Habits of the Wealthiest People

[yadayada]

If atheism is the accurate world view, there is nothing objectively wrong with a doctor being shot by a "pro-life" activist.

 

Not that poppycock again.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

 

Frankly, I'd rather live in a world where people are ethical because they use reason to realize that it's the better course of action (empathy tells us most of what we nee to know) than live in a world where the only reason people are ethical is because they're afraid of a security camera in the sky threatening torture, and if that camera was to disappear, they would lie, cheat and steal in a heartbeat (is that really your case? that's what you imply). That's a depressing worldview.

 

I know, I know. Best not to write about this stuff. But some strawmen need to die.

 

Liberty, this is not a strawman argument. I'm fairly well versed in secular ethics (for what it's worth). I think that's poppycock.

 

If we look at things with reason, ie rationality, how is this incorrect? And no, I'm not referring to a "security camera in the sky." I'm simply saying that if we're animals we should, rationally, act like it. We shouldn't let emotions dictate rational decision making. If all we are is material beings, lying, cheating, and stealing doesn't mean much of anything - whether you'd like to live in that world or not. Indeed, perhaps life is better for the people who are lying and cheating. Why is your view more valid than theirs?

 

I think this whole argument hangs on your definition of rational. What is rational? If I shoot myself in the foot, is that irrational? If for no reason at all I would cut my own ear off? If you say so, then something is rational in your reality if it makes you feel good (and not just short term), and irrational if it makes you feel bad. So by this logic, stealing and lying etc would be irrational. Because most normal people would feel bad doing it. It would make their life worse, because it would give them many negative emotions. And emotions, especially strong ones, are not exactly easy to ignore.

[Guest]

I don't think you understand what atheism means. You are implying that you need religion to not fk other people over?

 

I think not believing in a made up higher power does not mean you cannot have morals, it just means you are open to other rational aproaches that are also in line with not being a animal.

 

No, I'm not implying that at all. Even when I was agnostic, I lived a more "moral" life than many religious people (ie not cheating, stealing, lying etc). However, if atheism is accurate, none of that stuff is even "wrong" - especially if it helps you out. We each determine our morality. Funny things is, we also do a great job of rationalizing our faults.

 

So many times I hear secularists talk about "we define morality by whether or not something harms someone" as some type of ethical standard. For one, that is completely arbitrary. Secondly, let's use an example of a husband and wife. Let's say the wife cheats on the husband. Now, since the wife has a new romantic fling, she treats her husband better and he is happier. She's also happier. Now, if he finds out, he'll be devastated. For the purpose of this exercise, let's say he never finds out. They both are happier however, trust was violated (but never known). Are her actions moral or immoral?

[Liberty]

I came back here to delete my previous message because I know this will go nowhere. Oops, too late for that. But I'm out, I'm not about to try to explain what logically follows from sentience and empathy ("hey, I don't like when people treat me this way, maybe they don't like when I treat them like that").

[Guest]

I came back here to delete my previous message because I know this will go nowhere. Oops, too late for that. But I'm out, I'm not about to try to explain what logically follows from sentience and empathy ("hey, I don't like when people treat me this way, maybe they don't like when I treat them like that").

 

Before you run, care to comment on the cheating spouse question?

[Guest]

If atheism is the accurate world view, there is nothing objectively wrong with a doctor being shot by a "pro-life" activist.

 

Not that poppycock again.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

 

Frankly, I'd rather live in a world where people are ethical because they use reason to realize that it's the better course of action (empathy tells us most of what we nee to know) than live in a world where the only reason people are ethical is because they're afraid of a security camera in the sky threatening torture, and if that camera was to disappear, they would lie, cheat and steal in a heartbeat (is that really your case? that's what you imply). That's a depressing worldview.

 

I know, I know. Best not to write about this stuff. But some strawmen need to die.

 

Liberty, this is not a strawman argument. I'm fairly well versed in secular ethics (for what it's worth). I think that's poppycock.

 

If we look at things with reason, ie rationality, how is this incorrect? And no, I'm not referring to a "security camera in the sky." I'm simply saying that if we're animals we should, rationally, act like it. We shouldn't let emotions dictate rational decision making. If all we are is material beings, lying, cheating, and stealing doesn't mean much of anything - whether you'd like to live in that world or not. Indeed, perhaps life is better for the people who are lying and cheating. Why is your view more valid than theirs?

 

I think this whole argument hangs on your definition of rational. What is rational? If I shoot myself in the foot, is that irrational? If for no reason at all I would cut my own ear off? If you say so, then something is rational in your reality if it makes you feel good (and not just short term), and irrational if it makes you feel bad. So by your logic, stealing and lying etc would be irrational. Because most normal people would feel bad doing it. It would make their life worse, because it would give them many negative emotions. And emotions, especially strong ones, are not exactly easy to ignore.

 

Well, what I'm saying is that if stealing or lying puts you in a better position for material wealth (all we are is material beings after all) then we need to realize that the negative emotions are simply evolutionary instincts that we can ignore. Sure, it would take practice, but ultimately you'd be more of a master of your emotions and maximizing your material well being. A simple example I like to use is humans desire for fat and sugar. When I was a bit heavier, I'd eat a good amount of both Once I realized that the desire was simply my evolutionary instincts talking, it allowed me to overcome the desire.

