nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Score your own morality - on a scale of 1 to 10

antiskeptic

Where ever it might stem from, an atheist would likely say that they operate within a moral framework. Which means that they would likely see some folk as less moral/good than they themselves are and others as more moral/good than they themselves are. They might for instance, see Hitler or Stalin as scoring lower than them on the moral scale. And Nelson Mandela or Gandhi as scoring higher.

So, if your choice of 'Hitler' is said to score 1 on the moral scale and your choice of 'Gandhi' scores 10, where do you place your own morality/goodness on that scale of 1 to 10.

Find more posts tagged with

morality

Comments

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

...that a religion uses people's guilt mechanism in order to increase its memetic fitness. Different religions uses the mechanism in different ways, but christianity's appears to be one of the more effective methods; something that contributes directly to the overall success of christianity as compared to religions that use/hijack human psychology less effectively.

That's a story robin, a just so story.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's a story robin, a just so story.

OK, god made religion use guilt to help spread it more effectively.

Mark Hamill

antiskeptic wrote: »

It would go a little to far off topic to get into it. Suffice to say I believe it's possible for folk who've never heard of God-of-the-bible or Jesus Christ can be saved.

They'd be Christians in the effective, salvation sense - even if they don't actually self-identify as such.

So what you are saying is that everyone who is saved either has chosen to be christian, or would have if, during their life, they had the opportunity?

strobe

antiskeptic wrote: »

Does it strike you as implausible that people could construct a moral framework for themselves independent of their ability to adhere to it then manage, to almost a man, to score a first-class honour wrt it?

It seems more reasonable to suppose that people work the other way around - that they construct a moral framework around their performance. And if they find that they can't perform according to their moral framework then the moral framework is altered to bring the score back up. They lower the bar as it were.

You seem to have done just as I suggest folk do

Well I can only speak for myself and no I wouldn't agree that I looked at my performance and built a moral framework around it to produce a high score so to speak. Either in the past or now.

Since I was a kid I was always into martial arts, started training when I was about 5 and I grew up fascinated by the idea of living by a 'code' like the little old kung fu guys in the old school oriental movies always did.

That framework changed from what my parents told me was right or wrong, to what Christianity told me what was right or wrong, to what the state said was (legal) right or (illegal) wrong, to dipping my feet in various other religious/spiritual/cultural frameworks. Then came the idea that any system of moral reservation like that was just a form of control and for someone to be truly free, they would have to be free from any moral reservation of any kind, as it was all imposed from the outside by self interested parties. Then a process (in practice not entirely unlike the Buddhist process of seeking enlightenment) designed to accomplish that, piece by piece. And finally (or at least most recently) attempting to build up my own system with some kind of objectivity, with an aversion to coercion at it's base {a work in progress}.

But it was always (as far as I can be sure) a conscious decision to change from one code/framework/standard to another and I can never remember a time when I didn't adhere to a specific code less than 90%+ of the time in 90%+ of situations, hence the 9 out of 10. There was never an overlap of behaviour slipping from one to another. (I think).

Framework-skewing: I was a motorcycle mechanic in another life and ran a workshop from the shed down the back. One day, a local rogue arrived up with a Yamaha 350, the engine of which sounded like someone had thrown a handful of sand into it. "Your crank is shot I'm afraid - and they cost a fair wallop to overhaul - and a days labour on top of that"

A week later the rogue and his mate arrived up with two Yamaha 350's: the same shot one and a virtually new example. The deal was simple - change the frame and engine casing from the shot bike to the new bike and I could keep the bit's left over (which I could easily sell on). The frame and engine casing are the two bits with numbers on them. The new bike was a stolen bike.

I didn't even pause for thought and remember smirking when I encountered a magnetic medal of the virgin Mary stuck to the frame under the seat: "fat lot of good she did you..."

Two weeks later my own bike was stolen. And I was outraged at the wrong that had been done me. The sense of moral wrong that is . And I still didn't make a connection with the stolen bike bits all over the shed.

I'm not aware of ever being subject to an absence of cognitive dissonance to this degree personally. If I had of hypothetically in the past, say, been involved in theft to some degree, while I would have been annoyed about being the victim of theft during the same period, it would have been annoyance at being outdone by someone (like the annoyance I would feel from losing a game of chess or pool) rather than any moral outrage. As at the time I would not have considered theft immoral (if I did I would not have been involved in it) any more than I would have considered beating someone in a game of darts immoral.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

What would be consistent? My scoring myself a 2 or 3 in the years leading up to conversion?

Yes, people who have "conversions" tend to have a high notion of morality yet view themselves far down on the scale.

So you hear about drug addled alcoholic stealing money from his wife having a conversion to Christianity/Islam/Hinduism far more than you hear about a perfectly mild mannered person who leads a clean cut life.

The evolutionary reason is that hyper-active agency detection is heightened during times of stress and feeling of a persons life being out of control or beyond their control. The most common testimony is that the person knew what they were doing was wrong but felt powerless to turn their lives around on their own.

The more stressed out you are, the more you feel your life and behavior is out of control, the more likely you are to imagine benevolent agents in nature acting in a particular way. This is a stress reduction technique in the human brain, and it is rather successful. You stop processing the world around you as a series of very complex systems and interactions and instead gain a sense of clarity. Religion simply provides the social framework around this, but to be honest you would have done it anyway even if you were on a desert island and never heard of christianity.

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

OK, god made religion use guilt to help spread it more effectively.

Rofl

God made evolution evolve hyperactive agency detection in humans so that 33% of humans would turn to him and the other 66% would face eternal suffering in hell because the hyper-active agency detection made them believe in the wrong god. Mysterious ways :pac:

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

That's a story robin, a just so story.

Ah you think everything that suggests you are just delusional is just "a story"

I suppose it is the advantage of having your third eye opened by the divine creator of the universe. The rest of us unfortunately have to rely on less direct methods to figure out what is going on :pac:

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Ah you think everything that suggests you are just delusional is just "a story"

Robin is being disingenuous. Evolution is assumed to be able to explain everything at the outset therefore everything is pressed through the evo filter. Fling a few evo sounding terms in the direction of anything requiring an explanation and Hey Presto! you have yourself a 'theory'.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Robin is being lazy. Evolution is assumed to be able to explain everything therefore everything can be pressed through the evo filter. Fling a few evo sounding terms in the direction of anything requiring an explanation and Hey Presto! you have yourself a 'theory'.

Biological evolution can't explain everything. It can explain this.

I can't help but feel as science explains religion more and more in a non-it-has-to-be-true manner this will become the new Creationism, as most religious people just simply refuse to accept the findings because they really want their religion to be true and it is such an important part of them.

It is going to make Creationism look like a minor disagreement.

Zillah

antiskeptic wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that Zillah never does anything (in the moral realm) that Zillah wishes he didn't do (either during or after the fact). No regrets, no shame, no red-face? Ever?

Nothing that I would condemn myself for, no. Everything has a reason.

I'm quite zen like that I am.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Biological evolution can't explain everything. It can explain this.

Then explain it. Don't wave a childlike 3 piece meme-jigsaw in my face like and call it 'theory'.

I can't help but feel as science explains religion more and more in a non-it-has-to-be-true manner this will become the new Creationism, as most religious people just simply refuse to accept the findings because they really want their religion to be true and it is such an important part of them.

It is going to make Creationism look like a minor disagreement.

If it goes about it in the fashion outlined by robin then I wouldn't be holding my breath.

Zillah

antiskeptic wrote: »

Robin is being disingenuous. Evolution is assumed to be able to explain everything at the outset therefore everything is pressed through the evo filter. Fling a few evo sounding terms in the direction of anything requiring an explanation and Hey Presto! you have yourself a 'theory'.

