Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

 
Pause Switch to Standard View Religious people are less motivated...
Show More
Loading...
Flag Kwinters May 1, 2012 5:48 PM EDT

In three experiments, social scientists found that compassion consistently drove less religious people to be more generous. For highly religious people, however, compassion was largely unrelated to how generous they were, according to the findings which are published in the July issue of the journal Social Psychological and Personality Science.


The results challenge a widespread assumption that acts of generosity and charity are largely driven by feelings of empathy and compassion, researchers said. In the study, the link between compassion and generosity was found to be stronger for those who identified as being non-religious or less religious.


"Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."


Compassion is defined in the study as an emotion felt when people see the suffering of others which then motivates them to help, often at a personal risk or cost.


www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-04/... 

Flag Knowsnothing May 1, 2012 6:49 PM EDT

Science is from the Devil.

Flag mainecaptain May 1, 2012 6:57 PM EDT

May 1, 2012 -- 6:49PM, Knowsnothing wrote:


Science is from the Devil.




Since this is a serious subject I assume you are being serious

Flag Knowsnothing May 1, 2012 7:04 PM EDT

May 1, 2012 -- 6:57PM, mainecaptain wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 6:49PM, Knowsnothing wrote:


Science is from the Devil.




Since this is a serious subject I assume you are being serious




You know what they say about assumptions...

Flag Knowsnothing May 1, 2012 7:11 PM EDT

May 1, 2012 -- 5:48PM, Kwinters wrote:


"Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."



So, what if there is no emotional connection?  Just to play Christian advocate here, seeing as how the study seems to have focused on Christians, i.e. the phrase "preached from the pulpit", would Christians go ahead and act based on moral responsibility as opposed to how they personally feel about that person?


Would an atheist be willing to be compassionate, to say, a repentant murderer?  Could an atheist possibly identify emotionally in such a case?

Flag steven_guy May 1, 2012 7:45 PM EDT

May 1, 2012 -- 7:11PM, Knowsnothing wrote:

Would an atheist be willing to be compassionate, to say, a repentant murderer?  Could an atheist possibly identify emotionally in such a case?



Someone very close to me was brutally raped and murdered. I do not have any feelings of hate (or any other feelings) towards the man who did it. He is in prison for life for this and several other similar crimes. I think I could forgive the man if he could convince me that he was sorry for Anne's rape and murder. I guess this will never happen because I am never going to visit Mr. Creed. 

Flag CaliberCadillac May 1, 2012 8:34 PM EDT

May 1, 2012 -- 5:48PM, Kwinters wrote:


 


"Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."


Compassion is defined in the study as an emotion felt when people see the suffering of others which then motivates them to help, often at a personal risk or cost.


www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-04/... 




All this demonstrates, (if anything), is that religious people are not typically motivated to generosity by way of appeals to emotion.  I would agree, as a person who might be labeled “religious,” I would argue my motivation toward helping others is more about possessing a Kolbergian postconventional morality.  This, in a nutshell, means one is generous because it is right to be so.  

Flag costrel May 1, 2012 8:54 PM EDT

May 1, 2012 -- 7:45PM, steven_guy wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 7:11PM, Knowsnothing wrote:

Would an atheist be willing to be compassionate, to say, a repentant murderer?  Could an atheist possibly identify emotionally in such a case?


Someone very close to me was brutally raped and murdered. I do not have any feelings of hate (or any other feelings) towards the man who did it. He is in prison for life for this and several other similar crimes. I think I could forgive the man if he could convince me that he was sorry for Anne's rape and murder. I guess this will never happen because I am never going to visit Mr. Creed.


So are you saying that forgiveness and compassion are the same thing? Compassion, according to Oxford Dictionaries Online, means "sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others." The English word compassion is derived from an Old French word that it itself derived from the Latin word compati, meaning "suffer with."


A person, therefore, might feel compassion towards a convicted murder out on parole who was homeless and starving on the streets (regardless of whether or not he was repentent) and ensure that he had food and shelter, yet this would be very different than forgiving him for his actions. 

Flag steven_guy May 1, 2012 9:03 PM EDT

May 1, 2012 -- 8:54PM, costrel wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 7:45PM, steven_guy wrote:

May 1, 2012 -- 7:11PM, Knowsnothing wrote:

Would an atheist be willing to be compassionate, to say, a repentant murderer?  Could an atheist possibly identify emotionally in such a case?


Someone very close to me was brutally raped and murdered. I do not have any feelings of hate (or any other feelings) towards the man who did it. He is in prison for life for this and several other similar crimes. I think I could forgive the man if he could convince me that he was sorry for Anne's rape and murder. I guess this will never happen because I am never going to visit Mr. Creed.


So are you saying that forgiveness and compassion are the same thing? Compassion, according to Oxford Dictionaries Online, means "sympathetic pity and concern for the sufferings or misfortunes of others." The English word compassion is derived from an Old French word that it itself derived from the Latin word compati, meaning "suffer with."


A person, therefore, might feel compassion towards a convicted murder out on parole who was homeless and starving on the streets (regardless of whether or not he was repentent) and ensure that he had food and shelter, yet this would be very different than forgiving him for his actions. 




I'd feel compassion if there was reason to feel it. I guess being locked up in a prison for life isn't a bed of roses. I'd like to think that I could feel compassion for the worst people in the world, if they were sorry for the things they've done. 


Sorry, I shouldn't have brought this up, it is a very painful memory for me.

Flag Blü May 1, 2012 9:14 PM EDT

KW


"for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not"


Yet governments where secular principles prevail are better at public welfare programs (poverty, housing, education, health, mental health, job training &c). 


As to the role of belief, more liberal Christians tend to support such projects and more right-wing Christians tend to oppose them.



"The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."


If we delegate public welfare to our governments, we pay our taxes knowing they support these purposes.  That will generally be 'less in emotion' too.



My point is that charity can begin at other places than home these days.  We can delegate it without being less generous.  Or we can do both.

Flag mainecaptain May 1, 2012 9:33 PM EDT

Interesting. The religionist says compassion is forgiveness.

Well first of all not all people requiring
compassion and assistance requires anyone's forgiveness. How very selfish to only help those who you (generic) have forgiven. Forgiven for what? Being poor? being sick? Being laid off from work and then being homeless?

Compassion is not forgiving anyone for anything. It is seeing those in need and helping them, regardless of their circumstances and how they came about.
People in need don't need a Christians forgiveness, they need food, or a shelter, or some other basic need met.
Not your shallow feel good for yourself, forgiveness.

Flag mountain_man May 1, 2012 10:19 PM EDT

..."Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."....


That's right, why help someone when what is happening is what their god wanted. Their god will take care of them. Also, that last line is important; if the person in trouble is not part of their local communal identity helping them would be a betrayal of that local group.

Flag mountain_man May 1, 2012 10:21 PM EDT

May 1, 2012 -- 7:11PM, Knowsnothing wrote:

...Would an atheist be willing to be compassionate, to say, a repentant murderer?  Could an atheist possibly identify emotionally in such a case?


