About Human Morality
Kurt Tucholsky:The state of all human morality can be summed up in two sentences: We ought to. But we don't.
What do you say?
In my opinion, people only do something if they expect it to benefit them, and not because they ought to do it.
Comments (71)
My temptation is to stop donating. But I know I have the money and I know it goes toward some good somewhere else in the world. It is better for me to donate, so I do. Don't be so quick to paint all of humanity in a particular way. There are a lot of varied people out there.
Too much general and quite a wrong example as a summation of morality.
This statement can refer to anything, not to a moral issue in particular. Making mistakes, choosing a wrong path, missing to do something, regretting about one's decision, and so on, all of which being cases in which "should" or "ought" could be applied are not necessarily connected to morality.
In other words, moral actions in or for which the conditional "should" or "ought" can be used are only specific cases, a subtotal of the total cases in which these two words.
(I wonder what this guy --Tucholsky-- had in mind when he said that and in what context (important).
Yes, especially those people who understand that 'one ought to do whatever one expects will eventually benefit one.'
. Natural and moral philosophy, on the contrary, can each have their empirical part, since the former has to determine the laws of nature as an object of experience; the latter the laws of the human will, so far as it is affected by nature: the former, however, being laws according to which everything does happen; the latter, laws according to which everything ought to happen. Ethics, however, must also consider the conditions under which what ought to happen frequently does not
Not Kurt Tucholsky. And a few more than two sentences, to say the same thing.
The state of all human morality can be summed up in two sentences: We ought to. But we don't.
Kurt Tucholsky
Immoral acts are disproportional. For example, a single person running a scam might effectively scam dozens, hundreds or even thousands of people. Only a comparatively small number of offenders are necessary to create the feeling that we live in a society where you can't trust anyone because scamming is so prevalent.
Also, even if the scammer does no wrongdoing in any other scenario, he's still not living a moral life. There's no prize in morality for being 99% compliant, and we judge people mostly by their violations.
As for "We ought to, but we don't - well most people do, in fact, this conclusion is a result of our perception.
The other thing I'd add is that morality is a specific context and doesn't take into account real-life circumstances. For example, in terms of a police officer taking bribes - it's immoral. For 99% of the population, they don't benefit from having a corrupt police force and they're not police officers themselves. So, it's pretty simple when it's a 100% loss situation for 99% of the population, then it's going to be viewed as immoral. That 99% can't even be corrupt police officers, since most won't be police officers at all, it's an unrealistic perspective.
The straightforward conclusion of something being 100% morally wrong, only applies from an unrealistic perspective. For the actual police officer who maybe isn't being paid enough, sees everyone else doing it, wants to make a better life for his family and so on, it may be more morally complex. The moral choice may come at the expense of other important considerations - even other moral considerations.
No, that's not how morality works. When it works.
Who determines the "ought to"? Who obeys it, under what conditions? Who disobeys it, under what conditions? Human motivation is never, not even in the first five years of life, as simple as calculating benefit.
Hi, Philosophim,
that's exactly what I meant: you donate because it's better for you.
No, I mean I do it because its the right thing to do. I have the money, and its for a good cause. I decide to. Its not for personal benefit like going to the movies or something. Trust me, I can find far more ways to enjoy the money and I wouldn't feel a twinge of guilt. Not everything is about personal benefit.
Ultimately, every possible act can be said to be done for one's own benefit in some way.
True, but meaningless.
You're right about that, but if it can refer to anything, it can also refer to morality.
As for the context, there is none, since it is an aphorism that stands alone. You can verify it here. It is the penultimate aphorism on that page.
If I interpret Tucholsky correctly, he does not want to show how morality works, but rather that it does not work at all, at least not for adult people. What we "ought to" is demanded by moralists, philosophers, theologians, teachers and parents. Who obeys it? I think children are the most likely to do it.
