Morality and Non-Believers ("Law" of Reciprocity)

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

In another thread, things got a little hijacked from the point of the thread; though an interesting discussion regarding non-believers and the supposed "Law of Reciprocity" got started; so I decided to move the discussion to a thread dedicated to that topic

Here is the discussion so far:

For an unbeliever you have a funny motto: "Do what is WRONG and eventually it will circle around to BITE YOU on the BUTT!"

Why would my wrong ever catch up to me in a universe based on the materialistic claims! This is where I say, while in the dark I go around, catch me, catch me, if you can. Everyone is out there with their fingers in the till, not caring about others, exploiting others as much as they can - you need to adjust your motto to the unbelievers statement of life: The golden rule: the one who has the gold rules.
Maybe this song could give you a better idea for a motto:

This is like me saying, "I find it funny that you accept Evolution even though you're Christian", when in fact there are plentiful Christians who do; or like me saying "I find it funny that you accept gay marriage even though you're Christian" when in fact there are plentiful Christians who do.

Its called the "Law of Reciprocity" and is based heavily on philosophy. Being an unbeliever does not mean that one lacks a belief in some sort of justice; being an unbeliever doe snot mean that we do not hold ourselves or others unaccountable for our actions; being an unbeliever is not a statement of our philosophy; where unbelievers may span the spectrum of Hedonists to Altruists to Nihilists and a whole long list of possibilities.

I find it curious that you would assume that the user's motto contradicts what you believe she is supposed to believe; then you superfluously mock her for holding a certain moral standard which she never presented that she had (but that you insist that she must have).

It is offensive and prejudicial.

While I didn't address that post to you, it is a bit weird to have an unbeliever, most likely an atheist, though this isn't stated -- claim that one's actions evokes some kind of universal justice from a materialistic universe.

If you believe as an atheist in that kind of claim, you are more religious than you make out to be. Somewhat funny to me.
Raised around atheists, if I didn't believe in God, why should I worry about anything I do coming back to haunt me, unless I threw a boomerang that is. If I didn't believe in a God, I have quite a few scores I would love to settle permanently.

All I would have to worry about is keeping things secret, including not talking to anyone about my sweet intentions. At my age, the way the war criminal took leave of this world seems just right, do what you want, get even with people and if caught at an old age, say goodbye quickly.

Its an interesting topic; I do believe that, most often, what we do (who we are) turns around and bites us in our arses.

Greedy people are seldomly happy. Famous people are far too often so miserable that they tend to turn to drugs or have other mental health issues. If I harbor hate, then that hate harms me (it is not healthy for human beings to walk around angry all the time; so I will pay a mental health cost for refusing to forgive). If I cheat and steal from others, then no one will want to be my friend, except those who will cheat, steal or mistreat me -- so I will suffer. If I break the law, I will lose my freedom.

Anywho, the thread is being hijacked; sorry for digresing; I will start a topic.

.

Non-believers have many reasons to behave morally; and many of us choose to do so for purely and intrinsically altruistic reasons. I find that one's "spiritual affiliation" (or stated thereof) does little to describe one's moral code.

 

[Koldo]

As I see it, do you know when certain theists say we can't be moral without God ?
They are talking about themselves.

 

[Grandliseur]

In another thread, things got a little hijacked from the point of the thread; though an interesting discussion regarding non-believers and the supposed "Law of Reciprocity" got started; so I decided to move the discussion to a thread dedicated to that topic

Here is the discussion so far:
.

In a materialistic universe, what the heck is the "Law" of Reciprocity?
You lost me somewhere between the L and the '?' mark.
As an atheist by invitation, it seems, I know of no such law. All I know is, if you cross me, I'll cross you twice. Slap my cheek and I'll roast your nuts whether you got 'em or not.

 

[Grandliseur]

Non-believers have many reasons to behave morally; and many of us choose to do so for purely and intrinsically altruistic reasons.

This does not address the boomerang effect of wicked acts stated before.

Another entirely different point directly at your statement here - is, it is just easy to behave correctly when things are sweet. It is when things are rough and hard that your so-called morality is tested. I heard somewhere, read somewhere, that it is not the poor people that needs to be feared when things go south; rather, it is the higher ups and the middle class who should be feared when their toys and good food, etc., are taken away from them. Then they will stand up and do something about it with the means that they have left. These are the ones a tyrannical government need fear.

So, the morality of the people is usually dominated by their well being. If they suffer so does their morality.

