Why don't Atheists Pillage the Earth?

[woodstockbirdybird]

@Vox_Imperatoris

Because I think punishment probably is inescapable, i.e. from God. Not necessarily the Christian God, but I think there is one.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

As others have said, this is fucking sad and psychotic. If the only thing keeping you from committing violence is fear of punishment, you’re sick in the head. Is it your opinion that others don’t really feel empathy due to being mature human beings and only force themselves to resist hurting others because it was commanded by God? No wonder you’re such a fan of Rand.

[Vox_Imperatoris]

@Sophistry_and_Illusion

Because the former is an actual altruistic reason, whereas the latter one reduces morality to fear and self-interest.

Imagine you are in the hospital, and nurse takes extra good care of you–is very attentive to your needs, very thoughtful, and always willing to go the extra mile. You think the nurse is very caring. But suppose, after you check out, you find out that your rich uncle promised the nurse $500 to take extra good care of you. It puts the nurse’s behavior in a whole different light. There is a difference between an action that is done from caring and one that is done from self-interest. If the theist really thinks that morality must be done from the latter motive, then theism debases morality.

The nurse is morally no better or worse in either scenario.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[Sophistry_and_Illusion]

@Vox_Imperatoris

The nurse is morally no better or worse in either scenario.

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

So you don’t think the motive of an action has any bearing on the moral worth of the action or the agent? To use Kant’s example, you think a butcher who refrains from putting his thumb on the scale for fear of being caught and losing customers is just as good as one who refrains because he is honest and likes his customers, and doesn’t *want *to cheat them?

[VarlosZ]

@Vox_Imperatoris

The nurse is morally no better or worse in either scenario.

Did you not think you would be asked to give a rationale for this statement? I know, it’s just cooler to sound mysteriously authoritative.

Anyway, that caring about the welfare of others for its own sake is more laudable than caring about it for the sake of financial gain seems uncontroversially true for the vast majority of moral systems. Which are you using that informs your opinion to the contrary?

[Vox_Imperatoris]

@Sophistry_and_Illusion

So you don’t think the motive of an action has any bearing on the moral worth of the action or the agent? To use Kant’s example, you think a butcher who refrains from putting his thumb on the scale for fear of being caught and losing customers is just as good as one who refrains because he is honest and likes his customers, and doesn’t *want *to cheat them?

Yes, the important part is whether he cheats the customer or not. Of course, if he does cheat the customer, there can be mitigating circumstances, e.g. someone was holding a gun to his head and forcing him to do it, that would make him not responsible for the act. But no one is guilty of the thought crime of not doing something because he doesn’t want to be punished. After all, why is he honest except for the fact that if it were known that if he were dishonest, no one would buy from him and people would hate him, effectively a punishment? (Of course, there is the possibility that stealing happens to be an irrationally disgusting action to him and so he would gain no satisfaction from the extra money he would gain, but that would not apply to everyone.)

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

[calm_kiwi]

@Aji_de_Gallina

I still don’t get this atheist phrase “it’s the only life we’ve got, let’s make it nice”.
Why? Why not "let’s do anything we can get away with?

I know atheists don’t do it, and they have their own valid reasons, but it’s rarely deeper than “not my thing, dude”.

Are you serious? “It’s not my thing” is not a better reason to act like a moral human being then “god said so”?

Here is my view (I am not now, nor have I ever been, nor will I ever be, a believer of any religion). My parents were also atheists (my mother was bought up Anglican and quickly left it at 21, my father was from a family of atheists)

As far as I can gather to Christian’s God/Jesus is your “father” ie the one who should be obeyed, who teaches you about life, the one you love.

In my experience this is how atheist morality comes into being. You start with parents with strong morals; they believe that stealing is wrong because it is bad to take from somebody else. Physically harming others is wrong because it just isn’t an appropriate way to deal with people. Not telling the truth? Well sometimes that is not a bad thing, sometimes a half truth saves someones feelings. Taking the lords name in vane/vein? What lord?

If god is like a father then he deals with life as it is.

A child believes a parent completely (Santa/Easter bunny/tooth fairy). Yes daddy I will do whatever you say.

Then you become a teenager and suddenly everything your dad said seems like bollocks and you try doing everything he told you not to do.

Then you become an adult and you realise the old man knew what he was talking about and you begin acting like a rational human being.

No one needs god to be a rational, compassionate, honest person. They just need parents who taught them that treating others well was the right thing to do.

[Sophistry_and_Illusion]

@Vox_Imperatoris

Yes, the important part is whether he cheats the customer or not. Of course, if he does cheat the customer, there can be mitigating circumstances, e.g. someone was holding a gun to his head and forcing him to do it, that would make him not responsible for the act. But no one is guilty of the thought crime of not doing something because he doesn’t want to be punished. After all, why is he honest except for the fact that if it were known that if he were dishonest, no one would buy from him and people would hate him, effectively a punishment? (Of course, there is the possibility that stealing happens to be an irrationally disgusting action to him and so he would gain no satisfaction from the extra money he would gain, but that would not apply to everyone.)

Valete,
Vox Imperatoris

What can I say? It’s obvious to me that there is a difference between someone who feigns concern for others (and who hence does not have good moral character) and someone who has genuine concern for others (and who hence has good moral character) and who acts from this concern. Even if you think their actions are morally equivalent, their character is not. But hey, if you are not convinced, you are not convinced.