I could show compassion - after a lengthy prison stay.

Flag mountain_man May 1, 2012 10:32 PM EDT

May 1, 2012 -- 9:03PM, steven_guy wrote:

I'd feel compassion if there was reason to feel it. I guess being locked up in a prison for life isn't a bed of roses. I'd like to think that I could feel compassion for the worst people in the world, if they were sorry for the things they've done.


They are not monsters, just fallible human beings. The christians got ONE thing right (although they rarely practrice it); hate the sin, not the sinner. And some people are incapable of showing remorse for various reasons; they can have something physically wrong with their brain like Aspergers Syndrome, or - I can't recall the part right now - a certain part of the brain missing can make one totally unable to have any kind of remorse or feelings about others. Or they may have some serious psychological damage. Hating them, making them to be monsters, or inhuman, isn't the right thing to do. Compassion, empathy, can go along way.


Sorry, I shouldn't have brought this up, it is a very painful memory for me.


Showing compassion while under such pain is a good thing. If more people were like that this would be a far better world.

Flag Eudaimonist May 2, 2012 1:02 AM EDT

This raises interesting philosophical questions...


What role does motivation play, if any, in determining whether or not someone is morally praiseworthy for having helped someone else?


Is compassion a necessary component in a praiseworthy act of helping?


Granted that someone is still helped if the motivation is simply "tradition", but is that a genuine act of charity or generosity, or is it just going though the motions?


 


eudaimonia,


Mark


 

Flag Bob_the_Lunatic May 2, 2012 3:35 AM EDT

May 1, 2012 -- 8:34PM, CaliberCadillac wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 5:48PM, Kwinters wrote:


 


"Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."


Compassion is defined in the study as an emotion felt when people see the suffering of others which then motivates them to help, often at a personal risk or cost.


www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-04/... 




All this demonstrates, (if anything), is that religious people are not typically motivated to generosity by way of appeals to emotion.  I would agree, as a person who might be labeled “religious,” I would argue my motivation toward helping others is more about possessing a Kolbergian postconventional morality.  This, in a nutshell, means one is generous because it is right to be so.  




If there's nothing behind the deed, then the deed is nothing.  If anything, it's lower, as it's merely an attempt to convince oneself or worse, others... that the quality is there, when in reality it is not.  



I'd have more respect for a person who walks by and doesn't help, than for what you describe caliber-at least the guy that walked by is honest.

Flag Kwinters May 2, 2012 6:07 AM EDT

May 2, 2012 -- 1:02AM, Eudaimonist wrote:


This raises interesting philosophical questions...


What role does motivation play, if any, in determining whether or not someone is morally praiseworthy for having helped someone else?


Is compassion a necessary component in a praiseworthy act of helping?


Granted that someone is still helped if the motivation is simply "tradition", but is that a genuine act of charity or generosity, or is it just going though the motions?


eudaimonia,


Mark




Seems to me that charity practiced out from duty is a bit having sex out of duty.


Yes, all the actions are the same, and maybe even the outcome is the same.  Yet something qualitatively valuable has been missed.

Flag Kwinters May 2, 2012 6:08 AM EDT

May 2, 2012 -- 1:02AM, Eudaimonist wrote:


This raises interesting philosophical questions...


What role does motivation play, if any, in determining whether or not someone is morally praiseworthy for having helped someone else?


Is compassion a necessary component in a praiseworthy act of helping?


Granted that someone is still helped if the motivation is simply "tradition", but is that a genuine act of charity or generosity, or is it just going though the motions?


eudaimonia,


Mark





From a Buddhist persepctive, it is the quality and intensity of the intentions that has the power of force on the mind.


Flag farragut May 2, 2012 8:39 AM EDT

It seems to me that the alms given quietly, anonymously, in response to an observed need reflects a character quite different from the one that gives because "it is the thing to do', or to generate praise.

Flag costrel May 2, 2012 9:59 AM EDT

The philosopher Martha Nussbaum points out that one of the major problems with compassion is that compassion focuses on helping people and animals who are suffering only after they have been hurt. Compassion does not focus on identifying the cause/s of that suffering or attempt to find solutions to stop the suffering and pain from happening in the first place. For instance, one can feel compassion for people and animals who have suffered because of a tornado, but that compassion does not address the creation of buildings that would withstand tornadoes, warning systems and technology that would alert people before a tornado strikes and give them ample time to escape or take cover, or escape plans that would allow people to escape from a tornado. Compassion is merely used to help people and animals after they, their communities, and their environments have already been hurt, damaged, and destroyed by a tornado (or an oil spill, or an earthquake, or a war, or a famine, or a terrorist attack, etc.). 

Flag Marcion May 2, 2012 11:35 AM EDT

Religious people are motiveted by a patronizing attitude toward the less fortunate.


If they knew the meaning of compassion they would not be religious.

Flag Eudaimonist May 2, 2012 12:07 PM EDT

May 2, 2012 -- 9:59AM, costrel wrote:

The philosopher Martha Nussbaum points out that one of the major problems with compassion is that compassion focuses on helping people and animals who are suffering only after they have been hurt.



That's an interesting point.  What did Martha Nussbaum identify as a possible motivation for prudently avoiding such suffering in the first place?


 


eudaimonia,


Mark

Flag JCarlin May 2, 2012 12:36 PM EDT

There is a difficult to understand economic and ethical argument that alms are dysfunctional.  "Give a person a fish and he eats for a day,  teach a person to fish and hesh will sit in a boat and drink beer eat fish every day.  This is the basis for modern micro-loan charity that helps people start their own local services for themselves and their community.  While many will fail, that is where the charity comes in, they will learn in the process and while many of the loans are never repaid the attempt to serve the community will have improved the person and the society.  But you can't just give money.  The charity must invest time and energy in vetting the applications, and in helping the applicants plan the service model.   


There is an argument that alms are simply a crass dismissal of the supplicant to make them disappear and make the almsgiver feel virtuous.  I knew of a person in New York City who would occasionally offer a mendicant a meal if the mendicant would join him at an appropriate cafe.  No strings were attached, just the meal and conversation.  It was surprising how many mendicants refused being treated as a real human preferring alms with no compassion attached.



 


 

Flag Kwinters May 2, 2012 1:33 PM EDT

May 2, 2012 -- 9:59AM, costrel wrote:


The philosopher Martha Nussbaum points out that one of the major problems with compassion is that compassion focuses on helping people and animals who are suffering only after they have been hurt. Compassion does not focus on identifying the cause/s of that suffering or attempt to find solutions to stop the suffering and pain from happening in the first place. For instance, one can feel compassion for people and animals who have suffered because of a tornado, but that compassion does not address the creation of buildings that would withstand tornadoes, warning systems and technology that would alert people before a tornado strikes and give them ample time to escape or take cover, or escape plans that would allow people to escape from a tornado. Compassion is merely used to help people and animals after they, their communities, and their environments have already been hurt, damaged, and destroyed by a tornado (or an oil spill, or an earthquake, or a war, or a famine, or a terrorist attack, etc.). 





