Quote:
|
Originally Posted by abaya
But since I agree with most of what the article is saying, I suppose that's why I found it interesting.  Studying anthropology, one doesn't get far by assuming that morality and ethics developed from religion only... so I'm always glad to see someone questioning that often "basic" assumption (by the masses) and making people think harder about evolution and where things *really* came from. But I suppose that's my own bias. |
I agree with the gist of it too, which is why we both need to be careful in accepting it. Its very easy to accept something you agree with. That detracting doctor quoted is most likely a liberal, saw something he didn't like about 'liberals' and then decided to reject the study based on that. Its not much different in our case if we accept it because we agree with his concept of religion and evolved morality.
And a side note, this whole 'common good' concept is flawed to start with. Liberals and conservatives care about the common good, what differs I think is what is perceived as the common good. For example, security or loyalty is common good and I'd guess that conservatives would rate those higher priorities than liberals. Feeding everyone, regardless of the circumstance that lead them to need the food could also be called common good and conservatives would score lower than liberals there.
But even in that you can tweak the question to sway it, with intent or otherwise, one way or the other. If you phrase the question like 'Should society feed people without food after a natural disaster' you will see different priorities then if you ask 'Should the government feed those who can not afford food on their own'. These are just quick and dirty ones, I'm sure with time I could come up with better but I'm off work and would like to go home.