Is there a reason to do good for other people besides religion?

>>8382523

Reciprocal altruism
Valuing your own character in reference to some moral system

>>8382523
>he posted from his mom's house

>>8382523
Earning Fame, gratitude, glory, respect.
Or empathy, or self-satisfaction.

>>8382523
It feels good

>>8382523
There are an infinite number of possible reasons to "do good for other people" besides religion. Are you one of those ass-backwards Xtians who can't figure out why atheists bother living and treating others well?

Avoiding the librarians staring at you.

>implying religion offers a reason to do good

>>8382523
The social contract

Is there any reason to not do bad to other people besides laws, punishment and shame/criticism from society?

>>8382523
Because it is ultimately good for you, and society at large. Which is why most cultures are quite fast at developing and internalise some variant of the golden rule as moral guide.

>>8385566
the golden rule is bullshit
prove me wrong

>>8385967
>kant in2 Kant
>not even Plato
>probably thinks he's quoting Jesus
it would be cruel of us to ask you to be that good

>>8382523
Yes.

Hell, fucking DAWKINS made a documentary about this.

We have a genetic predisposition to do good, as it actually improves our chances to survive (unless we trust those we know we should distrust).

He also added the content of this documentary as an extra last chapter to the definitive version of The Selfish Gene (which is the book where the concept of memes comes from, by the way).

Here:
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1jprgh

>>8385985
a good comedian, you mean?

>>8386004
no, i wouldn't worry about it tho if i were you

>>8386018
the only problem is that he knows he can give me for granted

>>8386027
ESL?

>>8386042
What?

>>8385967
no, you're a fucking retard and your post is proof

>>8386162
Care to explain why I am a retard?

>>8382523
>good

there is no good or bad in nature
it's a human concept

>>8382523

Yes, of course there is. Since no religion has ever really been true to begin with, yet many humans regularly "do good" for whatever reason, then it follows that there is some reason, rationale, or at least cause which impels people to "do good".

In modern terms, this can be expressed in at least two ways. First, humans as a species have a relatively high capacity for intra-species cooperation and sociability, which it is supposed is advantageous to our long-term survival. We have this in common with the ants and the bees, to quote E.O. Wilson, and as a species, we stand in stark contrast to solitary hunters like Tigers and bears. The simple point being that what is "good" from the human point of view is first and foremost generally what is helpful to humans. So if an individual is "doing good for other people" which entails a degree of social interaction, then that person tends to be liked and/or appreciated by the group.

This obviously has a flip side and a point where it has diminishing returns, especially depending on what sex you are. Women are both cultured, AND have a natural predisposition which PRECEDES culture, toward an ethic of care, caring for others. These are the reasons why women are over-represented in nursing, social work, and the general shit work of actually caring for other human beings. This does not diminish their SMV, whereas it has the potential to do so for a man. A man may instead ply his "helping" trade in other traditionally more "masculine" endeavors, without taking quite the same SMV hit. Also, in irreconcilable contrast to the above, humans are obliged toward intra-species competition for all resources, including sexual access. For reasons that should be obvious (I'll spare you), if a man is looking for sex, then it is in his interest not to be seen to be a little goody-two-shoes - to a point.

Also, the other factor impelling people toward our anthropocentric conception of "goodness" is that the golden rule is so close to being a (human) Truth, that we can easily dispense with its caveats and practically adopt it as an axiom. The question remains: what is the reason for doing good for other people, absent God? We instead take the equivalent negative aspect of this: "Why shouldn't I just fuck with other people all the time?" The very simple answer, /which everyone already knew deep down inside/, goes directly toward the characteristics of human beings. When you fuck with others long and often enough, they will remember exactly what happened, even 60 years from now, if they are still alive. The point being that we have great working memories, and we are also inclined to more vividly remember negative experiences, so as to avoid them in the future. Or perhaps instead also to revenge ourselves on those who have wronged us. So you don't fuck with other people, with the hope or expectation that they in turn will not fuck with you. This is the true (flip) side of the golden rule.

>>8386180
Nature is already a human concept, you pre-modern high schooler. Humanity is the highest end of nature, which means the organization of nature is at the same time the groundwork for the possibility of the good.

>>8386191
Except that there's ppl you just can't fuck with, so they can be as evil as they wish

>>8382523

No. The cold, nihilistic, self-centered 21st century Western man is the natural state of humanity, and any reason for us to be good to other people must come from something imposed from outside ourselves.

Also, the whole history of the world can be reduced to the level of internet discussions about religion.

>>8382727
this

Yes.

Next question?