An overview of studies which investigate correlations between morality and religious vs. secular / atheist ideologies presented by Phil Zuckerman who is a professor of sociology and secular studies at the Claremont colleges in California, USA. Summary: Atheists / secular people not only have morals but are even more moral than religious people. Note: Of course moral is a matter of perspective. In this context we agree that compassion and empathy are our foundations of moral.

Crosspost from !atheism@feddit.de.

An overview of studies which investigate correlations between morality and religious vs. secular / atheist ideologies presented by Phil Zuckerman who is a professor of sociology and secular studies at the Claremont colleges in California, USA.

Summary: Atheists / secular people not only have morals but are even more moral than religious people.

Note: Of course moral is a matter of perspective. In this context we agree that compassion and empathy are our foundations of moral.

  • jasory@programming.devEnglish
    0·
    11 months ago

    Agreed"

    So you recognise that it is therefore irrelevant, and the conclusion does not follow from the premises (it is invalid). So why are you so slavishly defending it?

    “I don’t see myself as a moral relativist… I don’t see how my ethical framework is relevant”

    Ok, you are literally too stupid to have this conversation.

    The idea that moral judgements come from synthetic frameworks,is moral relativism. You deny that you are a moral relativist (good for you) but the reason I call you one is because the assumptions you make require that moral systems be synthetic. (Since you read a philosophy article you must know what this means).

    So either you are a moral relativist or you are lying. I’m a rational person and cannot prove that you are lying so I defer to believing you to be a moral relativist who simply doesn’t understand what it entails.

    • Zacryon@feddit.deOPEnglish
      0·
      11 months ago

      So why are you so slavishly defending it?

      I am defending my words against your baseless claims.

      So you recognise that it is therefore irrelevant, and the conclusion does not follow from the premises (it is invalid)

      Are empathy and compassion necessary or required for “a”, i.e., any arbitrary, logical consistent ethical framework? No. That’s where I agreed with you.
      But do they nevertheless play an (important) role in many ethical framworks and can be seen as their roots? Yes, indeed they do and can.
      But I already said that in different ways trying to level with your objections, showing you where these are lacking relevance or are incorrect.

      Ok, you are literally too stupid to have this conversation.

      And because you, the one who made claims which are factually incorrect, are saying this, this must of course be true. /s

      Since I prefer to talk to people who behave in a civilised manner, this is where our conversation ends.