# What attitudes in a philosophy/meme ensure it will spread widely **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [June 9, 2025, 5:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380 "2025-06-09T17:27:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![UDS1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47774/32.png) [@UDS1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS1)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2025, 11:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380/21 "2025-06-10T11:04:23Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Of course it will; it’ll tell you that the claims of the Nazis about the Jews are lies, and that killing them will just result in a lot of dead people and a worse-off Germany. Because it turns out that a great many, probably most immoral decisions are based partially or completely on _falsehoods._ Your argument assumes that we treat “a lot of dead people” and “a worse-off Germany” as bad things, which is itself an ethical position that you now need to scientifically demonstrate. More worryingly, your argument implies that, in circumstances where I would actually make myself or my country better-off by killing Jews, science would then establish that my desire was fundamentally good. Which, you know, it wouldn’t. All you’re really doing is reiterating my point; science can tell me how to achieve my aim, whether that’s dead Jews or a prosperous Germany, and it might help me to realise that I can’t acheive both of these aims — I have to choose one. But it still has nothing to say about whether these aims are good or bad. So, the relationship between science and belief: - Science rests on belief. There are certain beliefs that you must hold in order to do science, or regard yourself as learning anything from it. Science itself cannot validate those beliefs; any attempt to do so would be circular. - Science can illuminate some beliefs. In particular — given the beliefs which it accepts as axiomatic — it can show that beliefs about empirically-observable phenomena are true or false. - But it can’t do this for beliefs that are not about empirically-observable phenomena. This includes all ethical propositions. Relevantly for the purposes of this thread, it also includes a wide range of religious beliefs. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2025, 11:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380/22 "2025-06-10T11:16:02Z")
> [@UDS1](#): > > Your argument assumes that we treat “a lot of dead people” and “a worse-off Germany” as bad things, which is itself an ethical position that you now need to scientifically demonstrate. > > More worryingly, your argument implies that, in circumstances where I would actually make myself or my country better-off by killing Jews, science would then establish that my desire was fundamentally good. The argument doesn’t assume that a worse off Germany is bad; it’s based on the fact that the Germans didn’t want a worse off Germany. But that’s what the Nazis gave them, in part because Nazi beliefs were _factually incorrect._ And no, science showing that killing off millions of people would be profitable wouldn’t show that it was _good,_ just that it would work. And in practice it’s typically _not_ actually profitable (people are valuable assets and killing millions of them is expensive), so the issue is moot. How often do “Evil” people _actually_ based their decisions on reality? Very seldom. The idea that people engage in evil behavior because “cold hard science” tells them it’s the best decision happens rarely if ever in real life. They just _make up_ their own “facts” instead to justify themselves. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 10, 2025, 12:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380/23 "2025-06-10T12:19:05Z")
> [@DemonTree](#): > > A religion or philosophy is more likely to spread if it provides practical benefits like encouraging people to behave in pro-social ways towards other believers. Eg by following rules banning theft, violence etc, cooperating on big projects, and supporting other members who need help. Not only does this encourage more people to join to get the benefits, but groups acting in this way will be more successful than those who don’t. > > What’s less obvious is why giving some kind of meaning to life helps a belief spread. Why did humans evolve to want this? On the other hand, demanding discipline and some kind of self-improvement also seems to be a common feature of religious beliefs, and it’s more obvious how that could benefit believers. For the first part, especially if a religion also allows you to mistreat non-believers but requires you to be nice to believers. That creates a two-fold incentive to join. You can join to avoid being abused by members, but also join to enjoy the pro-social benefits of members. Its my understanding that this is a reason street gangs see people join. They join to avoid being abused by the gangs, as well as to enjoy the benefits of the gangs. Then you have the fact that some street gangs conscript members against their will rather than just relying on voluntary joining too. A system that relies on forced conscription & voluntary joining would have advantages over one that relied solely on people joining voluntarily. As for your second point, I’m not sure. I’m guessing its a secondary characteristic of our bigger brains and higher number of cortical neurons. Floppy ears on a dog don’t serve a purpose, they’re just a side effect of being bred to be domesticated. Maybe looking for a meaning in life is just a side effect of having brains that tripled in size in the last 3 million years. ---
