Moral science confirms people behave better when they think they’re being watched

#11
Quote:No, that was among non-believers too. Try reading some time. Rolleyes
It literally said "Even Among Atheists".

Again, it's all about perception, not actual morality. Seeing there are 92% believers, it's not surprising this would be a widespread perception. Atheists are generally demonized by believers. I take it you have no studies measuring the actual morality of secular people vs religious people then?
Reply
#12
(Jul 4, 2019 08:11 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:No, that was among non-believers too. Try reading some time.  Rolleyes
It literally said "Even Among Atheists".

Again, it's all about perception, not actual morality. Seeing there are 92% believers, it's not surprising this would be a widespread perception. Atheists are generally demonized by believers. I take it you have no studies measuring the actual morality of secular people vs religious people then?

Again, for the second time now, that's the perception even among atheists.
And there's no such thing as an accurate measurement of morality, as that would either be self-reported (and according to a wide variety of disparate moral systems) or crime stats (which would tend to say black people are the least moral, if you were naive enough to accept them as a gauge of morality). IOW, you asking for data impossible to ascertain.

But if atheists trust non-atheists more than atheists, they would know best.
Reply
#13
Quote:you asking for data impossible to ascertain.

Then it's impossible to back up your claim that religious people are more moral than secular people. That's what I thought.
Reply
#14
(Jul 4, 2019 10:13 PM)Magical Realist Wrote:
Quote:you asking for data impossible to ascertain.

Then it's impossible to back up your claim that religious people are more moral than secular people. That's what I thought.

No, when atheists agree, they are in the best possible position to know. You couldn't ask for better evidence on the subject than that.
Much better than the big zero you've provided on your claim that secular morality is somehow, what, more genuine than what you called the "psuedo-morality we get from religion". You haven't even made an attempt to argue that secular people differ morally from religious people when unobserved. That would seem to indicate that you think all morality is "psuedo-morality"....which is a good secular excuse for immoral behavior.



To probe the salience of anti-atheist prejudice, the researchers took advantage of people's propensity to fall for the conjunction fallacy—the erroneous assumption that more specific conditions are more probable than general ones. In this particular study, the researchers told a gruesome story in which a man who used to torture animals when he was a boy grew up to kill five homeless people whose dismembered bodies are now buried in his basement. Half of the respondents were asked: Which is more probable? (1) The man is a teacher. (2) The man is a teacher and does not believe in any gods. The other half were asked: Which is more probable? (1) The man is a teacher. (2) The man is a teacher and a religious believer.
...
When given the teacher/atheist conjunction, 52 percent of atheists selected it. Asked about the teacher/believer option, only 27 percent of atheists picked it.
- https://reason.com/2017/08/09/even-athei...ts-are-mo/


OVER HALF OF ATHEISTS asked assumed the killer was an atheist.
Reply
#15
(Jul 4, 2019 07:23 PM)Magical Realist Wrote: If you have to be watched to behave morally, you are not a very moral person. That's the kind of psuedo-morality we get from religion: fear of getting into trouble rather than real empathic compassion.

thats a state of cultural evolution of the human social animal.
you can see it in varying degrees and types inside personal relationships and familys & groups and communities.


the more morally bankrupt the state the more crime must be performed to balance the the starving poor.


as you mention, only the religious brainwashed believe morality of that type is a subjective sticky label purchased at a store with free will.


in the usa if a parent is going to lose their family home because of a medical bill for one of their children that insurance wont cover..
is it wrong of the parent to steal to pay the mortgage so the children do not get thrown out on the street ?
Reply
#16
See, RU is quick to give examples of how, especially secular, people justify immoral acts.
The state is not responsible for and does not force people to get mortgages families cannot afford after one unforeseen crisis. Nor are there starving poor in the US, where the adults are responsible and willing to work. Making others responsible for an individual's poor choices is, itself, immoral.
Reply
#17
your such a douche bag
your always hating yet you pretend to be a christian using christian morals as a weapon to oppress others free speech.
Reply
#18
You're deluded and projecting. No one is oppressing your free speech. Your hate of Christians just makes you want to.
Reply
#19
In thinking about this a bit more, I'm not so sure this is true in the workplace. Micro managers tend to create tension among their employees, thus driving down productivity. I watched a reality series recently about a real estate group in CA who serve high end clients, and the owners of the agency have an open office plan, meaning everyone shares the same space/area, without any walls or cubicles. The owners have their desks situated about ten feet from their staff.

Hell no. I would quit. lol Being micro managed (''watched") is a sure fire way to lose talented employees. So, it might work for a short time, but it's not a sustainable business model.
Reply
#20
Quote:http://theconversation.com/moral-science...hed-114384

[...] This finding echoes observations from social psychology that show people behave in a nicer way when they know they are being watched. Indeed, even a poster with eyes on it changes how people behave. And it seems when the chance of being observed is low, people are more prone to evade a moral code. [...] What this all shows is that so-called “good behaviour” is dependant on on a number of factors –- including whether a person believes they are being observed, or not. This indicates that although most people do follow some form of moral code, to what extent they abide by these rules does differ situation to situation...


Mass surveillance. Gotta' keep people's inner child urchin and resentful nihilistic teenage rebel under control since they inherently abhor being disciplined robots. The way people behave online indicates earlier stages of one's self never truly die-out. They just become buried under the layers of adult formal posturings, professional employee conduct, and accumulating life ordeals, hardships, and horrors which induce maturing. Wherein the routine "acting" eventually becomes the prime identity or Gate Regulator in terms of what's allowed to come out as speech, behavior, and moral/immoral acts. But the goalie isn't perfect, may seize a break from the game stress whenever an opportunity of invisibility presents itself.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)