Science in the Details ~ Sam Harris
Offline 
President Obama has nominated Francis Collins as the next director of the National Institute of Health. I think that this raises some concern about his nomination,what do you think ? www.nytimes.com/2009/07/27/opinion/27harris.html
Signature ? How ?
- Login to post comments
Offline Say you live in a village on a hill. There is a village on another hill, across a valley from you. The resources to support your village are in that valley, and there are only enough resources for one village to survive. It becomes morally OKAY for those people to kill people in the other village, so your own village will survive..probably after only a few conflicts over the limited resources. Welcome to all of history.
From one culture to the next, morals are as subjective as water will mold to fit the shape as a bowl. Whatever the society thinks will help them as a community, will become morally "right" and whatever they think will hurt them, will become morally "wrong".
An insurance company is required to make profit. It has nothing to do with "keeping jobs". I'm sure being an intern gives you a little insight into the lowest levels of the corporation, but I hate to tell you that isn't where the policies are made.
According to the way you are trying to apply your own personal moral values onto a corporation, you may as well just say insurance companies in their very nature are "amoral" since they only make profit by charging people more than they will collect when a tragedy befalls them.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
Offline An insurance company is required to make profit. It has nothing to do with "keeping jobs". I'm sure being an intern gives you a little insight into the lowest levels of the corporation, but I hate to tell you that isn't where the policies are made.
Don't kid yourself, I never said the policies were made to "keep jobs". Now, an individual employee may follow company policies for the sheer sake of keeping their job. Notice the difference. A company policy may forbid stealing of company propriety because it hurts their bottom line, an employee on the other hand may comply with this policy but not because he's concerned with hurting the companies bottom line, but is concerned about getting caught, and losing his job as result of stealing.
The resources to support your village are in that valley, and there are only enough resources for one village to survive. It becomes morally OKAY for those people to kill people in the other village, so your own village will survive..probably after only a few conflicts over the limited resources. Welcome to all of history.
And here, the question becomes a moral one, because it becomes one of empathy and compassion, for ones own village and people, in their well being, and survival.
Speaking of morality indifferent to reflections of empathy and compassion, is nonsense, its the equivalent of calling a fish a duck.
According to the way you are trying to apply your own personal moral values onto a corporation, you may as well just say insurance companies in their very nature are "amoral" since they only make profit by charging people more than they will collect when a tragedy befalls them.
And I don't know what it mean to say by their "very nature", how does a corporation have a "nature"? But my point has never been along these lines, my point has been that most corporate discussion are amoral (not immoral, or moral) ones, they are decisions without reflection on empathy and compassion, they are economic questions, like mathematics questions, no more moral than deciding to eat a peach.
- Login to post comments
Offline I have a..warped understanding of the model? I don't believe so. If I do, then years of studying business must of been for nothing.
Well, I'm also a business major, finishing up a double major in Economics and Risk Management, in one of the top in the country.
Stakeholders are a company's #1 interest because it is who the company influences, without stakeholder support you have no company.....
Please, stick with argument that I've actually made. But I think I understand where the dilemma arises between you and me, and it's here: If I have a financial interest in you, this doesn't mean that I have a moral interest in you. If I perceive you as merely a means to a monetary end, i have no moral interest in you whatsoever. I have no more of a moral interest in you than I do so for my Rolodex. The difference here between the financial and moral, is like that of the price of a dress, and the value of it to the girlfriend you bought it for. One is a scientific sort of interest, and the other is an aesthetic sort of one. You still don't understand this do you?
If you find a wallet it would serve in your IMMEDIATE self interest to pocket it. It would serve in your enlightened self interest in a society to return it, in both the wishes that someone else would do the same for you and in the possibility of a reward, as well as gratification of doing something others would praise you for.
Let's not get into the business of using terms, that amount to nothing more the superstitious gobbledygook, such as "enlightened" self interest. I have difficulty calling the individual who found my iphone, and perhaps made a good deal of money from it, of not being "enlightened". He found it more gratifying to fatten his pocket, than to do something for me, and I'm sure his friends considered him a lucky bastard, but regardless he was more gratified by the monetary gain, than he would have been by his perceived social brownie points, and the warm and fuzzy feelings he might have felt if he returned it.
I called your notion "enlightened self interest" gobbledygook, because if you ever tried to tell a potential thief that, as the reason for why he shouldn't steal, he'd probably laugh at you before he steals your wallet also.
Moral values are an enlightened self interest determined by your society. I take it you have never studied on the development of society, or the ideas involved. Usually this is covered in an introductory college course.
Actually, I have. And if you think an introductory college course has given you a comprehensive understanding of the history of ideas, the notion of morality, you'd be kidding yourself. I suggest you read Charles Taylor's "A Secular Age", and Alasdair Macintyre's "After Virtue", you'd be far better informed by them, than the intro college course you've taken, that's for sure.
- Login to post comments
Offline So are you saying morals are empathy and compassion?
Please define morals. Because making a definition up for words does nothing for anyone else. If you are speaking in a self-made language only you understand, you are going to have to share a rosetta stone with the rest of us to be able to communicate.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.
- Login to post comments
Offline BobSpence1 wrote:He does not say that the study was about the mind of Theism at all. He says that he sees some strong thought/behavior patterns in common between what Altemeyer has shown about RWA's and many Theists.
Actually that's exactly what he implied. Here's his actual quote:
Quote:"My understanding of theists' handling of cognitive dissonance is based largely on 40 years of comprehensive study of the authoritarian personality profile as detailed by the preeminent social scientist, Robert Altemeyer -- research that has passed muster in all sociological contexts, and has only been strengthened by research since.Which is not saying that Altemeyer's work is about Theism at all, just that Hamby has based his ideas about "theists' handling of cognitive dissonance" is based on Altemeyer's study of the Authoritarian mind-set, which even Altemeyer sees as having significant similarities to aspects of belief in a supernatural authority figure.
All perfectly reasonable, consistent with Altemeyer's own words, as Hamby showed in direct quotes, and not in any way misrepresenting anything.
Quote:So here's how it works. Either you demonstrate that you know even a smidge about the research I'm talking about, or admit you have no clue what you're talking about and it just makes you feel good to think I'm making shit up."
If you desire to see his embarrassing exchange with individuals who actually knew Altemeyer's work, you can find it in this thread: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/18032
His deluded mental capacity still failed to see what was wrong with his thinking, even after posters beated the point multiple times. SO anybody claiming that I need to recognize Hamy's superior understanding of science, is kidding himself, he's proven himself to hold a dopey understanding of things on numerous occasions.
The only strong and persistent disagreement with Hamby was from Cpt_pineapple, who has a very persistent response to anything she sees as disparaging religion in what she sees as unfair ways. Apart from manofmanynames of course, but that was either you or your twin. You have misrepresented that discussion.
I didn't grossly interpret his claim, if you desire to make an argument that I did, I'm all ears. But I also suggest you read the post he was responding to, and a few of the subsequent responses to him afterwards.
I have , and it only reinforces my assessment. In fact, the quotes from Altemeyer reveal that he did deal with religious belief systems as a related issue, which I had not seen from the post I based my earlier comment on, so Hamby's usage of the study to help assess aspects of religous attitudes was even more justified than I had initially assumed.
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 As long you maintain that image of a monkey smashing a keyboard my work is done, and I've begun to like you. And for you, I won't unleash the monkey.
I give as due.
Profound.
Well, i gave examples of what amoral decisions are, such as eating a fruit, answering a math problem, putting on my socks, can you tell me what the quality of these examples are that make them "amoral"? When you figured that out, you'll understand my use of the term throughout.
Here are some other examples you gave.
That's not true. An amoral decision by someone might be percieved as moral act by someone else.
An example of mine that helps to understand this is a person A and a person B:
Person A:
A man of his times forces other men to be slaves to work his field. He at some point comes to see his actions as evil/wrong/bad (which ever word you're comfortable with). He asks those who he made slaves for forgiveness for forcing them to be his slaves. He gives them reparations for their years of unpaid labor and sets them free.
Would you agree this individual morally progressed?
Person B:
Another man of his times forces other men to be slaves to work his field. After a number of years his economic conditions change, and the money he was making from his agriculture can no longer support what's needed to maintain the slave labor. Realizing that the cost to maintain slaves would be much higher than the economic benefit of retaining them, he sets them free. But he said to himself, if the economic conditions return to where the benefit of having slaves are higher than cost of maintaining them, he would force men to be slaves again.
Even though this other man set the slaves free, did he morally progress or remain the same?One of the individuals made a moral decision, the other made an amoral one, though they both freed their slaves.
Your conclusion is right, but every other bold part is completely unconcerned with whether or not something is amoral. It doesn't matter how it is perceived by someone else, period. If something is amoral it has nothing whatsoever to do with morals/morality and their progression.
Really? My response to clockcats charts and examples was my internship at an insurance company? Now, if only i could figure out why my supposed rebuttal was written prior to Clockcats supposed charts?
Well, got me there. 
Cervello, I freely admit to being wrong, perhaps my views of morality are all wrong, and if I were convinced they were by a reasonable and coherent argument, I'd be quite thankful to individuals who shown me the error of my ways.
In that case, I'll come back with a reasoned and coherent argument as to why your idea that morals disappear in a secular society is wrong, as it's pretty clear I was wrong here. Except for the amoral thing.
"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."
- Login to post comments
Offline I agree with Craig Venter that a true scientist cannot hold supernatural beliefs. Doing so violates the principles and values of science, which a legitimate scientist does not abandon outside of the lab.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
- Login to post comments
Offline theTwelve
If god suddenly started to rewarded murder and rape, and punished charity and kindness, that is to say, murder/rape was what got you into heaven, and charity/kindness was what got you into hell, what would you do? Would you act in accordance to this revised morality.
And to anticipate a likely response... get yourself a dictionary and look up "hypothetical."
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
- Login to post comments
Offline Morality is an illusion, in any sort of secular conception of it. Most atheist, who don't understand the historical development of moral laws, and concepts, don't get this. Morality has long been held, by a sense of a telos, that man like a designed thing, has a notion of what he "should be". Man taking care of the poor, the sick, and the orphan, loving others, is seen as what man is to be, the purpose he is to live for.
Are you saying that any and all acts of philanthropy or kindness are the result of a religious worldview? (I'm honestly not trying to build a strawman, that's a serious question). I would argue that the morality of our society is solely concerned with the decisions people make, it has nothing to do with the religiosity of the society. Think about it, in our country people work together within the community all the time without stopping to make sure everyone is still bowing to the same god--or any god at all for that matter.
As far as the "design" part goes and "loving others," someone posted a link on these forums a while ago related to the topic. I just so happened to bookmark it.
http://greatergood.berkeley.edu/greatergoodscience/?p=235
In secular world, such concepts no longer exist. Man is what he is, if he desires to only care for the here and now, his present family, perhaps even a single generation afterwards, with no concern about the well being of those after these generations, than so be it. If he says fuck making sacrifices to prevent Global warming, if decides to be like Lazarus and shut his door on the dying and poor, than so be it. He is what he is, and any atheist telling him he should live differently, would get a fuck off.
Isn't that how it already is though? Let me rephrase that. If you believe in free will, if man desires to only care for the here and now, he can-- independently of his religion or lack thereof. You can't say people are more likely to buy a Prius if they love Jesus for example because it doesn't say in the Bible "and verily I tell thee, thou shalt garner tremendous mileage from thine steed if it shall benefit my Creation." I personally think our right to tell people who sensationalize societal problems to fuck off is incredibly important. Most people, regardless of what they believe happens when they die, will sacrifice at least a little bit for the sake of the community. The others are outliers. I have to ask though, do you agree with the following statement?
"You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5: 38-39)
"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."
- Login to post comments
Offline "Well, I'm also a business major, finishing up a double major in Economics and Risk Management, in one of the top in the country."
The best huh? This would explain why we're in a recession, the best is crap.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
- Login to post comments
Offline If god suddenly started to rewarded murder and rape, and punished charity and kindness, that is to say, murder/rape was what got you into heaven, and charity/kindness was what got you into hell, what would you do? Would you act in accordance to this revised morality.
And to anticipate a likely response... get yourself a dictionary and look up "hypothetical."
Well first of all, if you're doing shit just to get you into heaven, you're not doing moral shit at all, you're just doing shit to get you into heaven. Doing stuff for a disconnected other world, is just that. Morality is doing stuff for the sake of love, and empathy.
So if i were to go and murder and rape others, I can see both of them as being immoral, and yet do them for the sake of getting into heaven, this is similar to killing a husband, because his wife offered you a good chunk of money. You killed for the sake of the good chunk of money, not for moral reasons at all.
- Login to post comments
Offline Morality is doing stuff for the sake of love, and empathy.
Here's the trap: why is that morality? If you're going to say because of a god, then the question was asking what if a god said morality was raping and murdering, and love and empathy were immoral. You need to come up with another reason for that to be moral.
- Login to post comments
Offline Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-ansi-language:#0400;
mso-fareast-language:#0400;
mso-bidi-language:#0400;}
Sam Harris has a one word answer to all of the world’s ills: religion.
Thus, anyone who is religious is, a priori, part of the problem.
Moreover, as evidenced at the following link, Harris himself is becoming a scientist not in order to conduct unbiased research but in order to attempt to evidence atheism.
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/05/atheism-new-emergent-atheists-part-2-of.html
Also, FYI: interesting info on Collins is found here:
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/04/john-horgan-and-francis-collins.html
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/05/new-atheists-on-francis-collins.html
- Login to post comments
Offline Topher wrote:If god suddenly started to rewarded murder and rape, and punished charity and kindness, that is to say, murder/rape was what got you into heaven, and charity/kindness was what got you into hell, what would you do? Would you act in accordance to this revised morality.
