Post Reply
Page 5 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
Switch to Forum Live View Religious people are less motivated by compassion
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 1:27PM #41
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

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.



Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 1:38PM #42
Bob_the_Lunatic
Posts: 3,458

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".  

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 2:12PM #43
Ken
Posts: 33,859

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.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 2:34PM #44
JCarlin
Posts: 6,787

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."




J'Carlin
If the shoe doesn't fit, don't cram your foot in it and complain.
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 2:41PM #45
Ken
Posts: 33,859

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.

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 3:06PM #46
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

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. 

Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 3:41PM #47
mainecaptain
Posts: 21,786

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.


A tyrant must put on the appearance of uncommon devotion to religion. Subjects are less apprehensive of illegal treatment from a ruler whom they consider god-fearing and pious. On the other hand, they do less easily move against him, believing that he has the gods on his side. Aristotle
Never discourage anyone...who continually makes progress, no matter how slow. Plato..
"A life is not important except in the impact it has on other lives" Jackie Robinson
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 04, 2012 - 4:14PM #48
mytmouse57
Posts: 9,782

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.


Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 8:15PM #49
CaliberCadillac
Posts: 2,867

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:) 

"Sometimes you gotta step into the ring and throw a few punches for what you believe in."

--Ernest Hemingway--
Quick Reply
Cancel
2 years ago  ::  May 05, 2012 - 10:14PM #50
Ken
Posts: 33,859

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.

Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 5 of 7  •  Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook