Commandment of the Agnostic
This is a challenge where I try to form the perfect commandment for anyone that isn't religious. It contains the commandment followed by its purpose, meaning and choice of wording. This is my first post on this forum but do not be gentle with your response. I want you to either crush it as illogical nonsense or point out any minor flaws so that I can update it. Feel free to form your own commandment if you wish. Happy reading!
Spend some effort to find what misery you spread and then try to lessen it.
The commandment
Purpose
To make it easier to be a good person. Misery begets misery but, with an effort to suppress it, the better things can flourish.
Reasons why such a commandment should be made manifest:
The vast majority of us simply try to be good, but what it means to be good differs between us. Confusion and misery can follow from this and some of it could be avoided if we have a common definition of how to be good and how to seek to be better.
Most people are content to be told how to be good and then to follow it. For the non-religious there are only the laws and norms, which are not always enough of a base to be a good person, they are therefore forced to figure it out how to be good on their own. This commandment would provide, to all individuals, what the religious commandments provide to their believers.
Religious commandments are a cornerstone of civilization and we need them or something like them. Most of the old commandments still work fine to this day but they come from a different age and were made for a different people. This new commandment is an attempt to take the essence of the old ones, to modernize them and to simplify them.
This commandment is crafted to contain no logical fallacies and should be interpreted literally, which in turn should render it less susceptible to corruption and degradation. Most of the religious commandments have followed a path like this: people first took them literally -> they then discovered logical flaws in the commandments -> they then started interpreting them figuratively in order to cover the flaws -> others began to use figurative interpretation in order to justify doing whatever they want -> thus we have commandments like "thou shalt not kill" and its followers being main participants in world wars.
Humans are adapted to live in smaller communities; one could call us a herd animal. But in the last millennias we have grown beyond what we are suited for. The way we compensate for this is to instill civil behavior in ourselves, a behavior that is perhaps the main difference between us and the animals. This commandment would serve to define the exact civil behavior that allows a great civilization to last.?
Understanding the meaning
Spend some effort to find what misery you spread and then try to lessen it.
Why only focus on stopping misery, why not spread happiness?
Happiness will have an easier time growing when misery is not suppressing it. Seeking happiness directly does not seem to work and people will try it regardless, so there is no need to tell them. Spreading happiness to others could work better but then you may force yourself upon them in your fervor to be a good person.
How does this commandment replace the religious ones?
Of the 10 biblical commandments there are 4 that protect the religion itself and 6 that provides civil order. All of the latter 6 can be derived from this new commandment, e.g. Honor thy father and thy mother -> if your parents are hurt by your actions you are spreading misery to them -> if you then attempt to lessen that misery you honor your parents.
Does this commandment make a butcher evil by default since the animals they handle feel misery?
No, misery is a part of all life and cannot be eliminated, the butcher simply works with the animals in a miserable part of their life. What the butcher can and should do is to try to minimize the misery of the animals that are killed.
Can you commit murder and still be a good person according to the commandment?
While possible it is not probable. If you kill a person instantly you are unlikely to cause that person misery, since misery belongs to the living (hopefully). However, most individuals are interwoven in larger groups of people that depend on each other, some even love each other. So killing a random individual is likely to cause a huge amount of misery to those others. There are exceptions, there exists individuals that are so nasty that their death would be net loss of misery in the world, so if you are absolutely sure that you are dealing with such an individual you could murder them and still remain a good person, although there are often better ways to combat misery, and being a good person will not keep you out of jail.
?
Understanding the words
Spend some effort to find what misery you spread and then try to lessen it.
Spend some effort why only some?
Being a good person should not be a chore, if you simply keep this commandment in the back of your mind and ruminate on it once a month as you try to sleep it should be enough. Another reason is to avoid fanaticism; some people are so focused on what they believe that they start having problems thinking of other things.
to find what misery you spread why is finding so important?
Most people are not conscious of the misery they spread; we are beings of routine and can easily get caught in a loop were we cause misery to others without realizing it. In order to avoid this we must first identify it. In other cases we are aware of it but we are unwilling to look upon ourselves and know what we do.
misery define misery please.
