Role model in your community

[Pygoscelis]

a child doesnt know its wrong to hurt people - until someone actually tells its wrong to hurt people

I did. My nephews did. My friend's kids did. You didn't? Empathy does not need to be taught. It is biologically ingrained. It is not even unique to humanity and can be found in many other social species.

If a child hit another kid and everybody said he did a good thing I'm sure he'll think he did a great thing. Its all about the reaction.

The reaction, and social programming, including religion and political ideology can do this but only with effort. It has to override the child's sense of empathy. And in doing so these ideologies will usually attempt to highlight differences between ingroup and outgroup, dehumanize the victim, and make them feel as different from the child as possible. This is all done to override empathy (seeing yourself in others and therefore feeling their pain - there is even a neurological basis for this - look up "mirror neurons")

You drink and drive???

No. I hardly drink at all actually. When I do I certainly would never get behind the wheel. I don't act this way because of any law. If I knew that there were no police checkpoints I still would not drink and drive. I have seen what it can lead to, how it can hurt people, and that is reason enough to stop me from doing it.

the main issue is thats highly dangerous and could have put many peoples life at risk

Yes. And that is the primary reason people don't do it. The law is secondary.

Some people dont know this inherently - thats why people break these laws or moral codes. We can also apply this to rapist and killers.

Those people are rare. They are called sociopaths. Laws can help keep them adhering to morality, yes.

authority doesnt just enforce it also gives out morality. That can be reformed or changed but only by another authority.

What you just wrote there sounds like pure authoritarianism and a good example of mistaking obedience for morality. If the law of Nazi Germany said to turn in Jews so they could be gassed to death, was it moral to do so? Or was the moral thing to disobey authority and hide/protect these Jews, or even fight against the authority in a resistance movement?

Anyway, having gone back and forth on this a few times I'm not sure we can come to any sort of agreement here.

 

[جوري]

It is like going back to the drawing board-- pages of one sided conversation!

I did. My nephews did. My friend's kids did. You didn't? Empathy does not need to be taught. It is biologically ingrained. It is not even unique to humanity and can be found in many other social species.

Indeed, ingrained -- yet given your ideology and beliefs you must account for that very visceral non-rational reasoning in a scientific manner for us to 'believe' that what you say has some consistency with logic! It isn't enough to throw terms like 'biology' around and not have a sense of how that 'biology' came together!

The reaction, and social programming, including religion and political ideology can do this but only with effort. It has to override the child's sense of empathy. And in doing so these ideologies will usually attempt to highlight differences between ingroup and outgroup, dehumanize the victim, and make them feel as different from the child as possible. This is all done to override empathy (seeying yourself in others and therefore feeling their pain)

That is entirely untrue.. no religious conditioning overrides the natural 'ingrained' 'biology' to believe in God is the nature we are born with:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6823229.ece

atheism in fact goes against fitrah, against nature!

No. I hardly drink at all actually. When I do I certainly would never get behind the wheel. I don't act this way because of any law. If I knew that there were no police checkpoints I still would not drink and drive. I have seen what it can lead to, how it can hurt people, and that is reason enough to stop me from doing it.

That is what you say, but we have already established that atheism goes against what is naturally ingrained, and what you say of biology you can't account for scientifically-- how are we at all expected to believe anything you say

Yes. And that is the primary reason people don't do it. The law is secondary.

The law enforces it for those who have no moral compass!

Those people are rare. They are called sociopaths. Laws can help keep them adhering to morality, yes.

Not at all since secularism keeps taking that compass down the fine line of degeneracy, first homosexuality, then incest, before you know it rape and murder, after all can those people help their nature?

What you just wrote there sounds like pure authoritarianism and a good example of mistaking obedience for morality. If the law of Nazi Germany said to turn in Jews so they could be gassed to death, was it moral to do so? Or was the moral thing to disobey authority and hide/protect these Jews, or even fight against the authority in a resistance movement?

Anyway, having gone back and forth on this a few times I'm not sure we can come to any sort of agreement here.

Indeed, obedience seems to be more in concert with the atheist manifesto.. for the simple reason that their punishment would be in the here and now, a religious person doesn't have to take the law into consideration to do what is right and good!

all the best

 

[Zafran]

I did. My nephews did. My friend's kids did. You didn't? Empathy does not need to be taught. It is biologically ingrained. It is not even unique to humanity and can be found in many other social species

You choose who you give empthy, sympathy, pity, helipng hand to - Do your friends and family members not lay any ground rules at all for there children - do they not discipline them at all? - what about when kids fight or bully other kids - if they are not told that its wrong they end up repeating the action? or do they just work it themselves - why do teachers have to tell kids off as well?

The reaction, and social programming, including religion and political ideology can do this but only with effort. It has to override the child's sense of empathy. And in doing so these ideologies will usually attempt to highlight differences between ingroup and outgroup, dehumanize the victim, and make them feel as different from the child as possible. This is all done to override empathy (seeing yourself in others and therefore feeling their pain - there is even a neurological basis for this - look up "mirror neurons

Thats with anybody - we both agree that rapist are a problem - we outgroup them all the time - including children that bully other kids - they get outgrouped - thats the way we are programmed - you dont need religion, a political system to do that - the autority of feelings is enough (specifically empathy) - which you accept a source of authority for morality.

Yes. And that is the primary reason people don't do it. The law is secondary.

But then people do it as well - Its only authority (feelings or the police which ever you like) that can stop them

Those people are rare. They are called sociopaths. Laws can help keep them adhering to morality, yes

They are not rare - we have murders, rapes and people breaking laws all the time in every society. From the less offensive to the extreme dangerous.

What you just wrote there sounds like pure authoritarianism and a good example of mistaking obedience for morality. If the law of Nazi Germany said to turn in Jews so they could be gassed to death, was it moral to do so? Or was the moral thing to disobey authority and hide/protect these Jews, or even fight against the authority in a resistance movement?

Anyway, having gone back and forth on this a few times I'm not sure we can come to any sort of agreement

This is the whole point we both have to call upon authority to show our morality - be it the Nazis, religion, science, feelings, parents or some random philosophies (empthay isnt the only thing humans have they have anger, hate and other things in them as well) - we have to choose which one we want to follow - but ultimatley we have to bow down to some sort of authority for our moral views.

I think we can come to agreement if we agree that empthy is one of the authorities people choose to make moral decisions Just like God, parents, society or a random philosopher.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I think we can come to agreement if we agree that empthy is one of the authorities people choose to make moral decisions Just like God, parents, society or a random philosopher.

If you define "authority" so wide as to mean pretty much anything that motivates you then sure, we can agree.

But I think having that wide a definition renders this discussion meaningless.

By "authority" I mean others who demand your obedience, be it King, God, Parent, Master, or whoever.