And to anticipate a likely response... get yourself a dictionary and look up "hypothetical."
Well first of all, if you're doing shit just to get you into heaven, you're not doing moral shit at all, you're just doing shit to get you into heaven. Doing stuff for a disconnected other world, is just that. Morality is doing stuff for the sake of love, and empathy.
So if i were to go and murder and rape others, I can see both of them as being immoral, and yet do them for the sake of getting into heaven, this is similar to killing a husband, because his wife offered you a good chunk of money. You killed for the sake of the good chunk of money, not for moral reasons at all.
So then you accept that there is something inherent that would stop you from doing such things, even if your eternal salvation depended on it?
Moving on... I'll point you to todangst's essay on secular morality, and why theists have to steal from it: http://www.rationalresponders.com/christians_must_steal_secular_morality
I notice you disagreed with Sam Harris' idea of a scientific morality? Why? What is your problem with it?
Here is an outline of what a scientifically based morality could look like:
I would be particularly interested to hear your response to Carrier's argument at the end of the presentation (in video five), where he states that there should be no real conflict between the secular moral system which he outlines and religion. He argues that what is moral follows from objective facts about human nature and the universe, yet, according to theology, god is intentionally responsible for these facts, therefore, the findings of empirical moral science must necessarily discover what god wants is to learn.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
- Login to post comments
Offline theTwelve wrote:Morality is doing stuff for the sake of love, and empathy.
Here's the trap: why is that morality? If you're going to say because of a god, then the question was asking what if a god said morality was raping and murdering, and love and empathy were immoral. You need to come up with another reason for that to be moral.
Indeed.
If the theist amends their morality so that it accords with gods new moral commands (where killing and raping are moral), and thereby ensures their place in heaven, then god, heaven and hell must be the reason they are 'moral' (which isn't really morality at all!)
If however they ignore gods new moral commands, and continue to behave as they previously did (not killing and raping) then there must be some other reason; something greater than their desire to go to heaven and avoid going to hell.
Thus, the theist must either concede that their moral worldview ultimately amounts to doing what god says in order to get into heaven and avoid hell OR they must point to something external to their religion as the driving factor behind their decision.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
- Login to post comments
You make it blatantly obvious with each successive post that you know shit about shit. You try and talk a good game, but you fail to realise that it doesn't take a Doctorate to have a quality education that covers these issues. My 8 year old neice has a better understanding of reality than you. Quit cum guzzling the churches cock and get an education for a change. And don't bother trying to piss me off, you're too stupid to accomplish it. You just give me a laugh and a warm feeling inside.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
I have only found one response so far from Hamby where he specifically referred to Bob Altemeyer's study (there may be others), and you have grossly and crudely misrepresented what he said there.
He does not say that the study was about the mind of Theism at all. He says that he sees some strong thought/behavior patterns in common between what Altemeyer has shown about RWA's and many Theists.
While I am on about the accuracy of your comments, I asked before, but have not seen a response (forgive me if I missed it), what did you base your figure of 0.07% of people being Atheist on? The lowest I can see supportable even in USA, and narrowing the criteria, is around 1% specifically prepared to declare as Atheist, which is almost certainly going to be an under-estimate of actual view-point.
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
I don't recall which thread, but I did make a few posts about altmeyer and theists. I haven't bothered to comment further because 1) nobody seems to understand what I wrote and 2) nobody's offered any credible objection to my very accurate recounting of altmeyer's findings. I mean, for fuck's sake... I quoted altmeyer directly and at length, rather than rephrase it, specifically so I couldn't be accused of misrepresenting him.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Hey Hamby, I was waiting for you to respond on this, but I didn't want to leave it stand too long, especially when he so grossly misrepresented what you said, at least in that post I found.
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
I believe this is the thread
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/18032?page=1
and for the record, I understood it.
Actually that's exactly what he implied. Here's his actual quote:
If you desire to see his embarrassing exchange with individuals who actually knew Altemeyer's work, you can find it in this thread: http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/18032
His deluded mental capacity still failed to see what was wrong with his thinking, even after posters beated the point multiple times. SO anybody claiming that I need to recognize Hamy's superior understanding of science, is kidding himself, he's proven himself to hold a dopey understanding of things on numerous occasions.
I didn't grossly interpret his claim, if you desire to make an argument that I did, I'm all ears. But I also suggest you read the post he was responding to, and a few of the subsequent responses to him afterwards.
