All morality is derived from the oneness of God

submitted by trident765 from old.reddit.com

sorted by:
new (suggested)
topinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]knotsy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

How about natural law (per Gauthier) as a basis for morality?

The idea that I will desire to form voluntary agreements out of self-interest that lead to moral behavior. I do not wish to be murdered, and would wish to be defended, so I agree not to murder, and to defend my neighbors from murderers (obviously an oversimplified example but you non-morons should catch my drift). Game theory suggests these arrangements are optimal, and an entire code of moral conduct can be based on these ideas.

Whether or not these laws originate from a deity or not seems rather beside the point

[–]trident765[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

What you describe is a derivative of rationality but rationality fails in the case of the Voter's Paradox. A rational person will not vote, because an individual vote has zero chance of influencing elections, so it has zero benefit to society. This is a problem because in aggregate it is in the in the interests of society for intelligent people to vote. So it is better for intelligent people to have an irrational belief that their vote will make a difference than for them to be rational in this respect. Religion is a set of irrational beliefs that when people follow them in aggregate, result in a better society.

[–]Vulptex 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

The fact that they need to vote in the first place is proof that their vote does influence the outcome, no matter how small.

Religion is no different from a cult and easily degenerates into a tribe of Pharisees. The results are always catastrophic when you let those people be in charge of things. And yes, wokeness counts as a religion.

[–]trident765[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

A couple of questions to think about:

1) Do you agree that it is more important to vote in small elections than large elections, since voting in a small election is more likely to influence the outcome?

2) If so, does there ever come a point where the election is so large, that the probability of influencing the election becomes so miniscule that it is not worthwhile for an individual to cast his vote?

[–]Vulptex 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

  1. Yes, but also because local electives should have more power.

  2. No, because while it may be miniscule, if a bunch of people stop voting because of that mentality it's no longer miniscule.