“Charity degrades those who receive it and hardens those who dispense it.”


 George Sand




Flag CaliberCadillac May 3, 2012 1:35 AM EDT

May 2, 2012 -- 3:35AM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 8:34PM, CaliberCadillac wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 5:48PM, Kwinters wrote:


 


"Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."


Compassion is defined in the study as an emotion felt when people see the suffering of others which then motivates them to help, often at a personal risk or cost.


www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-04/... 




All this demonstrates, (if anything), is that religious people are not typically motivated to generosity by way of appeals to emotion.  I would agree, as a person who might be labeled “religious,” I would argue my motivation toward helping others is more about possessing a Kohlbergian postconventional morality.  This, in a nutshell, means one is generous because it is right to be so.  




If there's nothing behind the deed, then the deed is nothing.  If anything, it's lower, as it's merely an attempt to convince oneself or worse, others... that the quality is there, when in reality it is not.  



I'd have more respect for a person who walks by and doesn't help, than for what you describe caliber-at least the guy that walked by is honest.




Obviously you had no familiarity with Lawrence Kohlberg--even after I provided the link.  If you did, perhaps you wouldn’t have been so dismissive.  Kohlberg's work on moral development is considered a pillar of modern developmental psychology.  What he called "universal ethics orientation" reflects moral reasoning based upon individual conscience.  Achieving a stage six level of postconventional morality is considered the highest form of human moral development.  


If you had bothered to check the link, (or had ever taken a course in psychology or sociology), you would have found out that it was this level of moral development attributed to figures such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King.  Maybe than you wouldn’t be sitting there with your foot in your mouth?? Furthermore, Kohlberg’s tests revealed that only about 1 to 2 percent of the population ever achieve it.


Oh, and in case you’re as equally as unfamiliar with Gandhi and King as you are Kohlberg, they were both—not surprisingly—theists!

Flag Blü May 3, 2012 1:48 AM EDT

Caliber


Achieving a stage six level of postconventional morality is considered the highest form of human moral development. 


Oh wow! 


By whom, exactly?


Flag Seren78 May 3, 2012 1:58 AM EDT

@CaliberCadillac, where did you study psychology/sociology and have Kohlberg's ideas on moral development presented without any critical discussion?  I'm surprised - it's more than a decade since I studied psychology or philosophy, but I in no way got the sense that Kohlberg was considered the final word. 


The main problem, I think, is that you seem to have left out a step in your description of deciding what the right thing to do is.  You say you'd act generously because it's the right thing to do.  How is it that you know this?  I would say my capacity to imagine what another person might be experiencing is incredibly important for whether or not I believe being generous is right.  In other words, I don't see how I could begin to think about right or wrong without a capacity for compassion/ empathy.

Flag redshifted May 3, 2012 10:45 AM EDT

May 3, 2012 -- 1:48AM, Blü wrote:


Caliber


Achieving a stage six level of postconventional morality is considered the highest form of human moral development. 


Oh wow! 


By whom, exactly?




L. Ron Hubbard?

Flag JCarlin May 3, 2012 10:48 AM EDT

May 3, 2012 -- 1:35AM, CaliberCadillac wrote:

Obviously you had no familiarity with Lawrence Kohlberg--even after I provided the link.  If you did, perhaps you wouldn’t have been so dismissive.  Kohlberg's work on moral development is considered a pillar of modern developmental psychology. 


Arguments from authority especially misunderstood or misinterpreted arguments from authority are generally dismissed in reasonable debate.  If you you wish to debate on Kohlberg's moral or more properly justice development theories, you must first show some familiarity with them and discuss general cases not a couple of singular examples for which you commit the post hoc-propter hoc fallacy attributing their development on the Kohlberg scale to their religion. 


I think you will find that most religious people are mired in stage 1 fear of punishment (Hell) or at best stage 2 self interest (if i believe or put enough in the plate I will be saved.)  Identified as pre-conventional morality by Kohlberg.  Most religious leaders encourage pre-conventional morality as it provides them with their status and power.  More progressive religious leaders may get into conventional morality but they are generally discouraged by their denomination leadership. 

Flag mytmouse57 May 3, 2012 11:26 AM EDT

Do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.


The more you do this, the more natural it will become to do so. 

Flag Fodaoson May 3, 2012 12:09 PM EDT

May 3, 2012 -- 1:35AM, CaliberCadillac wrote:


May 2, 2012 -- 3:35AM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 8:34PM, CaliberCadillac wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 5:48PM, Kwinters wrote:


 


"Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."


Compassion is defined in the study as an emotion felt when people see the suffering of others which then motivates them to help, often at a personal risk or cost.


www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-04/... 




All this demonstrates, (if anything), is that religious people are not typically motivated to generosity by way of appeals to emotion.  I would agree, as a person who might be labeled “religious,” I would argue my motivation toward helping others is more about possessing a Kohlbergian postconventional morality.  This, in a nutshell, means one is generous because it is right to be so.  




If there's nothing behind the deed, then the deed is nothing.  If anything, it's lower, as it's merely an attempt to convince oneself or worse, others... that the quality is there, when in reality it is not.  



I'd have more respect for a person who walks by and doesn't help, than for what you describe caliber-at least the guy that walked by is honest.




Obviously you had no familiarity with Lawrence Kohlberg--even after I provided the link.  If you did, perhaps you wouldn’t have been so dismissive.  Kohlberg's work on moral development is considered a pillar of modern developmental psychology.  What he called "universal ethics orientation" reflects moral reasoning based upon individual conscience.  Achieving a stage six level of postconventional morality is considered the highest form of human moral development.  


If you had bothered to check the link, (or had ever taken a course in psychology or sociology), you would have found out that it was this level of moral development attributed to figures such as Gandhi and Martin Luther King.  Maybe than you wouldn’t be sitting there with your foot in your mouth?? Furthermore, Kohlberg’s tests revealed that only about 1 to 2 percent of the population ever achieve it.


Oh, and in case you’re as equally as unfamiliar with Gandhi and King as you are Kohlberg, they were both—not surprisingly—theists!





May 3, 2012 -- 1:48AM, Blü wrote:


Caliber


Achieving a stage six level of postconventional morality is considered the highest form of human moral development. 


Oh wow! 


By whom, exactly?





Caliber, as demonstrated by the other quoted post , posters on this thread have little regard for academic/scientific  knowledge.  They seldom accept any fact or knowledge that counters their positions and some seem to have a problem reading with comprehension.


  You mention Kohlberg and then you  are  asked “By whom exactly?"  


