Originally posted by spruce112358I suppose if you are religious it is relevant. If you are not religious, you have to use your own conscience. Just be nice for the sake of it.
Is religion relevant when deciding whether or not to act morally?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/30/opinion/edharris.php
I believe MOST people are instinctively nice. A bit selfish.......but they try to be nice.
Originally posted by spruce112358It's the price of living in society. In the past most societies were small, and you were probably related to many people in that society - so a benefit existed to the copies of your genes in your relations if you were nice. It's all evolutionary - I may explain further, when I feel like it.
Is religion relevant when deciding whether or not to act morally?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/30/opinion/edharris.php
Originally posted by scottishinnzThe Selfish Gene, eh?
It's the price of living in society. In the past most societies were small, and you were probably related to many people in that society - so a benefit existed to the copies of your genes in your relations if you were nice. It's all evolutionary - I may explain further, when I feel like it.
Paris Hilton is an attempt by certain DNA to produce more DNA. But is Cindy Margolis a better attempt?
CM is in the lead (3 to 0) -- although she needed considerable in vitro help. Will PH ever get going?!
Originally posted by scottishinnzDoes that mean that if I don't live near any close relatives that I have no argument for moral behavior since I can't possible benefit my gene pool?
It's the price of living in society. In the past most societies were small, and you were probably related to many people in that society - so a benefit existed to the copies of your genes in your relations if you were nice. It's all evolutionary - I may explain further, when I feel like it.
Also, people are often nicer to unrelated individuals than to close relatives -- how does one explain THAT paradox?
Originally posted by spruce112358Nah, not really. you still want to live in society (although it could be argued you've got no choice nowadays), so have to abide by the rules. Also, friends are still useful things to have, for a variety of reasons, whether it's blowing steam off that big old brain, or lending you $20 when you're a bit tight.
Does that mean that if I don't live near any close relatives that I have no argument for moral behavior since I can't possible benefit my gene pool?
Also, people are often nicer to unrelated individuals than to close relatives -- how does one explain THAT paradox?
Originally posted by spruce112358\\Many pious Christians go to countries like Sudan to help alleviate human suffering, and such behavior is regularly put forward as a defense of Christianity. But in this case, religion gives people bad reasons for acting morally, where good reasons are actually available. We don't have to believe that a deity wrote one of our books, or that Jesus was born of a virgin, to be moved to help people in need. In those same desperate places, one finds secular volunteers working with organizations like Doctors Without Borders and helping people for secular reasons.//
Is religion relevant when deciding whether or not to act morally?
http://www.iht.com/articles/2006/10/30/opinion/edharris.php
I would love it that someone has a reason to aleviate suffereing where they found it. I would love it that someone found a reason to accept the one truth that Christ said embraced all of the Law.
'To love the Lord with all your heart your mind and your soul and to love your fellow man as your self'
Its to be expected that institutionalised religion is confused with the Christ inside of Christianity. Most of what Christ said of the religious leaders of his day went along lines of Woe to you serpents and vipers and other forms of scathing, righteously indignant condemnation.
If you can show me how anything moral could flow from anything other than Christ's perfect perscription for an abundant joy filled life, then I have yet to hear it.
Originally posted by scottishinnzPeople tend to operate on the principle of do unto others as you would have them do unto you. It follows from the old saying whatever you do comes back to you times three. Simply put, if you do nasty things to others, you tend to get nasty things in return, so you try to be nice. Of course, there are still people out there who haven't figured out this basic social principle, but the vast majority have. It has nothing to do with religion, but with living in harmony with others. Of course, "moral" issues like gay marriage have everything to do with religion, but that opens up a whole debate as to what can be put in the catagory of morality.
Nah, not really. you still want to live in society (although it could be argued you've got no choice nowadays), so have to abide by the rules. Also, friends are still useful things to have, for a variety of reasons, whether it's blowing steam off that big old brain, or lending you $20 when you're a bit tight.
morality is necessary for order to exist in society. laws(a requirement for order) are easier to be obeyed if they are moraly corect.
this is regarding the necessity of morality. as for the subject of this topic, religion isn't a requirement for moral fiber, but it makes acquiring said moral fiber a lot easier.