Humanity, Corruption, Morals and Ignorance -

[Brandobaris]

I found it interesting as I was growing up, that I was raised thinking that everyone was basically good, and there were a few bad apples in the bunch. You know they type raised with fairy tales of the good guys beating the bad guy and they all live happily ever after.

But as I got older and experienced things in the real world, people I thought were upstanding, would bend the rules, others ignored the rules altogether. As long as they were reasonably sure they could get away with it. What matter was if you were caught or not, and if you were caught, how famous or rich you could be to get out of it?

I watched the news, comparing sources, and found each put wildly different spins on the same facts, I looked elsewhere finding people talking about things the news failed to mention. Something I had assumed before was the entire purpose of the news in the first place.

The more and more I looked into things the more and more it seemed everyone, and everything could be bought for a price. Media, Government, People, Businesses etc...

The thing that seemed strange to me, is that the people I talked to didn't really want to believe what I was saying. In fact, the premise of so many services that they consumed every day being corrupt to some degree seemed to upset them deeply.

Are people that blind really?

 

[feedtheoctopus]

If you think you're morally upstanding and above it all you're probably not.

World's not perfect. At the same time 90% of the people you meet are trying to do the right thing, it's just not always as simple as it sounds.

 

[Brandobaris]

If you think you're morally upstanding and above it all you're probably not.

World's not perfect. At the same time 90% of the people you meet are trying to do the right thing, it's just not always as simple as it sounds.

The interesting thing is when survival comes into conflict with doing the right thing. Do you do something morally wrong in order to keep your job? What if your boss asked you to do it? How many times does it happen before it's no longer about saving your job, but at this point you are in too deep to back out? And then you find yourself White House Press Secretary, and you are still covering for your boss. Would you still call yourself the same person trying to do the right thing?

I just find it interesting the rationalizations people come up with "Well I would've done something, but..." there is always a but, but my job, my family, but theres a bigger picture, but it wouldn't made a real difference.

At what point is it people trying to be good people, and people thinking about being good people?

 

[Mariposa Electrique]

If you think you're morally upstanding and above it all you're probably not.

World's not perfect. At the same time 90% of the people you meet are trying to do the right thing, it's just not always as simple as it sounds.

Yes, we're all an amalgamation of good vs evil, corrupt vs. honest to a fault. What matters is how you choose to live your life. In my opinion, media around the world distorts people and news events to the point where they create public figures into enemies vs angels. The truth is that reality is a lot more complicated, but most of the time it takes a back seat to the person that can yell the loudest, and most of the times it is the narcissist of the bunch. There's a false believe that Western civilization has created a society that is built on fairness, but it in the last 20-30 years it has turned into a civilization that is more concerned with self-interest. (attention whores)

 

[Ebola]

In my opinion, concerning people, there is no such thing as 100% bad and 100% good or 100% corrupted or 100% incorruptible. The human brain is anything but static; it is a constant battlefield of an infinite variety of parallel processes competing for dominance. For example, most people don't realize this, but every person has two brains (two hemispheres, and technically you can live with just one) which not only work together as one, but also compete and almost fight each other. Anyone who commits acts of violence is clearly mentally ill (unless its defense) and needs some kind of treatment or therapy, not just being put in a prison where he/she is forced to embrace psychological strategies which only increase the chance of him or her engaging in more violent crimes. Corrupted people in positions of authority are basically the same.

Even the most disturbed, sickest, sadomasochist rapist-murderer could end up changing and actually start doing things to help make the world a better place. And even the most tempered, emotionally mature and empathetic person could end up torturing and raping and killing children for laughs. If you think that you are above this, or think that you are following some set of laws or rules (personally created or handed to you by some kind of authority), you are much more likely to end up being the rapist murderer than the person who fully accepts the possibility that he could end up raping and killing kids one day in the future.

Call me naive for saying no one is 100% lost, but I think that's not always a bad thing. For example, it is bad for Chris, but in the case of someone who is actually trying to help others in some form or another, it's different. It may in fact be true that there are some rare cases where people are beyond help. But if this is the case, it's obviously better to just deceive the masses into believing that no one is pure evil - because it will lead even more people into jumping to the conclusion that some people actually deserve death or suffering, and this will just make 'normal' people more likely to become less empathetic towards others regardless of their true nature and ability to change.

On top of this, there is the whole free will debate too. Philosophically and scientifically, there are ways for free will to still exist despite the increasing evidence suggesting it is bullshit, but that is a whole different debate. The point is just: if people do not have free will, then the court and legal system would be meaningless because in order to be charged with a crime, someone has to commit it of their own free will. If free will is proven a myth, it presents a staggering amount of massive issues in every facet of existence.

I myself believed that "everyone has a price" and I think this is still true, but only partly. For example, a lot of people, if they had the Ring of Gyges, and ALSO knew no god was watching them and they would never be punished, would kill their entire family and rob a bank and kill everyone in it, if it meant they could be set for life and get whatever they desired and do it all again over and over without ever facing any music, but at the same time a lot of people wouldn't ever do this. However, what if we up the ante? Let us say that if you murder a a dozen children, you will be given god-like powers. Including the power to resurrect the kids you killed and manifest world peace. Then I guess that puts you in an even crazier moral dilemma.