 

I don't see why other emotions/desires can't be dealt with in the same way. I'm happier now and in better shape. If someone lies to make a sale and feels bad, they could simply translate that "feeling bad" as an old evolutionary instinct and then ignore it.

[Parsad]

I don't think you understand what atheism means. You are implying that you need religion to not fk other people over?

 

I think not believing in a made up higher power does not mean you cannot have morals, it just means you are open to other rational aproaches that are also in line with not being a animal.

 

No, I'm not implying that at all. Even when I was agnostic, I lived a more "moral" life than many religious people (ie not cheating, stealing, lying etc). However, if atheism is accurate, none of that stuff is even "wrong" - especially if it helps you out. We each determine our morality. Funny things is, we also do a great job of rationalizing our faults.

 

So many times I hear secularists talk about "we define morality by whether or not something harms someone" as some type of ethical standard. For one, that is completely arbitrary. Secondly, let's use an example of a husband and wife. Let's say the wife cheats on the husband. Now, since the wife has a new romantic fling, she treats her husband better and he is happier. She's also happier. Now, if he finds out, he'll be devastated. For the purpose of this exercise, let's say he never finds out. They both are happier however, trust was violated (but never known). Are her actions moral or immoral?

 

Depends on what is important to those individuals...honesty or happiness.  I know of people who were devastated by a cheating spouse, and believe me, neither spouse was happy when it was happening, because one knew something was different and was trying to figure it out, while the other one was preserving one lie after another to avoid detection.  And then I know of couples where one of the spouses has/had a mistress or partner outside of their marriage, somewhat openly, and yet they remained married happily or relatively happily.  God played no part in their decision...rationality of how they wanted to live their lives and what was important to them decided the eventual result.  Cheers!

[Guest]

I don't think you understand what atheism means. You are implying that you need religion to not fk other people over?

 

I think not believing in a made up higher power does not mean you cannot have morals, it just means you are open to other rational aproaches that are also in line with not being a animal.

 

No, I'm not implying that at all. Even when I was agnostic, I lived a more "moral" life than many religious people (ie not cheating, stealing, lying etc). However, if atheism is accurate, none of that stuff is even "wrong" - especially if it helps you out. We each determine our morality. Funny things is, we also do a great job of rationalizing our faults.

 

So many times I hear secularists talk about "we define morality by whether or not something harms someone" as some type of ethical standard. For one, that is completely arbitrary. Secondly, let's use an example of a husband and wife. Let's say the wife cheats on the husband. Now, since the wife has a new romantic fling, she treats her husband better and he is happier. She's also happier. Now, if he finds out, he'll be devastated. For the purpose of this exercise, let's say he never finds out. They both are happier however, trust was violated (but never known). Are her actions moral or immoral?

 

Depends on what is important to those individuals...honesty or happiness.  I know of people who were devastated by a cheating spouse, and believe me, neither spouse was happy when it was happening, because one knew something was different and was trying to figure it out, while the other one was preserving one lie after another to avoid detection.  And then I know of couples where one of the spouses has/had a mistress or partner outside of their marriage, somewhat openly, and yet they remained married happily or relatively happily.  God played no part in their decision...rationality of how they wanted to live their lives and what was important to them decided the eventual result.  Cheers!

 

Sanj, thanks for your thoughtful response. However, to be fair, you kinda avoided the original premise. We're not talking about people who weren't happy by the cheating (the premise was that the cheating spouse was happy) nor was I referring to a couple that was cool with the other's infidelity.

 

Let's say that she is happier and the husband is happier (per the original situation). However, he would not be happy if he found out (unlike the second thing you wrote about). However, he never finds out. He is happy and she is happy. Is her cheating a moral or immoral act? Secular ethicists normally say that if "harm has to be done in order for something to be immoral." By the way, I'm not saying that God played any part in their decisions. I'm implying that if God doesn't exist, nothing we do (or not do for that matter) is inherently "good" or "bad" objectively. We can rationalize anything and everything to fit our whims.

[yadayada]

If atheism is the accurate world view, there is nothing objectively wrong with a doctor being shot by a "pro-life" activist.

 

Not that poppycock again.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

 

Frankly, I'd rather live in a world where people are ethical because they use reason to realize that it's the better course of action (empathy tells us most of what we nee to know) than live in a world where the only reason people are ethical is because they're afraid of a security camera in the sky threatening torture, and if that camera was to disappear, they would lie, cheat and steal in a heartbeat (is that really your case? that's what you imply). That's a depressing worldview.

 

I know, I know. Best not to write about this stuff. But some strawmen need to die.

 

Liberty, this is not a strawman argument. I'm fairly well versed in secular ethics (for what it's worth). I think that's poppycock.