Evolution explains what it explains, which is a lot, because it is the mechanism that shaped our very nature.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

If it goes about it in the fashion outlined by robin then I wouldn't be holding my breath.

You don't need to. Religion will evolve as it has done, regardless of whether you're there or not to help it along

The fact that evolution does explain religion adequately is naturally worrying to the religious who, as in so many other things, see only the hand of god, whereas there's an excellent non-magic explanation available.

All we're doing is just shutting out the god of the gaps.

antiskeptic

Wicknight wrote: »

Yes, people who have "conversions" tend to have a high notion of morality yet view themselves far down on the scale.

I don't recall my indicating I had a high notion of morality. Just that I was low down on the scale of whatever morality I had.

So you hear about drug addled alcoholic stealing money from his wife having a conversion to Christianity/Islam/Hinduism far more than you hear about a perfectly mild mannered person who leads a clean cut life.

Let's go with this generalisation.

The evolutionary reason is that hyper-active agency detection is heightened during times of stress and feeling of a persons life being out of control or beyond their control. The most common testimony is that the person knew what they were doing was wrong but felt powerless to turn their lives around on their own.

The more stressed out you are, the more you feel your life and behavior is out of control, the more likely you are to imagine benevolent agents in nature acting in a particular way. This is a stress reduction technique in the human brain, and it is rather successful. You stop processing the world around you as a series of very complex systems and interactions and instead gain a sense of clarity. Religion simply provides the social framework around this, but to be honest you would have done it anyway even if you were on a desert island and never heard of christianity.

This viewpoint doesn't discern whether the agency is real or imagined. It merely notes the testimony of agency detection under times of great need allied to a positive outcome and fills in the blanks with evo-speculation.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

This viewpoint doesn't discern whether the agency is real or imagined.

It doesn't and it doesn't need to. As Wicknight says, you'd feel the same whether your specific deity exists or not.

Hence, in addition to being undetectable, the deity figure is superfluous too -- not a useful position for a deity, you'll agreed

recedite

antiskeptic wrote: »

As a Christian, I'd score myself a 1 now (for want of being able to score an infinitely small fraction of 1).

You poor, miserable, guilt ridden, hypocrite sinner. Wouldn't you be better off getting out of that religion?

Does it strike you as implausible that people could construct a moral framework for themselves independent of their ability to adhere to it

People have had many millions of years living interdependently in which to build up a generalised moral framework, in which society can function, even if there are cultural variations to it. So the framework is not quite independent of our ability to conform to it.
Does it strike you as implausible whenever you see a perfectly camouflaged insect? Its not a fluke; its something that has been refined over time.
Maybe you just say God made him that colour to match the tree he's sitting on.

Two weeks later my own bike was stolen. And I was outraged at the wrong that had been done me. The sense of moral wrong that is . And I still didn't make a connection with the stolen bike bits all over the shed.

I don't think Karma is meant to be Christian doctrine.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Does it strike you as implausible that people could construct a moral framework for themselves independent of their ability to adhere to it [...]

Ask the Vatican.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

Then explain it. Don't wave a childlike 3 piece meme-jigsaw in my face like and call it 'theory'.

I have no idea that "3 piece meme-jigsaw" refers to. Hyperactive agency detection is the explanation and there is a lot of research into this.

You are free to refuse to except this research if you like. After all what is the point of scientific research when you have a direct line to God, right

antiskeptic wrote: »

If it goes about it in the fashion outlined by robin then I wouldn't be holding my breath.

Well this speaks more to your bias than anything robin said, tbh.

Zombrex

antiskeptic wrote: »

I don't recall my indicating I had a high notion of morality. Just that I was low down on the scale of whatever morality I had.