Misery is negative feelings felt by some neural network. It can be as small as the distress of a butterfly caught in your net and as big as the combined mental and physical pain of a world war. Pain is a part of misery.
misery you spread why only you, should you not combat all misery you find?
Yes you should, but you likely already do so there is no need to tell you. Most people combat misery constantly but we tend to focus on the misery that is caused to us, not knowing that we dish it out in return.
misery you spread why spread?
The word spread is important so that you remind yourself that misery is a thing that propagates between individuals. If you hurt a person their instinct will be to hurt you back but sometimes they keep hold of the anger and lash out on someone else, this way you can be partly responsible for a dog being kicked on the other side of the globe.
and then try to lessen it. why only try?
You should try and try again but be careful with taking drastic measures. Drastic measures can be good but they often cause chaos and confusion and can be hard to maintain. Trying to be good is often all you need to be good.
Caution
Simply following this commandment does not make you a complete person. Let your feelings guide you and your thoughts rule you, but let this commandment help you to remain civil so that you may live in a civilized world.
Spend some effort to find what misery you spread and then try to lessen it.
The commandment
Purpose
To make it easier to be a good person. Misery begets misery but, with an effort to suppress it, the better things can flourish.
Reasons why such a commandment should be made manifest:
The vast majority of us simply try to be good, but what it means to be good differs between us. Confusion and misery can follow from this and some of it could be avoided if we have a common definition of how to be good and how to seek to be better.
Most people are content to be told how to be good and then to follow it. For the non-religious there are only the laws and norms, which are not always enough of a base to be a good person, they are therefore forced to figure it out how to be good on their own. This commandment would provide, to all individuals, what the religious commandments provide to their believers.
Religious commandments are a cornerstone of civilization and we need them or something like them. Most of the old commandments still work fine to this day but they come from a different age and were made for a different people. This new commandment is an attempt to take the essence of the old ones, to modernize them and to simplify them.
This commandment is crafted to contain no logical fallacies and should be interpreted literally, which in turn should render it less susceptible to corruption and degradation. Most of the religious commandments have followed a path like this: people first took them literally -> they then discovered logical flaws in the commandments -> they then started interpreting them figuratively in order to cover the flaws -> others began to use figurative interpretation in order to justify doing whatever they want -> thus we have commandments like "thou shalt not kill" and its followers being main participants in world wars.
Humans are adapted to live in smaller communities; one could call us a herd animal. But in the last millennias we have grown beyond what we are suited for. The way we compensate for this is to instill civil behavior in ourselves, a behavior that is perhaps the main difference between us and the animals. This commandment would serve to define the exact civil behavior that allows a great civilization to last.?
Understanding the meaning
Spend some effort to find what misery you spread and then try to lessen it.
Why only focus on stopping misery, why not spread happiness?
Happiness will have an easier time growing when misery is not suppressing it. Seeking happiness directly does not seem to work and people will try it regardless, so there is no need to tell them. Spreading happiness to others could work better but then you may force yourself upon them in your fervor to be a good person.
How does this commandment replace the religious ones?
Of the 10 biblical commandments there are 4 that protect the religion itself and 6 that provides civil order. All of the latter 6 can be derived from this new commandment, e.g. Honor thy father and thy mother -> if your parents are hurt by your actions you are spreading misery to them -> if you then attempt to lessen that misery you honor your parents.
Does this commandment make a butcher evil by default since the animals they handle feel misery?
No, misery is a part of all life and cannot be eliminated, the butcher simply works with the animals in a miserable part of their life. What the butcher can and should do is to try to minimize the misery of the animals that are killed.
Can you commit murder and still be a good person according to the commandment?
While possible it is not probable. If you kill a person instantly you are unlikely to cause that person misery, since misery belongs to the living (hopefully). However, most individuals are interwoven in larger groups of people that depend on each other, some even love each other. So killing a random individual is likely to cause a huge amount of misery to those others. There are exceptions, there exists individuals that are so nasty that their death would be net loss of misery in the world, so if you are absolutely sure that you are dealing with such an individual you could murder them and still remain a good person, although there are often better ways to combat misery, and being a good person will not keep you out of jail.
?
Understanding the words
Spend some effort to find what misery you spread and then try to lessen it.
Spend some effort why only some?
