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: 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".