**Author:** ![UDS1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47774/32.png) [@UDS1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS1)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380/24 "2025-06-11T01:22:18Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > And no, science showing that killing off millions of people would be profitable wouldn’t show that it was _good,_ just that it would work. _Which is the point._ By the same reasoning, science showing that killing off millions of people wouldn’t be profitable wouldn’t show that it was _bad,_ just that it wouldn’t work to acheive that particular end. Science has _nothing at all_ to say about whether killing millions of people is good or bad, just as it has nothing at all to say about whether pursuing profitability is good or bad. ---
**Author:** ![UDS1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47774/32.png) [@UDS1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS1)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 2:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380/25 "2025-06-11T02:01:57Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > For the first part, especially if a religion also allows you to mistreat non-believers but requires you to be nice to believers. That creates a two-fold incentive to join. You can join to avoid being abused by members, but also join to enjoy the pro-social benefits of members. That might be a successful characteristic for a religion that includes pretty much the whole of a given society — the people you are encouraged to mistreat are those other people who live in that place over there. But if you have a society characterised by religious diversity, and the religions are mutually antagonistic, then that’s more likely to result in the society not thriving, which will be bad for all of the religions which that society hosts. The street gangs example is interesting. It’s not clear that street gang ideas are particularly well-adapted to survive and propagate. Not many street gangs have endured as long as major religions, or as other affinity groups like nations. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 3:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380/26 "2025-06-11T03:15:35Z")
> [@UDS1](#): > > _Which is the point._ By the same reasoning, science showing that killing off millions of people wouldn’t be profitable wouldn’t show that it was _bad,_ just that it wouldn’t work to acheive that particular end. Science has _nothing at all_ to say about whether killing millions of people is good or bad, just as it has nothing at all to say about whether pursuing profitability is good or bad. No; it has plenty to say, because most moral systems justify themselves by claiming things about the world and about the results of following them. Not even the Nazis killed millions of people “just because”. And science _can_ prove or disprove such claims. ---
**Author:** ![UDS1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47774/32.png) [@UDS1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS1)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 4:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380/27 "2025-06-11T04:07:38Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > No; it has plenty to say, because most moral systems justify themselves by claiming things about the world and about the results of following them. Not even the Nazis killed millions of people “just because”. And science _can_ prove or disprove such claims. Yes, I know. And it can do so equally whether the moral goals, in support of which the claims are made, are good or bad. What it can’t do is tell you whether the moral goals are good or bad. If I want to make Germany richer and stronger, science may tell me that killing lots of people is not conducive to that aim. If I want to make Gaza poorer and weaker, science may tell me that killing lots of people _is_ conducive to that aim. In neither case is science doing anything at all to help me make an ethical decision — should I want make Germany stronger, or Gaza weaker? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380/28 "2025-06-11T05:15:08Z")
> [@UDS1](#): > > And it can do so equally whether the moral goals, in support of which the claims are made, are good or bad. Except no, because most of the time “evil” goals are contradicted by science. People just ignore that because of the twin myths of “intelligence and knowledge are evil”, and “good is stupid and self destructive”. As far as most people are concerned Nazism _must_ be supported by science because science is evil; and Nazism _must_ be smart because Nazis are evil and evil is inherently smart. ---
**Author:** ![UDS1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47774/32.png) [@UDS1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS1)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 5:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380/29 "2025-06-11T05:36:26Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Except no, because most of the time “evil” goals are contradicted by science You keep telling us this, but ignore all invitations to offer a sicentific refutation — or confirmation — of a moral claim. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > People just ignore that because of the twin myths of “intelligence and knowledge are evil”, and “good is stupid and self destructive”. > > As far as most people are concerned Nazism _must_ be supported by science because science is evil; and Nazism _must_ be smart because Nazis are evil and evil is inherently smart. I have literally never met anybody who thinks that. These beliefs look to me like hallucinations that you have come up with to rationalise your faith, in the face of all logic, that science supports virtue and undermines vice. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380/30 "2025-06-11T05:43:06Z")
> [@UDS1](#): > > You keep telling us this, but ignore all invitations to offer a sicentific refutation — or confirmation — of a moral claim. Are black people _actually_ subhuman? Are women _actually_ less intelligent than men? No, they aren’t. Claims refuted. History is _full_ of “evil” people making false claims to justify their evil. ---