C'mon twiddle dee dee, you starting to recognise you are dealing with your superiors maybe? I can point to every post of yours as examples of an intellectual void, and the best you can do is that? Rofl. Try harder.
Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.
That first paragraph sure sounds like someone else on this forum...
Hey! What do you know? The second paragraph sounds like that same IDIOT that the first paragraph sounds like.
Alright, you know what 12? Just stop. You haven't contributed one useful thing to this conversation and every single post you make fashions a caricature of a monkey smashing a keyboard. First off, you don't even know the definition of amoral. It's "lacking a moral sense; unconcerned with the rightness or wrongness of something." Second, for all your talk of being the biggest, baddest, smartest poster on this forum, when push comes to shove and the facts get laid down, you are just another retard. You ignore everything in front of you, make up some bullshit, and then scoff at the other person. ClockCat gave you charts and examples and your rebuttal was "I was an intern at an insurance company derp derp"
...
Just admit you're wrong for once, and walk away. Thank you.
PS- On your break please re-learn the English language, because reading your writing is like trying to decipher Aramaic.
PPS- You should've read that quote from Lord Acton, because your response in the other thread made me lol for like two days.
"Do not, as some ungracious pastors do, show me the steep and thorny way to heaven. Whiles, like a puff'd and reckless libertine, himself the primrose path of dalliance treads. And recks not his own rede."
Ah, yes I did read your previous use of "stakeholders' as "shareholders", but you have warped understand of what the model implies. The stakeholder model is not there to provide the framework of corporations ethical guidelines, but a model of the varying interest the affect the corporation from other parties. A shared stakeholder interest between the government and corporation, is filling out proper tax forms, and complying with certain regulations, all of which is no moral than eating a peach is.
If you claim self interest preservation is the desired ends we construct moral value around, you'd encounter all sorts of problems.
To give you an example, if I were to find a wallet with a few hundreds dollars in it, would it serve my self interest and preservation better to keep the money, and leave the wallet where it is, or to return the wallet to whom it belongs too? Can you make a rational arguments, that doesn't involve some sort of superstitious notion of karma, on why I shouldn't pocket the money, because of preservation and self interest?
Moral values, are a contemplation of empathy, and love for others, any sort of contemplation that doesn't involve this is an amoral reflection, such as the pondering of the answer to a math problem.
As long you maintain that image of a monkey smashing a keyboard my work is done, and I've begun to like you. And for you, I won't unleash the monkey.
I give as due.
Well, i gave examples of what amoral decisions are, such as eating a fruit, answering a math problem, putting on my socks, can you tell me what the quality of these examples are that make them "amoral"? When you figured that out, you'll understand my use of the term throughout.
Really? My response to clockcats charts and examples was my internship at an insurance company? Now, if only i could figure out why my supposed rebuttal was written prior to Clockcats supposed charts?
But I didn't say anything controversial, or something beyond common knowledge. To quote myself in full:
"I worked as an intern for a heath insurance company, we don't decide to insure individuals, based on the moral worth of insuring them, but rather if insuring them would be profitable. "
Is there something profound, or left to be argued that most insurance companies insure individuals based on the profitability of doing so? Do you believe that your typical insurance company covers you because they feel it's the compassionate thing to do, that human dignity requires us to provide healthcare to our fellow human beings?
"Risk Management" is one of my majors, and we go over insuring individuals, and property, based on the profitability of doing so. If we can't place an individual into a pool, in which the insurers can't profit from, than we forgo insuring them.
Is there something here you're trying to argue?
Cervello, I freely admit to being wrong, perhaps my views of morality are all wrong, and if I were convinced they were by a reasonable and coherent argument, I'd be quite thankful to individuals who shown me the error of my ways.
I have a..warped understanding of the model? I don't believe so. If I do, then years of studying business must of been for nothing.
Stakeholders are a company's #1 interest because it is who the company influences, without stakeholder support you have no company. You have to do business, to do business. Ethical issues and decisions are fundamental to operating a business. If you don't think the corporate culture has it's own morals, then you are severely mistaken. Just because you don't agree with them again, does not make them any less valid. As for government involvement, regulation is often heavily influenced by many different groups, including end consumers and the corporate entities in that field.
I don't see any problems o.O
If you find a wallet it would serve in your IMMEDIATE self interest to pocket it. It would serve in your enlightened self interest in a society to return it, in both the wishes that someone else would do the same for you and in the possibility of a reward, as well as gratification of doing something others would praise you for.
Moral values are an enlightened self interest determined by your society. I take it you have never studied on the development of society, or the ideas involved. Usually this is covered in an introductory college course.
Theism is why we can't have nice things.