Being a good person should not be a chore, if you simply keep this commandment in the back of your mind and ruminate on it once a month as you try to sleep it should be enough. Another reason is to avoid fanaticism; some people are so focused on what they believe that they start having problems thinking of other things.
to find what misery you spread why is finding so important?
Most people are not conscious of the misery they spread; we are beings of routine and can easily get caught in a loop were we cause misery to others without realizing it. In order to avoid this we must first identify it. In other cases we are aware of it but we are unwilling to look upon ourselves and know what we do.
misery define misery please.
Misery is negative feelings felt by some neural network. It can be as small as the distress of a butterfly caught in your net and as big as the combined mental and physical pain of a world war. Pain is a part of misery.
misery you spread why only you, should you not combat all misery you find?
Yes you should, but you likely already do so there is no need to tell you. Most people combat misery constantly but we tend to focus on the misery that is caused to us, not knowing that we dish it out in return.
misery you spread why spread?
The word spread is important so that you remind yourself that misery is a thing that propagates between individuals. If you hurt a person their instinct will be to hurt you back but sometimes they keep hold of the anger and lash out on someone else, this way you can be partly responsible for a dog being kicked on the other side of the globe.
and then try to lessen it. why only try?
You should try and try again but be careful with taking drastic measures. Drastic measures can be good but they often cause chaos and confusion and can be hard to maintain. Trying to be good is often all you need to be good.
Caution
Simply following this commandment does not make you a complete person. Let your feelings guide you and your thoughts rule you, but let this commandment help you to remain civil so that you may live in a civilized world.
Comments (74)
It is somewhat cautious, and that is a good thing in places and times of some stability, reminds me of Hippocrates 'First do no harm' but perhaps in a crisis more might be needed, a risk might have to be taken, some positive action... There may not be one universal way to live in all circumstances.
Oh, and hi there, welcome to this place of much talk! :smile:
Good points, explanations, and elaboration. This reminds me of the "silver rule": do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.
Quoting mentos987
This strikes me as appealing to those who only think theyre not religious, that is, who are not religious only in the sense that they do not actively participate in any formal religious institution. In every other respect, the assumptions underlying your commandments are fully religious in formulating an idea of the good that is universalizable. This requires a kind of faith in goodness, the same faith that underlies godliness.
It doesn't appear that way to me. It appears to me like he's offering commandments to people who want to go good. No religious-like faith required for that. Some abusive want to be good people. Well, if you want to be good people, here are some ideas:
Quoting Leontiskos
The Golden Rule is a recipe for immorality, because it can be used to justify whatever prejudice one harbors. For instance, if I were a homosexual, I would want you to treat me as abnormal. That prejudice justifies discriminating against others, without violating the Golden Rule. Do unto others only applies to others who are like you in certain key respects that pertain to their humanity. We dont generally apply the golden rule to livestock, insects or plants, or to any other being that appears to us to be somehow less than fully human in the moral sense. Thus we see how , at various times in human history, those who were regarded as only 2/3 human, evil, barbarian, heathen, pathological or demented were treated differently than we would want to be treated, without the golden rule being violated.
Does the silver rule, simply by using the negative grammatical form, resolve these problems? No, because it merely protects others who, based on ones own biases, are acting righteously. In other words, we would not want others to mistreat us when we are acting in a way that is morally correct, but when we stray from the path of moral goodness, we deserve to be excoriated, punished, corrected, disciplined, shown the error of our ways, be given a taste of our own medicine, rehabilitated. Isnt the silver rule consistent with how atrocities have been justified throughout history?
The question is how good is understood. Lets say I define moral goodness as my inclination to praise and encourage those whose values I relate to, and my need to correct, punish or righteously condemn those whose values appear alien , and thus dangerous, to my own or those of my community. According to this relativistic definition, what I call moral goodness is not a measure of some universal qualiity floating out there in the world, but how intelligible other people appear to me ( or in the case of my own guilt, how intelligible my actions are to me).
By contrast, what makes the OPs formulation of goodness religious in the most general philosophical sense is that it assumes a universal ground or standard, the good in and for itself. This conception comes straight from the definition of god as the in-itself.
OR, perhaps they're merely suggestions that some people will find agreeable, and the people who don't can ignore it. Many people naturally have similar ideas about morality, even if it's not universal and objective.
