Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Saturday November 07 2015, @11:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the thank-$DEITY dept.

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


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Dunbal on Sunday November 08 2015, @12:18PM

    by Dunbal (3515) on Sunday November 08 2015, @12:18PM (#260314)

    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.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:06PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @01:06PM (#260327)

    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

      by Dunbal (3515) on Sunday November 08 2015, @03:41PM (#260370)

      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

        by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 08 2015, @05:15PM (#260405)

        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".

        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.