> If you had 0 education, and only experiences, you would only have the brutality of nature to refer to.
But such a person does not exist, as a big part of what it means to be a parent is to be the primary educator of one's children. You also grow up in a culture. What you're describing are feral human beings, in other words, people who are incredibly developmentally stunted as human beings.
> They believe religion[...] and live according to that.
This is quite a lazy and sloppy claim. What is religion, first of all? It isn't univocal. The best you can say univocally is something like "worldview". But everyone has some kind of worldview, so everyone is religious. So the question isn't "whether", but "how".
If by "religion", you mean a belief in God, then I urge you to look at the historically most important thinkers in history. Very few were atheists. And the atheists with the most intellectual heft didn't dismiss belief in God so casually. That kind of amateurish yucking it up is characteristic precisely of the intellectual halfwits you see among New Atheists. New Atheism is atheism for dummies.
I reject the phrasing of the OP. It's not compulsion. As a human being, I need food, shelter, etc. to live. To acquire these things, I must labor. Where's the compulsion in that? This is a category mistake.
Compulsion is in the amount of labor you need to perform, because you have to provide for food, shelter, etc for yourself and also make sure the rich have the riches, military has fancy toys and billionaries can play in colonization of mars.
Incidentally, you might find Sheen's "Communism and the Conscience of the West"[0] eye opening.
Wojtyła had similar things to say, which surprises people, because during the Cold War, he was seen as staunchly anti-communist - which he was - and the triumphant general responsible for toppling it, but his critiques and warnings concerning liberalism/capitalism were conveniently ignored or overlooked.
We have moral duties to the extent we collectively share values, which are arrived at subjectively and change with time.
In the secular world in the West, even human life in itself isn't considered sacred, as exemplified by sentiment on abortion. The moment we pop out into the world though, we assume personhood and are protected by the social contract.
But such a person does not exist, as a big part of what it means to be a parent is to be the primary educator of one's children. You also grow up in a culture. What you're describing are feral human beings, in other words, people who are incredibly developmentally stunted as human beings.
> They believe religion[...] and live according to that.
This is quite a lazy and sloppy claim. What is religion, first of all? It isn't univocal. The best you can say univocally is something like "worldview". But everyone has some kind of worldview, so everyone is religious. So the question isn't "whether", but "how".
If by "religion", you mean a belief in God, then I urge you to look at the historically most important thinkers in history. Very few were atheists. And the atheists with the most intellectual heft didn't dismiss belief in God so casually. That kind of amateurish yucking it up is characteristic precisely of the intellectual halfwits you see among New Atheists. New Atheism is atheism for dummies.
reply