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: 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