     Piaget and Kohlberg are  noted Psychologists in Moral Development theory  


       

Flag JCarlin May 3, 2012 12:51 PM EDT

May 3, 2012 -- 12:09PM, Fodaoson wrote:

  You mention Kohlberg and then you  are  asked “By whom exactly?"  


     Piaget and Kohlberg are  noted Psychologists in Moral Development theory   



"By whom exactly?" is a reasonable question.  I doubt that either Piaget or Kohlberg assigned Ghandi and King to level 6 in their heirarchies.  I would suspect that a reasonable argument could be made by a student of Kohlberg that neither approached post conventional morality. 


While Kohlberg's theories are useful they are considered to be limited by his equation of morality with justice.  Justice is generally considered a power and control concept rather than a moral, that is socially derived concept of living as a social animal.   

Flag Ken May 3, 2012 1:04 PM EDT

May 3, 2012 -- 10:48AM, JCarlin wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 1:35AM, CaliberCadillac wrote:

Obviously you had no familiarity with Lawrence Kohlberg--even after I provided the link.  If you did, perhaps you wouldn’t have been so dismissive.  Kohlberg's work on moral development is considered a pillar of modern developmental psychology. 


Arguments from authority especially misunderstood or misinterpreted arguments from authority are generally dismissed in reasonable debate. 


They are also typical of Kohlberg's stage four, not his stage six.

Flag JCarlin May 3, 2012 1:29 PM EDT

May 3, 2012 -- 1:04PM, Ken wrote:

May 3, 2012 -- 10:48AM, JCarlin wrote:

Arguments from authority especially misunderstood or misinterpreted arguments from authority are generally dismissed in reasonable debate. 


They are also typical of Kohlberg's stage four, not his stage six.


I think you are being too generous here.  Arguments from authority are Kohlberg's stage two at best. 

Flag Kwinters May 3, 2012 3:03 PM EDT

May 3, 2012 -- 1:35AM, CaliberCadillac wrote:


May 2, 2012 -- 3:35AM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 8:34PM, CaliberCadillac wrote:


May 1, 2012 -- 5:48PM, Kwinters wrote:


 


"Overall, we find that for less religious people, the strength of their emotional connection to another person is critical to whether they will help that person or not," said UC Berkeley social psychologist Robb Willer, a co-author of the study. "The more religious, on the other hand, may ground their generosity less in emotion, and more in other factors such as doctrine, a communal identity, or reputational concerns."


Compassion is defined in the study as an emotion felt when people see the suffering of others which then motivates them to help, often at a personal risk or cost.


www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2012-04/... 




All this demonstrates, (if anything), is that religious people are not typically motivated to generosity by way of appeals to emotion.  I would agree, as a person who might be labeled “religious,” I would argue my motivation toward helping others is more about possessing a Kohlbergian postconventional morality.  This, in a nutshell, means one is generous because it is right to be so.  




If there's nothing behind the deed, then the deed is nothing.  If anything, it's lower, as it's merely an attempt to convince oneself or worse, others... that the quality is there, when in reality it is not.  



I'd have more respect for a person who walks by and doesn't help, than for what you describe caliber-at least the guy that walked by is honest.




Obviously you had no familiarity with Lawrence Kohlberg--even after I provided the link.  If you did, perhaps you wouldn’t have been so dismissive.  Kohlberg's work on moral development is considered a pillar of modern developmental psychology.  What he called "universal ethics orientation" reflects moral reasoning based upon individual conscience.  Achieving a stage six level of postconventional morality is considered the highest form of human moral development.  







'... As a student of Kohlberg's, Gilligan was taken by the stage theory approach to understanding moral reasoning. But she disagreed with her mentor's assessment of the content of the moral system within which people developed.


If you look at the table of Kohlberg's stages, you can see the question being answered in the third column is one of justice - the fourth stage gives this away with talk about duty and guilt. "What are the rules of the game?" seems to be the issue at hand. From her careful interviews with women making momentous decisions in their lives, Gilligan concluded that these women were thinking more about the caring thing to do rather than the thing the rules allowed. So she thought Kohlberg was all wet, at least with regard to women's development in moral thinking.


What set her off in thinking this was the fact that in some of Kohlberg's investigations, women turned out to score lower - less developed - than did men. Were women really moral midgets? Gilligan did not think so. In taking this stand, she was going against the current of a great deal of psychological opinion. Our friend Freud thought women's moral sense was stunted because they stayed attached to their mothers. Another great developmental theorist, Erik Erickson, thought the tasks of development were separation from mother and the family. If women did not succeed in this scale, then they were obviously deficient.


Gilligan's reply was to assert that women were not inferior in their personal or moral development, but that they were different. They developed in a way that focused on connections among people (rather than separation) and with an ethic of care for those people (rather than an ethic of justice). Gilligan lays out in this groundbreaking book this alternative theory.


Gilligan has shown that Kohlberg's (and Freud's, and Erickson's) systems are based on a male-centered view. Kohlberg built his theory based on interviews with males only. She has certainly shown us the inadequacy of that. In addition, she has broken the idea that there is only one dimension of moral reasoning. If there can be two, why not three? Why not several? Finally, she has connected moral decision making back into concerns about both the self and the social environment in which the self lives.'


www.stolaf.edu/people/huff/classes/handb...


 





Flag mytmouse57 May 3, 2012 6:50 PM EDT

I'm at Kohlberg stage 12.


Which means I'm way more humble than anybody else here.

Flag Bob_the_Lunatic May 3, 2012 7:43 PM EDT

May 3, 2012 -- 11:26AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.


The more you do this, the more natural it will become to do so. 




I see Bahai thinking steals from LDS "choose the right" as well lol.


However, this is very inferior morality.  It indicates someone is watching as a motivator for doing the right thing-otherwise, "because it is the right thing to do" has no purpose.  


If you don't do something because it's in your nature to do so, then the behavior is fraudulant and worthless by all but the most shallow standards. 


Wow-it never ceases to amaze me how pathetic theism is as a basis for morality of any sort.

Flag Bob_the_Lunatic May 3, 2012 7:45 PM EDT

May 3, 2012 -- 6:50PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


I'm at Kohlberg stage 12.


Which means I'm way more humble than anybody else here.




Humor is an excellent example:  When forced, nobody laughs.   It must be real to have value...

Flag mytmouse57 May 4, 2012 10:27 AM EDT

May 3, 2012 -- 7:43PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 11:26AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.


The more you do this, the more natural it will become to do so. 




I see Bahai thinking steals from LDS "choose the right" as well lol.


However, this is very inferior morality.  It indicates someone is watching as a motivator for doing the right thing-otherwise, "because it is the right thing to do" has no purpose.  


If you don't do something because it's in your nature to do so, then the behavior is fraudulant and worthless by all but the most shallow standards. 


Wow-it never ceases to amaze me how pathetic theism is as a basis for morality of any sort.




Where in that statement did you see "because somebody's watching"?


Do the right thing because (drum roll) it's the right thing to do. 


Ain't exactly rocket science. 