 

[AnOminous]

I myself believed that "everyone has a price" and I think this is still true, but only partly. For example, a lot of people, if they had the Ring of Gyges, and ALSO knew no god was watching them and they would never be punished, would kill their entire family and rob a bank and kill everyone in it, if it meant they could be set for life and get whatever they desired and do it all again over and over without ever facing any music, but at the same time a lot of people wouldn't ever do this.

For a lot of people, perhaps even most, happiness depends on a good image of yourself. If you cannot accurately view yourself as anything other than a monster, most people will turn down any life that has that as a price, no matter how great the accompaniments and appurtenances.

Most people are fairly accommodating with the sliding scale in between saint and monster, depending on their ability for denial.

 

[keksz]

The problem with that is cognitive dissonance: the coping mechanism most of us have to deal with our own moral inconsistencies. It's not a matter of people avoiding and refusing bad choices. It's the fact that most will just do it and later decide "well that wasn't really a bad thing at all now that I think of it". This keeps on compounding on itself to the point we'll reach the level of politicians who steal children's lunch money, full blown psychopaths and narcissists who care for nothing but themselves or even literally Hitler who actually believed he was working for a noble cause.

So basically a person who is willing to let a small thing pass will likely keep doing the same until all the small things have amounted to a huge piece of shit human being.

 

[AnOminous]

So basically a person who is willing to let a small thing pass will likely keep doing the same until all the small things have amounted to a huge piece of shit human being.

How many people have even read the Screwtape Letters?

 

[keksz]

Screwtape Letters

Have no idea what you're talking about but sounds promising.

 

[Brandobaris]

I myself believed that "everyone has a price" and I think this is still true, but only partly. For example, a lot of people, if they had the Ring of Gyges, and ALSO knew no god was watching them and they would never be punished, would kill their entire family and rob a bank and kill everyone in it, if it meant they could be set for life and get whatever they desired and do it all again over and over without ever facing any music, but at the same time a lot of people wouldn't ever do this. However, what if we up the ante? Let us say that if you murder a a dozen children, you will be given god-like powers. Including the power to resurrect the kids you killed and manifest world peace. Then I guess that puts you in an even crazier moral dilemma.

That's something I often wonder about. How many people are kept in check by religion or whatever outside force imposes their compliance due to a "reward" at the end of the day? Could the world possibly be 50% sociopaths that simply parrot what they are told, and simply act how they were taught?

 

[Ebola]

^ While I think a very small number of Christians and other religious (or highly moralistic people/white knights) are smart enough to either understand/logically come up with ways to prove/justify that they are not just doing what they are doing because they fear god and/or want asspats in the form of heaven (or some other reward), or understand said arguments from people more skilled than them, I think the majority of people are far too stupid and/or lazy to care to think about any of it beyond the purview of something along the lines of Pascal's Wager.

 

[Terrorist]

^ While I think a very small number of Christians and other religious (or highly moralistic people/white knights) are smart enough to either understand/logically come up with ways to prove/justify that they are not just doing what they are doing because they fear god and/or want asspats in the form of heaven (or some other reward), or understand said arguments from people more skilled than them, I think the majority of people are far too stupid and/or lazy to care to think about any of it beyond the purview of something along the lines of Pascal's Wager.

Where do you think just and moral actions come from in the first place? Certainly not from some inherent goodness. Goodness, however you define it, is taught to us through conventional morality, including, yes, religion, and that's a good thing, because without it society would collapse in selfish anarchy. Sure, there is some argument of principle, that doing good for a reward from a scientifically unverifiable God isn't 100% altruistic and thus isn't true "good", but the idea of a God/rewards/greater morality/whathaveyou is needed for social cohesion, so I really can't knock it. Good is being done, whatever the reason.

Like you, I'm nonreligious, but I do good in my life for the higher purpose of societal stability and the rewards of social validation, reputation boosts, and on a basic level staying on the right side of people/the law for my own safety. Even if you don't have a God in your life, you're likely dedicating yourself to a higher power in the form of some ideology or moral principle that was taught to you, so ultimately you're not that different from all those religious people who would supposedly chimp out if they weren't given a spot in heaven by skydaddy.

Religious/nonreligious altruism come to the same net result, so why take issue? I'm certainly not gonna grudge the Salvation Army for having a different master than me.

 

[TowinKarz]

Pascal's Wager has always been a fallacy to me

If God exists, in the omnipotent form he/she/it must to judge you worthy or not of salvation, then certainly he/she/it could tell you were acting the part of the good person not out of genuine goodness, but self-preservation and only aping what you thought would get you into Heaven?. While a person who did good, because they actually wanted to do good, even while believing there was no great eternal reward, the same God would punish that person with damnation because they WEREN'T in fear of going to Hell on top of it all? I never got that. Pascals wager is a bet, but, since an omnipotent God can see everyone's hand, it's useless. In the end, it seems that you would be able to fool everyone, except the one that matters most. Is there something to it that I'm missing?