Human motivation is based on reward from the reward center in the brain rather than on calculation. In my opinion, the benefit is mainly a good feeling. This good feeling can be triggered from person to person by different things: for one person by money, for another by power, attention, love, gratitude, sociability, favorite pastime ... etc.
But then why did you contradict yourself by your previous assertions:
"I will never meet anyone who benefitted from it or gain anything more than a slight emotional satisfaction from it."
"It is better for me to donate, so I do."
Please decide whether you have benefited or not. You cannot have both at the same time.
True, but not meaningless. Why should it be?
People interpret some of these motivations as being selfless, but in truth there is no such thing as selfless motivation.
Maybe we're having a language barrier of intentions here. I've tried to make it clear that I do not benefit from giving my money away compared to using the money for myself. I am not contradicting myself. When I say, "It is better for me", translate this to, "It is more ethical for me". I do not receive ANYTHING for giving my money away. This should be clear.
Because the more ways a word can be interpreted, the less utility it has in communicating clear ideas. If a word is made to stand for everything, it can't mean anything.
Quoting Jacques
Both, either, neither and/or many more factors.
Exactly. This is what I meant: it's not characteristic of morality. A characteristic is a peculiar and distinctive quality of something. Alone, independently of context, it cannot express, represent, etc. morality.
On the other hand, there are other "aphorisms" --as you say-- that are characteristic of morality and describe or epitomize or "sum up" --as the author says-- morality better. E.g. "Not doing to others what we do not want others do to us." This can only refer to, characterize, express, represent, etc. morality.
I believe that you get a good feeling about it, and a good feeling is more than NOTHING. It represents a value in itself, and not a small one.
I don't disagree with you, but I wonder if a soft form of self-interested altruism might be behind such actions? Any thoughts on this? I take similar actions, providing money to various causes, etc. But I wonder if 'it is more ethical to me' comes with it a kind of satisfaction in doing one's duty, being part of a solution... whatever it might be.
In other words there is no selflessness? Personally I suspect self-interest plays a role in much altruism. I'm not sure how you would demonstrate that this is always the case, but it may be. The real question is does it matter? If morality is ultimately a social enterprise and about cooperation and flourishing, then the idea that there is something in it for us all to be moral is possibly inescapable.
Then why are we having a conversation? I tell you how I feel and that I get nothing out of it over 3 times, yet you say I'm a liar. You know what you're finding out about your self? That you don't do anything except for your own self-interest, and you have the arrogance and stubborn ignorance to believe no one else can possibly do otherwise.
If you want to rant that everyone must be as selfish and run by emotions as you, then go ahead. There are plenty of us in life who work to overcome emotions because they understand that some outcomes are better for the world then their own pleasure or happiness. The fact that you don't believe it says everything about yourself. You need to go meet more people in the world. Go volunteer at a place you don't want to. Do something that you know is right, but makes you uncomfortable. Then think about it. You need to experience it for yourself before you start making judgement about other people.
No. I do plenty of things that offer me less satisfaction than the alternatives. My sister was diagnosed with bipolar disorder about two years ago during the Covid pandemic. She lost her job, she ended up making some poor decisions and moved to a place with no support. I recently got to the point in my career where I could work remotely where ever I wanted. I had been planning on moving up North because I hate the weather in Texas. I have a close friend I've known for 20 years, and I was going to move in to the area after visiting.
But with my sister's recent diagnosis, I had a choice. No one was expecting me to help her and her kids out. I would have been very happy up North. I chose to move to the town she moved to for one year to help her out. Why? Because no one else could. Because I was the only one who could. And my belief is that the overall outcome of life on this planet would have been worse off if I had simply done what I wanted.
I would not have felt guilty. I have no particular feelings towards my sister or her kids. She's made her own choices in life. I still sometimes have pushes to just leave and go up North. But I don't because its not time yet. I choose my outcomes in life based on what is most moral, because I've spent a lot of time thinking on these things and not letting my emotions sway my decisions.
