6 ms·
> I'm not a religious person, but the thing that the anti-religion movements have failed spectacularly at is providing a universal, teachable framework for basi
by testing312 6y ago
> I'm not a religious person, but the thing that the anti-religion movements have failed spectacularly at is providing a universal, teachable framework for basic morality.
But there is no universal, teachable framework for basic morality. Even the seemingly most basic rule: don't hurt anyone, has so many exceptions.
There is no 'small' set of rules you can use to describe morality. Reality is messy, human interactions even more so. We need to teach people to be empathic, and to be willing to try and understand the others position and view
- The_rationalist 6y agoThis is such nonsense. It's the 21st century and you never heard about utilitarism and game theory?
- pmiller2 6y agoIndeed, religions also disagree amongst themselves what is right and wrong. This has been a primary source of conflict throughout human history. Many times, both sides believe God (or whatever their equivalent is) is on their side.
- senectus1 6y agoyes there fucking is, and it has ZERO to do with Religion or Secularism. Treat others how you would like to be treated. If you wanted to get more complicated its, "consider the well-being". I'm so outraged by the causal acceptance that religion has ANYTHING to do with a proven successful moral guidance in society. You people need to stop buying the bullshit marketing of religion (and politics).
- testing312 6y ago> Treat others how you would like to be treated. > If you wanted to get more complicated its, "consider the well-being". Those two are not a set of moral rules, they just seem like the 'heuristic' that I already stated. But it does not help you with the trolley problem, for example. I also never said that religion is/should/can be the answer to the messyness of moral questions.