What is more important for the future well-being of humankind: Faith or Reason?

[lunamoth]

And it is.
Altruism works, which is why we find it again and again in other social mammals.
Human morality isn't just human morality. It is the way to make a flock, a pack or a society work. And we need that flock.

That is why, no matter how different the culture, no matter how estranged the religious views might be, there is still a baseline of moral tenets that is universal.

Again, it comes down to Evolution. Those flocks that had it survived. Those that didn't, did not.

BTW, now that we know this, why again is the survival of the human race important?

 

[gnomon]

nope we are not a heard animal allthough i understand where your coming from.

we are highly social by nature, but we do not heard.

Maybe because we didn't listen!

 

[waitasec]

Reason doesn't care about helping other people. It's self-interest.

the self-interest of survival

 

[jarofthoughts]

BTW, now that we know this, why again is the survival of the human race important?

For the Universe?
It's not important at all. Our entire solar system might vanish tomorrow and the Universe would hardly be any different at all.

For the world and the other species on it?
Most of the worlds species would flourish in the absence of humans.

For us?
It's all we have.

 

[lunamoth]

For us?
It's all we have.

Sure we want to live out our lives as nicely as possible, but why do we care about the well-being of the future human race?

 

[Midnight Pete]

Unless of course it is in one's self-interest to care for others. :devil:

That's what is known as "convoluted self-interest."

 

[lunamoth]

That's what is known as "convoluted self-interest."

It's not too convoluted. We realize that if we treat others the way we would like to be treated, and if everyone adhered to that social contract, we would be better taken care of under more circumstances than in a dog-eat-dog world.

 

[waitasec]

That's what is known as "convoluted self-interest."

why does that matter really?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

BTW, now that we know this, why again is the survival of the human race important?

So future generations can revel in my magnificence.

 

[waitasec]

Yet you have them. Does that not make them a truth?

that makes them subjective...

 

[lunamoth]

So future generations can revel in my magnificence.

We already do, Sandy. We already do.

 

[Willamena]

that makes them subjective...

Is it true that you have emotions?

Hint: The answer is yes. So while truth may have no regard for emotions, emotions do have some regard for truth.

 

[Midnight Pete]

It's not too convoluted. We realize that if we treat others the way we would like to be treated, and if everyone adhered to that social contract, we would be better taken care of under more circumstances than in a dog-eat-dog world.

Yes, but the Golden Rule is not motivated by self-interest. It's motivation comes from genuine empathy.

 

[Willamena]

Yes, but the Golden Rule is not motivated by self-interest. It's motivation comes from genuine empathy.

Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.

What if you're a moral person who, if he did something wrong, would expect to be stoned to death for it? The Golden Rule then becomes: stone to death others as you would have them stone to death you.

 

[lunamoth]

Yes, but the Golden Rule is not motivated by self-interest. It's motivation comes from genuine empathy.

I think it is motivated by genuine response to God's love. The materialists are going to come back and say that empathy is a hard-wired, if sub-conscious, expression of the survival instinct.

 

[waitasec]

Is it true that you have emotions?

Hint: The answer is yes. So while truth may have no regard for emotions, emotions do have some regard for truth.

ouch

 

[waitasec]

Yes, but the Golden Rule is not motivated by self-interest. It's motivation comes from genuine empathy.

of course it does,
treat others as you want to be treated...who else holds the standard of how you want to be treated?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

of course it does,
treat others as you want to be treated...who else holds the standard of how you want to be treated?

Sado-masochists need not apply.

 

[Penumbra]

I would just like to note that this is an argument against gettig caught, not against the act itself.

No, it's both.

It's wrong (in regards to the goal of promoting human flourishing) because it causes more suffering than benefit. And it's foolish to do it due to the possibility of getting caught (and for most people, the way their brains are wired to not want to do something like that.)

Why should they care if the suffering is not theirs?

Because humans evolved to be social animals. That's how we've survived this long.

If a murderer is on the loose and nobody decides to stop him because it's other people dying, then eventually the murderer is going to get to them too. It's in a society's self interest to care about others involved.

Altruism is an important aspect of what has made humans fit to survive thus far.

 

[Midnight Pete]

Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.

What if you're a moral person who, if he did something wrong, would expect to be stoned to death for it? The Golden Rule then becomes: stone to death others as you would have them stone to death you.

No, that would never work. :no:

That's more like the Law of the Jungle than the Golden Rule.