Quoting Joshs
You'd have to demonstrate that for anybody else to accept it.
Quoting flannel jesus
I agree wholeheartedly that these can be taken merely as non-objective suggestions, but my possibly mistaken impression from the OP was that moral goodness has an objective foundation. Is a common definition of the good possible without such an assumption?
Quoting mentos987
Quoting mentos987
How does our heart direct us to the good without itself being directed by something universal?
Quoting flannel jesus
What Joseph Rouse says about science I think also applies to purportedly non-religious accounts of the good.
Ya know how autistic people tend to focus narrowly on one thing...
I can see the appeal in this and I find this frame interesting.
Quoting Joshs
I've heard this criticism of the Golden Rule frequently over the years and it makes sense. I have generally interpreted the Golden Rule as to treat other's preferences and values with respect, as we would want our preferences and values treated. In other words, more of a celebration of difference than a 'one size fits all.'
Welcome to the forum! :up:
IMO, no one yet, secular or religious, has improved on ...
[quote=Hillel the Elder, first century BCE]That which is hateful¹ to you, do not do to anyone.[/quote]
i.e. harmful¹
Quoting Joshs
I don't work with any assumed universalizable goodness. I claim that most people want to be good, but this is something they are taught or decide on their own.
Quoting Joshs
I should maybe reword this. With "follow your heart" I mean more like "follow your feelings" rather than "be good".
Quoting Vaskane
True, the commandment could make people more cautious, which could lead to a shorter range of extreme emotions overall.
Quoting Vaskane
I believe that ugly people don't elicit much more than pity and maybe mild disgust, as far as misery go this is rather low and you neednt bother changing it. Hygiene on the other hand can elicit much more disgust in others that are forced to interact with you, so if you stink you may want to consider working on it.
Quoting 180 Proof
If locking someone up is "hateful" then we can't imprison criminals, if it isn't then anyone can imprison anyone. So many loopholes here. Nature dictates that life is a competition, herd mentality and civilization has brought us further but we can never lose sight of this basic fact. We need to retain the capability to harm and to kill.
Thanks for the feedback and do keep it coming. Feel free to rip and tear.
Quoting 180 Proof
Shouldnt that be changed to UNJUSTLY hateful or harmful? Isnt hate just a strong version of blame? I see billboards stating Jesus says love your enemy and hate the sin, not the sinner. Doesnt this give us permission to lovingly oppose , restrain, blame and punish those we judge as wrongdoers?
In what sense are these actions not perceived as harmful violations from the vantage of those we find culpable, those we feel obliged to correct and reprimand?
Think of all the forms of blameful thought and feeling that we believe justifies our responding to others in ways that they will consider as harmful to their autonomy, such as punishing, ignoring, shunning, insulting, depriving, demanding conformity to ones idea of the just.
All forms of blame, including the cool, non-emotional, rational desire for accountability and justice and well as rageful craving for vengeance, are grounded in a spectrum of affective comportments that share core features. This affective spectrum includes irritation, annoyance, hostility, disapproval, condemnation, feeling insulted, taking umbrage, resentment, anger, exasperation, impatience, hatred, fury, ire, outrage, contempt, righteous indignation, adaptive' or rational anger, perceiving the other as deliberately thoughtless, rude, careless, negligent, complacent, lazy, self-indulgent, malevolent, dishonest, narcissistic, malicious, culpable, perverse, inconsiderate, intentionally oppressive, repressive or unfair, disrespectful, anti-social, hypocritical, disgraceful, greedy, evil, sinful, criminal, a miscreant. Blame is also implicated in cooly, calmly and rationally determining the other to have deliberately committed a moral transgression, a social injustice or injustice in general, or as committing a moral wrong.
In sum, if justice is in the eye of the beholder, then so is hate and harm.
The above misses the point. You are talking about 'public policy"' and Hillel is talking about moral conduct. No "loopholes" when comparing apples and oranges.
Notice in my prior post I interpret "hateful" also as harmful (footnote¹), emphasizing dysfunction of a person rather than merely negative preference. Hillel the Elder proposes a way of responding to others (i.e. a heuristic, a principle), not a mere calculus (i.e. an algorithm, a formula). Also consider your example, mentos: in most instances it is, in fact, more hateful/harmful to victims not to "imprison criminals" than it is to do so.
