Atheists! If tolerance is the highest of virtues why do we put people in jail?

Question

If we should allow everyone to do what is right in their own opinion, shouldn't we let Charles Manson out. His statement to his jury was, "Who are you to judge me? I did what I felt was right." You do realize this is the logical conclusion of your argument for tolerance? Or, are you going to be hypocrites and say that some things we will not tolerate. BTW, I expect lots of hate and intolerance, so prove me wrong, don't just give me a bunch of nonsense about my stupidity cause you disagree with me show me how my logic is flawed. There is no evolutionary cause for conscience , in fact it should work the opposite, if the best is to survive.

Answer 1

We have to lock up those who willfully commit acts of selfishness which put the rest of society in danger. Without such action, civilized society would cease to exist. Tolerance is reserved for those who are also tolerant.

Answer 2

That might be your "logical" conclusion for tolerance, but that ain't mine.

My logical conclusion for tolerance is "Anything is permissible as long as it does not negatively effect the freedom, well being, and happiness of others."

It's follows from the golden rule. Look it up.

"There is no evolutionary cause for conscience , in fact it should work the opposite, if the best is to survive. "

Thereby proving you know NOTHING about evolution.
Tell me genius who has a better chance of surviving: A lone individual unaccepted by society, or a respected and loved individual with the backing and support of friends, family and neighbors?

Get a clue. Society IS an evolutionary advantage, and anything that benefits the strength and cohesiveness of society is selectively advantageous.

Answer 3

There absolutely is evolutionary cause for conscience and morality.

Human beings are social creatures. That is how we evolved and that is how we best thrive as a species. In order to have a properly working social structure, there must be rules and laws. Chimpanzees exhibit this behavior, as do other primates. In fact, most mammals exhibit some form of moral behavior in their societies, though we might not recognize it as such.

Any individual who breaks one of these rules is castigated by the society and sometimes removed personally. When this individual is not in society any more, they are effectively dead evolutionarily, as the only way they can mate is by meeting others. In evolution, it is not the individual that must be best, but the population. Different species describe what "best" is in different ways. It does not necessarily mean strongest, or most intelligent, or such.

Keep in mind that, thus far, I'm speaking on a small scale, in a way that the early human societies, which generally got no bigger than 150-200 people, worked. In today's world, a person who is punished for immoral behavior can be ejected from some parts of society yet still find solace in others. Which is why we have laws. Our government and legal systems are natural extensions of these evolutionarily necessary morals.

It should also be pointed out that having morals is evolutionarily justifiable, but that does not have any impact on specific morals. Those are agreed upon by the society consciously. There are some morals that could be argued to be absolute, ones that if broken in early human populations (or in early hominid populations after we split from chimpanzees) would not have survived as they are extremely counter-productive, such as the murder of innocents. Of course, that's getting into more specific arguments than I think are necessary to deal with your question.

There is a way to understand humanity from a viewpoint that needn't invoke some supernatural being, even moral behavior. Human behavior didn't grow out of some mish-mash of strange ideas that people had; rather, it evolved from other species, along with our physical attributes.

Answer 4

I'm not going to accuse you of being stupid, but I will state categorically that you don't understand evolution. If you did, you would understand the issue is not that kind of "survival." Evolutionary success is related to the survival of the species' gene pool. In other words, what gives it an "edge," what makes it "easier" to reproduce itself? One of evolutions variations is called "social organization." You see it in many species. That type of arrangement offers a great many advantages, but it also requires characteristics not usually present in species where most members are generally "loners." For example, there has to be a kind of cooperation. And the point is that those species which practice it have evolved to do so. They're "wired" for it. So a certain ant has to carry food to fill up a common larders that's tapped by members who DON'T carry food at all. Did you think these are Gospel readers?

Humans are also social animals. Human cultures have ALWAYS created the normative forms we think of as "morality." And this happens whether a society has one god, a hundred gods, little demons living in trees, or a "religion" with zero gods and a "spiritual ethic" (e.g., Buddhists.)

In short, morality is a necessary product of our evolution as social animals. Religion at best reflects these fundamental social requirements.

Your logic is flawed because you aren't getting out enough

Answer 5

it is plenty greater probable by way of blatant racism and classism of the criminal justice equipment in the U. S.. Atheists are plenty greater probable to be prosperous and white, while many damaging minorities are Christian. If a prosperous white atheist lights up a joint or drives under the impression, odds are the main she'll get is a slap on the wrist. A damaging black Christian doing an identical element, even with the undeniable fact that, will plenty greater probable than not finally end up in reformatory with some bruises from a beat down by utilising the police. in spite of if the prosperous white atheist gets arrested for something, all of us comprehend that funds buys sturdy attorneys and damaging people get relatively overworked and underpaid public defenders. The information you pronounced say not something relating to the efficacy of the Bible. The Bible is desirable as a ethical handbook. most of the people in reformatory probable weren't doing an enormously sturdy activity following it.

Answer 6

Put simply atheists believe in tolerance of differences, that each person should have the freedom to do and think as they will provided that it doesn't harm others. Tolerance of what we are unfamiliar with can be a difficult task.

Despite what Charles Manson claimed, whether he was tlling the truth or not, he was a dangerous criminal. Also, if he was truly believed to be insane he would have been rehabilitated.

Answer 7

I think your argument has BIG holes in it. No one is suggesting Charles Manson be let out. Nor any lunatic for that matter. Protecting society from those who would inflict harm is not intolerance. Not a logical conclusion for the argument for tolerance. Try again.

Answer 8

In a civilized society, there are rules that must be conformed to. It's mandated by the MAJORITY. If that majority were atheists, christians, muslims, buddhists, it wouldn't matter. We are to follow these rules or suffer the consequences. Just because Manson feels it's right for to kill others, it's not right in society's eyes.

Now, to equate him to atheists is simply idiotic. We as atheists have morals and standards. Even if I were a person who thought murder was okay, I would be foolish to try and do it because there are laws in place against it. It has nothing to do with morals or the bible's message of 'this is wrong' or 'that is wrong'.

And prison is meant for rehabilitation. A place for people to learn to turn their lives around while being punished for their actions.

Oh, and to show you your logic is flawed -- that argument is based upon HIS belief. Manson feels it's right FOR HIM. Not society.

MORON.

Oh, by the way.. just so you know -- the number of atheists in prison is greatly outnumbered by those of belief in god.

Answer 9

But your religion is the one that preaches not to judge others. Therefore, we should do away with the legal system. God will strike them dead if they are guilty.

Hon, there is a difference between tolerance and stupidity. Tolerance means to accept people because of their differences as long as it does not cause harm. Sending people to jail for killing or sealing is the punishment for harming other people.

Answer 10

What? Your logic IS flawed. Since when does tolerance mean to kill people because you feel like it? We put criminals in jail because society needs to operate on justice and order. The thing that separate us from God is that we have established a law that bans torture because its inhumane and our justice system is based sympathy.