That is indicating you have a high notion of morality. You scored yourself at a 2 or 3. Now unless you were spending your entire day raping and murdering people and committing the odd act of genocide, this leaves only 1 point lower to serve for all these things, with everything above what you were doing shared between 4 and 10.

antiskeptic wrote: »

This viewpoint doesn't discern whether the agency is real or imagined. It merely notes the testimony of agency detection under times of great need allied to a positive outcome and fills in the blanks with evo-speculation.

Man you religious types must think scientists are pretty stupid. :pac:

If that was the case, if it was just "filling in the blanks" then it would hardly count as a scientific theory. Fortunately science takes a bit more of a serious approach.

There have been a significate amount of scientific experiments to explore what is happening. For example, you can produce this effect in people by placing them in a state of stress or out of control feeling. And low and behold they start viewing the problem in terms of agency in nature.

Again you are free to ignore all of this if you wish. No scientific theory will ever force you to give up your supernatural idea. So claiming this doesn't prove the supernatural agent the person images is doing something doesn't exist is some what missing the point.

Just because we have a theory for gravity doesn't prove Apollo isn't pushing the Moon around the Earth either. But who thinks that is likely given the alternative explanation?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Ask the Vatican.

Dodge noted/

Coriolanus

I answered 10, but my ethics probably border on immoral for most people. I do meet my own ethical expectations nearly perfectly though.

I'm slightly confused as to what this poll is supposed to answer. Without each and every voter qualifying with a statement, all you get is a picture of whether or not people think they do things that are reprehensibile to their own selves, which is largely meaningless.

robindch

antiskeptic wrote: »

Dodge noted

That's a bit rich coming from yourself now in all fairness

Just to clarify -- you asked if it was possible for people to create a "moral framework" and then ignore it. The Vatican has done exactly that and, in general, I suspect that the rate of people choosing a set of ethical guidelines, and then ignoring some or all of them, is higher amongst religious people than it is amongst non religious people.

Here's the Vatican's hypocrisy in pictures:

antiskeptic

recedite wrote: »

You poor, miserable, guilt ridden, hypocrite sinner. Wouldn't you be better off getting out of that religion?

And go where? Are you suggesting that I shift to a different moral framework such that my performance produces a somewhat less 'guilt ridden' score*?

It's an interesting idea. Indeed, I figure it a plausible explanation for why it so many people in the poll, each with their own morality systems, happen to score themselves a first class honour in the morality dept.

The thing is though, shifting the goalposts around to achieve a better score wouldn't have altered my moral performance. I'd be acting the same and would be just scoring better. Do you think I should be fooled by this?

People have had many millions of years living interdependently in which to build up a generalised moral framework, in which society can function, even if there are cultural variations to it. So the framework is not quite independent of our ability to conform to it.

I appreciate that moral outlook will be significantly influenced by the menu options provided by their culture. My assumption though, is that a person is still capable of constructing their own personal moral framework from the menu items provided.

And I find it curious (if not surprising) that so many perform so well.

Does it strike you as implausible whenever you see a perfectly camouflaged insect? Its not a fluke; its something that has been refined over time. Maybe you just say God made him that colour to match the tree he's sitting on.

You seem to be confirming my suggestion, that people construct their moral frameworks in order that their personal performance scores highly against it. This in order to provide fit-for-purpose psychological health perhaps?

I don't think Karma is meant to be Christian doctrine.

It's not. Although it is promised that a man will reap what he sows.

*In fact, guilt is a luxury denied a Christian. An unbeliever can rightly sit in guilt for he has a crime sat on his conscience. A Christian however, has had that crime paid for and has served his time (so to speak). To wallow in guilt is to attempt to take a punishment that doesn't actually belong to you anymore.

This set's up a tension in the Christian (he has to respond to the love of God and continuing in sin isn't an appropriate response). But guilt isn't the tension he should be under.

studiorat

Wicknight wrote: »

About a 7 I would say, if I'm being honest.

My immorality is legal, I guess you could call it "minor" immorality.

