The Proof is in the Pudding
Offline Where I work I am accountable to meet certain metrics. We review these values periodically and set goals at a quarterly basis to try and meet and/or improve these values. If we don't meet our objectives, we are obligated to identify a valid reason or we take a hit on our bonuses and even potentially get RIF'd (Reduction In Force).
I often see debate around here regarding the benefits of Christianity on our society and the potential harm Atheism has on our morality. If this is the case it should be quite apparent by gathering a few key metrics. The first question I asked is where do we expect to see this influence of Christianity and the obvious answer was the United States.
United States
* Christian: (78.5%)
o Protestant (51.3%)
o Roman Catholic (23.9%)
o Mormon (1.7%)
o other Christian (1.6%)
* unaffiliated (12.1%)
* none (4%)
* other or unspecified (2.5%)
* Jewish (1.7%)
* Buddhist (0.7%)
* Muslim (0.6%)
Christianity accounts for 78.5% of the population, that would seem to qualify this nation as a Christian majority.
I then looked for a sample of the least Religious nations to compare it against and came up with these choices: Sweden, Denmark, Norway, Czech Republic, Finland, and France.
Now what metrics do we need?
If we are trying to look at the influence of Christianity and it's influence on our moral choices, I figured we would start with crime, homicide rates in particular, then I looked at marriage, or more specifically divorce rates to get an idea on how we are doing. Finally what about our kids? So let's look at teen pregnancy and abortion.
Here are the values I was able to pull.
Homicide Rate Per 1000:
Sweden .02/1000
Denmark .01/1000
Norway .01/1000
Czech Republic .01/1000
Finland .02/1000
France .01/1000
US .05/1000
Divorce Rate Per 1000:
Sweden 4/1000
Denmark 2.7/1000
Norway 2.2/1000
Czech Republic 2.9/1000
Finland 2.7/1000
France 2/1000
US 4.1/1000
Teen Pregnancy and Abortion Per 1000:
Sweden P: 7.7/1000 A: 17.7/1000
Denmark P: 8.2/1000 A: 15.4/1000
Norway P: 13.6/1000 A: 18.3/1000
Czech Republic P: 20.1/1000 A: 12.4/1000
Finland P: 9.8/1000 A: 9.6/1000
France P: 9.4/1000 A: 13.2/1000
US P: 55.6/1000 A: 30.2/1000
Now I fully understand numbers don't always tell the whole picture and there are obviously a number of additional contributing factors but when you own 78% of the population and have influence in every aspect of a nation, since the get go, are you not obligated to own up to some of these results? Is Christianity not doing it's job? Is there some barrier or influence impeding it's ability to take hold?
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
- Login to post comments
Offline For the record Hamby, I know what stats you're going to post.
"Well Pineapple, the atheist nations reported being more happy than the Theistic nations"
My response will be as follows:
1] I highly doubt this survey was controlled enough to be of any use in what you're trying to get from it. Such as I don't really think they ruled out other variables or isolated their own variables
2] It would have to be a STRONG negative correlation based on what he's saying. It's not so much if it's correlated but how strongly it's correlated.
3] So pretty much the exact same arguments he used against the first survey can be used against his and that would be an ummm...... double standard.
- Login to post comments
Offline Hambydammit wrote:If Christianity is genuinely conducive to improved morals, why aren't Christian cultures empirically more moral than non-Christian ones?
Uhm..probably because of multitude of factors that have nothing to do with religion.
I am glad you agree with my point. That when Christians make the claim, that they are allowing for a better moral framework, it is most likely not based upon any valid statistical analysis, as that is arguable at best, and they are basing that assertion entirely on emotion and belief.
Poor, and suffering people tend to be religious, because for most of them their religious faith is their only source of hope in a reality deprived of it. They have to believe that there's something more to this world, or give in to despair. It's not that religion is the source of their poverty, but rather their poverty breeds their religious faith.
This is an appeal to emotion and belief. Your argument that it allows for a mechanism of escape does not justify it as the best possible solution. Society also turns to drugs, alcohol, and crime to appease the rigors of reality, that does not justify their use.
And in inversely, atheism doesn't breed prosperity, and these Disney land welfare states, but rather these Disney land conditions breed atheism. It's far easier to accept that life is "full of sound and fury but signifies nothing", when a persons life is well off and prosperous. And let's not forget that most of nations on the list or supposed countries of ideal morality, have long been dominantly Christian nations, so the belief that Atheism got these countries to where they are today would be myth.
I didn't see anyone make the claim that Christianity wasn't the vehicle by which a number of countries had arrived at an atheistic outlook.
Hambydammit wrote:The idea is that morality is empirically verifiable. We can count the number of murders, thefts, sexual crimes, etc, and we can track the spread of STDs, etc, etc. Why do Christian cultures not only show up better on empirical studies, they seem to do worse?This is silly, such stats don't convey that one nation is more moral than another nation.
Stats here mean nothing when the conditions are entirely different.
that most of nations on the list or supposed countries of ideal morality, have long been dominantly Christian nations, so the belief that Atheism got these countries to where they are today would be myth.
Wait are you indicating it's okay to use statistics to determine if a country is morally superior vs another, as long as we recognize Christianity was the vehicle that allowed us to arrive there?
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
- Login to post comments
Offline This is an appeal to emotion and belief. Your argument that it allows for a mechanism of escape does not justify it as the best possible solution. Society also turns to drugs, alcohol, and crime to appease the rigors of reality, that does not justify their use.
And this is projection, no where did I say that religion was the best solution for anything, no where did say I because poor and suffering people rely on religion to be a source of hope in grim and bleak reality does this "justify" religious belief. I was just stating that high crime rates, murder, the suffering and poverty is not bred by being religious, but rather the this desperate situations breed religion. There's no appeal to emotion there buddy, I'm just stating the fact.
Wait are you indicating it's okay to use statistics to determine if a country is morally superior vs another, as long as we recognize Christianity was the vehicle that allowed us to arrive there?
No, all I was saying is that those who claim that atheist are more moral that theist by pointing to the Scandinavian countries, are spreading myths. The status of these countries have nothing to do with their atheism at all, their atheism is bred by their status, not their status was bread by the dominance of disbelief. They weren't even dominantly disbelievers when they started the trends that got them there.
- Login to post comments
Offline And this is projection, no where did I say that religion was the best solution for anything, no where did say I because poor and suffering people rely on religion to be a source of hope in grim and bleak reality does this "justify" religious belief. I was just stating that high crime rates, murder, the suffering and poverty is not bred by being religious, but rather the this desperate situations breed religion. There's no appeal to emotion there buddy, I'm just stating the fact.
Poor, and suffering people tend to be religious, because for most of them their religious faith is their only source of hope in a reality deprived of it.
Correct you did not say 'Best" you indicated "Only" source of hope. You aren't even allowing for alternatives in your statement, as "Best" would indicate there are options.
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
- Login to post comments
Offline Correct you did not say 'Best" you indicated "Only" source of hope. You aren't even allowing for alternatives in your statement, as "Best" would indicate there are options.
notice the qualifier:
Poor, and suffering people tend to be religious, because for most of them their religious faith is their only source of hope in a reality deprived of it.
If a person can't find any hope in reality, the only hope they can find or have is a hope beyond reality, or in other words a religious faith.
- Login to post comments
Offline neptewn wrote:Correct you did not say 'Best" you indicated "Only" source of hope. You aren't even allowing for alternatives in your statement, as "Best" would indicate there are options.
notice the qualifier:
manofmanynames wrote:Poor, and suffering people tend to be religious, because for most of them their religious faith is their only source of hope in a reality deprived of it.
If a person can't find any hope in reality, the only hope they can find or have is a hope beyond reality, or in other words a religious faith.
Now you have identified the appeal to belief I mentioned earlier. I have felt this first hand, when 80% of the programs out there are only offering prayer and a bible, as a solution, it can actually be a hindrance to discover real help.
Which is the whole point of the discussion.. What evidence can we use to make this determination.
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
- Login to post comments
Offline Now you have identified the appeal to belief I mentioned earlier. I have felt this first hand, when 80% of the programs out there are only offering prayer and a bible, as a solution, it can actually be a hindrance to discover real help.