Quoting Tom Storm
:100:
You sound very certain. You are talking about what you are conscious of. Can you rule out unconscious influences on your actions - guilt, duty, pride, etc? In my own case, I rarely know why I do anything and have very little insight into my motivations - I'm a swirling vortex of contradictions and unconscious values and biases. Despite this I feel unreasonably content.
More an Epicurean than a Stoic? :cool: :up:
Yes. I am a very introspective person who thinks on a major decision for a long time from multiple angles. I understand that the average person does not do this. You're going to have to trust me on this one despite it just being an internet conversation. There are people like me who choose moral decisions that do not directly benefit themselves because they know there is more to life than just themselves. No religion required.
No question. :wink:
Hey, I don't doubt that you are sincere and believe this. I guess I hold a view that all people, regardless of how they make decisions, are influenced by unconscious factors - biases, desires, etc.
IOW: Whatever you do, whyever you think you're doing it, somebody's going to call it self-interest. They tyewll you you don't understand your own motivations - but then, they understand your motivations even less, so what can they usefully tell you, anyway?
What they get out of that, I have no idea - a sense of superiority, maybe, to ethical people?
At the end of a lifetime, some disinterested agency might be able to weigh up everything you did - how much you benefited yourself vs how much you benefited others.
Presumably, you're not expecting a reward, like going to heaven - just a final tally.
That's definitely true. Snap decisions are made with those factors for sure. But when you take time to really think on something, and you are a person that analyzes your own motives very carefully, you can minimize and even remove those underlying factors.
Quoting Vera Mont
I don't know whether we can even tell in theory what motivates us. It's not all that important to me, to be honest. My intuition says self-interest is probably inescapable, but this comes in soft and hard versions and we need to recognize that self-interest is not incompatible with altruism.
Yes, its extremely important to me. It may be due to an upbringing where emotions were mostly punished and a lack of a feeling of control in my early life. I agree, its great to see the differences between us! Together we often can compliment each other in areas we personally lack.
I really like this aphorism. I feel like moral life is a difficult beast. It entangles us in words, representations, and ideas. But none of it makes sense unless one chooses to be moral. This is why most famed philosophers utterly fail to write coherently about it. These majors all have skeletons in their own closets that drive their excellence, but to know morality you need to ask the ones who didnt get their badge of honour. Kant is still top of my list in this domain, nobody else Ive encountered has dug deeper yet.
That, and also: motivations are invariably mixed. - there are many factors and influences, investments and and interests in a human life. So are thoughts mixed with feelings, instincts with calculations. So are outcomes. All you can do is the best you can do, according to your own sense of rightness.
I don't want to rant about anyone. I too do things that I know are right, but it doesn't make me uncomfortable - quite the opposite. I wasn't passing judgment on you or anyone else, instead I was talking about some basic psychological principles that you seem to be completely unfamiliar with. I am passionate about psychology and brain research and have read a few books about it, by Eric Kandel, David Eagleman, Daniel Dennett, Daniel Kahnemann, Oliver Sacks and others. I was just reflecting the state of the science. If you feel personally offended by that, I'm sorry.
By the way, try to remember when you were stuck in a traffic jam and were happy for the other side because they had a free ride. A true altruist in such a situation would say to himself, "I'm so glad it hit me and not them!"
Psychologists say that self-interest is indeed inescapable. As for the soft and hard versions, it is rather not about different versions but about different interests: Some people are more interested in universal harmony and cooperation, others only in loving their own family and perhaps their animals. Some love the money, others the feeling of being okay and helping others.
A little hint: even aid organizations recruit new members by emphasizing how much it gives you when you help others and experience gratitude, according to the motto "helping makes happy".
A second hint: In his "Faust" drama, Goethe has his hero exclaim, "Stay yet! you are so beautiful!" With this, he wants to stop the moment of supreme happiness he feels when helping the flood victims.