In sum: that there are limits to a general prescription, or rule, does not entail a (legalistic) "loophole" but instead indicates an edge case that requires moral reasoning and judgment. Isaac Asimov's "Three Laws of Robots" is a fantastic cautionary tale about "perfect commandment"-misconception of ethics like yours (& Kant's).
Quoting Joshs
No. "That which is hateful [harmful] to you" does not "blame" or has anything to do with whether or not the thing is "unjustly". For example, being deprived of food and water, under any circumstances, is hateful/harmful to each one of us, so Hillel suggests that therefore one should not (by action or inaction) intentionally deprive another of food and water.
Quoting 180 Proof
And in a world where abortion is murder and transgender is a moral sickness it is more hateful/harmful to victims (fetuses and confused children) not to punish those involved in abortions and those promoting transgenderism than it is not to do so. Again, what is hateful/ harmful turns on who is determined as just and who is a victim.Hillels admonition leaves out the crucial question of how to ground determinations of justice and injustice.
The commandment does not tell you how to act, more how to think, and we cannot police thoughts. I do agree that people who followed the commandment would probably come to different conclusions of what to do and how to act. But I do not agree that this adds caveats or that this breaks the underlying message since the commandment itself doesn't leave much room for interpretation.
Quoting 180 Proof
It sounds to me like you don't want me to interpret it literally. Which I think would undermine any commandment that would be used as a foundation to support civilization. You may as well tell people to "be good" then.
Quoting 180 Proof
You can help victims by locking the criminal up; this does not change the fact that this action also "harms" the criminal, thus invalidating this action if you follow this "moral conduct" in any literal way.
Quoting mentos987
Literalism is the death of reasoning and judgment.
It is hateful [harmful] to me to be amputated unless it is medically necessary to prevent more amputations or worse. Likewise, it is hateful [harmful] to be imprisoned except as the only way to (temporarily) prevent me from continuing doing to others what is hateful [harmful] to them/me.
Quoting 180 Proof
The worst atrocities in history were committed by those who believed they were morally righteous. Technically, they were following Hillels admonition, because doing no harm offers no way to distinguish who is really acting justly from those who just believe they are acting justly.
Quoting 180 Proof
You have already complicated the fairly simple statement itself. If I was a criminal I would still consider it "harmful" to me if you locked me up, If I was a murderer I would consider it harmful/hateful if you killed me in retaliation.
Quoting 180 Proof
It seems to me that you don't like to take commandments literally, we differ greatly here. Because the way I see it a major problem with the religious commandments is this: People first took them literally -> they then discovered logical flaws in the commandments -> they then started interpreting them figuratively in order to cover the flaws -> others began to use figurative interpretation to justify whatever they want -> thus we have commandments like "thu shall not kill" and its followers being main participants in both of our world wars.
I'd say that figurative interpretations are where commandments go to die.
I want to thank you 180 Proof. The difference between figurative a literal interpretations is an important point that should probably be included in the preface.
Quoting 180 Proof
I dont understand how the distinction between politics and ethics impacts on my comment. Whether we are talking about thought or action, the political scenario I described gets its sense and justification from its underlying ethical premises. Thinking or acting ethically, apart from the specific political context, requires an interpretation of the meaning of hate/harm. Otherwise these words are without sense. Are we to simply presume that what these terms stand for is transparently obvious to everyone? Isnt the problem of interpretation the central issue of ethics? And doesnt this problem make all ethical questions inherently political?
So what? Most criminals 'believe' they are not guilty of their crimes. Moral reasoning and judgment is preventative, or proactive, not an in media res reaction. Hillel's principle is not subjectivist or relativist. Read Epicureans, Stoics, Aristotle, Spinoza ...
Don't shift the goalposts. The OP thought-experiment mentions "commandment" for nonreligious persons. Nothing I've said here has any whiff of "divine command theory".
If you say so ...
Quoting 180 Proof
And by using the normative label criminal, we can smugly justify our belief that the locked up other is deserving of the harm we cause them. Bully for Hillel for being a non-relativist, but this doesnt magically turn labels like crime , murder, harm and hate into universally transparent meanings.
