marry or live with whom, how many people should live together, what you can criticize and what is wrong (burning hells included), what you can eat and what you cannot, etc.
Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 09 2015, @03:17AM
Oh, look! MikeeUSA finally got a username! How cute!
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Sunday November 08 2015, @12:18PM
Sarcasm aside, morals aren't intrinsic. They're imposed on you by your society and culture
Not sure I'm with you there. As individuals we can reject the morals of society and culture. We call those people eccentric, anti-social, or criminal, depending on the degree of rejection. You can't say morals are imposed on an individual when you clearly have individuals who are not bothered by them at all. Otherwise you're left trying to explain away why this imposition fails on some people. The other way around makes more sense - that we're taught what our parents and our society wants as a norm as we develop, and some people clearly reject this in favor of their own (usually selfish) code that disregards right and wrong as a whole and focuses on whatever that individual wants at the moment or thinks is correct. Then you don't need some magical failure mechanism (like, say, "he didn't go to church enough") when "I just don't give a shit" is much simpler. Occam's razor, etc.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:06PM
As individuals we can reject the morals of society and culture. We call those people eccentric, anti-social, or criminal,
Yes, that's the idea. If you reject the morals of a society, that society rejects you.
You can't say morals are imposed on an individual when you clearly have individuals who are not bothered by them at all.
Why not? I never claimed a 100% success rate. I'll have to pull the old English-is-not-my-native-language excuse here, perhaps 'impose' has that connotation, but I certainly did not mean it.
that we're taught what our parents and our society wants as a norm as we develop
And that's not a form of imposition? If a child deviates from societal norms, does it not get disciplined? If a person breaks the law, do they not get fined or jailed?
(Score: 2) by Dunbal on Sunday November 08 2015, @03:41PM
And that's not a form of imposition? If a child deviates from societal norms, does it not get disciplined? If a person breaks the law, do they not get fined or jailed?
But what about when discipline does nothing to correct the problem? Kids who grow up to be anti-social adults do not do so because of a lack of discipline from the parents. It's because their own values override any possible effect of that discipline. There are some kids you can discipline all you want and you won't get an iota of change out of them. Likewise for prison. Not all people can be "rehabilitated". So no, it's not really imposition. It's an ATTEMPT at imposition.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @05:15PM
And in many cases, its society that's in the wrong, because the values codified into law no longer represent the society's members or declares certain human rights as "wrong". A transaction between 2 consenting adults that involves nobody but those 2 consenting adults, illegal? That's a problem with the laws. Similarly, certain substances illegal to put in one's own body by one's own free will, illegal? Another problem with the laws, rather than the individuals who choose to do that. Possessing drawings that appear to depict an individual under 18? Modifying one's own belongings in ways the producer of those items disagrees with? The list could go on and on where society's laws are very much in the wrong and are very anti-human rights, determined to punish people for merely being human.
(Score: 2) by bziman on Sunday November 08 2015, @07:32PM
As it turns out, I more or less did. I wrote a paper in college whose thesis was that modern morals were derived from religious teachings, and ended up convincing myself of the opposite. (I won't go into all the specific ways that my personal belief system seems to differ from the rest of society. I'll mention sexual and linguistic taboos as a single example.)
I truly believe that the "social compact" that governs human morals largely predates religion. I don't commit murder, not because I'm afraid of punishment, but rather because I believe it is in my best interest that we all mutually agree not to kill each other. I don't thieve for the same reason. These things are "wrong" because I don't want them done to me, and the best way to ensure that is to mutually agree with everyone else not to do it.
There are many, many "rules" in the Bible, most of which are ignored by even the most backwards of religious zealots. The laws against gay sex in Leviticus are in the same chapters that describe the sorts of burnt offerings you're supposed to make, and the size of the tent in which your alter stands, and the laundry list of foods that can't be eaten or eaten together. They describe a strict patriarchy, and how you should marry your sister-in-law if your brother dies. The "rules" that we, as a society, hang on to didn't come from the religion... they were the things that actually make sense for civilization to exist... that's why we still hold to them, even as religion declines.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:20AM
>"I always reply that I know right from wrong ..."
You didn't answer their question. Their question is, "How do you know right from wrong?" What religion does is codify what is right and wrong, so that everyone is working with the same set of rules, and not using what may be conflicting versions of right and wrong. One problem with that is that there is a tendency for fascists to seize power within a religion, and run it for their own benefit. One answer is to use government to codify right and wrong, but unfortunately, we have not found a means of government that is significantly more resistant to power hungry fascists than religion is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:31AM
You have heard of the middle east right?
Some morals are subjective, others not. Discerning the difference and choosing what to do is the role of rational ethics. You should look into it.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Francis on Sunday November 08 2015, @02:04AM
Indeed. According to the Israelis, it's not murder if you kill somebody that doesn't support Israel's land grab on the Palestinian land.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @06:44AM
To be fair, that sort of thinking does come from the old testament, and the new for that matter. At least they aren't hypocritical in their hatred.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Sunday November 08 2015, @09:56AM
You have heard of the middle east right?
I don't follow. Does morality randomly become objective when you feel particularly strongly about a certain issue? That makes no sense.
Some morals are subjective, others not.
I see no evidence for non-subjective morals. Everything points to morality being subjective and based on people's subjective values. Do you vehemently disagree with murder? So do most people, but that doesn't mean that isn't a subjective feeling in the end.
Morality being subjective doesn't mean you can't criticize others or act against them (which is a sort of criticism that I see often); it just means you must recognize that it's simply your opinion, and probably the opinion of many others in many cases.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Sunday November 08 2015, @11:37AM
I see no evidence for non-subjective morals. Everything points to morality being subjective and based on people's subjective values. Do you vehemently disagree with murder? So do most people, but that doesn't mean that isn't a subjective feeling in the end.
Morality being subjective doesn't mean you can't criticize others or act against them (which is a sort of criticism that I see often); it just means you must recognize that it's simply your opinion, and probably the opinion of many others in many cases.
An excellent point, Pumpernickel.
I'd go even farther and say that not only is morality subjective, its application is limited to an individual making a particular moral choice at a specific time. As such, there is no such thing as a group morality.
Morality is inherently an individual practice. While various people may have similar ideas about specific moral choices, an individual determines his or her actions. This creates a unique moral code for each individual.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by Francis on Sunday November 08 2015, @04:13PM
People object to murder mainly because of the way it's defined. Very, very few people think that it's never OK to kill somebody on purpose. Where people differ is under what circumstances it's permissible or whether there should be any rules at all.
For example, the Israeli government has no problem killing thousands of innocent Palestinians, but has a huge problem with killing a small number of Israelis. The US government was OK with tens of thousands of largely innocent Iraqis being killed in the sectarian violence that followed the Iraqi military being shut down, and little problem with thousands of service members being killed because there weren't sufficient troop levels to do the job. But were appalled by the smaller number of people killed in 9/11.
Serial killers and mobsters have little or no problem killing people for little or no reason.
The Black Lives Matter movement automatically considers shootings by the police to be immoral, regardless of what the evidence eventually shows.
Most people consider those to be unacceptable, but they still happen because there's enough people that don't consider those killings to be immoral. Or worse, consider the killings to be justified or necessary.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @05:22PM
No, people object to murder because it violates another's self-sovereignty. Its the old "your rights end where mine begin" - their life is not yours to take. And the right to self-defense is also a basic human right, if somebody tries to take your life, you have a right to defend yourself, using up to and including deadly force if necessary, thats why self-defense doesn't fall under "murder".