In the secular worldview, why should a person love his neighbor (one chemical accident) more than a can of motor oil (another chemical accident)? In a secular worldview, would it be morally commendable for a person to sacrifice his own life to save his grandmother - and if so, why?]
43 comments
Your question is loaded.
There's nothing remotely accidental about a neighbor, a can of motor oil, etc.
The fact that you can't understand how someone could be moral without a threat of punishment or a promise of reward says a hell of a lot more about you than it does about "secular" folks.
It's called the attribution error. We all develop morals the same way -by learning (Operant Conditioning, Classical Conditioning, Empirically, or via Empathy, to name a few). You just attribute your morality to an invisible being making rules you obviously don't understand.
I feel sorry for you.
In your particular case, Jason, I'm not sure. I think you might be dumber than a can of motor oil, hence the dilemma.
As far as sacrificing one's life to save Grandma, it should be optional, and without institutions and jerks like you using the situation for guilt-tripping. One's own life should be weighed in the balance without the shameless users of the world screaming "Selfish! Selfish!" Self sacrifice requires at least a small amount of suicidal tendencies, and some of us don't believe in your alleged postmortem Happyland.
As someone who has worked developing motor oil, I really take offence that it is a chemical accident.
Oh and altruism and stuff.
Because I love my grandmother. Because her, and my grandpa were why my mom and I had a home, and food to eat after my parents split up and my mom was working her way through school. Because they were why I never knew what it was to want for anything as a child. Because she she helped me take care of my mom when she was dying of cancer, and helped me stay as sane as I did. She's why I motivated myself to quit drinking and doing drugs (no, she doesn't know just how bad it got, nor does she ever need to), and why I bother to get up and go to work in the mornings. She's why I've chosen to live instead of die--because it's my turn to be there and care for her. I don't need your god in order to understand this, but I don't expect a person like you to even begin to understand love, honor, loyalty, or duty.
> In the secular worldview, why should a person love his neighbor (one chemical accident) more than a can of motor oil (another chemical accident)?
Because your neighbor has thoughts, feelings, etc.
If it's just a matter of which one dies, not really, no. But it's very commendable to sacrifice your life to save two other people. At least, sticking to classic utilitarianism.
Say, why don't you try sacrificing yourself for somebody, Jason, and then we'll decide whether that was good or not.
Because of the social contract. For life to exist within the confines of a society, its inhabitants must adhere to a social contract, where we lose some of our freedoms to gain a greater degree of opportunity for survival and success.
How the social contract came about is a matter of much debate, but it cannot be denied that there IS, in fact, an evolutionary advantage for morality. Faults in our morality come especially when we think of someone else as not being part of OUR social contract, or being part of some OTHER social contract, vide slavery, racism, homophobia, et caetera. Of course, it's more complex than that, but you get the gist of it.
In the theistic worldview, why are superstitionauts unable to understand perfectly ordinary and natural human responses and emotional states, without reference to a sky pixie? In a theistic worldview, is sanity an unachievable daydream? Does reality chafe at the tender, shivering jelly of a quaking proto-brain? Is it an underlying mental illness? Probably, one suspects.
> why should a person love his neighbor (one chemical accident) more than a can of motor oil (another chemical accident)?
Strangely enough I'm reminded of an obscure prog rock song title "It Is Possible To Love Mosquitoes".
i'm starting to think Jason Lisle doesn't understand emotional connections to other entities, human, animal, or outright inanimate. how could he, if he somehow mistakes oil cans for people? or seriously believes that anyone else would, barring severe brain damage perhaps.
that's pretty darn basic, foundational to social interactions of every sort. i realize he's probably just trying to demonize his opposition, "look how callously inhuman those satanic secularists are", but he'd not say even that much if he didn't think the accusation was believable to somebody. so what sorts of things has he going on in his head, that he thinks people only empathize with outside entities because of divine command and threat of hellfire? what does Jason Lisle think "empathy" is, if in his eyes it can be ordered and threatened into being?
In the secular worldview, we help each other out because it feels good to be kind to others, and because we want others to be kind to us.
In a secular worldview, we, again, help each other because it feels good, and we want others to help us. Hopefully it won't end up in any dead bodies at all.
Cans of motor oil can't think or act as moral agents. People can.
Well, some people can. Others, not so much. Right, Jason?
News flash, Jason, even most religious people do things to help others and even risk their lives to save their fellow humans, every day, not because they feel they're under threat of punishment if they don't do so or because of their views on science, but because they have consciences and moral standards of their own.
society and empathy.
next question !
Maybe because we respect that as fellow human beings who have lives, thoughts, and feelings just like us? I mean, have you never fucking heard of this crazy little thing called empathy?
If you can't understand the difference between a non-sentient can of motor oil and a living, breathing, thinking, and feeling person, then you're a fucking idiot.
The grandma theoretical is a loaded question anyway. It assumes that A. the grandmother would wish to be saved, B., that no one else would be adversely affected by your death, and C., that your grandma could actually take advantage of a lengthened life. Should a father of four sacrifice himself to save his 98 year old grandma with dementia and terminal cancer? Of course not.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