The point of a commandment is to give people some simple rules to follow in order to promote a good civilization. If all people have to read several texts and go through mental gymnastics for it to work then the commandment isnt very good. And if a five year old can find logical flaws in the commandment then it isnt very good either.
Quoting 180 Proof
I am the OP. The goal is to craft the perfect commandment for nonreligious people. In order to do this I work from an already established basis, the religious commandments.
Quoting mentos987
Purpose
This commandment is crafted to contain no logical fallacies and should be interpreted literally, which in turn should render it less susceptible to corruption and degradation. Most of the religious commandments have followed a path like this: people first took them literally -> they then discovered logical flaws in the commandments -> they then started interpreting them figuratively in order to cover the flaws -> others began to use figurative interpretation in order to justify doing whatever they want -> thus we have commandments like "thou shalt not kill" and its followers being main participants in world wars.
Cuation
Simply following this commandment does not make you a complete person. Let your feelings guide you and your thoughts rule you, but let this commandment help you to remain civil so that you may live in a civilized world.
A naturalistic, twenty-first century formulation of 'Hillel's principle':
:sparkle: Merry Solstice & Reason's Greetings :sparkle:
To offer a criticism: why do you think your commandment is perfect? What do you mean by that word, "perfect"? I think your commandment would be helpful unto personal growth and lessening general misery, but I don't have a reason to think that it is perfect.
The thesis that the ancients began with a literal acceptance of the text and moved from it as difficulties arose isn't correct. The text was always modified by interpretation and by the adoption of other sources as authoritative.
Strict four corners literalism is a modern invention.
Keep in mind as well that the literal meaning of the words isn't always clear. In your example, the commandment is not that you should not kill, but it's that you not murder. The Hebrew term recognized different sorts of killing, with war killings not being "murder" as used in that commandment.
The Hebrew word for honor is an interesting one as well, and one you used in your OP. The term doesn't even require that you love your parent. It's been interpreted to mean you are to care for them when they're old.
Your analysis of 10 of the commandments is also arbitrary based upon the way Christianity has used the Bible, but.there are actually 613 commandments, ranging from not combining linen and wool in your clothing, to when you must sacrifice a red heifer, to how you should marry your brother's wife if he dies.
The variations and meaning of the decalogue can be reviewed here, pointing out the text is far from clear or consistent with regard to these commandments:
https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/decalogue
As to the question of the priority of the decalogue to other biblical commandments in non-Christian traditions, see https://judaism.stackexchange.com/questions/127235/are-the-ten-commandments-more-important-than-other-mitzvot
This is to say, I don't see how one could extract a single over-riding principle from "the commandments" without deciding which ones you were going to look at and which you were going to prioritize.
What i would say you have arrived at is a variation in the Christian concept of love, which you describe as a lessening of misery, but it seems most consistent with that tradition. https://groundworkonline.com/episodes/love-the-guiding-principle-for-christian-living
Quoting Joshs
Interesting. I see where you are coming from. Do you think it is possible to formulate any general principles that can be used to assess actions? Or is this a pointless exercise?
Quoting Tom Storm
I would throw out the notion of immorality as bad intent, and along with it justice as blame and culpability. In place of principles to assess moral blame, I would focus on techniques and strategies of exploring, refining and clarifying workable ways of making sense of and relating to others. How do we know when our social sense making is failing us? Affectivities such as guilt, anger, anxiety and threat define the contours of the disintegration of permeable ways of anticipating the actions of others and oneself.
In a paper on George Kellys ethical model, I wrote:
Quoting Leontiskos
I do not think it is perfect at all. The challenge is to get it as close to perfect at possible, I said nothing of having achieved this ^^. Perfection in this case would be the perfect word combination in English that achieves the purpose that I mentioned in the OP.
Quoting Hanover
I am pretty sure the creation tale was only recently (100 years ago) accepted to be a figurative interpretation after science established that the 7 days of creation did not add up. There are many more examples like this so the trend is clearly going from literal towards figurative interpretations.
