Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Andir]

But, on to the topic. I fully agree with you, it would, indeed, have to be some unquestionably sanctified and holy appearance that could, by very defenition never hope to be challenged in debate. So, cheers!

How do you feel about aliens sufficiently advanced to have technology that we cannot detect? For example, they might have a chip in their head that lets them remotely transmute materials with a thought. Or create a convincing duplicate of a long-dead person by extrapolation their details from the expectations of the living...

I think there would be enough of us that someone would spot the flaw if said visitors started making demands.  The simple fact that they made a demand would place them in the "not a god" category for me, because any god that can create all this doesn't need to make demands.

[Neruz]

Laws are there to prevent the "opportunistic crimes". Morals extend that.

No, locks prevent opportunitic crime. Laws prevent nothing. If i break into my neighbors house, the law isn't going to reach out and stop me.

[Char13magne]

But, on to the topic. I fully agree with you, it would, indeed, have to be some unquestionably sanctified and holy appearance that could, by very defenition never hope to be challenged in debate. So, cheers!

How do you feel about aliens sufficiently advanced to have technology that we cannot detect? For example, they might have a chip in their head that lets them remotely transmute materials with a thought. Or create a convincing duplicate of a long-dead person by extrapolation their details from the expectations of the living...

Wasn't that from one of Ray Bradbury's Martian Chronicles, were a Martian extrapolates the details of a long-dead family member, much like a doppelganger, and the family (or at least the father) accepts the, I'll just call it a doppelganger, because it at least partially fills the void left by his dead loved one? Sorry for the long sentence in advance.   

                  Cheers!

[Bauglir]

Laws are there to prevent the "opportunistic crimes". Morals extend that.

No, locks prevent opportunitic crime. Laws prevent nothing. If i break into my neighbors house, the law isn't going to reach out and stop me.

He's saying that laws provide an incentive not to commit crimes, and therefore their existence has a psychological effect that stops (some) crime. The extent to which it is true is debatable, but it's not all that inane a statement. Laws don't directly stop crime, obviously.

[Andir]

The obvious debate is whether or not Law or Religion stops more crime.  Will a person break a law before their morals or vice versa?

[Muz]

The obvious debate is whether or not Law or Religion stops more crime.  Will a person break a law before their morals or vice versa?

Does it have to be compared? I think those two work just well. A person who is morally bound not to commit crimes would not do so. If the law punishes them, they're even less likely. Both are a method of discouraging by punishment. If the police don't catch you, God might. It's like how locks and alarms work together. Some block certain crimes better than others.

I'm particular fond of the Saudi Arabian system which follows some syaria' law of cutting your hand for theft. The law wouldn't be chosen without Religion, but it's still something enforced by humans. Some proponents claim that it's reduced theft to almost 0%, would like to see someone prove or disprove that.

But if you have to compare the two, you'd have to look at something legal which is "religiously/morally wrong". I think usury or corruption would be the best comparison. Islamic countries use an usury-free Islamic banking system, where the banks invest in companies they borrow from, rather than loan sharking. It leads to slower growth, lower interest rates, but it's nicer on the poor people.

Or you have corruption, which is something unprotected by law. You'd have to find two equally powerful 3rd world countries - one religious, another non-religious. Be wary of corruption stats, though.. statistics collection in a very corrupt country tends to be very inaccurate.

[Grakelin]

Wait, are you an atheist implying that you can't be moral without religion?

[chaoticag]

Saudia Arabia is hardly the best country to choose. It used to be that organ transplants were illegal, since the body is a sacred thing, but then the king needed an organ transplant, so it suddenly became legal. There is quite a bit of corruption there too, since getting caught is almost a non-issue, becasue there is no freedom of speech.

[TheDarkJay]

Law and Religion both give a reason not to commit crime: Fear. Oh no, if I rob you I have a good chance of going to jail! Oh no, if I rob you I have a chance I'll go to hell/get struck by lighting/turn to salt/whatever.