 

[Father Heathen]

In a materialistic universe, what the heck is the "Law" of Reciprocity?
You lost me somewhere between the L and the '?' mark.
As an atheist by invitation, it seems, I know of no such law. All I know is, if you cross me, I'll cross you twice. Slap my cheek and I'll roast your nuts whether you got 'em or not.

Humans are social animals who possess innate compassion and empathy. Societies need order to survive, requiring trust, cooperation, and mutual understanding. People don't want to be hurt or harmed, and unless they're sociopaths, don't want to see others hurt or harmed, either. We create laws and codes to uphold society and punishments to deter people from breaking those laws and codes, and remove those that do. The things we do have social consequences, we build reputations, and others tend not to tolerate detrimental behavior. You can't wrong others without eventual retaliation.

 

[Grandliseur]

You can't wrong others without eventual retaliation.

If that is your definition of "Law of Reciprocity" - if I am wronged, have been wronged, then my retaliation is right and just, should it include some vicious stuff!

Not much of a law, not a very good retaliation or reciprocity.

 

[corynski]

In another thread, things got a little hijacked from the point of the thread; though an interesting discussion regarding non-believers and the supposed "Law of Reciprocity" got started; so I decided to move the discussion to a thread dedicated to that topic

Here is the discussion so far:








.

Non-believers have many reasons to behave morally; and many of us choose to do so for purely and intrinsically altruistic reasons. I find that one's "spiritual affiliation" (or stated thereof) does little to describe one's moral code.

I am surprised that religious believers do not understand the motives of atheists, and they come up with such a bizarre bunch of ideas. It seems quite simple, and has been codified by Christians in a couple of ways, usually 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. And I have a quote somewhere of Hillel saying this same thing. When I go to bed at night, I have to think "Have I wronged anyone in a way that they will want to do something to me in return?" If I have, my mind will not forget it, for that's the minds job, to plan for the future. If, on the other hand, I have helped others, then I go to sleep in peace. It is not belief that keeps atheists from doing wrong, it's reality. For we know we're all basically alike, we all think the same, and we all have common fears. Whatever I do to you, you may feel that you can also do to me, is another such basic thought. And it must be remembered that we evolved as part of small hunting and gathering groups, over many hundreds of thousands of years. It is only recently that there has been anything different, such as larger groups of people who are not as closely related.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

"Reciprocity", in s social construct, basically means that our actions and attitudes will be reciprocated; postiive actions and attitudes are generally reciprocated positively and negative actions and attitudes are generally reciprocated negatively.

Reciprocity (social and political philosophy) - Wikipedia
Reciprocity (social psychology) - Wikipedia

As an atheist by invitation, it seems, I know of no such law. All I know is, if you cross me, I'll cross you twice. Slap my cheek and I'll roast your nuts whether you got 'em or not.

These are not the kinds of people with whom I would have in my life. Not all non-believers are so vindictive and selfish. The people you are describing seem like very angry people.

I heard somewhere, read somewhere, that it is not the poor people that needs to be feared when things go south; rather, it is the higher ups and the middle class who should be feared when their toys and good food, etc., are taken away from them.

I would say that this is insightful; and I would stipulate, however, that our moral convictions being "tested" is no limited only to nonbelievers. We've all met believers who have done and said terrible things; as well as met believers who have been very kind and compassionate.

I would suggest that our morality is based on that which we value; if we value money over people, adoration of others over altruism, etc; then our true character will certainly be revealed in times like you describe.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

If that is your definition of "Law of Reciprocity" - if I am wronged, have been wronged, then my retaliation is right and just, should it include some vicious stuff!

It is less of a prescription of how things "should" be; and more of a description on how things just seem to work out in life.

Been called to work. Look forward to continuing this conversation later.

 

[Father Heathen]

If that is your definition of "Law of Reciprocity" - if I am wronged, have been wronged, then my retaliation is right and just, should it include some vicious stuff!

Not much of a law, not a very good retaliation or reciprocity.

I suspect that you're being disingenuous. I didn't mean vigilante justice. By law I meant our actual justice system. My point was that how you treat and regard others will effect how they treat and regard you, thus it's a matter of both rational self-interest and mutual benefit that people treat each other with respect. No invisible sky daddies or sprinkling of pixie dust required.

 

[Grandliseur]

I would suggest that our morality is based on that which we value; if we value money over people, adoration of others over altruism, etc; then our true character will certainly be revealed in times like you describe.