 

If we look at things with reason, ie rationality, how is this incorrect? And no, I'm not referring to a "security camera in the sky." I'm simply saying that if we're animals we should, rationally, act like it. We shouldn't let emotions dictate rational decision making. If all we are is material beings, lying, cheating, and stealing doesn't mean much of anything - whether you'd like to live in that world or not. Indeed, perhaps life is better for the people who are lying and cheating. Why is your view more valid than theirs?

 

I think this whole argument hangs on your definition of rational. What is rational? If I shoot myself in the foot, is that irrational? If for no reason at all I would cut my own ear off? If you say so, then something is rational in your reality if it makes you feel good (and not just short term), and irrational if it makes you feel bad. So by your logic, stealing and lying etc would be irrational. Because most normal people would feel bad doing it. It would make their life worse, because it would give them many negative emotions. And emotions, especially strong ones, are not exactly easy to ignore.

 

Well, what I'm saying is that if stealing or lying puts you in a better position for material wealth (all we are is material beings after all) then we need to realize that the negative emotions are simply evolutionary instincts that we can ignore. Sure, it would take practice, but ultimately you'd be more of a master of your emotions and maximizing your material well being. A simple example I like to use is humans desire for fat and sugar. When I was a bit heavier, I'd eat a good amount of both Once I realized that the desire was simply my evolutionary instincts talking, it allowed me to overcome the desire.

 

I don't see why other emotions/desires can't be dealt with in the same way. I'm happier now and in better shape. If someone lies to make a sale and feels bad, they could simply translate that "feeling bad" as an old evolutionary instinct and then ignore it.

 

yes but we are social animals. You cannot simply ignore your nature imo. It will not make you happier in the end. If you isolate me from other people (what will happen if you lie and steal all the time) then I will not be happy long term. My animal needs are not being met. Empathy is basicly a mirror neuron, and I am not sure if that goes away if you just ignore it. You feel what the other person feels essentially, and this feels bad if you treat them badly. Im not sure if you can actually repress this instinct succesfully long term and be happier with it.

 

basicly the materialistic way of becoming happy and trying to ignore all my instincts is more difficult then just not being an asshole. Wouldn't it be irrational to try it the hard way if there is an easier way? Even if you succeed, you probably spent more time in your life being unhappy then if you just weren't an asshole.

 

On the other hand if you are a sociopath, your an idiot for not making good use of that.

[Guest]

If atheism is the accurate world view, there is nothing objectively wrong with a doctor being shot by a "pro-life" activist.

 

Not that poppycock again.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_ethics

 

Frankly, I'd rather live in a world where people are ethical because they use reason to realize that it's the better course of action (empathy tells us most of what we nee to know) than live in a world where the only reason people are ethical is because they're afraid of a security camera in the sky threatening torture, and if that camera was to disappear, they would lie, cheat and steal in a heartbeat (is that really your case? that's what you imply). That's a depressing worldview.

 

I know, I know. Best not to write about this stuff. But some strawmen need to die.

 

Liberty, this is not a strawman argument. I'm fairly well versed in secular ethics (for what it's worth). I think that's poppycock.

 

If we look at things with reason, ie rationality, how is this incorrect? And no, I'm not referring to a "security camera in the sky." I'm simply saying that if we're animals we should, rationally, act like it. We shouldn't let emotions dictate rational decision making. If all we are is material beings, lying, cheating, and stealing doesn't mean much of anything - whether you'd like to live in that world or not. Indeed, perhaps life is better for the people who are lying and cheating. Why is your view more valid than theirs?

 

I think this whole argument hangs on your definition of rational. What is rational? If I shoot myself in the foot, is that irrational? If for no reason at all I would cut my own ear off? If you say so, then something is rational in your reality if it makes you feel good (and not just short term), and irrational if it makes you feel bad. So by your logic, stealing and lying etc would be irrational. Because most normal people would feel bad doing it. It would make their life worse, because it would give them many negative emotions. And emotions, especially strong ones, are not exactly easy to ignore.

 

Well, what I'm saying is that if stealing or lying puts you in a better position for material wealth (all we are is material beings after all) then we need to realize that the negative emotions are simply evolutionary instincts that we can ignore. Sure, it would take practice, but ultimately you'd be more of a master of your emotions and maximizing your material well being. A simple example I like to use is humans desire for fat and sugar. When I was a bit heavier, I'd eat a good amount of both Once I realized that the desire was simply my evolutionary instincts talking, it allowed me to overcome the desire.

 

I don't see why other emotions/desires can't be dealt with in the same way. I'm happier now and in better shape. If someone lies to make a sale and feels bad, they could simply translate that "feeling bad" as an old evolutionary instinct and then ignore it.

 

yes but we are social animals. You cannot simply ignore your nature imo. It will not make you happier in the end. If you isolate me from other people (what will happen if you lie and steal all the time) then I will not be happy long term. My animal needs are not being met. Empathy is basicly a mirror neuron, and I am not sure if that goes away if you just ignore it. You feel what the other person feels essentially, and this feels bad if you treat them badly. Im not sure if you can actually repress this instinct.

 

basicly the materialistic way of becoming happy and trying to ignore all my instincts is more difficult then just not being an asshole.

 

On the other hand if you are a sociopath, your an idiot for not making good use of that.

 

I agree that we're social animals. That's why the lying and cheating should be used selectively. For instance, to close a sale on a stranger or, cheating the public. You obviously want to minimize lying/cheating on a spouse or someone you'll see regularly. I don't see why we couldn't repress this instinct though with enough practice. Wouldn't the ideal situation (assuming atheism is accurate) is to try one's best to turn him or herself into a sociopath? :P

[merkhet]

Compartmentalization is difficult. Sociopathy is not necessarily pareto optimal.

[valueorama]

just to get back on the topic. I think comparison of habits of poor vs wealthy is not optimal.

 

I think researchers/pollsters must first make sure that at least Maslow's  first level of needs are met. If the poor are still looking for First level of need forget about reading, they dont have time for anything else but basic needs.

 

IMO, it would be more sane to compare Middle class vs wealthy. Atleast both have disposable income and hopefully met the first needs of Maslow's Hierarchy.

 

One more interesting disclosure, why more wealthy people interviewed(233) vs poor(128). Population wise there are more poor people so statistically, it might be irrelevant.

[Orange]

 

One more interesting disclosure, why more wealthy people interviewed(233) vs poor(128). Population wise there are more poor people so statistically, it might be irrelevant.

 

Because this dude is a financial advisor. He deals with rich clients all day. He was interviewing his clients.

 

[Orange]

And many of the bad (good) habits are a result of being poor (rich), not the other way around.

 

 

I dream of a day when everyone is wealthy enough that they no longer need to watch reality TV.

 

I dream of a day when everyone is wealthy enough that they can make to-do lists for themselves.

 

Obviously I said many of the habits, not all. So your cherry picking hasn't achieved much.

 

But by all means, keep doing everything you can to preserve your needlessly black and white ideology. I'm going to do something more productive with my time. Hey, I think there's a Pawn Stars marathon on.

[rkbabang]

And many of the bad (good) habits are a result of being poor (rich), not the other way around.

 

 

I dream of a day when everyone is wealthy enough that they no longer need to watch reality TV.

 

I dream of a day when everyone is wealthy enough that they can make to-do lists for themselves.

 

Obviously I said many of the habits, not all. So your cherry picking hasn't achieved much.

 

But by all means, keep doing everything you can to preserve your needlessly black and white ideology. I'm going to do something more productive with my time. Hey, I think there's a Pawn Stars marathon on.

 

And you can keep closing your eyes to the point I was trying to make.  The point being that you were cherry picking yourself.  The items you were talking about where the least likely to have an effect on a person's success in life and therefore the least relevant to the discussion.  There is some value, I think, to discussing how people who spend hours watching TV rather than reading; listening to music rather than audio books; and failing to think about the future rather than carefully planning and setting explicit goals for themselves are less successful in life and what to do about it.  You focus instead on what people are eating.  I agree that it is odd those things are even in the 'study'.  But yes, feel free to cherry pick the things that don't matter to give yourself an excuse to avoid thinking about things that do. And then accuse me of being black and white about things. No study or survey is perfect. Rather than focusing on what doesn't matter and throwing out the baby with the bath water, is it not useful to look and see if there are any nuggets of truth in there?

 

[Parsad]

I don't think you understand what atheism means. You are implying that you need religion to not fk other people over?

 

I think not believing in a made up higher power does not mean you cannot have morals, it just means you are open to other rational aproaches that are also in line with not being a animal.

 

No, I'm not implying that at all. Even when I was agnostic, I lived a more "moral" life than many religious people (ie not cheating, stealing, lying etc). However, if atheism is accurate, none of that stuff is even "wrong" - especially if it helps you out. We each determine our morality. Funny things is, we also do a great job of rationalizing our faults.

 

So many times I hear secularists talk about "we define morality by whether or not something harms someone" as some type of ethical standard. For one, that is completely arbitrary. Secondly, let's use an example of a husband and wife. Let's say the wife cheats on the husband. Now, since the wife has a new romantic fling, she treats her husband better and he is happier. She's also happier. Now, if he finds out, he'll be devastated. For the purpose of this exercise, let's say he never finds out. They both are happier however, trust was violated (but never known). Are her actions moral or immoral?

 

 

 

Depends on what is important to those individuals...honesty or happiness.  I know of people who were devastated by a cheating spouse, and believe me, neither spouse was happy when it was happening, because one knew something was different and was trying to figure it out, while the other one was preserving one lie after another to avoid detection.  And then I know of couples where one of the spouses has/had a mistress or partner outside of their marriage, somewhat openly, and yet they remained married happily or relatively happily.  God played no part in their decision...rationality of how they wanted to live their lives and what was important to them decided the eventual result.  Cheers!

 

Sanj, thanks for your thoughtful response. However, to be fair, you kinda avoided the original premise. We're not talking about people who weren't happy by the cheating (the premise was that the cheating spouse was happy) nor was I referring to a couple that was cool with the other's infidelity.

 

Let's say that she is happier and the husband is happier (per the original situation). However, he would not be happy if he found out (unlike the second thing you wrote about). However, he never finds out. He is happy and she is happy. Is her cheating a moral or immoral act? Secular ethicists normally say that if "harm has to be done in order for something to be immoral." By the way, I'm not saying that God played any part in their decisions. I'm implying that if God doesn't exist, nothing we do (or not do for that matter) is inherently "good" or "bad" objectively. We can rationalize anything and everything to fit our whims.

 

I would suggest that it is neither moral, nor immoral.  Simply an act.  The eventual view by her spouse when it comes out, or by others decides whether it is moral or immoral based on their secular or non-secular view.

 

For example, killing another human being would be normally deemed immoral by most people, but what if it was in self-defense?  It's neither moral, nor immoral, but only in the eyes of others would it deemed one or the other.  It is simply an act.  Cheers!

[writser]

 

One more interesting disclosure, why more wealthy people interviewed(233) vs poor(128). Population wise there are more poor people so statistically, it might be irrelevant.

 

Because this dude is a financial advisor. He deals with rich clients all day. He was interviewing his clients.

 

Exactly. And if he is a huge nerd who likes to read 10 hours / day he probably attracts similar clients. Huge case of selection bias. I'm not necessarily saing it's bad to read a lot, but this is not science. To me this looks like a case of the next 'self-help guru' promoting his latest book with fantastic ways to get rich. Somebody makes a nice web 2.0 infographic about it that self-proclaimed intellectuals share with eachother to point out how smart they are. Intellectual masturbation - the entire thing receives way too much attention.

 

Not to mention that this is a terrible book if you like reading: it's only 96 pages :) .

[Guest]

I don't think you understand what atheism means. You are implying that you need religion to not fk other people over?

 

I think not believing in a made up higher power does not mean you cannot have morals, it just means you are open to other rational aproaches that are also in line with not being a animal.

 

No, I'm not implying that at all. Even when I was agnostic, I lived a more "moral" life than many religious people (ie not cheating, stealing, lying etc). However, if atheism is accurate, none of that stuff is even "wrong" - especially if it helps you out. We each determine our morality. Funny things is, we also do a great job of rationalizing our faults.

 

So many times I hear secularists talk about "we define morality by whether or not something harms someone" as some type of ethical standard. For one, that is completely arbitrary. Secondly, let's use an example of a husband and wife. Let's say the wife cheats on the husband. Now, since the wife has a new romantic fling, she treats her husband better and he is happier. She's also happier. Now, if he finds out, he'll be devastated. For the purpose of this exercise, let's say he never finds out. They both are happier however, trust was violated (but never known). Are her actions moral or immoral?

 

 

 

Depends on what is important to those individuals...honesty or happiness.  I know of people who were devastated by a cheating spouse, and believe me, neither spouse was happy when it was happening, because one knew something was different and was trying to figure it out, while the other one was preserving one lie after another to avoid detection.  And then I know of couples where one of the spouses has/had a mistress or partner outside of their marriage, somewhat openly, and yet they remained married happily or relatively happily.  God played no part in their decision...rationality of how they wanted to live their lives and what was important to them decided the eventual result.  Cheers!

 

Sanj, thanks for your thoughtful response. However, to be fair, you kinda avoided the original premise. We're not talking about people who weren't happy by the cheating (the premise was that the cheating spouse was happy) nor was I referring to a couple that was cool with the other's infidelity.

 

Let's say that she is happier and the husband is happier (per the original situation). However, he would not be happy if he found out (unlike the second thing you wrote about). However, he never finds out. He is happy and she is happy. Is her cheating a moral or immoral act? Secular ethicists normally say that if "harm has to be done in order for something to be immoral." By the way, I'm not saying that God played any part in their decisions. I'm implying that if God doesn't exist, nothing we do (or not do for that matter) is inherently "good" or "bad" objectively. We can rationalize anything and everything to fit our whims.

 

I would suggest that it is neither moral, nor immoral.  Simply an act.  The eventual view by her spouse when it comes out, or by others decides whether it is moral or immoral based on their secular or non-secular view.

 

For example, killing another human being would be normally deemed immoral by most people, but what if it was in self-defense?  It's neither moral, nor immoral, but only in the eyes of others would it deemed one or the other.  It is simply an act.  Cheers!

 

Would you agree then, Sanj, that the work you do for charity is no more moral (or immoral for that matter) than what Steve Cohen did to Fairfax? Both are simply acts, right? He was providing returns (or trying to anyway) for his shareholders. Morals, in this case, are totally subjective.

 

I'd guess you say that your work is moral and his is immoral but his view would be that both acts are moral (if my assumptions are wrong, I apologize). If so, why is your view more accurate? Do you you think real "goodness" or objective morals exist?  This is the hard truth I had to come to if I continued to accept my agnosticism - there is no more "good" in the world than "evil" in that neither really exist.

 

A serial killer is no better or worse, morally anyway, than a saint. They are both acting to their DNA and, at their cores, have no control over that. How can anyone say person A is "bad" instead of person B if they don't control their DNA which controls their actions? If goodness doesn't exist, why would anyone, once realized it's simply an emotion tie, do "good" things?

 

 

 

 

 

[Parsad]

Would you agree then, Sanj, that the work you do for charity is no more moral (or immoral for that matter) than what Steve Cohen did to Fairfax? Both are simply acts, right? He was providing returns (or trying to anyway) for his shareholders. Morals, in this case, are totally subjective.

 

Both are simply acts...correct.  One attempts to balance the scales...the other tries to create an imbalance.  Nothing to do with morals. 

 

How does a child without being prodded, know to soothe another child's pain?  Why does a female dog without pups, adopt a litter of orphaned kittens?  Humans and animals, generally speaking, do have some understanding of an innate right and wrong...some basic instincts that are there without being taught...or what we would call morals. 

 

Whether God exists or not, we should all have a responsibility to ourselves and the people around us.  Packs of dogs even know that without being taught.  Birds fly in flocks.  It's instinctive and not simply instructed to us.  Cheers!

 

 

[rkbabang]

Would you agree then, Sanj, that the work you do for charity is no more moral (or immoral for that matter) than what Steve Cohen did to Fairfax? Both are simply acts, right? He was providing returns (or trying to anyway) for his shareholders. Morals, in this case, are totally subjective.

 

Both are simply acts...correct.  One attempts to balance the scales...the other tries to create an imbalance.  Nothing to do with morals. 

 

How does a child without being prodded, know to soothe another child's pain?  Why does a female dog without pups, adopt a litter of orphaned kittens?  Humans and animals, generally speaking, do have some understanding of an innate right and wrong...some basic instincts that are there without being taught...or what we would call morals. 

 

Whether God exists or not, we should all have a responsibility to ourselves and the people around us.  Packs of dogs even know that without being taught.  Birds fly in flocks.  It's instinctive and not simply instructed to us.  Cheers!

 

 

 

Yes. Would humans have made it out of the stone age and still be around today if we all thought that it was good to murder fellow humans whenever we got the chance?  What we call "morality" is simply instincts that are hardwired into our brains through an evolutionary process which has helped our species survive.  Maybe there were groups of humans without "morals", but those no longer exist.  Of course through random genome variability there are constantly being born humans without those "moral" instincts and the rest of us need to try to figure out how best to deal with them and protect ourselves from them.

 

[yadayada]

I don't think you understand what atheism means. You are implying that you need religion to not fk other people over?

 

I think not believing in a made up higher power does not mean you cannot have morals, it just means you are open to other rational aproaches that are also in line with not being a animal.

 

No, I'm not implying that at all. Even when I was agnostic, I lived a more "moral" life than many religious people (ie not cheating, stealing, lying etc). However, if atheism is accurate, none of that stuff is even "wrong" - especially if it helps you out. We each determine our morality. Funny things is, we also do a great job of rationalizing our faults.

 

So many times I hear secularists talk about "we define morality by whether or not something harms someone" as some type of ethical standard. For one, that is completely arbitrary. Secondly, let's use an example of a husband and wife. Let's say the wife cheats on the husband. Now, since the wife has a new romantic fling, she treats her husband better and he is happier. She's also happier. Now, if he finds out, he'll be devastated. For the purpose of this exercise, let's say he never finds out. They both are happier however, trust was violated (but never known). Are her actions moral or immoral?

 

 

 

Depends on what is important to those individuals...honesty or happiness.  I know of people who were devastated by a cheating spouse, and believe me, neither spouse was happy when it was happening, because one knew something was different and was trying to figure it out, while the other one was preserving one lie after another to avoid detection.  And then I know of couples where one of the spouses has/had a mistress or partner outside of their marriage, somewhat openly, and yet they remained married happily or relatively happily.  God played no part in their decision...rationality of how they wanted to live their lives and what was important to them decided the eventual result.  Cheers!

 

Sanj, thanks for your thoughtful response. However, to be fair, you kinda avoided the original premise. We're not talking about people who weren't happy by the cheating (the premise was that the cheating spouse was happy) nor was I referring to a couple that was cool with the other's infidelity.

 

Let's say that she is happier and the husband is happier (per the original situation). However, he would not be happy if he found out (unlike the second thing you wrote about). However, he never finds out. He is happy and she is happy. Is her cheating a moral or immoral act? Secular ethicists normally say that if "harm has to be done in order for something to be immoral." By the way, I'm not saying that God played any part in their decisions. I'm implying that if God doesn't exist, nothing we do (or not do for that matter) is inherently "good" or "bad" objectively. We can rationalize anything and everything to fit our whims.

 

I would suggest that it is neither moral, nor immoral.  Simply an act.  The eventual view by her spouse when it comes out, or by others decides whether it is moral or immoral based on their secular or non-secular view.

 

For example, killing another human being would be normally deemed immoral by most people, but what if it was in self-defense?  It's neither moral, nor immoral, but only in the eyes of others would it deemed one or the other.  It is simply an act.  Cheers!

yeah if more people would view the world this way, we would probably get along much better. It is good to have morals, but better to also realize that they are not absolute truth, and know why you have them.

[Guest]

Would you agree then, Sanj, that the work you do for charity is no more moral (or immoral for that matter) than what Steve Cohen did to Fairfax? Both are simply acts, right? He was providing returns (or trying to anyway) for his shareholders. Morals, in this case, are totally subjective.

 

Both are simply acts...correct.  One attempts to balance the scales...the other tries to create an imbalance.  Nothing to do with morals. 

 

How does a child without being prodded, know to soothe another child's pain?  Why does a female dog without pups, adopt a litter of orphaned kittens?  Humans and animals, generally speaking, do have some understanding of an innate right and wrong...some basic instincts that are there without being taught...or what we would call morals. 

 

Whether God exists or not, we should all have a responsibility to ourselves and the people around us.  Packs of dogs even know that without being taught.  Birds fly in flocks.  It's instinctive and not simply instructed to us.  Cheers!

If atheism is accurate, I agree. With that being said, if we are truly rational, why shouldn't we overcome these emotional biases to give us more material wealth? That's all they are.

 

For instance, I respect the heck out of you, Sanj. Not only for the charity work but also for the, in my opinion, very fair fees you charge your fund. If God doesn't exist, these are both irrational things to do. You are taking your time for charity and money (which could be better allocated to research - unless it's just for networking to bring in additional business) or (Eric, no need to read this one!) charge your clients higher fees. After all, your performance is good enough to justify it.

[Guest]

I don't think you understand what atheism means. You are implying that you need religion to not fk other people over?

 

I think not believing in a made up higher power does not mean you cannot have morals, it just means you are open to other rational aproaches that are also in line with not being a animal.

 

No, I'm not implying that at all. Even when I was agnostic, I lived a more "moral" life than many religious people (ie not cheating, stealing, lying etc). However, if atheism is accurate, none of that stuff is even "wrong" - especially if it helps you out. We each determine our morality. Funny things is, we also do a great job of rationalizing our faults.

 

So many times I hear secularists talk about "we define morality by whether or not something harms someone" as some type of ethical standard. For one, that is completely arbitrary. Secondly, let's use an example of a husband and wife. Let's say the wife cheats on the husband. Now, since the wife has a new romantic fling, she treats her husband better and he is happier. She's also happier. Now, if he finds out, he'll be devastated. For the purpose of this exercise, let's say he never finds out. They both are happier however, trust was violated (but never known). Are her actions moral or immoral?

 

 

 

Depends on what is important to those individuals...honesty or happiness.  I know of people who were devastated by a cheating spouse, and believe me, neither spouse was happy when it was happening, because one knew something was different and was trying to figure it out, while the other one was preserving one lie after another to avoid detection.  And then I know of couples where one of the spouses has/had a mistress or partner outside of their marriage, somewhat openly, and yet they remained married happily or relatively happily.  God played no part in their decision...rationality of how they wanted to live their lives and what was important to them decided the eventual result.  Cheers!

 

Sanj, thanks for your thoughtful response. However, to be fair, you kinda avoided the original premise. We're not talking about people who weren't happy by the cheating (the premise was that the cheating spouse was happy) nor was I referring to a couple that was cool with the other's infidelity.

 

Let's say that she is happier and the husband is happier (per the original situation). However, he would not be happy if he found out (unlike the second thing you wrote about). However, he never finds out. He is happy and she is happy. Is her cheating a moral or immoral act? Secular ethicists normally say that if "harm has to be done in order for something to be immoral." By the way, I'm not saying that God played any part in their decisions. I'm implying that if God doesn't exist, nothing we do (or not do for that matter) is inherently "good" or "bad" objectively. We can rationalize anything and everything to fit our whims.

 

I would suggest that it is neither moral, nor immoral.  Simply an act.  The eventual view by her spouse when it comes out, or by others decides whether it is moral or immoral based on their secular or non-secular view.

 

For example, killing another human being would be normally deemed immoral by most people, but what if it was in self-defense?  It's neither moral, nor immoral, but only in the eyes of others would it deemed one or the other.  It is simply an act.  Cheers!

yeah if more people would view the world this way, we would probably get along much better. It is good to have morals, but better to also realize that they are not absolute truth, and know why you have them.

 

If we all had these, and were more rational, we'd be sociopaths. ;)

[writser]

Would you agree then, Sanj, that the work you do for charity is no more moral (or immoral for that matter) than what Steve Cohen did to Fairfax? Both are simply acts, right? He was providing returns (or trying to anyway) for his shareholders. Morals, in this case, are totally subjective.

 

Both are simply acts...correct.  One attempts to balance the scales...the other tries to create an imbalance.  Nothing to do with morals. 

 

How does a child without being prodded, know to soothe another child's pain?  Why does a female dog without pups, adopt a litter of orphaned kittens?  Humans and animals, generally speaking, do have some understanding of an innate right and wrong...some basic instincts that are there without being taught...or what we would call morals. 

 

Whether God exists or not, we should all have a responsibility to ourselves and the people around us.  Packs of dogs even know that without being taught.  Birds fly in flocks.  It's instinctive and not simply instructed to us.  Cheers!

If atheism is accurate, I agree. With that being said, if we are truly rational, why shouldn't we overcome these emotional biases to give us more material wealth? That's all they are.

 

For instance, I respect the heck out of you, Sanj. Not only for the charity work but also for the, in my opinion, very fair fees you charge your fund. If God doesn't exist, these are both irrational things to do. You are taking your time for charity and money (which could be better allocated to research - unless it's just for networking to bring in additional business) or (Eric, no need to read this one!) charge your clients higher fees. After all, your performance is good enough to justify it.

 

I was just flaming around a bit in this thread, I wasn't expecting the faithful to actually reply. Actually a bit sad that this thread now derailed. Anyway, I want to point out that you are (wrongly) connecting atheism with rationality. Science suggests that humans are simply not wired to be 100% rational. Animal spirits are in our DNA. Kahneman stuff. Atheism has nothing to do with living like Spock, as you are suggesting. So the points you are trying to make by referring to total rationality and sociopaths are completely off the mark in this discussion.

 

Also, you are (wrongly) connecting rationality with selfishness. Again humans are not 100% rational so you could actually do charity work because it makes you feel good to help others. Yeah - atheists can have feelings .. ! And even if they hadn't, they could do charity work and charge low fees for managing funds. For example, because they prefer an increased social status over having more money. Maybe hot girls in Canada love low fee fund managers!  ;)

 

Also, you are (wrongly) connecting theism with morality. Apparently you believe I can't feel bad if I kill a kitten because if I don't believe in a random deity I can have no knowledge of good and evil. I'm not going to bother discussing this because you probably won't accept any of my arguments and I won't accept any of yours (also because it is an insulting view). Best course of action: you continue your 'god-fearing' life and I continue my 'immoral' one.

[Guest]

writser,

 

You realize that just because you put (wrongly) doesn't make your thoughts accurate, right? I don't deny that "animal spirits" are in our DNA. I'm arguing that we shouldn't let them control our actions. Do you think it's wise to let your emotions drive your investment decision? If not, why should gaining material wealth be different?

 

The bottom line is that you are letting your emotions drive your decision making. If each of us wish to maximize our material welfare, why should we let emotions control that? Emotions make you weak.

 

I don't deny that atheists can do "good" things. I'm simply arguing that the "good" acts are no more "good" than a spouse cheating on one. They are both simply satisfying some evolutionary desire. Sanj's (again who I deeply respect) low fees is no more "good" or "bad" than Cohen's fees (or even his tactics with Fairfax). Sanj is following his DNA and so is Cohen. How can one be more "good" than the other?

 

I'm totally calling bs to the extreme if you are saying that theism is not connected to morality, at least in an objective manner. Even honest atheists, like Dawkins, admit to this. And you are also setting up a strawman argument about killing a kitten. I never said you "couldn't" feel bad. I implied that you "shouldn't." Once you realize the bad feeling is simply a rush of a chemical concoction based on something that happened to our ancestors millions of years ago, we can ignore it. With enough practice, it wouldn't be so bad.

 

If you want to be an atheist, that's fine but you should get off your moral high horse and at least look at the cold hard truth of reality. Personally, that's why I became a theist. Perhaps it's too hard to accept. Or, much like EMT, I don't believe what the professors tell us.

 

By the way, if you guys have any books on atheism, please recommend them.

[Parsad]

If atheism is accurate, I agree. With that being said, if we are truly rational, why shouldn't we overcome these emotional biases to give us more material wealth? That's all they are.

 

I don't disagree with you.  Cohen's behavior was only condemned as immoral when it was reflected upon by the U.S. government and society at large.  The act itself at the time was neither moral, nor immoral.  A hundred years ago, it may have been deemed ok by the same government and same society.  But so was segregation!  Or the lack of women's rights...or Chinese/Japanese internment...or the so-called perversity of homosexuality...etc. 

 

Has the Bible's verses changed in those 100 years?  The Koran?  The Torah?  The Gita?  Buddhism?  Confuscism?  Nope.  So what gives?! 

 

Perhaps, the natural evolution and enlightenment of society.  While deep down we may be animals, there is a higher plain of consciousness we are privy to, thus the ability to fly to the moon even though 99% of our DNA is identical to an ape.  That human beings aren't simply "created in the image of God", but are God himself or God incarnate on earth...the hand of God! 

 

If that is the case, then we create our own ideas of what is right and wrong through evolution and rationalization, rather than simply being imprinted upon by a secular moral code.  Religion is just another framework for life when humanity cannot explain its own existence.  Once you get past that, you no longer need that framework, because you have rationalized or evolved a new, non-secular framework. 

 

- I'm not a generous fund manager, disinterested from personal gain, but understand my duty to create wealth for subsequent generations

- I'm not doing charitable work, but work that allows the genes of those suffering from Crohn's or the imbalance of education to continue to be preserved

- I'm not a proponent of imbalances that will allow one gene to prosper unfairly against others...thus my view of Cohen's agenda and self-interest

 

I believe I'm on a higher evolutionary plain than Cohen, just like Buffett, Watsa, Pabrai, et al!  Cheers!