alt Hacker Newswhile i somewhat agree with that reasoning, it can go too far - most people would murder and kill if there weren't any consequences to doing so. But is it right to say who they really are as being murderers?
Replies
Most people would what? No, I don’t believe that’s true.
> most people would murder and kill if there weren't any consequences to doing so
Do you have any evidence to support this? Feels like this opinion is made up, for unknown reasons.
In reality, psychopathic tendencies are about 4.5% in the general adult population, a far cry from 'most people', with the gold standard assessment being only 1.2%. [1]
From that same article, "The construct of psychopathy is understood generically as a type of personality disorder characterized, among other important features, by the presence of behaviors that conflict with the social, moral, or legal norms of society, giving rise in many cases to clearly criminal behaviors ..."
There's also the bagel experiment described in Freakonomics. [2]
[1] https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10....
[2] https://pricetheory.uchicago.edu/levitt/Papers/WhatTheBagelM...
you should probably seek mental help and read them this specific thread to cut to the chase instead of paying for 10 sessions
> most people would murder and kill if there weren't any consequences to doing so
Citation needed. There are a lot of ways I can improve as a person, but I can promise you I am not and not ever been a murderer or killer regardless of consequences. Even if someone threatened me or someone else, I would do my best to not kill them and simply diffuse the situation.
Maybe take some time to reflect.
> most people would murder and kill if there weren't any consequences to doing so
…yeah, it’s fitting that sama was the top user here. What a wretched hive of scum and villainy.
That says a huge amount about YOU and nothing about ‘most people’. What a very revealing thing to say. Wow.
> most people would murder and kill if there weren't any consequences to doing so
This is what Christians tell themselves and others to explain why believing in their religion is so important, but it's not even remotely true. Humans evolved community and society long before we evolved organized religion.
I constantly see Christians pitching this like some kind of gotcha: "If you don't believe in God, then how do you know what's right or wrong?" The simple answer is that I have empty and I care about how other people feel; I try to do things that make things better and avoid things that make things worse, both for me and for others.
If the only reason that you don't rape and murder is because you're worried about consequences then that makes you a horrible person whether you act on it or not.
Conversely, it seems as though Christians see these 'teachings' as a get out of moral quandary free card; if the Bible implies it's okay, or you can justify an interpretation where that's the case, then it's completely fine to do whatever you like. Harass or attack trans people, bomb Iran, make miscarriages illegal but refuse to feed the poor or help with daycare - all because one reading of the bible supports the things you want to do (even though it doesn't) but doesn't require what you don't want to do (even though it does, actually).