Originally posted by sirnex

Uh. What?

Who said there is no rational reason to be moral? You don't need God or a reward system in place in order to be moral. The point I was making is that those who do need a God and a reward system for moral behavior are simply not as moral as they like to think they are, especially when they make statements such as the one I had replied to.

I'm pretty sure I pointed out the selfishness aspect of religious "morality". When they make statements such as the one I had replied to in which they question the necessity to conduct moral behavior in the absence of reward for that moral behavior, then they are simply being moral only for the prospect of receiving a reward for doing so by their deity of choice/indoctrination/personal invention.

In all honesty, the propagation of genes does not require morality.

Didn't I mention that as well? What exactly is your reply to me supposed to entail? Is there a point or is this mindless bitching without any intelligent substance?

So, in your opinion it's perfectly acceptable on a psychological level to ONLY be moral IF you receive reward for doing so and without prospect of any reward we can simply drop all morality?

Originally posted by sirnex

I don't recall arguing that specific point in this thread or in others. But OK... You read what you read and not what is said, that's cool.

Interesting and I'm not sure how to respond to someone who considers morality to be irrational. How is it irrational to conduct oneself in a beneficial manner when living alongside society? Now, if we lived individually rather than communally, then I might agree with you.

Really?

So, an emotional response to doing good is a tangible reward in your opinion? What about petting a dog or cat and getting a pleasurable response out of that? Is that also a tangible reward for such an act? Is an emotional response equatable to receiving reward of heaven rather than hell?

All? Are you the sole representative for all seven billion persons on this planet?

I personally disagree based upon personal experience. I've done moral deeds without expectation of reward and in turn have had the person I helped screw me over in the end.

Maybe *you* can't be moral without incentive, in such case, tells me everything I need to know about you and how trustworthy you are.

Is it selfish to have an emotional response for doing good more so than receiving a tangible reward?

That's honestly the first time I've ever heard anyone mention anything about morality being an aspect of Evolutionary Theory or the propagation of genetic material during reproduction.

No to what? No point or mindless bitching?

Because it's better than being immoral. I see no point to steal from others,
murder or any other immoral act.

No brownie points for non-religious? Are you trying to say that people conducting moral behavior need God in order to be viewed as being moral? Other people and society as a whole just simply doesn't matter? What exactly are you trying to say here?

Originally posted by sirnex

Sure, I suppose if you lack the ability to comprehend what you're reading.

What 'rational' reason would one have to lie?

There is less energy expenditure in the act of petting a cat compared to kicking a cat. You don't like simple physics much do you?

Now that is simply the most retarded statement I've read yet on ATS.

Or more true to reality considering it's my own experience of the act, I simply didn't even think of any reward. I saw someone who needed help, the course of action was plainly obvious considering the situation the person was in. Never did it ever cross my mind that I would receive any reward or good feelings for helping.Perhaps not *all* people are selfish?

The statement only rings true if one throws out simple logic and behavioral science.

Care to answer the question or is it too hard?

How does beneficial behaviors in a communal society contribute to reproductive success? Altruism is not necessary for reproduction or for finding a mate in which to reproduce, ask any rapist.

Nor was I when I asked. I was simply trying to figure out if your first response actually had a point or was mindless bitching.

If I were to do something for reward, I would value a tangible reward, not a good feeling. Is a good feeling a tangible reward of significant value that can be used for any useful purpose? Is a good feeling enough of an incentive?

Originally posted by 547000
And yet you complain religious people are irrational. Take your pick, are they irrational or are you? Can't have it both ways. If there's really no rational reason to be moral in a given situation, is it really irrational to not be moral?

One could argue people are simply selfish, only being moral to survive longer and spread their genes. They are not moral for the sake of being moral. How dare they! Selfish bastards!