NO one said anything about the bible, or prayer, or even a particular religion, it was just a bare belief of that expression, that there is such a thing as hope even when reality of our situation seems to beg otherwise. I understand that most individuals on this forums live such privileged lives that they just don't get it. But I've watched a woman live a life viewed from the outside is one of despair, nothing hopeful about it, no government programs or community organizations hold promise for her, and this not out a lack of trying on her part. It's not out of not being part of community which, she has, and quite a loving one. But all those who do desire to help her, realize their empty handed, but rather than telling her, her situation possibly has no solution, that her life exhibits the everyday meaningless and cruelty of life, they say nothing at all.
The dimwitted middle class liberal rationalist, assumes as you do, that there's some magical program out there, that the hopeless are missing. This woman's religion is not what deludes her from trying every possible means for a solution, but empowers her to keep trying. Though she may not understand, or know,just like everybody else what the solution is for her dilemma, she won't allow the despair that comes with the acceptance that there possibility isn't one, suffocate her.
Her religion, her faith in life of meaning and purpose even if she may not know what that purpose and meaning is about, if it's just a mystery to her, are what empower her with hope, and a sense of joy, and meaning every thing else has failed to give it to her. Our dumb, atheist, who knows very little about life, about the great majority of people no different than her, don't get it, as we can see in their fairy tale belief that real help is out there, and these people are just missing it. What a crock of shit dude.
But let's keep in mind we are not talking about any particular religion, or dependence on a religious text, but just a mere basic and simple form of religious belief, call it bare bones, a belief that life has an inherent sense of meaning and purpose, even it's a mystery to the believer what exactly that is, a belief in hope in a reality of hopelessness. That's it.
It's the shallowness of the Dawkins tribe, of our typical forum atheist, that they can barely grasp this, and believe deweyed in their own superstitions of hope, for people who know better, and find it all the more repulsive.
- Login to post comments
Offline ...I often see debate around here regarding the benefits of Christianity on our society and the potential harm Atheism has on our morality...
I'm new here, but read enough topics and posts to know I should ask you a simple question.
What medications are you taking?
- Login to post comments
Offline Now I fully understand numbers don't always tell the whole picture and there are obviously a number of additional contributing factors but when you own 78% of the population and have influence in every aspect of a nation, since the get go, are you not obligated to own up to some of these results? Is Christianity not doing it's job? Is there some barrier or influence impeding it's ability to take hold?
It is a misnomer to say that Christianity "owns" 78% percent of the population. The most important statistics are the ones that are practically impossible to quantify, namely, the percentage of Christians who are moderates, fundamentalists, idolators or those who abandoned their religion years ago but forgot to actually give a two week notice to their pastor.
To answer your question, yes. There are a lot of barriers. The most important is the fallen nature of man, which is to say, the inherent propensity toward the unrighteous. This is further exasperated by the market forces and the capitalist mindset, which glorifies consumption and individualism as essential values to the degree that they're inevitably woven into the fabric of our everyday lives. This is absurdly more prevalent in America than in any other country, which has served as the archetype of social darwinism. This has served us well in our transition from a rural society to an industrial one, but such a mindset is counter-productive in attaining equilibrium and stability in a more complex society. It is crazy, for example, how much more money we invest in our armed forces than in our social welfare system. Plus, how many millions of dollars did we give to automobile companies, when that money should have been more properly allocated to the millions of people who require housing subsidies and food assistance? Even Christianity has fallen victim to the market forces (see the numerous televangelist scandals that have occurred). Then there is the issue of equity in distribution, which is rendered implausible by the ideological baggage carried by capitalism.
So yes, America is a Christian nation, but that does not mean that most Americans follow Christian principles. The proper context to view American culture is to see it in a more holistic sense. Yes, most Americans are Christians. But those same Americans also live in an individualistic capitalist society, where it becomes increasingly more difficult to reconcile one's faith with one's practice due to the demands of such a society where God is subordinated to personal wealth. Therefore, I would say that those statistics have less to do with religion and more to do with bad secular values.
- Login to post comments
Offline Now I fully understand numbers don't always tell the whole picture and there are obviously a number of additional contributing factors ...
This is an understatement. Your numbers say nothing about the correlation you are trying to make.