I tend to lie too much to people about minor things, and I also tend to talk behind people's backs to much. If they ever found out they would be upset, though obviously this isn't robbing banks or raping people.

I also get too fixated about people liking me and therefore don't stand up for things when I probably should, which I guess you might call hypocritical.

Never mind Wicknight, three hail Mary's, a good act of contrition and a fiver in the poor box on your way out; you'll be good to go.

Any of the other forum members out there who are unhappy with their score, let me know I'd be happy to dish out appropriate penance and absolve them.

Thanks.

Zombrex

studiorat wrote: »

Never mind Wicknight, three hail Mary's, a good act of contrition and a fiver in the poor box on your way out; you'll be good to go.

Any of the other forum members out there who are unhappy with their score, let me know I'd be happy to dish out appropriate penance and absolve them.

Thanks.

LOL.

I remember a ridiculously bizarre discussion with a Christian on the other forum where I was saying that apologizing to the person you harmed was really the only way to get absolution, to be met with this frankly cheap idea that actually it is God that is the important bit, cause all bad things are sins and he can absolve you, apologizing and showing penance to the person you harmed is important but secondary.

Really!? The most important thing is that you get absolved by the invisible voice in your own head. That is handy. As Richard Feynman would say, religion is far to local :pac::P

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

The Vatican has done exactly that and, in general, I suspect that the rate of people choosing a set of ethical guidelines, and then ignoring some or all of them, is higher amongst religious people than it is amongst non religious people.

I'll rubberstamp the Vatican hypocritical sight unseen, robin.

As for 'religious people'? Again I think you do a Dawkinsian-like generalisation and spread your traps too widely to catch anything

Suffice to say that if someone adopts Christs impossible standard (in which the words "try your best" don't feature) then they are automatically going to be more 'hypocritical' than someone who chooses a less strenuous standard.

Were it that we took the time to assemble a common standard I'm sure some religious would be more hypocritical and some less.

antiskeptic

Mark Hamill wrote: »

So what you are saying is that everyone who is saved either has chosen to be christian, or would have if, during their life, they had the opportunity?

No. I'm saying that no one chooses to be a Christian.

I think a transaction occurs between people and God that results in them being saved*. When that happens their spiritual 'eyes' are opened. If they happen to be in an environment where the Christian message is present then they will 'see' the Christian message as true, will identify with it and consider themselves Christians. But they no more choose to see the message placed before their eyes than I choose to see this screen on front of me.

Conversely, if their spiritual eyes have been opened and they live up the side of a remote mountain in Uzbekistan, then they won't be exposed to the Christian message and so won't be able to identify as Christians.

No matter. The issue is their having been saved - not what is placed in front of their now seeing eyes post-salvation.

*that transaction is, I believe, choice-based but that choice doesn't involve choosing for God/Jesus/Religion. A person doesn't believe in these things at this time in order to be able to choose for them.

Doctor DooM

antiskeptic wrote: »

I'll rubberstamp the Vatican hypocritical sight unseen, robin.

So then, you accept that Robin was not dodging, in fact he was providing a tangible example that it is not implausible that people could construct a moral framework for themselves independent of their ability to adhere to it?

antiskeptic

robindch wrote: »

Just to clarify -- you asked if it was possible for people to create a "moral framework" and then ignore it. The Vatican has done exactly that

To address this point: the Vatican (or any individual) denying to all and sundry they've transgressed their own moral code doesn't mean they themselves believe they haven't.

My query involved a persons personal estimation of their own performance. If you decide robbing paperclips is always robbery, rob paperclips and figure you haven't robbed, then you've got problems.

studiorat

Wicknight wrote: »

LOL.

Really!? The most important thing is that you get absolved by the invisible voice in your own head. That is handy. As Richard Feynman would say, religion is far to local :pac::P

I often wonder is there a correlation with confession and people visiting analysts, reki teachers, yoga gurus or any other "emotional/spiritual outlet" for want of a better phrase.