I am over sixty now. I have worked with blue collar workers and white. I cannot say if my experiences are true in other countries than the ones I lived in. However, I can tell you right now that you come across like a privileged white collar person who has never had to deal with the blue collar factory worker as a group. If a person's morality has no higher anchor than that which we value, your values can change extremely fast if the environment changes. The blue collar workers I experienced lived for going out on Sat nights and getting drunk and perhaps have a fight or two.They were a rough group of people who enjoyed bullying others. Faced with this kind of person, your morality tends to turn inward toward self-preservation. Self-preservation also means that violence becomes a means of keeping others at arms length. Killing someone is not desired, but may be necessary.

Violence in this world is a must. Morality must serve for self-preservation in all things, even if it means that killing becomes an accepted means of survival.

 

[David T]

In another thread, things got a little hijacked from the point of the thread; though an interesting discussion regarding non-believers and the supposed "Law of Reciprocity" got started; so I decided to move the discussion to a thread dedicated to that topic

Here is the discussion so far:








.

Non-believers have many reasons to behave morally; and many of us choose to do so for purely and intrinsically altruistic reasons. I find that one's "spiritual affiliation" (or stated thereof) does little to describe one's moral code.

Agreed. Since here narcissism is the issue of some religious claiming narcissism is the sole domain of non religious I would say narrcissism is incapable of recognising narrcissism in its self. That's curious!!! It also points out that all religious folks are not identical exactly like atheists.

 

[blü 2]

In a materialistic universe, what the heck is the "Law" of Reciprocity?

I know of no 'law of reciprocity'. However, reciprocity is a social behavior, that part of the notion of fairness that says one good (&c) turn deserves another.

Fairness and reciprocity are moral tendencies we get from our genes. We also get from our genes our tendencies for nurture and protection of children, dislike of the one who harms, respect for authority, loyalty to the group, and a feeling of self-worth or virtue through self-denial. These are found in all societies.

 

[Grandliseur]

By law I meant our actual justice system.

Who gives a sheet about the justice system. Self preservation takes precedence should it mean going gun-ho guns blazing.

Sure, there are many wrongs that need the system, police, etc. However, many things happen in seconds and if self-defense is indicated, kill the buggers. It seems that the fact that "justice is blind" is truer than most think. All this fake veneer of today's society while police robs people blind and shoot unarmed people - fairly takes us to a social status of anarchy. Defend yourself against whomever is gunning for you. If attacked and you survive, make sure the other guy doesn't.

This has nothing to do with the "Law of reciprocity" talked about in this materialistic universe we supposedly live in.

 

[Grandliseur]

know of no 'law of reciprocity'.

Me neither, not in the atheistic reality.

Fairness and reciprocity are moral tendencies we get from our genes.

But, that means that when wronged, by individuals, society, there is nothing wrong with getting back at them big time. Others may think it wrong, but who cares. It becomes a question of what I think if I act, nothing more and nothing less.

If the universe is materialistic, the existence of others becomes a moot point. They shall die anyway. This is what we see applied in the world at large. None stop their missiles because of innocents in their way. Syria becomes a testing ground for Russian, Chinese, and American weaponry. There is a never ending funding of ever more lethal arms, hyper-sonic, hyper-lethal, hyper-expensive. "We must have the most lethal arms no matter the cost" - and screw others' lives. We see people dying in boats in attempts to flee conditions of extreme poverty that could be paid for by the money for just one or two missiles; it would set them up nicely for years.

All this talk about morality is opium for the masses, the cattle, (I forget what the proper word for this is for the conspiracy groups. was it the gollum?)
Morality does not apply to the rich and powerful, except when speaking about their own family members.
Morality is nothing but a useless leftover of un-evolved animals.
Our societies show no benefit from it - just look at the disparities that exist. What can the poor homeless do with morality?! Not a damn thing. Get some guns and start shooting, now that would get some attention.

 

[Stevicus]

In another thread, things got a little hijacked from the point of the thread; though an interesting discussion regarding non-believers and the supposed "Law of Reciprocity" got started; so I decided to move the discussion to a thread dedicated to that topic

Here is the discussion so far:








.

Non-believers have many reasons to behave morally; and many of us choose to do so for purely and intrinsically altruistic reasons. I find that one's "spiritual affiliation" (or stated thereof) does little to describe one's moral code.

I don't know of any "law of reciprocity," although I think there is a certain measure of cause and effect which exists in society. This seems to be mostly denied by the religious crowd, who ostensibly believe that each individual has "free will" and that they are (or will be) judged according to their actions without any regard for context or circumstances.

