Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
Ethics has long existed independently of religion. This is a cultural issue. A culture that connects people to society.
Man is a social being. In addition to his own interests and in particular the instinct of self-preservation, he also shares the interests of those societies in which he enters. Families, working groups, nations, states, humanity, and horticultural societies.
Cowardice will be treated with condescension if it is not associated with a disregard for common interests. Ran away from an angry bull? Normal. Ran away, leaving a family member behind? Reprehensible.
I think that the answer here is quite primitive and generally breaking away from atheism and religion. People (both individually and collectively) do not like those who create or can create a big problem for them. I don't think it's necessary to prove that a coward and a traitor are perfect for this role. They are expected to create a problem. Especially if it gets “hot”.
Hello!
I dare say that your question is formulated extremely idiotically, but if you try to get to the bottom of it, you will not succeed. I tried to take into account all the logical inconsistencies of your question and still answer, but I realized that you need to write a 50-page report on your question – in a smaller number of pages, you will not be able to consider all the logical holes, and therefore I suggest that you seriously think about contacting the Guinness Book of Records.
I will briefly point out the most obvious:
Atheists are people who do not believe in the existence of God.
What are the names of the people described by you who try to consider moral concepts (coward, traitor) and look for a rational explanation for them-it is not known. Although, perhaps, some biologists-philosophers are meant, since the emphasis is on the survival instinct, scientific nature and interpretation of moral concepts.
the justification of any fact does not determine the attitude to it in any way. For example , you were deliberately pushed in the morning by a person in the subway or on the street. But you accidentally found out that this is due to the fact that he was in a bad mood in the morning (or, well, he was confused by a demon). According to your logic (sorry, the word “logic” in relation to this is not very appropriate, but I do not know another, more appropriate term), knowing the reason, you should perceive this event positively.
In general, any event can be justified with the help of religion (although I don't see any sense in contrasting people whom you incorrectly call “atheists” and believers, but this is a separate conversation). For example: the average traitor betrays because his demon has confused him. But according to your data, believers still don't like it.
Where, by the way, did you get the data on negative attitudes towards traitors and cowards, and did you really conduct surveys of these groups? Because one of the answers in the thread contradicts your data (as well as common sense).
Evolution has developed two basic instincts: the survival instinct of the species, and only in second place is the instinct of self-preservation. Hence the attitude towards traitors. As for cowards, fear is absolutely normal, understandable, biologically and evolutionarily useful. The absence of fear indicates inadequacy. examples of Breivik and others like him are terrorists and religious fanatics.
This happens when fighting. Fighting atheists and fighting believers need brave and brave warriors. So they think that they educate them (brave and courageous) by their negative attitude towards cowards and traitors.
Well, I don't know… I am an atheist and I understand cowards. Anyone can be brave in words, but who knows what he would have done in this or that life-threatening situation… Besides, it is unlikely that humanity would have survived and achieved any success if not for the instinct of self-preservation.
Human behavior, unlike animals, is not regulated by instincts, it is conscious. And a person is quite capable of suppressing fear. And this ability to suppress fear has always been appreciated and praised by people and society.
What an original question 🙂
Of course, fear is a consequence of the work of the instinct of self-preservation. But do not forget that fear is experienced by everyone, even the most courageous people. And what distinguishes a brave person from a coward is not the absence of fear, but the ability to overcome it, the ability to abandon instinctive behavior. And this, of course, is worthy of respect by any standards.