- Login to post comments
Offline I think in a couple of days, I might compile an actual cumulative argument that Christianity does, on balance, have a causal relationship with Christians being less moral than non-Christians. I think the argument can be made compellingly, but that's not what this post is about.
I have not seen this compilation yet. Perhaps someone can point me to where it is. Judging from reading this thread I would maintain it is not doable. So please by all means let's see the "cumulative" argument.
- Login to post comments
Offline
Quote:My point was that all you guys have is a single [I don't know how strong] correlation then massive speculation on a complex and multi-variable issue.No, pineapple. We don't just have a single correlation. We have various correlations of varying strengths, each of which singly and in conjunction corroborate the conclusion predicted by both logic and cognitive psychology.
Does a compilation exist of this case - both evidence and conclusions drawn from the evidence.
- Login to post comments
Offline Here are two links very relevant to this discussion, both from the Journal of Religion and Society.
First, a study pretty much addressing the subject somewhat along the lines of the OP;
Second, a response questioning aspects of the original study.
Favorite oxymorons: Gospel Truth, Rational Supernaturalist, Business Ethics, Christian Morality
"Theology is now little more than a branch of human ignorance. Indeed, it is ignorance with wings." - Sam Harris
The path to Truth lies via careful study of reality, not the dreams of our fallible minds - me
From the sublime to the ridiculous: Science -> Philosophy -> Theology
- Login to post comments
Offline Here are two links very relevant to this discussion, both from the Journal of Religion and Society.
First, a study pretty much addressing the subject somewhat along the lines of the OP;
Those charts make me want to move to Japan instead. If only they weren't such dick heads. 
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
- Login to post comments
Offline There's also the giant fucking hornets. Check out the first item: www.cracked.com/article_15816_5-most-horrifying-bugs-in-world.html
If you don't believe your non-belief then you don't believe and you must not be an atheist.
- Login to post comments
As of December 6, 2004, it was a "a recent study" put together by "the Higher Education Research Institute at the University of California at Los Angeles."
You're probably right about it, and it would've been nice if there'd been in a link in the story to the *actual* study.
Or if the link was about a study that was more recent.
There's nothing in the study about methodology, which makes or breaks studies anyway. *shrug*
Crazy, I'm pretty sure that's the same study I read back in 2004. I forget where I saw it published. That was a while ago. I remember thinking it was so broad in scope as to be nearly meaningless. I'm not suggesting its findings were invalid. The methodology, as I remember, was relatively sound. It was the study itself that seemed not to prove anything at all. Its aims were not clearly established, and while the statistical analysis of the results were probably correct, the surveys themselves were not focused enough to provide more than a broad (and relatively useless) generalization -- people who believe they are happier because of their religion tend to report themselves as being pretty happy.
Duh.
(I've noticed that the less links you can find to the actual study, the less trustworthy are the news stories about it.)
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Ah hah!
I had a sense from the article (and the big-ass quote that I found in it) that was the case: That the results were so broad as to be meaningless.
Hamby, with such a broad variety of religious people, there are going to be sub-groups left out of any study.There should still be a NEGATIVE correlation regardless of the sub-group based on what you're saying.
Let's say that Mormon women did have low self-esteem and cognitive dissonance along with gay Christians.
You would then have to show that they're the ones contributing to the social disfunction and crime rate.
To my knowledge, I don't think jails are full of homosexuals or Mormon women. Or homosexual Mormon women.
From what I've seen. there is NOT a negative correlation with self-esteem/socialiation and religion, as predicted.
For the record:
This study [dated 2006-2007] found that
But then again it's not me with the burden of proof here. You would have to show a NEGATIVE correlation with such.
Aha... I think Maltby and Day (2004) is the study I was talking about. I have to read this one.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I'm not the one that should be looking for studies.
To be honest, I was a bit hesitant to post that one, seeing as to that it's from Iran, however, there are lots of religious people in Iran
Ok... bear in mind, I'm writing down some thoughts as a read through because I don't have a paper and pen handy:
So, apparently, the results are not quite clear cut. I haven't read either of the studies he cited. I will try to find them.
Ok...