And I was thinking that long before I ever even heard the words "Baha'i Faith." (Baha'is are allowed to bring with them and form their own ideas, ya know. Wink)


The fact that you have a stone stuck in your craw over theism in general, and seem particluarly obsessed with my religion means little to nothing to me. Nor does it do anything to bolster your points -- whatever those might be.


I almost get the impression I could mention the color of the clouds on a particular day, and you would find it an opportunity to rant about the Baha'i Faith.


(BTW, they're sort of a light gray here today.)


 


Flag Bob_the_Lunatic May 4, 2012 1:13 PM EDT

May 4, 2012 -- 10:27AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 7:43PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 11:26AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.


The more you do this, the more natural it will become to do so. 




I see Bahai thinking steals from LDS "choose the right" as well lol.


However, this is very inferior morality.  It indicates someone is watching as a motivator for doing the right thing-otherwise, "because it is the right thing to do" has no purpose.  


If you don't do something because it's in your nature to do so, then the behavior is fraudulant and worthless by all but the most shallow standards. 


Wow-it never ceases to amaze me how pathetic theism is as a basis for morality of any sort.




Where in that statement did you see "because somebody's watching"?


Do the right thing because (drum roll) it's the right thing to do. 


Ain't exactly rocket science. 


And I was thinking that long before I ever even heard the words "Baha'i Faith." (Baha'is are allowed to bring with them and form their own ideas, ya know. )


The fact that you have a stone stuck in your craw over theism in general, and seem particluarly obsessed with my religion means little to nothing to me. Nor does it do anything to bolster your points -- whatever those might be.


I almost get the impression I could mention the color of the clouds on a particular day, and you would find it an opportunity to rant about the Baha'i Faith.


(BTW, they're sort of a light gray here today.)


 





As I said, bahai or not, the concept ("because it's the right thing to do") is a lowly form of morality.  I've shown why, you failed to address/rebut that part.  Focusing on the shallow portion instead shows that you have no rebuttal to the deeper point.


And any awake human has a beef with theism as it's caused most of the problems humanity has!  Bahai is nothing special, but if you wish to pretend it is, I'll point out the inherent flaws specifically with it.   I'll do the same with christianity, etc.   


And since you brought up clouds, I agree:  If Bahai can redefine so many objective words and concepts, like "discrimination", "atheism", "christianity", "buddhism", then surely it would likely redefine "blue", "red", and certainly "gray".  :)

Flag mytmouse57 May 4, 2012 1:27 PM EDT

May 4, 2012 -- 1:13PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 10:27AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 7:43PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 11:26AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.


The more you do this, the more natural it will become to do so. 




I see Bahai thinking steals from LDS "choose the right" as well lol.


However, this is very inferior morality.  It indicates someone is watching as a motivator for doing the right thing-otherwise, "because it is the right thing to do" has no purpose.  


If you don't do something because it's in your nature to do so, then the behavior is fraudulant and worthless by all but the most shallow standards. 


Wow-it never ceases to amaze me how pathetic theism is as a basis for morality of any sort.




Where in that statement did you see "because somebody's watching"?


Do the right thing because (drum roll) it's the right thing to do. 


Ain't exactly rocket science. 


And I was thinking that long before I ever even heard the words "Baha'i Faith." (Baha'is are allowed to bring with them and form their own ideas, ya know. )


The fact that you have a stone stuck in your craw over theism in general, and seem particluarly obsessed with my religion means little to nothing to me. Nor does it do anything to bolster your points -- whatever those might be.


I almost get the impression I could mention the color of the clouds on a particular day, and you would find it an opportunity to rant about the Baha'i Faith.


(BTW, they're sort of a light gray here today.)


 





As I said, bahai or not, the concept ("because it's the right thing to do") is a lowly form of morality.  I've shown why, you failed to address/rebut that part.  Focusing on the shallow portion instead shows that you have no rebuttal to the deeper point.


And any awake human has a beef with theism as it's caused most of the problems humanity has!  Bahai is nothing special, but if you wish to pretend it is, I'll point out the inherent flaws specifically with it.   I'll do the same with christianity, etc.   


And since you brought up clouds, I agree:  If Bahai can redefine so many objective words and concepts, like "discrimination", "atheism", "christianity", "buddhism", then surely it would likely redefine "blue", "red", and certainly "gray".  :)




Thanks for your continuing grandstanding of opinon regarding my faith in particular and theism in general. 


As amusing as all that is --


I don't see anything lowly or flawed in the cited proposal.


Doing the right thing has intrinsic, self-evident value. There's no need to get hung up on the rewards you might get if you do, or the bad things that might happen to you if you don't. Or if somebody/something is watching -- be that God, your departed great-grandma, the Keebler Elves or Cthulu.


First, that's essentially selfish. And it's contradictory to be "good" for selfish reasons. Secondly, it's over-thinking things. It's wasting valuable time and energy on mental flatulence.



Flag Bob_the_Lunatic May 4, 2012 1:38 PM EDT

May 4, 2012 -- 1:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 1:13PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 10:27AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 7:43PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 11:26AM, mytmouse57 wrote:


Do the right thing, because it is the right thing to do.


The more you do this, the more natural it will become to do so. 




I see Bahai thinking steals from LDS "choose the right" as well lol.


However, this is very inferior morality.  It indicates someone is watching as a motivator for doing the right thing-otherwise, "because it is the right thing to do" has no purpose.  


If you don't do something because it's in your nature to do so, then the behavior is fraudulant and worthless by all but the most shallow standards. 


Wow-it never ceases to amaze me how pathetic theism is as a basis for morality of any sort.




Where in that statement did you see "because somebody's watching"?


Do the right thing because (drum roll) it's the right thing to do. 


Ain't exactly rocket science. 


And I was thinking that long before I ever even heard the words "Baha'i Faith." (Baha'is are allowed to bring with them and form their own ideas, ya know. )


The fact that you have a stone stuck in your craw over theism in general, and seem particluarly obsessed with my religion means little to nothing to me. Nor does it do anything to bolster your points -- whatever those might be.


I almost get the impression I could mention the color of the clouds on a particular day, and you would find it an opportunity to rant about the Baha'i Faith.


(BTW, they're sort of a light gray here today.)


 





As I said, bahai or not, the concept ("because it's the right thing to do") is a lowly form of morality.  I've shown why, you failed to address/rebut that part.  Focusing on the shallow portion instead shows that you have no rebuttal to the deeper point.


And any awake human has a beef with theism as it's caused most of the problems humanity has!  Bahai is nothing special, but if you wish to pretend it is, I'll point out the inherent flaws specifically with it.   I'll do the same with christianity, etc.   


And since you brought up clouds, I agree:  If Bahai can redefine so many objective words and concepts, like "discrimination", "atheism", "christianity", "buddhism", then surely it would likely redefine "blue", "red", and certainly "gray".  :)




Thanks for your continuing grandstanding of opinon regarding my faith in particular and theism in general. 