Some clever bastards at some points in human history realised it was an effective measure of control (for better or worse, control is not inherently bad) to make people absolutely terrified of their actions having consequences that come back to bite them and then managed to combine this with their fear of dying and ceasing to exist, creating both an appealing Paradise (Heaven etc.) that rewards those who follow their rules, and an unappealing Punishment (Hell etc.) that frightens them into following those rules.

Personally, I'd say you can't be moral without reason to fear not being moral, and add one could easily argue that those morals are defined by the fear in the first place. We aren't taught "Stealing is wrong", we're really taught "Stealing and getting caught leads to punishment, so don't steal 'cause then you'll never get caught"...

[andrea]

We aren't taught "Stealing is wrong", we're really taught "Stealing and getting caught leads to punishment, so don't steal 'cause then you'll never get caught"...

actually, I was taught that stealing is wrong, and I would avoid it even if I was sure I wouldn't get caught.

[smigenboger]

Dogs are often trained as the former

Hot sauce helps transition that to the latter

[TheDarkJay]

I'd argue you can never be 100% sure you will not get caught, which leads to "Crap do they know? do they know?" which is never pleasant...

Also, you know: Action leads to bad stimuli until you avoid action, even when it won't bring stimuli.

[Earthquake Damage]

stuff

Sure, negative reinforcement works.  So does positive reinforcement.

[UberNube]

Personally, I'd say you can't be moral without reason to fear not being moral, and add one could easily argue that those morals are defined by the fear in the first place. We aren't taught "Stealing is wrong", we're really taught "Stealing and getting caught leads to punishment, so don't steal 'cause then you'll never get caught"...

I disagree strongly with this. While the logical part of my brain is willing to admit that, without consequences there is no good reason to be moral, the rest of me can't help but think that "If I stab this person on the street, and everyone followed the same logic as me, the entire species would die out." I follow a personal moral code that goes something like this:

#1 - Perform actions which maximise the benefit to all sentient organisms.
#2 - If an action/inaction would have no effect on the planet/universe as a whole, then act for the maximum benefit of the human species.
#3 - If an action/inaction would have no effect on the species, then act for the maximum benefit of the largest group of people.
#4 - If an action/inaction would have no effect on other people, then act for the maximum benefit of myself.

I have formulated this simply based on the fact that if there is an optimal moral code, it must be valid when applied to EVERYONE. If I were to stab someone, then there is no good reason for anyone else not to do the same (unless I acted illogically, in which case I am in error). I'm 99% sure that this version of utilitarianism is considerably more robust and ethical than ANY religious code, and in fact, if logic and reason are applied correctly then a much better moral code can be created and adhered to.

As for my motivations for caring any other organisms other than myself: Spoilered because of off-topic rant.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Simply put, life is the only bit of order in a universe of chaos and entropy. Life is pretty much the only process which ever has a chance of preventing either a big-crunch scenario where the universe collapses into a lump of energy, or heat-death where the universe slowly cools down and dies. Sure, we might not be able to do much about it after all, but at least while we still have energy we can continue to learn and understand. Without life to observe it there seems little point to anything, so preserving organisms simply makes sense. Also, it seems a waste to destroy 4 billion years of evolution.

[Neruz]

Personally, I'd say you can't be moral without reason to fear not being moral, and add one could easily argue that those morals are defined by the fear in the first place. We aren't taught "Stealing is wrong", we're really taught "Stealing and getting caught leads to punishment, so don't steal 'cause then you'll never get caught"...

If you have to run your life by fear, then perhaps you do need religion, because there is clearly something wrong with you: I don't need negative riders imposed upon me by society to not do something like steal; there are plenty of negative riders all of their own, and regardless of that, what exactly does stealing gain me? Anything worth stealing is protected beyond the point where stealing it is a valid use of my time.

Perhaps i could not steal something because there isn't really any reason to steal something. You know?