Problem number one with methodology: The prediction is that "following religious belief" has a positive impact on mental health, self-esteem and good "scholar function." I'm quoting, so please realize that the bad grammar is because this was not a native English speaker.
It's nice to have such broad goals, but aren't there mentally healthy people with good self esteem who aren't good students? Aren't there good students who have good self esteem but are bat shit crazy? Aren't there mentally healthy people who have low self-esteem -- for good reason... like they did something really shitty and feel bad about it because that's what healthy people do when they fuck up?
Already the focus is too broad, and the results are going to be very difficult to assess.
Problem number two: Sample. "Statistical population of the research has composed of collegians of Mohaghegh Ardabili University (Ardabil, Iran) within 2006-2007 who were at 18=25 age of range. For data collecting researcher edited questionnaire, religious beliefs practice test, mental health questionnaire and self-esteem questionnaire were used."
Ok... so let me see if I get this. You want me to be surprised when college students IN IRAN are more prone to self-report that religion makes them happy?
And... you want me to take this seriously as indicative of what people do when they have a legitimate choice about religion? Across all cultures? And you want me to be surprised that non-religious people living in a theocracy aren't as happy as theists?
Really?
Sheesh... I'm still reading, Pineapple, but I'm about done granting you the right to bust my balls for cherry picking.
Ok... problem number three:
The study finds that in a theocracy, people who are mentally healthy tend to participate in religion more, and people who are mentally healthy and participate in religion more tend to have higher self esteem.
Right... and maybe that would be because they live in a damn theocracy?
Of course the smart, well adjusted ones conform to the NATIONALLY MANDATED RELIGION.
From Wiki:
So... really.... this is your evidence that theism is good for you? No shit! If you live in a repressive theocracy, yeah... if you're smart, you practice religion.
Sheesh.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
I'm not saying that Theism is good for you.
For fucks sake, I'm not even the one that should be digging up studies on religion and self-esteem.
YOU SHOULD BE!
To be a bitch I was going to post one from Saudia Arabia, but Iran seemed more funny.
For the record
Don't quit your day job and pick up a job assesing stats.
[edit]
Okay, I read this like five times.
Are you new to this whole deviation thing, or does it only apply to your stats?
[/edit]
Don't expect snark to win the debate.
You're the one who just offered the staggeringly profound truth that students in theocracies will self-report that religion makes them happy.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
You're right Hamby, that was a snark.
You know why?
That post really made me question your ability to asses stats.
All you had to do was point out that the study was from Iran, ergo the stats are externally tainted. That's it. Study defeated. But that's not all you did.
Look
Let me be clear with this.
Yes, these could be deviation.
Yes, deviation
The point is not the cause, but correlation.
Look at what you wrote on the first page
This could be correct. The above refutation of the study is incorrect, using the same logic here.
The study is indeed invalid due to external tainting of the data. Yet, the "too broad refutation" is invalid. Anybody who took an intro stats course can tell you that.
What you would have to do is calculate the standard deviation of both self-esteem and mental health and compare. You just used ancedotal evidence [There are happy mentally ill people, there are un-happy mentally ill people etc...] That does not show anything.
But the point is Hamby, I'm not the one that should be finding studies on Religion and self-esteem. YOU SHOULD!
Alison, I'm saying two different things about two different studeis.
1. In study 1 (2004) as I recall it, the conclusion was too broad to be meaningful. In a general assessment of self esteem and mental health, people self-reported that religion made them feel better about themselves. It didn't address specific aspects of mental health or self-esteem, and only provided a loose correlation that didn't either 1) rule out other variables or 2) isolate its own variables.
Study 2 (Iran) made the same mistake as study number 1. It asked for self-reported data on general mental health and self-esteem. In statistics, sure, you can demonstrate that there are correlations between three variables, but when the variables are as non-specific as those used, you can't just point to deviation and say, "see! It's acceptable deviation." I can show you a statistical correlation with acceptable deviation between three unrelated variables that happen to make the same kind of graph.
