RE: Simple question for Christians.
July 17, 2015 at 2:03 pm
(This post was last modified: July 17, 2015 at 2:04 pm by Catholic_Lady.)
(July 17, 2015 at 1:57 pm)robvalue Wrote: People who don't care? Well, it can still be pragmatic. If you keep screwing people over you'll be short on allies, and also we have the law so we can lock those people up. Such people are fairly rare, who have no sense of morality (sociopaths). As for "should", well there's not much we can do. We'd like them to care about people, but if they don't, we can only give them reasons to care or deterrents not to hurt people.
We evolved as a cooperative species. We work well in groups, better than individuals. So natural selection has made us tend more and more towards people who care about society and not just themselves. It's not uniform, but it's a big trend. Society just wouldn't work otherwise! That is essentially where morality comes from. (Morality as in valueing wellbeing of others).
Thanks.
So let me make sure I understand correctly. Please correct me if I am wrong!
You're saying that it is ultimately in our best interest to "treat people as they want to be treated", because it is better for society. And if something is better for society, it is ultimately better for us personally... and that is why we should follow the golden rule. It all comes back to ourselves personally.
"Of course, everyone will claim they respect someone who tries to speak the truth, but in reality, this is a rare quality. Most respect those who speak truths they agree with, and their respect for the speaking only extends as far as their realm of personal agreement. It is less common, almost to the point of becoming a saintly virtue, that someone truly respects and loves the truth seeker, even when their conclusions differ wildly."
-walsh
-walsh
