Hacker News Reader

Comment by Domenic_S | Hacker News Reader

> counseling, a better home and school environment, food in the belly, and so on might.

This seems right for preventing criminals from forming out of otherwise-blank-slate children, but what do you do with these kids? There's no magic wand that turns their home & school life right.

On the other hand, there are plenty of kids who had a perfectly fine and financed upbringing who turned into criminals and terrors, they just tend toward white-collar crime.

This brings us full circle to the original comment that religion used to serve a useful purpose for society that's been largely lost -- a set of ethics & morals, and if those don't take real well there's always the all-seeing entity watching you at all times. In modern times the all-seeing eye of God has been replaced by surveillance cameras, but what is the base of morals replaced by?

View on HN

The first thing is that there are no universal sets of morals. Ethics is a totally different beast but it’s something I’m not sure a young kid can wrap their heads around. But following “the rules” is something you can teach a kid and works until they are old enough to know when to break the rules.

One thing we stressed to our son is: if you break the rules/laws, you will eventually get caught. So make sure whatever you are doing is worth the consequences.

There’s no need for some magical god to punish people, just the fact that, eventually, someone will figure out what you did (or more likely, they’ll tell on themselves). It’s worked so far…

> The first thing is that there are no universal sets of morals.

That's a belief presented as fact. I'm not super excited about getting into a philosophical debate, but just something to consider:

"The rules: help your family, help your group, return favours, be brave, defer to superiors, divide resources fairly, and respect others’ property, were found in a survey of 60 cultures from all around the world." -- https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2019-02-11-seven-moral-rules-found...

It’s a fact because I think we can agree there is at least one person on this planet who has counter-morals to any morals you present, for example. As long as one person on this planet has a difference of opinion on what morals they abide by, there can be no universal morals. That IS a fact, not an opinion.

Your unstated assumption is that universal agreement is required for universal morals to exist

I’d love to hear an argument showing that a universal moral doesn’t need to be applied universally and still be considered universal.

>a set of ethics & morals, and if those don't take real well there's always the all-seeing entity watching you at all times.

Do you think we didn't have crime when the church was in charge?

Is that really what you think I said? How about making a point with less snark to it that I could respond to?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com