**Author:** ![UDS1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47774/32.png) [@UDS1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS1)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 7:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380/31 "2025-06-11T07:49:45Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Are black people _actually_ subhuman? Are women _actually_ less intelligent than men? No, they aren’t. Claims refuted. Those are not moral claims. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > History is _full_ of “evil” people making false claims to justify their evil. If somebody makes a true claim to justify their evil, does that mean that their evil is justified? Or that it is not, in fact, evil? ---
**Author:** ![DemonTree](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/demontree/32/8646_2.png) [@DemonTree](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DemonTree)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 2:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380/32 "2025-06-11T14:23:29Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > For the first part, especially if a religion also allows you to mistreat non-believers but requires you to be nice to believers. That creates a two-fold incentive to join. You can join to avoid being abused by members, but also join to enjoy the pro-social benefits of members. Its my understanding that this is a reason street gangs see people join. They join to avoid being abused by the gangs, as well as to enjoy the benefits of the gangs. Then you have the fact that some street gangs conscript members against their will rather than just relying on voluntary joining too. A system that relies on forced conscription & voluntary joining would have advantages over one that relied solely on people joining voluntarily. Most religions and similar philosophies do endorse treating believers and non-believers differently, some are actively hostile to non-believers. This probably helps religions that are already widespread to stay that way. > [@UDS1](#): > > That might be a successful characteristic for a religion that includes pretty much the whole of a given society — the people you are encouraged to mistreat are those other people who live in that place over there. But if you have a society characterised by religious diversity, and the religions are mutually antagonistic, then that’s more likely to result in the society not thriving, which will be bad for all of the religions which that society hosts. The Romans had a society that tolerated and co-opted religious diversity, but the Roman Empire eventually institutionalised Christianity, and AFAIK most other religions were banned. So if a belief system can get to the point of being adopted by a powerful government, then this sort of intolerance can help to remove rivals. It suggests another aspect of successful religions is being useful to the powerful, eg by encouraging people to accept their place in the hierarchy. On the other side, minority religions often have rules to keep members segregated from the rest of society, telling them they shouldn’t have friends outside the religion, shouldn’t marry outsiders, sometimes should avoid even talking to them. Any that don’t have such rules are likely to see members trickling away to join the majority, and soon disappear. > [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > As for your second point, I’m not sure. I’m guessing its a secondary characteristic of our bigger brains and higher number of cortical neurons. Floppy ears on a dog don’t serve a purpose, they’re just a side effect of being bred to be domesticated. Maybe looking for a meaning in life is just a side effect of having brains that tripled in size in the last 3 million years. Maybe. But since I have a brain that’s determined to look for meaning in life, I find your answer unsatisfying. 🤣 ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380/33 "2025-06-11T15:12:38Z")
Since the OP mentions memes I recall a study of what traits make a meme most effective at spreading and number 1 was: anger. You’re more likely to share a meme if it made you angry than any other emotion, even one that made you laugh out loud. ---
**Author:** ![xtenkfarpl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/x/c2a13f/32.png) [@xtenkfarpl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xtenkfarpl)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380/34 "2025-06-11T15:30:22Z")
> [@UDS1](#): > > The street gangs example is interesting. It’s not clear that street gang ideas are particularly well-adapted to survive and propagate. Not many street gangs have endured as long as major religions, or as other affinity groups like nations. Mostly true for street gangs nowadays, I expect. But historically, I imagine that’s _how_ ‘nations’ originally arose: some particular local warlord and his followers were successful, by luck and/or because the top guy was smart. So they expanded, and took over more territory. Eventually the boss became the _KING_ and thus a nation was born? Of course there is a difference: modern street gangs exist within the context of a larger authority. If they become too troublesome, the government will shut them down. Using the police or, if it ever came to a last resort, the army. ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380/35 "2025-06-11T16:07:16Z")