What about John Leslie Mackie and his book "ETHICS Inventing Right and Wrong". His views seem fairly consistent to me.
Me too. Unfortunately, I know too little about the author to know what exactly he was trying to say. Perhaps he wanted to express his disappointment with German society at the beginning of the 20th century.
I myself use it in the sense that all people, even the friendliest among them, invariably and at all times inevitably pursue their own interests and inclinations.
Whether intended or not, when someone tells you how they feel, if you tell them, "No, you don't really feel that way. I read it in a book.", its insulting. That's basic psychology. You can ask a person why they feel that way, but telling a person that they don't feel what they are feeling will piss people off. Don't do it.
Second, I am familiar with the psychological and philosophical theories that there is no altruism, but that everything we do is for our own self-interest. This is not science. This is psychology and philosophy. There are also competing theories that claim we can be altruistic beyond our own self-interest. Just think of the example of a person leaping on a grenade to defend the rest of the men in their squad. If you believe your audience is unfamiliar with a theory you are referencing, actually reference it in your OP when a person seems to invalidate that theory that you would like to talk about.
Quoting Jacques
Another thing you shouldn't do is assume things of people without asking them. Not in traffic per say, but I have had situations in life where I had been in an unfortunate position over another person, and I was glad for them that they didn't have to handle it because I knew I would be able to handle it better. It still sucked, but it could have been worse. I am that type of human being. Assuming I couldn't be without asking first is ignorant and immature.
Fantastic that you've read. Keep reading. But don't think that reading a few books makes you an expert on the human condition. When you talk to someone and they seem to counter your theory, listen first. That's the step to becoming a real expert. You have someone in front of you that does things for moral reasons without self-benefit. I'm very real and someone you can learn from.
With Kant, I have my difficulties when he says:
"Being charitable wherever possible is a duty, and besides, there are some souls so disposed to empathy that they find inner pleasure in spreading joy around them, even without any other motivating factor of vanity or self-interest, and they can delight in the satisfaction of others, even if it is not their own achievement. But I maintain that in such a case, actions of this kind, as dutiful and amiable as they may be, still lack true moral value and are on par with other inclinations, such as the inclination for honor, which, if it fortunately aligns with what is genuinely beneficial and dutiful, is deserving of praise and encouragement but not esteem; for the maxim lacks moral content, namely, to perform such actions not out of inclination but out of duty."
Therefore, Friedrich Schiller made fun of him with the following satirical poem:
"Conscience Scruples:
I gladly serve my friends
but unfortunately, I do it with inclination
and so it often vexes me
that I am not virtuous.
Decisium:
There is no other advice
you must seek to despise them
and then with disgust, do
what duty commands you."
Here is the quote:
"Still another finds himself in comfortable circumstances while he sees others in great need (and he could easily help them too): What concern of mine is it? Let everyone be as happy as heaven wills or as he can make himself, I will take nothing from him nor even envy him; only I have no desire to contribute to his well-being or to assist him in his trouble! Now, although such an outlook might become a universal natural law, it is nevertheless impossible to will that a maxim of this kind should hold everywhere as a law of nature. For a will that resolved this would contradict itself, inasmuch as cases could often occur in which one would need the love and sympathy of others, and by such a law of nature, sprung from his own will, he would rob himself of all hope of the assistance he wishes for."
The justification for altruism is based on the consideration that one might also benefit from the altruism of others. The question of why one should act morally is thus answered by stating that this principle of altruism is beneficial to oneself.
Therefore, moral action serves a purpose (at least in this example, but it is only one of four), and is therefore not selfless but rather purpose-driven, and thus not "categorical" but "hypothetical" in Kant's own terminology.
Nahhh .thats not what hes doing. Hes showing how the moral subject contradicts himself, by subsuming meritorious duties, re: conditioned by inclination, under the same principle which should only legislate an inflexible duty, re: conditioned by law. The paragraphs immediately following those four examples should clarify.
Only the first sentence from the quote is indirect speech, but everything from "Now, although ..." onward represents Kant's own opinion as to why it is reasonable to obey the categorical imperative.
As you wish.
There's your first problem. What of negative ethics which focus on not violating other's autonomy, and dignity, or refraining from what is harmful to others rather than "what is good for them or the species en totale"? Shit in, shit out. Not shit in, not shit out.
The assumption with positive ethics is one of burdening others for the sake of one's self interest of the individual or the species. That is just hidden naturalistic fallacies at work to justify force or seeing one's vision carried out, or for one's vision being that which one envisions as being natural thus becoming very convoluted and circular.
"I presume it is natural to see X (the species flourish), therefore I will force a situation Y on others, presuming that they need to do A, B, C to flourish, because that is my presumption of what is natural". Of course, many assumptions here, including the presumption that the species flourish rather than just a preference one has because it seems like it would be natural (but is really cultural programming, personal preference, mix, etc.).
Agreed. Living de facto relies on moral violation by the mere fact that we have different ideas of morality that will thus be violated by others we encounter with different ethical standards or approaches to things.
I can make an argument that this fact itself makes living itself morally disqualifying... but I digress. In fact, I devised a political theory based on just that. Social democratic programs are justified for a minimal standard of living as retribution for people being forced into a social contract that they could never agree to, and may have wanted differently once they reach an age of reasoning.
I, too, was confused by the concepts of morality for a long time. But by now, my confusion has subsided. Morality is good at defining good and evil, i. e. what we would like others (and ourselves) to do. But it is bad at making people do good and avoid evil. (I am talking about adults.)
Many still believe that expressing our desire for people to be good is enough to get them to be good. It is not enough to say "Be good!" but that is essentially what moralists of all times have said. I think it's also what Tucholsky meant when he said:
"We ought to. But we don't."
Or Mark Twain:
"No creature can be honorably required to go counter to the law of his nature -- the Law of God."
- Mark Twain Letters from the Earth
It is true, it does no harm to say "Be good!" but it is also useless, at least in my opinion. People always do what is in accordance with their nature: good people do good and evil people do evil. Not even the threat of eternal hell punishments have stopped people from doing evil.
Well said.
If it is in our nature to do bad, how can it at the same time not be in our nature to do good? What you say is that we should expect moral law, custom, and rule to be transgressed. Doesnt this seem ridiculous to you? I guess thats why people who really believe in this seem sad to me. This makes them look ridiculous.
It is in the nature of one to do good and in the nature of the other to do bad; we're not all the same, are we?
Quoting kudos
I am not saying that we should expect this, but rather that this has been observed many times throughout history.
Quoting kudos
No, it makes me rather sad. I would wish that all people were good, but unfortunately that is not the case. Do you disagree?
That's a toughie, given that the law of God as taught by most religions runs counter to the laws of nature; that good moral behaviour requires that one suppress one's animal instinct and repudiate one's animal drives.
Can one not do something purely spontaneous and random with no purpose at all. Like scribble on a page for example. If so, then people don't only do something because they expect it to beneficial or have useful purpose to them.
Would we have words like "aimless", "pointless" "purposeless" or "random" as descriptors for such things if people were perfectly ordered, rational and goal orientated all the time?
Well the way I see it is that nature itself is creative and destructive. It's chaotic and ordered. And natural living things embody this - acting in both ways either in service of themselves or in service of their community (social animals - packs, prides, squads, troops etc).
So what is ones instinct? For me it is directly related to ones cognitive ability. Animals that don't have much need for abstraction, reasoning or conceptualisation, reflect this in the limited nature of their languages/communication as well as how instinctually driven they are.
Humans on the other hand, excel in abstraction, imagination, reasoning etc (cognition) and have one of the most complex languages to reflect that. Thus we can go against instinct if we so wish.
