im sure you have an opinion on that viewpoint, but im still curious as to whether you have an answer to my question.
im sure you have an opinion on that viewpoint, but im still curious as to whether you have an answer to my question.
It isn't worse, objectively the end result is favourable even if the "driver" for it is not (to me).
I accept your counter point that at a macro level society requires a set of checks and reinforcement to bias individuals towards social good behaviour, community enforcement is obviously one and religion can be another.
But I would argue that while the state legal framework is secular it encodes some moral principles that society has agreed on such as murder, theft, harming other physically or otherwise etc.
I also hold no issue with others holding beliefs that shape their morality, I just reject the argument that people without a god cannot have innate morality or a secular morality (a common refrain).
So extended clarification on the "belief shaping morality" point.
I hold no issue with it, until one person's belief driven morality impinges on another persons own autonomy, you're free to act on your own life and person based on your beliefs but using that belief system as a weapon to cause others harm or reduce their autonomy as a person is where I draw the line.