I believe I have answered, scientifically, why be kind

[Jayhawker Soule]

Did I?

No.

 

[Quintessence]

It's all as fact as you can get, if not actual science. You do become more stressed out when you are unkind. You receive it's opposite when you are kind. Try it, buy someone a gift. See how you feel.

Actual science = citation needed.

I'm not really the sort to harp on that, but it is what it is. Sciences as a body of knowledge hold themselves to particular methodological standards. What you're talking about here is anecdotal personal experience. Personal experience is one of the major foundations of knowledge the sciences draw from, but it in of itself is not what science is.

It's worth nothing that individuals with certain personality disorders will contradict much of what you suppose will happen with these sorts of anecdotal personal exercises. There are human individuals that lack empathy and consideration for other humans and do not become more stressed out when they are unkind. See:

Antisocial Personality Disorder

Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) describes an ingrained pattern of behavior in which individuals consistently disregard and violate the rights of others around them. Individuals with antisocial personality disorder may behave violently, recklessly, or impulsively, often with little regard...

www.psychologytoday.com

 

[ChieftheCef]

Actual science = citation needed.

I'm not really the sort to harp on that, but it is what it is. Sciences as a body of knowledge hold themselves to particular methodological standards. What you're talking about here is anecdotal personal experience. Personal experience is one of the major foundations of knowledge the sciences draw from, but it in of itself is not what science is.

It's worth nothing that individuals with certain personality disorders will contradict much of what you suppose will happen with these sorts of anecdotal personal exercises. There are human individuals that lack empathy and consideration for other humans and do not become more stressed out when they are unkind. See:

Antisocial Personality Disorder

Antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) describes an ingrained pattern of behavior in which individuals consistently disregard and violate the rights of others around them. Individuals with antisocial personality disorder may behave violently, recklessly, or impulsively, often with little regard...

www.psychologytoday.com

NO, I draw on science and little to no personal experience.

Best Personal Development Courses Online [2024] | Coursera

Learn Personal Development or improve your skills online today. Choose from a wide range of Personal Development courses offered from top universities and industry leaders. Our Personal Development courses are perfect for individuals or for corporate Personal Development training to upskill your...

www.coursera.org

 

[ChieftheCef]

It wasn't presented scientifically though. You basically presented why we should be pro-social.

With scientific facts; I answered why be kind with science.

 

[Left Coast]

Did I?

The Rule of Conversion

As you act, think and exist you convert the world into a better or worse place

Negative actions lead to a negative world

• People react to you differently
• You may have a bad reputation that people may react to
• People may act against you because of what you’ve done
• You become less healthy and thus less happy
• You become less healthy and thus less mentally healthy and thus less happy
• You become less happy, and thus less healthy
• You share the stress of others by being with them
• You lose your life sooner
• You lose a chance to be positive, and thus all the benefits of being positive
• You lose the cumulative positive impact on the world that rebounds to you eventually
  • As you increase the number of people who want what you want, more money goes to it and thus it is solved faster because more people will work on it
  • As other places get richer you get richer. The more money they have, the more innovation they have, the more products get them money, the more money is flowing, the more money flows the more money you get by trickle down the more money goes to those scietnists making everything new, the more Science gets better, the more products you can have, the more money flows etc.
  • The more cheaply you can make something the more you can sell, making you make more. This means more product availability
  • The more happiness there is the more happiness grows, the better your time is because it comes around, the better off health, physical and mental, productivity and happiness the more everyone else is happier, healthier, wiser and more productive the better off you and everyone else is because of it
• You may face fines, jail time, imprisonment and worse
• The world becomes cumulatively lesser with your negative action

Positive actions on the other hand lead to a positive world

• People react to you differently
• You may have a good reputation that people may react to
• People will be more willing to act with you when you need help
• You become more happy and therefore more healthy
• You become more healthy and thus more mentally healthy and thus more happy
• You become more healthy and thus more happy
• You share the opposite of stress with people you are with
• You will live longer
• You have been positive
• You create a more positive world which eventually comes back to you with your positive action
• You may receive rewards besides these
• The world becomes cumulatively greater, and you the better off

Much of this was understood by the ancients. Imagine, they knew to say “badness would come if you were bad, that badness is the cause of more badness”. In fact though it is essentially the actual concept of Karma, this sentiment was present throughout religion. Since even before Egypt, before the Bible, Buddha and Bagavad. Nowadays we have confirmed that impacting each other has serious consequences.

Here are ways your world becomes lesser, and therefore you become lesser.

• You become worse off, as discussed, and thus suffer
• You be less productive, in every conceivable way, to others and yourself
• You spread your unhappiness, and then others become unhappy
• Their productivity every conceivable way is diminished
• They spread their suffering, and eventually it compounds in places and comes back to you, by all manner of bad stuff, not all of which is preventable nor should be

A note on our current religious system

• Religious people bully nonreligious people
• The nonreligious folk reinforce their belief that what they do, believe etc is good, true etc and become more confident in what they do and believe
• This provokes the religious nut who hurts the nonreligious people physically or emotionally
• This aggravates the religious folk and nonreligious folk alike into worse behavioral outcomes for everyone involved in a feedback loop\
• This impacts your world in those ways mentioned before

In other words living is all about making the world better so you become better, so your family becomes better, so your friends become better so more and more until everyone is better off.

We have an is/ought problem here.

 

[VoidCat]

We have an is/ought problem here.

Yeah...the world ought to be a better place you be kind. But it sometimes isn't. Kind people can get treated horribly while unkind people do well. That was something i noticed in the OP as well. Like if you are a huge people pleaser you sometimes can attract folk who are abusive. There's even a saying that some the kindest people have the most rotten luck.

 

[ChieftheCef]

We have an is/ought problem here.

an aught/is problem?

 

[ChieftheCef]

I don't agree with Hume. It is that being generally unkind incurs negativity, and being positive incurs positivity. It is scientific fact. And whether you realize it or not it is the general reason you be kind, both so you can have some reward, but also so your world is better, and others can have some reward or not have punishment. science-derived reason for being positive.

 

[osgart]

Instead of just being kind I try to give what in my judgment is the deserved response. Sure I would love to be kind but some people see that as an opportunity to take advantage, and others would try to exploit kindness.

Kindness with kind people often turns out well. It's just that you have to consider the nature of the person you are entertaining.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

With scientific facts; I answered why be kind with science.

But you didn't postulate them as science fact. Why should we assume there is any scientific weight and merit to your claims?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hah! Have you ever read the Sermon on the Mount?

What about it?
Are you saying that it is impossible to act morally without have read that?

Also, I will say that there is plenty in that "sermon" which is very immoral imo.

Without God you have no objective basis for being 'good' or 'kind.'

The opposite is true.

Good is whatever action or decision that increases / maximizes well-being (in the broadest sense) for all sentient creatures.
Bad is whatever action or decision that increases / maximizes suffering (in the broadest sense) for all sentient creatures.
That is as objective a standard as it gets, since with such a standard you can actually objectively test actions and decision based on its consequences / effects

Whereas with a god's commandments, all you are doing is obbeying a perceived authority. And those commandments aren't objective. They are merely what this perceived authority considers moral or immoral. That makes it subjective as it concerns only the opinion of this authority.

Is something good because god says it is, or does god say something is good because it is good for *other* reasons.

If the first, then morals are subjective (= the opinion of said god).
If the latter, then god isn't required since we could then simply evaluate those reasons.

Science is irrelevant here.

Heavily disagree.
Science provides us with knowledge. This knowledge in turn allows us to properly assess the consequences of actions and decisions.

If you don't understand the world around you, if you live in ignorance, you will not be able to understand how an action or decision impacts / affects others.
Morality is off course also about intention. The point is that the more scientifically literate you are, the better you become at understanding the consequences of behavior.

 

[1213]

Positive actions on the other hand lead to a positive world

I think that is an interesting claim. For example Jesus, healed the sick, spoke the truth and love, got murdered brutally. Probably the same would happen also in today's world. I don't think being positive, or good, necessary leads always to all the positive things you say. Although, I think the impact of Jesus to this world was still very positive.

• Religious people bully nonreligious people

Does that mean that all bullies are religious and those who are not, can't be religious?

 

[Heyo]

I'm not sure what is scientific about any of this, but it's not as if being scientific is necessary or even desirable for addressing questions about conduct and ethics. Those issues fall squarely in the realm of philosophy, not science, because it entails value judgements not impartial observations about that-which-is.

It's not that it is unscientific, just that @ChieftheCef didn't present the science.
Let me cite just one little experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoner's_dilemma.
So, there is some science, in this case game theory, behind it. There are more examples in other fields like anthropology and sociology.
I don't know how much it has been quantified and a solid hypothesis built.
But I could ad lib one off the top of my head. You need a group of players who interact, they need to have the ability to observe and memorize the interactions. They need to have an incentive to act, ideally also a drive to copy successful actions.
Quantize those factors and make experiments.
My prediction is that in groups with higher levels of the named factors, cooperation will be higher, and the group will be more successful.

 

[ChieftheCef]

It's not that it is unscientific, just that @ChieftheCef didn't present the science.

I'm working on gathering that now. I'm gonna make a new thread and explain the science as best I can. Won't be for some time.

Let me cite just one little experiment: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma#The_iterated_prisoner's_dilemma.
So, there is some science, in this case game theory, behind it. There are more examples in other fields like anthropology and sociology.
I don't know how much it has been quantified and a solid hypothesis built.
But I could ad lib one off the top of my head. You need a group of players who interact, they need to have the ability to observe and memorize the interactions. They need to have an incentive to act, ideally also a drive to copy successful actions.
Quantize those factors and make experiments.
My prediction is that in groups with higher levels of the named factors, cooperation will be higher, and the group will be more successful.

WHat are named factors?

 

[ChieftheCef]

I think that is an interesting claim. For example Jesus, healed the sick, spoke the truth and love, got murdered brutally. Probably the same would happen also in today's world.

Do you know what a doctor is? Do you believe the truth somehow does not get out? ***mod edit***

I don't think being positive, or good, necessary leads always to all the positive things you say.

THat's not even close to what I said, 123.

Although, I think the impact of Jesus to this world was still very positive.

I think if you think that was a good, solid philosophical musing you only show how Christianity is full of people with misconceptions in other areas of life.

Does that mean that all bullies are religious and those who are not, can't be religious?

See you're going about defending yourself when I didn't attack all religions so we know you're really guilty of this. I bet you, without realizing it abuse your children, if you have any that is. I bet you don't know how bad you('d) **** them up. You talk like a snake for the guy who bows to the guy who implicitly oversimplifies that lying is bad.

 

[ChieftheCef]

But you didn't postulate them as science fact. Why should we assume there is any scientific weight and merit to your claims?

I showed you the class,

NO, I draw on science and little to no personal experience.

Best Personal Development Courses Online [2024] | Coursera

Learn Personal Development or improve your skills online today. Choose from a wide range of Personal Development courses offered from top universities and industry leaders. Our Personal Development courses are perfect for individuals or for corporate Personal Development training to upskill your...

www.coursera.org

will you take it?

 

[exchemist]

I'm working on gathering that now. I'm gonna make a new thread and explain the science as best I can. Won't be for some time.

WHat are named factors?

That’s a good idea.

 

[Heyo]

I'm working on gathering that now. I'm gonna make a new thread and explain the science as best I can. Won't be for some time.

WHat are named factors?

The ones I named, player interaction, ability to observe and memorize, tendency to copy behaviour and incentive. All those are on a scale and when you make enough experiments you can create a formula for success, making it a quantified hypothesis, not just qualitative.

 

[ChieftheCef]

What about it?
Are you saying that it is impossible to act morally without have read that?

Also, I will say that there is plenty in that "sermon" which is very immoral imo.

Hey do you have any resources for this? Thanks for keeping up the good fight!

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Hey do you have any resources for this? Thanks for keeping up the good fight!

The internet is off course full of reviews of that text.
But I just read it myself and remember that I had quite a few cringe moments.

It was a long time ago though, so I can't give you many specific examples or analysis without reading it again.

One obvious thing I remember though, is how it argues for thought crimes with the whole "when you look at a women with lust, you have already committed adultery"

It's also incredibly hypocritical as it is basic human nature for men to notice babes. So it also ties into what The Hitch so infamously said: "created sick and commanded to be well". Supposedly it's god who created men and thus also made sure that men would lust for women. Then he says you can't look at a woman with lust.

It's assanine.

Regardless of all that though, it's literally arguing for thought crimes.
So yeah.... And I require just one example of an immoral thing to establish that this sermon isn't the epitome of morality.