We can be as self serving or as socially cooperative as we like. It is likely that we have more control over instinct than most animals do. Sacrifice and suicide being prime examples of how we overcome our primal instinct to self preserve.
Yes, I abhor my own pain, since I am not a masochist, and other people's pain, since I am not a sadist either.
Quoting kudos
I do not envy villains at all, since I am not Nietzsche. On the other hand, I don't hate them either, but I still prefer to see them behind bars.
I don't see chaotic behaviour in animals very often. Only if they are sick or under extreme stress.
The individual and the community are not in a natural antithesis; they are complementary. A strong, cohesive social unit is better able to protect its members, and provide for its young, than is a contentious one. Solitary animals have to do it all by themselves and can't afford inattention, random or undisciplined behaviour; among social animals, the flock, herd or pack serves both to regulate the individual's impulses and to provide some leisure time. (Geese, e.g. regularly share babysitting duty; wolves often delegate it to young bachelors and spinsters.) Social animals routinely co-operate and when they compete, its under a strict code of rules, to minimize damage.
Quoting Benj96
And this is why we start seeing more chaotic, antagonistic bahaviour among chimpanzees. Among humans, it becomes full-scale internecine war - not merely against other other bands of one's own species, but within tribes and even families.
Quoting Benj96
Not in stratified civilizations. A lord can, a serf can't. A general can, a galley slave can't. A CEO can, a coal miner can't.
Quoting Benj96
Separate issues, those. Grouse hens deliberately lure predators away from their chicks; a vixen will attack a bear to protect her cubs; ants die by the hundreds to protect their hill.
Suicide is far more complicated and physically hard to accomplish. A very old or sick cat just lies down, stops eating and waits.
Yes, humans are able to suppress instinct, but at what cost in mental health, in happiness, in social and familial strife and post-damage repairs?
You are right, people can even do something purely spontaneous, while thinking about something else. How could I have forgotten this important possibility?
Mark Twain's point is precisely that the law of God is that which governs the planets, rivers, plants and animals (including man). In other words, that the laws of nature are the law of God.
This is a difficult hypothesis to prove.
Quoting Benj96
This is a deception, we can do many things but we cannot go against the laws of nature and against our instincts. Freud for example attributed suicide to the death instinct,
I have a similar view: mutations are random and chaotic, and so are the conditions that favor a few individual mutations and eliminate most of them. Both, mutations plus letal environmental conditions, in their interaction are called evolution.
Maybe that's why humanity always searches for what we ought to do because we recognize the selfishness in our nature. Then again, a selfish act can also benefit others. People help others all the time, without any thought of direct feedback with rewards. It might be that this is naturally hard-coded into us just like any other self-preservation. We instinctively know that if we help the group we help ourselves, so we do things for others.
But then again, we also do more for other people when we are close to death. Are we merely want to be remembered well, or are we in those moments understanding that we can only give others something since we have no future for ourselves? Maybe tap into that and see if morality can be objectively found for our species.
Many theologians and philosophers have tried to find an objective morality, but without success. The last one I know of is John Leslie Mackie. In his book "Ethics - Inventing Right and Wrong" he says:
Even if I'm not fully convinced that there are some objective morals for humans, there's no denying that there are psychological hints. For instance, if there aren't any oppressive power structures keeping people from helping each other, then if people see someone getting attacked on the street, most people actually act, against their own safety without knowing the context. People actively de-escalate conflicts and violence, why? People save others they don't know and when asked they cannot find the answer "they just did". This hints at some hard-coded care for the group, for the social sphere, and for other people even if they are strangers.
I think many have stared blindly into the darkness of humanity only to find nihilism while not looking carefully at the times people act out of kindness and care. We look so hard at wrongdoings when thinking about morality that we forget to include good deeds into the mix.
If there are some objective morals to be found for us, it is in there that we will find them. It's in the good acts that happen without an ought or a thought.