As amusing as all that is --


I don't see anything lowly or flawed in the cited proposal.


Doing the right thing has intrinsic, self-evident value. There's no need to get hung up on the rewards you might get if you do, or the bad things that might happen to you if you don't. Or if somebody/something is watching -- be that God, your departed great-grandma, the Keebler Elves or Cthulu.


First, that's essentially selfish. And it's contradictory to be "good" for selfish reasons. Secondly, it's over-thinking things. It's wasting valuable time and energy on mental flatulence.






Yet you fail to show how this concept (because it is right) has any value past shallow following.  It only suggests you don't understand the REAL reason to do what is "right".  

Flag Ken May 4, 2012 2:12 PM EDT

May 4, 2012 -- 1:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Doing the right thing has intrinsic, self-evident value.


To claim that an action is intrinsically and self-evidently right is simply to avoid justifying its morality. Anyone can make that claim about any action.

Flag JCarlin May 4, 2012 2:34 PM EDT

May 4, 2012 -- 2:12PM, Ken wrote:

May 4, 2012 -- 1:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Doing the right thing has intrinsic, self-evident value.


To claim that an action is intrinsically and self-evidently right is simply to avoid justifying its morality. Anyone can make that claim about any action.



May 4, 2012 -- 1:38PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

Yet you fail to show how this concept (because it is right) has any value past shallow following.  It only suggests you don't understand the REAL reason to do what is "right". 



Perhaps one of you can tell us how to justify morality or tell us the REAL reason to do what is "right."




Flag Ken May 4, 2012 2:41 PM EDT

May 4, 2012 -- 2:34PM, JCarlin wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 2:12PM, Ken wrote:

May 4, 2012 -- 1:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Doing the right thing has intrinsic, self-evident value.


To claim that an action is intrinsically and self-evidently right is simply to avoid justifying its morality. Anyone can make that claim about any action.



May 4, 2012 -- 1:38PM, Bob_the_Lunatic wrote:

Yet you fail to show how this concept (because it is right) has any value past shallow following.  It only suggests you don't understand the REAL reason to do what is "right". 



Perhaps one of you can tell us how to justify morality or tell us the REAL reason to do what is "right."



Yes. You examine the likely consequences of the action.

Flag mytmouse57 May 4, 2012 3:06 PM EDT

May 4, 2012 -- 2:12PM, Ken wrote:


May 4, 2012 -- 1:27PM, mytmouse57 wrote:

Doing the right thing has intrinsic, self-evident value.


To claim that an action is intrinsically and self-evidently right is simply to avoid justifying its morality. Anyone can make that claim about any action.




That's true. What the "right thing" is for a member of the KKK might be could be... well... Not good.


Anyway, what I'm adressing is sincerity of motive. So, in a way, you're trying to adress the horse, when I'm talking about the cart. I'm going from the conclusion that the horse is already in place. And at that point, it becomes a matter of how to guide the cart.


Determining what is right, or good, can be more complicated. 


So, yes, we have to determine which horse to hook up. 

Flag mainecaptain May 4, 2012 3:41 PM EDT

I could not answer why people do right or come to the conclusion of what is right and wrong.


I do what I do.  But generally what is right, (at least IMHO), is what does not hurt anyone, and is not against the law. I am fortunate, that I don't desire to do anything that hurts anyone or that breaks the law. I am not saying I am perfect, pretty much far from it.


Generally though, my first priority is not causing hurt and harm.  That actually is more important then anything else to me.


And I mean to every living being, not just humans. I have a well developed sense of guilt.  I work hard to not cause hurt, or it bothers me. Really bothers me,  even if it is accidental.


A conscience is an interesting and sometimes very inconvenient thing. :)


None of my behaviours, right or wrong  or conscience has anything to do with the Abrahamic god.


Flag mytmouse57 May 4, 2012 4:14 PM EDT

May 4, 2012 -- 3:41PM, mainecaptain wrote:


I could not answer why people do right or come to the conclusion of what is right and wrong.


I do what I do.  But generally what is right, (at least IMHO), is what does not hurt anyone, and is not against the law. I am fortunate, that I don't desire to do anything that hurts anyone or that breaks the law. I am not saying I am perfect, pretty much far from it.


Generally though, my first priority is not causing hurt and harm.  That actually is more important then anything else to me.


And I mean to every living being, not just humans. I have a well developed sense of guilt.  I work hard to not cause hurt, or it bothers me. Really bothers me,  even if it is accidental.


A conscience is an interesting and sometimes very inconvenient thing. :)


None of my behaviours, right or wrong  or conscience has anything to do with the Abrahamic god.





That sounds like a good and tenable moral code to me.


Flag CaliberCadillac May 5, 2012 8:15 PM EDT

May 3, 2012 -- 10:48AM, JCarlin wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 1:35AM, CaliberCadillac wrote:

Obviously you had no familiarity with Lawrence Kohlberg--even after I provided the link.  If you did, perhaps you wouldn’t have been so dismissive.  Kohlberg's work on moral development is considered a pillar of modern developmental psychology. 



Arguments from authority especially misunderstood or misinterpreted arguments from authority are generally dismissed in reasonable debate.




Knowing you as I do, I doubt that you know what a “reasonable debate” looks likes.


There is no logical problem appealing to authority when the authority is relevant.  In education we call it “CITING REFERENCES.”


Since the topic is the moral motivation of people, there are few other authorities MORE relevant than Kohlberg. It seems the only thing misunderstood here is your poor understanding of logical fallacies—as usual!


May 3, 2012 -- 10:48AM, JCarlin wrote:


  If you you wish to debate on Kohlberg's moral or more properly justice development theories, you must first show some familiarity with them and discuss general cases not a couple of singular examples for which you commit the post hoc-propter hoc fallacy attributing their development on the Kohlberg scale to their religion.




You’re best response is to try and accuse me of having no familiarity with Kohlberg’s theories? 


LOL!


If I had no familiarity with Kohlberg how could I have possibly known to reference him? 


(OH SNAP!)


After all this time--your critical thinking skills still haven’t improved have they?    


The only post hoc propter hoc fallacy being made here are your usual prejudice based assumptions.  My reference about the moral development of King and Gandhi came directly from a statement made by Kohlberg himself as referenced in a modern textbook. (See Huffman, Psychology in Action 9th Ed. 2010, pg. 352. ref. Kohlberg, 1981).


May 3, 2012 -- 10:48AM, JCarlin wrote:

   


I think you will find that most religious people are mired in stage 1 fear of punishment (Hell) or at best stage 2 self interest (if i believe or put enough in the plate I will be saved.)  Identified as pre-conventional morality by Kohlberg.




I can’t speak for “most religious people.” Personally, as a Christian, I have no “fear of punishment (Hell)” because I believe (per Orthodox Christian soteriology), that Christ provided me a GET OUT OF HELL FREE card.  More commonly known as the doctrine of “Salvation by Grace.” 


As usual, your lack of understanding about what you are so quick to criticize defeats your own arguments for me.  Thanks for continuing to make my job so easy:) 

Flag Ken May 5, 2012 10:14 PM EDT

May 5, 2012 -- 8:15PM, CaliberCadillac wrote:

Since the topic is the moral motivation of people, there are few other authorities MORE relevant than Kohlberg.


Only if he's the sort of thing you like.


If I had no familiarity with Kohlberg how could I have possibly known to reference him?


Vague recollections of an undergraduate course, a quick glance at Wikipedia, and a taste for name-dropping.


I can’t speak for “most religious people.” Personally, as a Christian, I have no “fear of punishment (Hell)” because I believe (per Orthodox Christian soteriology), that Christ provided me a GET OUT OF HELL FREE card.


You needed him to do that for you? Hmmph.

Flag CaliberCadillac May 5, 2012 11:33 PM EDT

May 5, 2012 -- 10:14PM, Ken wrote:


May 5, 2012 -- 8:15PM, CaliberCadillac wrote:

Since the topic is the moral motivation of people, there are few other authorities MORE relevant than Kohlberg.


Only if he's the sort of thing you like.


If I had no familiarity with Kohlberg how could I have possibly known to reference him?


Vague recollections of an undergraduate course, a quick glance at Wikipedia, and a taste for name-dropping.


I can’t speak for “most religious people.” Personally, as a Christian, I have no “fear of punishment (Hell)” because I believe (per Orthodox Christian soteriology), that Christ provided me a GET OUT OF HELL FREE card.


You needed him to do that for you? Hmmph.




In other words, since you have nothing constructive to contribute to the dialogue you'll just take the opportunity to say something stupid?




Flag Ken May 6, 2012 9:13 AM EDT

No.


You are no doubt aware that Kohlberg has numerous detractors within his own profession who would not consider him a relevant authority. You cannot simply claim him as one without further justification and expect that claim to be accepted by anyone who isn't already a partisan of his. I merely reminded you of that.


You asked "If I had no familiarity with Kohlberg how could I have possibly known to reference him?" I answered your question. If you didn't want an answer, you shouldn't have asked it.


The idea that there is a place of eternal punishment to which you will surely go when you die unless a dead Jew decides to rescue you from it out of the goodness of his heart certainly calls for a "Hmmph!" It is distinctly crude and bizarre.


Flag JCarlin May 6, 2012 12:01 PM EDT

May 5, 2012 -- 8:15PM, CaliberCadillac wrote:

May 3, 2012 -- 10:48AM, JCarlin wrote:

May 3, 2012 -- 1:35AM, CaliberCadillac wrote:

Obviously you had no familiarity with Lawrence Kohlberg--even after I provided the link.  If you did, perhaps you wouldn’t have been so dismissive.  Kohlberg's work on moral development is considered a pillar of modern developmental psychology. 


Arguments from authority especially misunderstood or misinterpreted arguments from authority are generally dismissed in reasonable debate.


I doubt that you know what a “reasonable debate” looks likes.


There is no logical problem appealing to authority when the authority is relevant.  In education we call it “CITING REFERENCES.”


Since the topic is the moral motivation of people, there are few other authorities MORE relevant than Kohlberg. It seems the only thing misunderstood here is your poor understanding of logical fallacies.


Citing references, is generally understood to be in support of an argument that one is promoting in a debate, the reference may not stand in for an argument.  The fact that you don't seem to understand that Kohlberg is generally understood to be discussing justice and not morality makes him less useful to buttress a moral argument.  Particularly since Kohlberg's theories even of justice have been questioned on the basis of biased sampling, not to mention derivative from Piaget.  Perhaps you had best research what reasonable debate looks likes a little better.


Incidentally, insults do not improve your arguments.  Insults are generally considered to be admissions of a weak argument. 


 

Flag CaliberCadillac May 6, 2012 3:30 PM EDT

May 6, 2012 -- 9:13AM, Ken wrote:


No.


You are no doubt aware that Kohlberg has numerous detractors within his own profession who would not consider him a relevant authority. You cannot simply claim him as one without further justification and expect that claim to be accepted by anyone who isn't already a partisan of his. I merely reminded you of that.




Every psychological theory has its detractors.  The only real objections to Kohlberg have come from those who allege that his TESTS were bias toward women, did not reflect cultural differences, and whether or not test subjects were simply “talking a good game.”  This does no damage to Kohlberg’s theory about stages of moral development itself.  Just like IQ tests that don’t take such things into account—it doesn’t mean that intelligent quotients aren’t real or that intelligent quotients can’t be measured.


Understanding Kohlberg is still required for all levels of study in human behavioral development--both undergrad and post graduate.  Regardless of whether or not all agree with, (and no two psychologists ever agree on everything), none would say his work would not be relevant to the topic.


It seems to me, you just don’t like Kohlberg in this discussion because a theist made reference to him.  I suspect that if the reference had come from an atheist you would no doubt be backing him.


May 6, 2012 -- 9:13AM, Ken wrote:


You asked "If I had no familiarity with Kohlberg how could I have possibly known to reference him?" I answered your question. If you didn't want an answer, you shouldn't have asked it.”




First, the question wasn’t to you.  Second, what you provided wasn’t an answer, it was a baseless allegation intended as an insult and thus added nothing constructive to the discussion.  That being the case, your remark was just as I said—stupid.


May 6, 2012 -- 9:13AM, Ken wrote:


The idea that there is a place of eternal punishment to which you will surely go when you die unless a dead Jew decides to rescue you from it out of the goodness of his heart certainly calls for a "Hmmph!" It is distinctly crude and bizarre.




Not me—you.  Hell is not something I need concern myself with, so it has nothing to do with my motives in being generous.  And I really don’t care if you think what I believe is crude and bizarre.  

Flag Ken May 6, 2012 3:39 PM EDT

Really, Cal, it's so easy to get you going.

Flag CaliberCadillac May 6, 2012 3:42 PM EDT

May 6, 2012 -- 12:01PM, JCarlin wrote:


May 5, 2012 -- 8:15PM, CaliberCadillac wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 10:48AM, JCarlin wrote:


Arguments from authority especially misunderstood or misinterpreted arguments from authority are generally dismissed in reasonable debate.




I doubt that you know what a “reasonable debate” looks likes.


There is no logical problem appealing to authority when the authority is relevant.  In education we call it “CITING REFERENCES.”


Since the topic is the moral motivation of people, there are few other authorities MORE relevant than Kohlberg. It seems the only thing misunderstood here is your poor understanding of logical fallacies.




 Citing references, is generally understood to be in support of an argument that one is promoting in a debate, the reference may not stand in for an argument.




I didn’t use the reference as an argument.  I used the reference to explain my motivation for generosity. 


Do you have any idea of what you’re talking about? 


Or do you just make s**t up hoping no one will notice???


May 6, 2012 -- 12:01PM, JCarlin wrote:


The fact that you don't seem to understand that Kohlberg is generally understood to be discussing justice and not morality makes him less useful to buttress a moral argument. 




Nonsense.


This, from the same textbook I cited in my previous response:


“One of the most influential researchers in moral development was Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987)….[H]e developed a highly influential model of moral development.” (Huffman, Ibid, pg. 351, underlining mine).


May 6, 2012 -- 12:01PM, JCarlin wrote:


Perhaps you had best research what reasonable debate looks likes a little better.




"One who is getting his ass kicked has no place criticizing his opponent's fighting techniques." --Bruce Lee--


May 6, 2012 -- 12:01PM, JCarlin wrote:


Incidentally, insults do not improve your arguments.  Insults are generally considered to be admissions of a weak argument. 




If true, it says something about your last comment, doesn’t it?  Or do you only apply that rule to theists?


It seems, once again, you’ve made it really easy for me to call your horses**t, “bulls**t.”

Flag mountain_man May 6, 2012 4:06 PM EDT

May 6, 2012 -- 3:39PM, Ken wrote:

Really, Cal, it's so easy to get you going.


It's easy to see what the motivations of some are, and in this case compassion is not one of them.

Flag JCarlin May 6, 2012 4:42 PM EDT

May 6, 2012 -- 3:42PM, CaliberCadillac wrote:

May 6, 2012 -- 12:01PM, JCarlin wrote:

The fact that you don't seem to understand that Kohlberg is generally understood to be discussing justice and not morality makes him less useful to buttress a moral argument.


Nonsense.


This, from the same textbook I cited in my previous response:


“One of the most influential researchers in moral development was Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987)….[H]e developed a highly influential model of moral development.” (Huffman, Ibid, pg. 351, underlining mine).


Not only an argument from authority but a secondary reference to that authority at that.  Perhaps you really need to study Kohlberg and try to understand his theories and responses by his peers.


Edit: I looked up Huffman and it appears to be respected only by the publisher and students.  The one peer reference quoted by the publisher referred only to its popularity not to its authorativeness.    

Flag CaliberCadillac May 6, 2012 7:24 PM EDT

May 6, 2012 -- 4:42PM, JCarlin wrote:


May 6, 2012 -- 3:42PM, CaliberCadillac wrote:

May 6, 2012 -- 12:01PM, JCarlin wrote:

The fact that you don't seem to understand that Kohlberg is generally understood to be discussing justice and not morality makes him less useful to buttress a moral argument.


Nonsense.


This, from the same textbook I cited in my previous response:


“One of the most influential researchers in moral development was Lawrence Kohlberg (1927-1987)….[H]e developed a highly influential model of moral development.” (Huffman, Ibid, pg. 351, underlining mine).


Not only an argument from authority but a secondary reference to that authority at that.  Perhaps you really need to study Kohlberg and try to understand his theories and responses by his peers.


Edit: I looked up Huffman and it appears to be respected only by the publisher and students.  The one peer reference quoted by the publisher referred only to its popularity not to its authorativeness.    




The Huffman source is straight out of a college textbook on Psychology.  


Now, I am literally laughing at your level of scholastic incompetence. 


Again, there is no logical fallacy in referencing a relevant authority to support an argument or position.  The only logical fallacy here is you thinking there is. 


Which proves once again—all your horse s**t is bulls**t. Laughing






Flag Ken May 6, 2012 7:28 PM EDT

May 6, 2012 -- 7:24PM, CaliberCadillac wrote:

The Huffman source is straight out of a college textbook on Psychology. 


And we all know that college textbooks are the last word on everything.

Flag CaliberCadillac May 6, 2012 7:44 PM EDT

May 6, 2012 -- 7:28PM, Ken wrote:


May 6, 2012 -- 7:24PM, CaliberCadillac wrote:

The Huffman source is straight out of a college textbook on Psychology. 


And we all know that college textbooks are the last word on everything.




No, (I didnt say that),  but they are a perfectly acceptable source of reference--and you know it. 


And you know J'Carlin is wrong too.  I bet you wish he would shut up.  I would if he was on my side. 






Flag Ken May 6, 2012 7:53 PM EDT

May 6, 2012 -- 7:44PM, CaliberCadillac wrote:


May 6, 2012 -- 7:28PM, Ken wrote:


May 6, 2012 -- 7:24PM, CaliberCadillac wrote:

The Huffman source is straight out of a college textbook on Psychology. 


And we all know that college textbooks are the last word on everything.




No, (I didnt say that),  but they are a perfectly acceptable source of reference--and you know it. 


And you know J'Carlin is wrong too.  I bet you wish he would shut up.  I would if he was on my side.


I wish you'd choke on a turd.

Flag CaliberCadillac May 6, 2012 8:54 PM EDT

May 6, 2012 -- 7:53PM, Ken wrote:


I wish you'd choke on a turd.




Thats funny, can I use that?

Flag F1fan May 7, 2012 10:40 AM EDT

May 6, 2012 -- 3:30PM, CaliberCadillac wrote:


The idea that there is a place of eternal punishment to which you will surely go when you die unless a dead Jew decides to rescue you from it out of the goodness of his heart certainly calls for a "Hmmph!" It is distinctly crude and bizarre. -Ken


Not me—you.  Hell is not something I need concern myself with, so it has nothing to do with my motives in being generous.  And I really don’t care if you think what I believe is crude and bizarre.  




Hell isn't anything any non-believers are concerned about either.  It's an absurd idea.  And it goes against the text that says "Jesus died for the sins of mankind".  That Christians like you have accepted the interpretation that salvation extends only to believers who have "accepted Jesus as savior" isn't very compassionate.  It's in fact quite selfish and cruel.  Truly compassionate people would interpret the text to mean that Jesus died for all humans, regardless of whether they believe.  Selfishness exhibited by many Christians misses the mark and does not impress me.

Flag Seren78 May 9, 2012 5:15 PM EDT

May 5, 2012 -- 8:15PM, CaliberCadillac wrote:

May 3, 2012 -- 10:48AM, JCarlin wrote:


May 3, 2012 -- 1:35AM, CaliberCadillac wrote:



I can’t speak for “most religious people.” Personally, as a Christian, I have no “fear of punishment (Hell)” because I believe (per Orthodox Christian soteriology), that Christ provided me a GET OUT OF HELL FREE card.  More commonly known as the doctrine of “Salvation by Grace.” 


As usual, your lack of understanding about what you are so quick to criticize defeats your own arguments for me.  Thanks for continuing to make my job so easy:) 






You're not helping to convince me that the OP isn't onto something.
I rekon J'C is right on the money.  The contents of a first year psychology course rarely makes for particularly interesting debate, and, yes, it does get a whole lot more sophisticated than what is covered there.

Post Your Reply
<CTRL+Enter> to submit
Please login to post a reply.
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook