What are ethics? Ethics are a subset of heuristics for desision making. The subset consists of decisions that affect other sentient beings. Many decisions don't (should I drink water now or later) but some do (should I steal this motorbike).

The moon has no ethics. Algae probably has no ethics. Mice have limited ethics, generally related to how their decisions affect fellow mice.

Ethics are mostly hardwired into you when your brain developed, and they were determined genetically. If we didn't have this hardwiring, the cost of thinking through a decision would be overwhelming (the game theory is incredibly deep) putting you at a huge survival disadvantage. But ethics can be learned from society (necessary adaptation!) and also consciously chosen. Although I'd argue that we have far less ability to consciously choose our ethics than we think we do.

Because ethics come in part from society, children have big wide openings in their underdeveloped ethical systems. Children will often believe that stealing, murdering, cheating, etc, might be the smartest move. It takes parents and/or life experience to discover this is almost always incorrect. Some adults have "arrested development" and continue to operate with under-developed ethics. These people tend to be in and out of the prison system. We could argue about whether this is genetic or developmental or environmental or societal, but that would make this post far too long and more controversial than I was intending it to be.

The ethics that a Christian has and the ethics that an athiest has are different:

1. Athiests don't believe there is any ethics to praying, going to church, or paying tithe to the local minister, keeping the sabbath, not eating pork, or any other god-given rules from a god they don't believe exists, wherein the rule is esoteric and doesn't affect their fellow sentient beings.

2. Athiests feel it is unethical to disrespect the non-standard sexuality of a person, whether homosexual or transgender, whereas Christians appear to believe it is unethical to have non-standard sexuality in the first place.

3. When it comes to treating others with the "golden rule", the ethical systems are virtually identical, except:

4. Religious people have some carve outs for stealing and murdering (as evidenced by Israel).

If I have a choice of dealing with an atheist or a theist, I feel safer dealing with the atheist.

I've heard some Christians who believe the world would be much worse if it were not for Christians. That without Christianity, people would partake in all kinds of activities they feel are unethical: stealing, cheating, murdering, etc. But if it is only your religion that prevents you from doing those things, that frightens me. I would *hope* you were born with (and developed) ethics that prevent you from doing those things just because they feel very wrong. So for people who think they would benefit from harming others, please keep going to church!

I don't know any Palestinians. I don't think I even know any Arabs. And yet I feel great empathy towards Palestinian women and children and doctors and aid workers when they die. If atheist's ethics were only selfish, I wouldn't feel like this.

Ethics has nothing to do with religion and everything with your upbringing.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

You could argue that religion plays a role in the upbringing.

Then genetics barges in like the kool aid man, OH YEAH!

It’s insanely complex, yet simple. Appreciate the teachings of the masters: Jesus, Buddha, Laozi, Mohammad, etc. it’s all the same message, but govt (groupthink) creates a distortion. We’re all uno 🫂

Well, Jesus was a fictional creation of the Romans to pacify the Jewish uprisings in the time of the Maccabees; much of the Buddha story is fantasy as well as Mohammed (a known pedophile), but still you are on the right track of thinking for yourself.

I have no idea. They’re all dead and much time has passed. The value of the lessons learned is still alive.

The value and the horrid aftermath of their ideas real or imagined is still alive.

A bit of research into why Jesus was created by the Romans is a good start.

How do you know?

Appreciate it my friend. It’s too complex to address in text feeds, but I enjoy the constructive conversation 🫂 💜

Yes and then the Jesus story which pacified the Jews contained the element that the Jews plotted against and killed Christ, and so that story resulted in the murder of a hell of a lot of Jews by Christians in revenge during the first and second centuries (IIRC, it was a long time ago).

Yes, and so now the Khazar's who adopted Judaism have exacted their revenge (there are no Biblical Semitic Jews left in the world, they all interbred with Goy). "Textual witnesses dating from the 9th and 10th centuries claim the Khazars adopted Judaism in the 8th century". This explains how the European Jews mostly had blond hair and blue eyes. Not a Semitic trait don't you know.

Buddha created the Sangha corporation, the first entity to cleverly honour usury while simultaneously separating itself from State via statues and other constructs. There’s a reason much is fantasy.. the truth stings sharply 2600 years later.

Fictional? Yikes

Here's a good vid that can explain what the Romans did...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2BoKyy7yDs

c'mon man. quit joking. "I care not if the sceptic says it is a tall story; I cannot see how so toppling a tower could stand so long without foundation. Still less can I see how it could become, as it has become, the home of man." chesterton. read 'everlasting man'

The Yeshua seen in Churchisnity, yes.

Funny how “god” only seemed to reveal himself to the same bloodline. Must be a coincidence. Atheists are bad. Believe in ancient books. Evidence isn’t necessary. Starve yourself. Pray harder.

I've written papers on this topic. You are correct on both counts nostr:npub1r0rs5q2gk0e3dk3nlc7gnu378ec6cnlenqp8a3cjhyzu6f8k5sgs4sq9ac .

Geographic and linear birth determine religiosity. Christianity has survived and thrived due to the medieval architecture that survived and the remnant priesthood that had to be maintained. Earlier religions did not have these reasons to continue.

If you were born in India you would grow up believing in Ganesh or another of the many gods. If you were born in Scandinavia you grew up with a belief in Odin, ect.

A huge amount of it is, indeed. I'd argue their are probably genetic components, but I would never go so far as to indite people based on their race. I don't think any genetically coded ethics are "wrong" enough for that anyways. But nostr:npub1nshq4pcyzdmnewg4h8yu6tsuh5t72whzkz5x4wj7t0c0cy7yyrfqq2cgnl would probably take the other side of that argument.

it isn't so much a matter of race as character. my father is a Sadist and i am not. we are the same race.

i do think that Asians are on average less ethical than Europeans and Africans on average less intelligent and more impulsive ...

but i would rather hang out with an average African or Mongol than my father and it's not even close.

it's the same as any other trait. some races are taller than others and yet there are Chinese Giants and Icelandic Midgets.

once you know you're dealing with a sadist though do not kid yourself and think there is any right approach that can be found in dealing with them.

character trumps everything.

my sadist father ONLY smiles and laughs when he is hurting somebody or reminiscing how he hurt somebody. he is visibly in pain whenever anybody is happy. and he actually cried when i told him that he will soon not be able to hurt anybody anymore because he will have alienated everybody.

when i analyze people the first and last thing i ask myself is whether they enjoy the pain of others.

Wow I just learned so much about you there. Makes perfect sense.

The racial trait I see that is most strongly genetic is 'drive'. I bought a "high drive" german shepherd puppy. The breeder knew it was "high drive" and warned me. Other german shepherd lines are not high drive. Clearly it is genetic in this line of dogs. I see Ashkenazi as high drive and Jamacians as low drive, and I think that explains a ton of things. These Jews not only are wealthier and hard working, they are also never satisfied. Whereas Jamacians can't even be bothered to build a proper house for themselves, but are always very satisfied with life, kicking back on the beach in the good weather and smoking the ganga. Who is to say one is better than the other? They aren't better or worse. I feel sympathy for the Jews never able to be satisfied, but also for the Jamacians when the storms roll in. Hell, I even feel sympathy for the woke idiots who insist these two races have the same drive and I'm a racist asshole for pointing out the obvious, because they can never be happy either.

The Stranger within my gate,

He may be true or kind,

But he does not talk my talk—

I cannot feel his mind.

I see the face and the eyes and the mouth,

But not the soul behind.

The men of my own stock

They may do ill or well,

But they tell the lies I am wonted to,

They are used to the lies I tell.

And we do not need interpreters

When we go to buy and sell.

The Stranger within my gates,

He may be evil or good,

But I cannot tell what powers control—

What reasons sway his mood;

Nor when the Gods of his far-off land

Shall repossess his blood.

The men of my own stock,

Bitter bad they may be,

But, at least, they hear the things I hear,

And see the things I see;

And whatever I think of them and their likes

They think of the likes of me.

This was my father's belief

And this is also mine:

Let the corn be all one sheaf—

And the grapes be all one vine,

Ere our children's teeth are set on edge

By bitter bread and wine.