Classic evangelical thinking that morals only happen when they are enforced by external punishment.
this post was submitted on 25 Jun 2023
22 points (100.0% liked)
Curated Tumblr
5242 readers
92 users here now
For preserving the least toxic and most culturally relevant Tumblr heritage posts.
Here are some OCR tools to assist you in transcribing posts:
-
FOSS Android Recs per u/m_f@discuss.online: 1 , 2
Don't be mean. I promise to do my best to judge that fairly.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 13 comments
sorted by:
hot
top
controversial
new
old
Technically it's not wrong. The only difference is the external punishment isn't handed out by some eternal torture but by other people.
So, if there were no consequences, you'd walk into a store and take whatever you wanted without paying? And if someone tried to stop you, you'd beat them down for it? You'd push a disabled person into traffick for money? You'd be willing to sell children into slavery?
Morals don't happen just because something bad happens to you when you do bad things. As the other comment says, morals happen because humans are, at their core, an empathetic species. It's how we survived. It's how we evolved to create and use tools, it's how we developed society. Yes, there are unempathetic individuals who stand on the backs of the rest, squeezing every ounce of value out allowed within the law (and some don't even stop there) but they are a very visible minority, in my experience.
I never said it was wrong for me personally but I'm not naive enough to think the majority of people on this planet are only good because there's consequences for doing so.
I help people carry heavy shit because I'm capable. Others help because they'd be looked down on if they don't.
This is reality.
Some people do, sure. I don't think most people think about it hard enough to consider that they'd be looked down upon for not helping. They do because they're capable and because they're present, often without thought. Your world view is jaded, which is understandable. But I do not agree with it.
On the surface, your assertion seems to imply that you think you're better than the majority of people because you do things "because you're capable" and that others only do the same menial tasks because they'd be looked down on if they didn't. That's a dangerously self-centric way to look at things. I don't think that's really what you intended to imply, but... It's there.
EDIT: Please don't misinterpret, I'm not accusing you of thinking you're better, just stating that that's a possible interpretation of what you said and asking if you knew. I appreciate the candid discussion!
Technically it's wrong.
You're not good because you're afraid of the consequences of being bad. You're good because you have empathy and know that kindness is overall better for everyone (you included) than nastiness or immorality.
That's not why most people are good though. I'm not talking about myself I'm simply stating the reality that most people are only good because of societal standards and expectations.
Think of the old west in America. Lawless. People dueling to the death over petty insults. Or the medieval period in Europe. Or the feudal age of eastern countries. They all had rampant crime and violence due to a lack of facing real consequence.
If you remove social consequence humans become the animals they have always been.
Edit: Also your last point proves mine. It's only easier because otherwise you'll be ostracized or worse.
Edit: Also your last point proves mine. It’s only easier because otherwise you’ll be ostracized or worse.
Not at all? For example, there are many people who donate time or money to charities, and don't talk about it at all. They do it because it feels good to help, they don't seek validation or praise.
"Kind" and "not mean" are not the same thing. The motivations are totally different.
Do you think the "old west" in America was actually like a western movie? Like, have you played red dead redemption and think that's just how every day actually was? That fucking hilarious. Also those "social consequences" kinda prove the other guys point. You'll be ostracised because other people have empathy and look down/ostracise those who participate in immoral behaviour because they know it's wrong.
This, this also plays into the age-old debates about intolerance of intolerance and “free” speech. “Free” speech means that you are free to say whatever you would like, as long as you are willing to accept the natural consequences, and tolerance is one of many other social contracts we have in place.
You are welcome to lie to someone, to call them names, to tell them awful things or to just spout bullshit all day. But the flip side of that is that people are also free to say what they will, and engage with who they want, and if you are a real asshole who finds issue with everyone very few people will willingly do so with you. In other words: don’t poke the bear, and you won’t get eaten.
We know that in the anthropological record examples exist of people being cared for exist that should not have otherwise survived. So it's fair to say that at least some of us do have the desire to care for others within us.
Community support efforts exist. There are always people who will do for others without the expectation of reward. I've been the beneficiary of it and the giver of it when I can.
We also have plenty of contrary examples as well. It's easy to look at, say, the growing income inequality as an easy example of at best indifference to the suffering of others and news feeds focus on the harm we as humans do to each other.
You can make an argument for both things being true.
We would not have survived as a species if we did not learn to cooperate and there can be those who will put themselves above all others at the expense of everyone else.