> [@UDS1](#): > > That might be a successful characteristic for a religion that includes pretty much the whole of a given society — the people you are encouraged to mistreat are those other people who live in that place over there. But if you have a society characterised by religious diversity, and the religions are mutually antagonistic, then that’s more likely to result in the society not thriving, which will be bad for all of the religions which that society hosts. This is true, and can be seen with the sectarianism in the middle east. The Muslims don’t get along with the Jews and Christians The Arabs hate the other ethnic groups (persians, kurds, turks) Sunni and Shia hate each other The traditionalists and the reformers hate each other The devout muslims hate the decadent west, and they hated the communist, atheist east In various areas, people are more loyal to local tribes than a national government etc. Hamas, Al Qaeda and ISIS are all extremist, arab, sunni muslim groups so you’d assume they get along. But nope, Al Qaeda and ISIS consider Hamas to be too moderate so they hate Hamas. So you’d assume Al Qaeda and ISIS would get along, but nope. They disagree on strategy and hate each other. Society is held back by all the tribalism and the concept that empathy should be withheld and cruelty implemented on those outside your tribe. It prevents people from working together and society from advancing. I think the situation where this would actually work is one where one philosophy is dominant and others have no choice but to join. But again, when the crips tried this in Los Angeles, it just meant that all the other gangs they preyed upon joined together and called themselves the bloods. Then the crips broke apart into sets and started going to war with other crip sets. Society is held back by all this tribal warfare. [![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/ANNX_XiuA78/hqdefault.jpg "Emo Philips - Joke on Religion") ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANNX_XiuA78) ---
**Author:** ![Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/q.q.switcheroo/32/5713_2.png) [@Q.Q.Switcheroo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Q.Q.Switcheroo)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 4:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380/36 "2025-06-11T16:21:44Z")
I suppose the Jewish equivalent of the Emo Philips joke is the one about the desert island castaway who built himself a whole city, complete with two synagogues. “That’s the one I go to…and THAT’s the one where I wouldn’t be caught dead!” ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380/37 "2025-06-11T21:33:31Z")
> [@UDS1](#): > > Those are not moral claims. Why? Those are standard lies used to justify moral positions. How are they not “moral claims”? _Is_ there in your eyes any such thing as a moral claim that applies to anything real? > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > History is _full_ of “evil” people making false claims to justify their evil. > [@UDS1](#): > > If somebody makes a true claim to justify their evil, does that mean that their evil is justified? Or that it is not, in fact, evil? No, it just means that their evil isn’t based on an outright falsehood. But it’s a borderline non-problem, considering the consistency of evil _being_ factually wrong. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 10:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380/38 "2025-06-11T22:56:33Z")
> [@Wesley\_Clark](#): > > I think the situation where this would actually work is one where one philosophy is dominant and others have no choice but to join. But again, when the crips tried this in Los Angeles, it just meant that all the other gangs they preyed upon joined together and called themselves the bloods. Then the crips broke apart into sets and started going to war with other crip sets. Society is held back by all this tribal warfare. That sounds like society _benefitting_ from tribal warfare, not being held back by it. How is all of Los Angeles being dominated by a single criminal gang better for society? ---
**Author:** ![Wesley\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wesley_clark/32/20581_2.png) [@Wesley\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wesley_Clark)\ **Post date:** [June 11, 2025, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380/39 "2025-06-11T23:19:24Z")
I was thinking of Christianity and its spread through latin america and Africa. The europeans had more wealth and better militaries, so people may have joined christianity in order to not be a victim of their persecution and hopefully enjoy some of the material benefits. ---
**Author:** ![UDS1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/e47774/32.png) [@UDS1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UDS1)\ **Post date:** [June 12, 2025, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380/40 "2025-06-12T01:32:10Z")
> [@xtenkfarpl](#): > > Mostly true for street gangs nowadays, I expect. But historically, I imagine that’s _how_ ‘nations’ originally arose: some particular local warlord and his followers were successful, by luck and/or because the top guy was smart. > > So they expanded, and took over more territory. Eventually the boss became the _KING_ and thus a nation was born? A nation is a group of people united by a common language, common culture, shared territory, shared history, etc, and distinguished from their neighbours who do not share these characteristics. Nations probably arouse out of tribes, which is basically the same thing but ona smaller scale. Tribes and and nations produce leaders and states, not the other way around. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-attitudes-in-a-philosophy-meme-ensure-it-will-spread-widely/1019380.md?page=3)