What if... Morality = Empathy?

[Purple Knight]

Question for debate: What does it mean for religion, and society, if morality is just empathy, and that's it?

Empathy as in, you don't want to be hurt, you try to avoid hurting others. You're honest with yourself, and it goes exactly as far as you would want it to go, if you were in the opposite position. It stops, and there's no moral obligation to heed some request, if you'd genuinely not make such a request. Provided you wouldn't want anyone to simply kowtow and submit to you if you were being an awful tyrant, it stops, and there's no obligation, if someone likewise does not respect you or provide basic moral consideration to you.

What if morality is really this simple, has been this simple since prehistory, and people have been trying to overwrite or invalidate it with their own self-serving rules, for about three thousand years, or even more? What does it mean for religion, and the world?

Seems to me that we just have to navigate carefully and be honest with ourselves when people have different needs, and that's it. All of society's problems are solved and a lot of people whose business it is to inflate and profit from them, are out of a job.

[1213]

....They have open prisons. If you kill someone, as far as I know, they put you up at the Hilton, basically. You get TV and a computer. To leave and go to work, or whatever. For some reason this leads to less repeat offence, not more....

Could it be that after they have killed the person they wanted to kill, it is not necessary to repeat the murder, unless the victim is risen from the death?

The reason why I support death penalty for real murderers is that it can protect the victims when they are alive. If people who want to murder know they will be killed, if caught, it can restrict them. Also, I think it would be just. Person who takes the right to kill other people, gives the same right also for others.

You'd now be hard-pressed to defend circumcision. I understand that one instance interferes with function and one does not, but the line between the two is not a clear one. What would female circumcision be? No loss of reproductive function but the purpose seems to be, to remove pleasure for the female.

I think male circumcision doesn't interfere with the function, which is why it is not in my opinion wrong. Some could even argue it is beneficial. And the female circumcision, it is not Biblical idea and I don't see any good reason for that, even if it doesn't cause loss of function.

I would ask: What kind of person I would be, if I made that demand, and would I expect people to bow to it? I would expect to be kicked in the pants and tossed on my butt. I would not make such a demand, and if I did I would not expect people to heed it. So I can say no.

Why it is not the same if you demand others to call you a woman, if you are really a man?

We're not sick. We are not broken. We are not sinful by nature. We do not need a cure.

I think that depends on what is sinful. I have understood sinful means person rejects God, or is without God. People are born in this world, in separation from God, which is why it can be said they are born in sinful state. This is why one needs God to get out of the sinful state. But, obviously if you don't want to be with God, you don't need the cure.

[TRANSPONDER]

....They have open prisons. If you kill someone, as far as I know, they put you up at the Hilton, basically. You get TV and a computer. To leave and go to work, or whatever. For some reason this leads to less repeat offence, not more....

Could it be that after they have killed the person they wanted to kill, it is not necessary to repeat the murder, unless the victim is risen from the death?

The reason why I support death penalty for real murderers is that it can protect the victims when they are alive. If people who want to murder know they will be killed, if caught, it can restrict them. Also, I think it would be just. Person who takes the right to kill other people, gives the same right also for others.

You'd now be hard-pressed to defend circumcision. I understand that one instance interferes with function and one does not, but the line between the two is not a clear one. What would female circumcision be? No loss of reproductive function but the purpose seems to be, to remove pleasure for the female.

I think male circumcision doesn't interfere with the function, which is why it is not in my opinion wrong. Some could even argue it is beneficial. And the female circumcision, it is not Biblical idea and I don't see any good reason for that, even if it doesn't cause loss of function.

I would ask: What kind of person I would be, if I made that demand, and would I expect people to bow to it? I would expect to be kicked in the pants and tossed on my butt. I would not make such a demand, and if I did I would not expect people to heed it. So I can say no.

Why it is not the same if you demand others to call you a woman, if you are really a man?

We're not sick. We are not broken. We are not sinful by nature. We do not need a cure.

I think that depends on what is sinful. I have understood sinful means person rejects God, or is without God. People are born in this world, in separation from God, which is why it can be said they are born in sinful state. This is why one needs God to get out of the sinful state. But, obviously if you don't want to be with God, you don't need the cure.

The matters raised are moral matters and what is decided is the right or wrong thing to do should NOT be decided on the Bible and not by an agenda pushed by the religious.

The other point is really the same. 'Sin' (doing wrong) is not only not correctly based on the Bible, which only hi -jacks and exploits human moral codes (I have said before - Bible apologists do this when they judge God's deeds and deem that some need to be explained away or excused) but it better rejected as a concept altogether when it claims that 'Sin' is down to Belief in the particular god of a particular religion.

This is irrational, wrong and even dangerous thinking and we should have nothing to do with it.

[Wootah]

[Replying to Wootah in post #11]

It takes one like 3 seconds to confirm my claim:

"Evidence suggests that mirror neurons are strongly associated with human empathy. And that’s important. After all, empathy enables us to put ourselves in another’s place (Penagos-Corzo et al., 2022)."
https://positivepsychology.com/mirror-n ... %2C%202018).

Well I went to wikipedia, If it is there it usually means someone won the editting battle on the left side of life. Pretty reasonable to say just be open minded.

Off course for the religious Wikipedia, the Dictionary, Science are not reliable tools.
Not a surprise. This was recurring theme in all my history of conversing with believers.

A valid observation. For the religious, the Dictioonary, science, Logic and even the Bible itself are not reliable tools if they conflict with what the Religious want to believe. For myself, those Religious authorities that do not see or refuse to take on board that Jesus debunked and dismissed the old law that conservative judges have nailed up in courthouses and never mind the constitution, are less trustworthy as references than Wiki.

Wiki is useful. It is only as good as what ios posted, and it was seen early on that biased articles can be posted. Yet it remains remarkably objective. The bottom line is that Wiki is the quick reference and anything disputed can be checked up.

It is ignorance or dishonesty (I never know which) to dismiss Wiki as unreliable, and then appeal to dictionaries, as those only give common usage, right, wrong, true or untrue. It shows the flawed thinking of how science and logic works of the Theists when they appeal to dictionary definitions and condition what people believe according to the usage of a term.

We agree that the religious (ie: me) is citing wikipedia and the unreligious alexxcJRO is challenging it.

On dictionaries, word meanings change and using a dictionary definition of a word to prove a point seems invalid. Both sides should be allowed to update to the current word that means the same thing.

[alexxcJRO]

We agree that the religious (ie: me) is citing wikipedia and the unreligious alexxcJRO is challenging it.

You challenged nothing.
Few doubting Thomas mean nothing.
New information and newer evidence always trumps older claims that were based on insufficient, less complete knowledge.

On dictionaries, word meanings change and using a dictionary definition of a word to prove a point seems invalid. Both sides should be allowed to update to the current word that means the same thing.

Its funny how the religious agree with most words's meanings but when challenge with certain meanings of certain words the dictionary and established meanings no longer apply.
Its rather disingenuous to use most words and their meaning in debate while disagree with the meanings which disprove one religious nonsensical ramblings.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Wootah in post #11]

It takes one like 3 seconds to confirm my claim:

"Evidence suggests that mirror neurons are strongly associated with human empathy. And that’s important. After all, empathy enables us to put ourselves in another’s place (Penagos-Corzo et al., 2022)."
https://positivepsychology.com/mirror-n ... %2C%202018).

Well I went to wikipedia, If it is there it usually means someone won the editting battle on the left side of life. Pretty reasonable to say just be open minded.

Off course for the religious Wikipedia, the Dictionary, Science are not reliable tools.
Not a surprise. This was recurring theme in all my history of conversing with believers.

A valid observation. For the religious, the Dictioonary, science, Logic and even the Bible itself are not reliable tools if they conflict with what the Religious want to believe. For myself, those Religious authorities that do not see or refuse to take on board that Jesus debunked and dismissed the old law that conservative judges have nailed up in courthouses and never mind the constitution, are less trustworthy as references than Wiki.

Wiki is useful. It is only as good as what ios posted, and it was seen early on that biased articles can be posted. Yet it remains remarkably objective. The bottom line is that Wiki is the quick reference and anything disputed can be checked up.

It is ignorance or dishonesty (I never know which) to dismiss Wiki as unreliable, and then appeal to dictionaries, as those only give common usage, right, wrong, true or untrue. It shows the flawed thinking of how science and logic works of the Theists when they appeal to dictionary definitions and condition what people believe according to the usage of a term.

We agree that the religious (ie: me) is citing wikipedia and the unreligious alexxcJRO is challenging it.

On dictionaries, word meanings change and using a dictionary definition of a word to prove a point seems invalid. Both sides should be allowed to update to the current word that means the same thing.

Yes. Wiki is a handy quick guide, but not authoritative (give or take disagreement about what is). Any dispute can be checked further and challenge, check and discussion is what we get here. I agree that the habit of referring to a dictionary definition may also be wrong as in some cases it will give the scientific or logical meaning, but sometimes popular and alternative usage. That habit of referring to a Book as Authority (if it agrees with the Bible) and dismissing it as the opinions of men if it doesn't is a bad habit, not only of the religious.

[Purple Knight]

....They have open prisons. If you kill someone, as far as I know, they put you up at the Hilton, basically. You get TV and a computer. To leave and go to work, or whatever. For some reason this leads to less repeat offence, not more....

Could it be that after they have killed the person they wanted to kill, it is not necessary to repeat the murder, unless the victim is risen from the death?

The reason why I support death penalty for real murderers is that it can protect the victims when they are alive. If people who want to murder know they will be killed, if caught, it can restrict them. Also, I think it would be just. Person who takes the right to kill other people, gives the same right also for others.

I agree. If the murderer admits that by killing, he has done wrong, he should willingly take punishment at least equal to what he inflicted. If he says killing people is no wrong, then, well, he's made his own bed just the same. This is the other side of empathy: The right to do to people, what they do to us.

I would ask: What kind of person I would be, if I made that demand, and would I expect people to bow to it? I would expect to be kicked in the pants and tossed on my butt. I would not make such a demand, and if I did I would not expect people to heed it. So I can say no.

Why it is not the same if you demand others to call you a woman, if you are really a man?

Because I have to think honestly: What if I really thought I was one? A lot of people have told me that I'm not really human and deserving of rights. Whatever makes me smart also makes people hate me. I would like to demand to be considered what I think I am, not labeled by someone else. However, in my perfect world, this means the same rights for everyone, not special rights for any.

We're not sick. We are not broken. We are not sinful by nature. We do not need a cure.

I think that depends on what is sinful. I have understood sinful means person rejects God, or is without God. People are born in this world, in separation from God, which is why it can be said they are born in sinful state. This is why one needs God to get out of the sinful state. But, obviously if you don't want to be with God, you don't need the cure.

It would be awful if you were a good person all on your own, and people, human beings, had you convinced you were born broken, born missing pieces, born less than whole, needed their cure for this sickness they've convinced you that you have, and then never cured you, because that was the point.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. This is the problem with religion and particularly Christianity, I think. It is arguable whether religion actually makes people behave better. Rather it makes good people do bad things. But the way it operates is the hoary but true snake oil analogy. The thing to so is persuade you that you are sick so that you can then sell them the medicine. Or in another avatar, '"You need Christianity, true or not", as part of the "civilisation would collapse without it" scam.

[1213]

Yes. This is the problem with religion and particularly Christianity, I think. It is arguable whether religion actually makes people behave better. Rather it makes good people do bad things. ..

Please give one example and explain how did religion cause it?

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. This is the problem with religion and particularly Christianity, I think. It is arguable whether religion actually makes people behave better. Rather it makes good people do bad things. ..

Please give one example and explain how did religion cause it?

Are you serious? Holy wars, crusades, heretic burning, anti - semitism, witch hunts. I suppose you'll say that is not religion but people. But it was religion that motivated those people.

[1213]

Yes. This is the problem with religion and particularly Christianity, I think. It is arguable whether religion actually makes people behave better. Rather it makes good people do bad things. ..

Please give one example and explain how did religion cause it?

Are you serious? Holy wars, crusades, heretic burning, anti - semitism, witch hunts. I suppose you'll say that is not religion but people. But it was religion that motivated those people.

I think wars are motivated by greed and lust for power. And the world leaders that are the reason for all wars just exploit any religion to get the war they desire. And in that it is helpful if people are ignorant of what the religion actually says.