2. You attempted to say that because there are anomolies and overlaps between individual countries in individual variables comprising a meta-study of LOTS of variables, the overall trend is suspect. Suppose we have 50 variables, for 50 measures of social function, and in all 50 of those variables, the trend is an inverse relationship between societal religiosity and societal health. If even say, 45 of 50 variables trended significantly this way, we would say that we have a very strong correlation between societal dysfunction and religiosity, regardless of whether there are overlaps. Sure, this country over here has lots of crazy gun laws, and they're atheist, but they have a high rate of gun murder. This anomoly (even without explanation) would not be significant because on the whole, murder with guns trends the same way as everything else, and everything else displays the same pattern -- occasional deviance within a broad trend.
For this to be comparable to the Iran study, religiosity, scholarly success, self-esteem, and mental health would all have to be in the same category, in the same way that murder, rape, theft, assault, and child pornography are all in the same category. They are not. That is what I was pointing out. While religiosity, scholarly success, self-esteem, and mental health might all be interrelated -- that is, each may affect each of the others -- they are not so interrelated that they may simply be lumped together such that we can claim causal relationship.
I wouldn't attempt to suggest that rape causes theft, even though rape and theft might be correlated in some studies. I'm sure there are lots of countries where there's lots of theft and little rape, or vice versa. Likewise, there are countries where people have very high self esteem and low religiosity, or high self-esteem but low mental health, etc, etc.
The two approaches are totally different. One is a cumulative argument. "See... we have lots of the same kind of variable, and they all trend the same way." VS "See... we have several loosely correlated variables. Religion is good."
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Hamby, I don't know why I even try.
You are making the claim that religion affects self-esteem and socialation and stress levels right?
Here's an interesting question:
Why am I posting studies about religion and self-esteem and sociality?
Even if every study that shows that religion and self-esteem are positively correlated doesn't meet your high and mighty standard [though it seems to pass peer review], you would still have to post VALID studies that show a NEGATIVE CORRELATION.
I'm not trying to say that "religion is good"
I'm saying:
"This study[the first one] runs contractory to your claim. Please provide studies that SUPPORT your claim"
Refuting the study does nothing to prove your claim.
LULZ
I'm with you on this one. The "don't worry about it, God's got our back" mentality is bending the US over and giving it to us hard core.
I've actually thought of moving to Sweden. I don't know any North Germanic languages, but as I understand it English has been taught in most elementary schools for some time now. The climate is actually far superior to Michigan. And lets not forget the best part, Socialism!
After eating an entire bull, a mountain lion felt so good he started roaring. He kept it up until a hunter came along and shot him.
The moral: When you're full of bull, keep your mouth shut.
MySpace
Uhm..probably because of multitude of factors that have nothing to do with religion. Poor, and suffering people tend to be religious, because for most of them their religious faith is their only source of hope in a reality deprived of it. They have to believe that there's something more to this world, or give in to despair. It's not that religion is the source of their poverty, but rather their poverty breeds their religious faith.
And in inversely, atheism doesn't breed prosperity, and these Disney land welfare states, but rather these Disney land conditions breed atheism. It's far easier to accept that life is "full of sound and fury but signifies nothing", when a persons life is well off and prosperous. And let's not forget that most of nations on the list or supposed countries of ideal morality, have long been dominantly Christian nations, so the belief that Atheism got these countries to where they are today would be myth.
This is silly, such stats don't convey that one nation is more moral than another nation. Rich white kids are less likely to rob, cheat, and steal, or end up in prison, does this mean that rich white kids are more moral than poor black kids. And you of all people should know, that morality by in large an instinctually driven system, so a test of morality is based on how one responds to certain situations, under similar circumstances.
I remember a period in my life where I was really broke, and I could barely afford food for the week. And I noticed that someone had left their textbook on top of a computer at the library. And i thought to myself how I could take this book, and sell it back at the bookstore and get like $30 bucks for it, which would have been a fortune for me, and would have solved my hunger pains. I was seriously going to go through with it, but a pang of guilt led me to turn it in to the lost and found instead.
A rich kid, who never had to worry about where his next meal was coming from, might have turned the book in, without even second guessing. This wouldn't make him more moral than me, even if I did sell the book for my own gain. It's only if he were in the same circumstances, under the same conditions I was in, and made a decision not to when I would have, could we say that he was more moral than me.
Stats here mean nothing when the conditions are entirely different.