 

[keksz]

Could the world possibly be 50% sociopaths that simply parrot what they are told, and simply act how they were taught?

Real psychopaths ultimately care nothing for what they are told and how they're supposed to behave. They'll play along as far as it benefits then but they're also not very good at it, though more than good enough to fool clueless people.

So no, the world is definitely not 50% antisocial (it's 10%, statistically). If it was we'd probably have imploded long ago.

Your question's intent is still valid but I think the answer is that most people are just willing to play nice regardless of religion and culture.

If you wanna be worried about a personality disorder go for narcissism instead. It's as damaging as sociopathy (albeit less scary) and quickly becoming the norm on western society.

 

[DatBepisTho]

Pascal's Wager has always been a fallacy to me

If God exists, in the omnipotent form he/she/it must to judge you worthy or not of salvation, then certainly he/she/it could tell you were acting the part of the good person not out of genuine goodness, but self-preservation and only aping what you thought would get you into Heaven?. While a person who did good, because they actually wanted to do good, even while believing there was no great eternal reward, the same God would punish that person with damnation because they WEREN'T in fear of going to Hell on top of it all? I never got that. Pascals wager is a bet, but, since an omnipotent God can see everyone's hand, it's useless. In the end, it seems that you would be able to fool everyone, except the one that matters most. Is there something to it that I'm missing?

That's about the sum of it, pretty much.
But then again doesn't that sum up a lot of human behavior? Begrudgingly following rules to avoid punishment, I mean.

 

[Brandobaris]

Where do you think just and moral actions come from in the first place? Certainly not from some inherent goodness. Goodness, however you define it, is taught to us through conventional morality, including, yes, religion, and that's a good thing, because without it society would collapse in selfish anarchy.

Don't morals stem from empathy? I mean unless the person is a sociopath of some sort. You'd assume that someone not taught about morals would essentially not want to cause harm to others physically or emotionally, unless they had done so to them in the first place.

 

[AnOminous]

Have no idea what you're talking about but sounds promising.

It's one of the greatest works of Christian apologetics ever written, an epistolary novel by C.S. Lewis from the perspective of a devil trying to ruin a human's soul. It's something I would strongly recommend to any euphoric atheist with the "lol christians is stupid" mentality.

It is an absolute classic and everyone should read it.

Don't morals stem from empathy? I mean unless the person is a sociopath of some sort. You'd assume that someone not taught about morals would essentially not want to cause harm to others physically or emotionally, unless they had done so to them in the first place.

I think morals ultimately stem from reason. The sorts of behaviors that are generally considered "moral" also have positive outcomes, in terms of an ordered society and enhanced prosperity for all, while those that are considered "evil," if adopted in a widespread manner, ultimately lead to catastrophe.

Pascal's Wager has always been a fallacy to me

I really dislike it and the idea you can just game God like that is an absurdity on its face.

Additionally, it isn't even logically consistent.

Imagine a corollary to Pascal's Wager, where instead of a deity who throws you into Hell for not believing, there's a deity who doesn't care if you don't believe in a God, but will instead throw you into Hell for believing in the WRONG God.

In that scenario, you will actually be ensuring your eternal damnation by taking Pascal's Wager, while you would be completely fine if you just ignored God entirely your whole life.

 

[TowinKarz]

They say laws exist mostly to keep honest people honest.

I do think that the starting state of your average human tends toward decency to their fellow humans to start with (at the least, they don't wish harm upon them) and doesn't need much to deter it from straying that way. Call me an idealist, but I think most people when it comes right down to it would come to a natural consensus about, you know, murder assault and rape being bad things.

 

[Brandobaris]

I can't remember where it was that I read it, but a book on the Histories of Empires, saying they all went through the same basic stages. Beginning, Religious, Logic, Corruption, Fall. Or something like that.

The interesting thing to me is that the book stated in order for there to be good social structure, a Spiritual/Religious Faith of the empire must be adopted to impose a moral law on the population and to enable a healthy society.

I wish I could remember it and where it was from. Because I found it interesting that the book stated Religious/Spiritual awakening is needed for a functional society.

 

[TowinKarz]

That's another fallacy I see a lot, mostly just from the extreme religious nuts, that you cannot be a moral person unless you are religious.

The idea being that unless you defer to a "higher being" like God for your moral code, then you've just appointed yourself God and will inevitably rationalize away your own bad behaviors as no big deal.

The obvious hole in that argument is that even some religious people are provably immoral. Even worse than those "bad" who won't respect that God said no killing, even if they believe it too whether out of empathy or cold, calculated logic (people won't give me perks if I'm a known murderer) gives the same net result

Belief alone doesn't guarantee adherence, it's not even up for debate, yet its clung to like, well, gospel.... a person who's morally "good" by any metric, but also agnostic, is considered worse than one who's "bad" , but willing to ask God for forgiveness. They just can't seem to believe that a person who doesn't believe in God or an afterlife won't immediately go the route of "Everyman for himself" and hack their way to whatever they want, even though there's tons of proof that it's so. While ignoring and, ironically, rationalizing away the devout among them who DO hack their way to whatever they want and claim "God told me to".