Non-believers also have a motivated self-interest in behaving morally. If one behaves morally, one can reasonably expect to be treated morally. If I behave immorally towards someone, then I can expect that they will respond in kind (aka "reciprocity").

 

[ImmortalFlame]

But, that means that when wronged, by individuals, society, there is nothing wrong with getting back at them big time.

Um, no. It means that when we wrong others, the tendency will be for other people to generally treat us worse than we would if we hadn't. It doesn't mean disproportionate retribution is justified.

Others may think it wrong, but who cares. It becomes a question of what I think if I act, nothing more and nothing less.

Again, no. In fact, that's pretty much the opposite of the law of reciprocity, which says that the way we treat other affects how others treat us. It specifically states that our actions are NOT just a question of what we think, but have consequences for those around us.

If the universe is materialistic, the existence of others becomes a moot point.

No different than if the Universe is non-materialistic.

They shall die anyway. This is what we see applied in the world at large. None stop their missiles because of innocents in their way. Syria becomes a testing ground for Russian, Chinese, and American weaponry. There is a never ending funding of ever more lethal arms, hyper-sonic, hyper-lethal, hyper-expensive. "We must have the most lethal arms no matter the cost" - and screw others' lives. We see people dying in boats in attempts to flee conditions of extreme poverty that could be paid for by the money for just one or two missiles; it would set them up nicely for years.

None of this has absolutely anything to do with materialism. The vast majority of the people who fund, build and justify the useage of those weapons and practices are religious.

All this talk about morality is opium for the masses, the cattle, (I forget what the proper word for this is for the conspiracy groups)
Morality does not apply to the rich and powerful, except when speaking about their own family members.
Morality is nothing but a useless leftover of un-evolved animals.
Our societies show no benefit from it - just look at the disparities that exist. What can the poor homeless do with morality?! Not a damn thing. Get some guns and start shooting, now that would get some attention.

You appear to have gone off the rails here. Social injustice still exists in deeply religious societies, you know.

 

[Grandliseur]

Um, no. It means that when we wrong others, the tendency will be for other people to generally treat us worse than we would if we hadn't. It doesn't mean disproportionate retribution is justified.


Again, no. In fact, that's pretty much the opposite of the law of reciprocity, which says that the way we treat other affects how others treat us. It specifically states that our actions are NOT just a question of what we think, but have consequences for those around us.


No different than if the Universe is non-materialistic.


None of this has absolutely anything to do with materialism. The vast majority of the people who fund, build and justify the useage of those weapons and practices are religious.


You appear to have gone off the rails here. Social injustice still exists in deeply religious societies, you know.

Didn't agree with most of what you said here. But, that is neither here nor there.
"It doesn't mean disproportionate retribution is justified." At times, it's the best thing to do. Get rid of them, then they can cause no more trouble. End of story. Genocide in that sense makes utter sense. 'You kill one, you are a murderer; you kill a million and you are a hero!'

Jean Edmond Cyrus Rostand: "Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a God."

Violence works, and at times very well indeed.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Didn't agree with most of what you said here. But, that is neither here nor there.
"It doesn't mean disproportionate retribution is justified." At times, it's the best thing to do.

Do you know what the word "disproportionate" means? It literally means an amount that is excessive. By definition, it can't ever be the best thing to do.

Get rid of them, then they can cause no more trouble. End of story. Genocide in that sense makes utter sense. 'You kill one, you are a murderer; you kill a million and you are a hero!'

Nothing you've written here really makes sense.

Jean Edmond Cyrus Rostand: "Kill one man, and you are a murderer. Kill millions of men, and you are a conqueror. Kill them all, and you are a God."

Violence works, and at times very well indeed.

Once again, you seem to fail at grasping the concept of proportionality.

 

[Grandliseur]

By definition, it can't ever be the best thing to do.

You've never heard of oxymorons it seems. At times, truly excessive is truly justified. Never heard of hydrogen bombs?!

Once again, you seem to fail at grasping the concept of proportionality.

Once again, you fail to understand that morality is of no meaning in many circumstances. All that counts is the end result. The problem then becomes simply who controls what the end result shall be and who it shall benefit.

Morality becomes a cuss word in this sense of affairs. There is only the state of affairs, and where it needs to go, and how to make this happen. If most everyone else dies but me and mine survive, then my morality is just dandy. Survival of the fittest and may everyone else perish.