This is a misunderstanding; I by no means wanted to say that all people are evil. My experience is that people are different: some are friendly, helpful, and generous, while others are unfriendly, hostile, racist, chauvinistic, or cruel. Fortunately, the former are in the majority, or at least I hope so.
I don't find the question of whether there is an objective morality to be so crucial. It has emerged in the course of dialogues between cultures with different moral beliefs, as can be read in Wikipedia under "Value Pluralism.":
"In ethics, value pluralism (also known as ethical pluralism or moral pluralism) is the idea that there are several values which may be equally correct and fundamental, and yet in conflict with each other. In addition, value-pluralism postulates that in many cases, such incompatible values may be incommensurable, in the sense that there is no objective ordering of them in terms of importance."
From my perspective, the question of the effectiveness of morality is more important than that of its objectivity. Personally, I believe that moral prescriptions do not deliver on what they promise, which is to improve people's behavior. They may be effective and necessary for children, but most adults tend to have a more rejecting attitude towards moral teachings. In general, adults want to decide for themselves what they do and what they refrain from, and they perceive anything else as arrogance and patronization. Many do not want to conform to what they refer to as "political correctness." My experience is that such people who disadvantage or discriminate others do not respond to moral appeals; instead, they need to be dragged into court.
Although many people are convinced otherwise, I do not believe that moral systems and teachings are indispensable for the existence of society (except for children, as I said before). I see them as rather ineffective and annoying, and sometimes even harmful (especially in strict religious systems), and therefore, I reject them.
I tend to agree. I think most people just intuit what they ought and ought not to do based upon their own presuppositions. I'm not sure moral systems have much impact and even amongst the religious, a set of moral teachings is interpreted subjectively and variably, even within one religious tradition. Matters like law and order, climate change, and resource allocation will be decided (or not) by other mechanisms, even if the vestigial traces of moral systems flicker off and on during debates.
What is the use of someone knowing what he ought to do if he is not willing to do it. There is, after all, the saying: "Man always remembers only nine of God's commandments, except the commandment he is about to transgress". I think there is some truth in it - knowledge is not everything, there is also wanting, desire, lust... etc
Have you ever heard of someone correcting an injustice just because it was pointed out to them that what they were doing was immoral? I haven't.
A reversal only occurs when otherwise unpleasant consequences would be imminent, that is my experience.
That's mostly true. You do see this is some alcohol and drug recovery programs, where people go around and apologize and even make amends for the wrongs they have done to people they know. I've also known a few people to gain insight into their actions over time and try to correct behaviors they now realize to be wrong.
Quoting Jacques
Sounds like a working definition of morality. :wink:
Quoting Jacques
Yes. But what is even more odd is that Christians when asked to name the commandments rarely remember more than 3. Not to mention the fact that of the 10 commandments, there's really only 4 that pertain to morality in any real sense. The rest are all worship and dogma related.
Agreed, there are such things. However, I meant actual cases in which one deceives, disadvantages, oppresses, or exploits another. In the cases I am aware of, moral appeals have had no effect, the abuses could only be stopped by legal proceedings.
Quoting Tom Storm
You are right - interesting point! I would add that even if these commandments have failed to achieve their main purpose - the improvement of humanity - (otherwise they wouldn't be necessary to this day), they still provide historians with valuable insights into the lifestyle of the inhabitants of ancient Palestine. We learn that they occasionally ...
1. worshiped foreign gods,
2. misused the name of God,
3. did not sanctify the holidays,
4. did not honor their parents,
5. killed their fellow citizens,
6. committed adultery,
7. stole,
8. bore false witness against their neighbors,
9. coveted their neighbor's house or
10. their wife, servant, maid, and livestock.
In a similar way, the code of conduct of the boarding school at the Thomasschule in Leipzig provided surprising insights into the way of life of its students during the time of Johann Sebastian Bach. :smile: