this post was submitted on 04 Jul 2025
-78 points (5.7% liked)
Showerthoughts
35719 readers
1284 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The most popular seem to be lighthearted clever little truths, hidden in daily life.
Here are some examples to inspire your own showerthoughts:
- Both “200” and “160” are 2 minutes in microwave math
- When you’re a kid, you don’t realize you’re also watching your mom and dad grow up.
- More dreams have been destroyed by alarm clocks than anything else
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- No politics
- If your topic is in a grey area, please phrase it to emphasize the fascinating aspects, not the dramatic aspects. You can do this by avoiding overly politicized terms such as "capitalism" and "communism". If you must make comparisons, you can say something is different without saying something is better/worse.
- A good place for politics is c/politicaldiscussion
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct and the TOS
If you made it this far, showerthoughts is accepting new mods. This community is generally tame so its not a lot of work, but having a few more mods would help reports get addressed a little sooner.
Whats it like to be a mod? Reports just show up as messages in your Lemmy inbox, and if a different mod has already addressed the report, the message goes away and you never worry about it.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
When did you learn that hurting was wrong and who taught you?
How many people do you know, or have known, who disagree that violence is wrong?
We require our "morality" to be taught. You didn't come to your idea of morality alone, and all evidence suggests that humans have had spiritual beliefs throughout our species existence, and unified spiritual belief seems to be a requirement for a stable, spreadable, and consistent "moral code" that can be taught to everyone.
Even our relatives that we can observe have "premoral behaviours", which we would have needed to form our "morality", yet they do not have a consistent "moral" code across the entire species.
The first time something hurt me and I didn't like it.
My human, inherent empathy then led me to the conclusion that I don't want other people to be hurt needlessly. Yes, empathy is indeed inherent and has evolutionary roots. I absolutely can't explain that entire framework here, you could read The Selfish Gene for example.
Yes I am sure the first time you were hurt as a baby, before conscious thought even kicked in, you suddenly knew what was "morally correct".
There is no such thing as "inherent" traits. If that were true no human would hurt another human because we all would be coded not to do that and wouldn't need someone to tell you what is wrong and right.
If all evidence suggests that groups of humans have all had a spiritual belief structure I think it is safe to assume that as a requirement for a consistent, and easy to communicate "moral code".
I did not say that.
There are, believe it or not, more things besides empathy that determine human behaviour. Weird, complicated creatures.
That just means humans also have an inherent wish to understand and explain things, even when they don't have the necessary means yet.
Edit: typo
You may want to answer my question "When did you learn that hurting was wrong and who taught you?" again considering you were a baby without definable consciousness.
You are free to provide examples if you want me to agree with you.
Which means that spiritual and religious belief structures would have been required for us to advance to where we are today, which was my entire point, based on your idea of "inherent". Even though again, nothing is "inherent" regarding moral belief.
People rarely learn stuff all at once but gradually and in stages.
~~I guess I won't provide any examples then.~~
I read that wrong, I apologise for the snark.
You're human, you know examples.
That does not follow from what I said.
If you have a point to make, make it. Otherwise go away if you aren't going to engage in good faith discussion.
I have made my point, you just don't want to accept it.
You haven't made a single point. You have argued for "inherent" morality, which is bunk.
When I have tried to clarify, you refuse to answer questions.
So again, state your point in full below or jog on because I don't even think you understand the point I have made quite clear and which you refuse to acknowledge by dodging my questions and points.
I have given an alternative explanation for the existence of morality which is in line with current science, such as our understanding of evolution. This, at the very least, disproves your notion that there is no other explanation for morality than religion and spirituality. It may not prove that religion and spirituality ISN'T the explanation, if that makes you happy. I refuse to go into broader topics such as the entirety of human behaviour.
Empathy isn't inherent, and that is not current science.
Take care.