This is always about imposing one’s beliefs on others. “Social harmony” is intentionally vague. Everyone will imagine their own meaning of that and be inclined to think, “yeah that’s something I’m on board with.”
This is always about imposing one’s beliefs on others. “Social harmony” is intentionally vague. Everyone will imagine their own meaning of that and be inclined to think, “yeah that’s something I’m on board with.”
How many overweight and obese doctors and nurses are there? They’re only slightly healthier than the general population: https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/healthcare/why-don-t-doctor.... Smart, educated Americans can’t force themselves to limit their eating. But in say east Asia, extensive social shaming over weight helps people stay slim.
Humans didn’t evolve to be libertarian sovereign individuals. They’re members of communities and their welfare can be increased by allowing community reinforcement of good behaviors and decisions.
I think both sides, the secular humanists and the religious are prone to make stuff up, as it suits their needs.
I was watching the Matt Dillahunty Vs Andrew debate. And Andrew gives a very rational counter to the current secular world view.
Does it help people stay slim with fewer overall negative effects then if people didn't stay slim? Eating disorders and mental health do come into the equation. There's many ways to keep people slim that doesn't result in a healthier society.
As for "living in a community", I would trust more the kindness and humanity in general, than the same of a select group.
By this I mean, alignment of good behaviour comes naturally from one's experience. And I guess I agree with you to an extent. But, I take the general sentiment of your post as advertising collectivism. Which, from personal experience, has a tendency to be non-inclusive. The worst of it comes in subtle ways. Causing considerable harm to anyone that steers just a little bit from the norm. But, that in no way is a harm to others.
Yes, I do think western society has become too individualist, to its detriment. I also agree that collectivist societies can be non-inclusive. But the flip side of that is that it can be better for the people in the middle 80%. I think your average person, especially your average young person, needs more social guidance than contemporary, highly individualist western society is willing to provide. It also makes it difficult to achieve anything that requires solidarity and social coordination.
Also, shame is a language everyone understands. All ages
you mean to make the decisions you consider good.