Quoting Hanover
No, literalism has always been the basis in communication. Figurative meanings are added later. How could you possible instruct anyone in anything technical if your meaning isn't literal? And religious texts contains a fair bit of laws and examples that where clearly meant to be literal.
Quoting Hanover
The bible translation that most did follow during our world wars clearly states "kill", and the meaning of "kill" is clear. If the religious leaders thought that "murder" was more correct then they would change the wording.
Quoting Hanover
There are 10 main ones, for Jews and Muslims as well. The others you mention I haven't even heard of, nor have most people. So I can confidently say that they are less relevant to the purpose stated in OP.
Quoting Hanover
I am out to replace the none-religious parts of the main commandments, just the main essence of the best ones, a cornerstone to rest a great civilization upon. All the other commandments you are talking about should stem from the main ones.
Quoting Hanover
They may be right, but I don't see it written out in any way that I would consider a near perfect commandment.
Again, thanks for the feedback. Feel free to come at me with more teeth.
Your assumption is wrong.
Figurative interpretations has been accepted since ancient times:
https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-was-the-genesis-account-of-creation-interpreted-before-darwin
Additionally:
"Biblical literalism first became an issue in the 18th century,[18] enough so for Diderot to mention it in his Encyclopédie.[19] Karen Armstrong sees "[p]reoccupation with literal truth" as "a product of the scientific revolution".[20]"
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism
You need to look at the scholarship and not just surmise that since literal views appear outdated and scientific views current, then history must bear out that figurative views arose as the result of scientific advancement.
History is whatever it is, regardless of whether it follows what you think should have logically flowed. That you just keep saying what you think instead of looking at the research indicates you're not interested in taking your post seriously.
I didn't say the where not, only that a shift has happened towards increased figurative interpretation.
Quoting Hanover
Do you think that the church didn't have trouble with having to adjust to science before this? I do think that Davinci would disagree, since back in his days the church would hunt you down and torture you to death if you were deemed too heretical. And yet the church had to change their standpoints when the evidence against them became overwhelming.
Quoting Hanover
You sound like you are retroactively trying to save face on behalf of religion. If figurative interpretations were as common back in the day as they are now then you wouldnt have seen the tensions that the "theory" of evolution brought. Evolution is one of many subjects that the church has had to move towards figurative interpretations in.
But, none of this matters much for the objective here. The important thing is that figurative interpretations allows for confusion, corruption and less simplicity. So I do think that a good commandment needs to be able to stand on its own without any figurative crutches.
You don't figure out who won the Revolutionary War by thinking about it. You look up what happened.
So you claim that the church hasn't changed its standpoints based on what science has found? Or do you claim that these standpoints merely changed from one figurative interpretation to another equally figurative interpretation?
I don't need to research this, because I see it. It still happens to this day:
Evolution in nature is not in contrast with the notion of divine creation because evolution requires the creation of the beings that evolve, -- Pope Francis
This is one of his many statements done in order to align the Catholic Church with modern science.
Quoting Hanover
I think you can deduce who won that war without opening any history books. Looking at the current flag of the US is a strong indication.
What I claim is that the research shows the literalist tradition you reference is a modern invention and the way the ancient users of the biblical text is not as you've said.
You can read the articles or not, but your general opinions are no better than the information they are based upon, and that information is in fact very limited.
Quoting mentos987
And there might be more to learn about the war than looking at the flag.
I believe that fundamentalism is more of a resurgence of literalism. And I claim that when anyone reads any statement their first interpretation will usually be literal. "I created it in 7 days" (It took me a weeks worth of time to craft something) "He created it in his image" (He crafted something to look like him).
But, whether of not the religious texts were meant to be figurative from the start still does not matter for the OP. If they were meant to be 100% figurative from the start then it only makes them worse. The problem remains.
Quoting Hanover
You can always do deeper research but why would I expend more effort on disproving your statements than I have to. You have made over a half a dozen arguments so far and none of them have been even slightly convincing to me.
Sure, there have always been some intellectuals who attained figurative views. However consider this Augustine quote:
This quote doesn't make much sense except there having been a context where Augustine was under the impression that there were an embarrassing number of Christians who aren't such critical thinkers.
So the evidence presented by Biologos itself, provides evidence of literalists going way back in history.
Does it really make sense to jump to a simplistic conclusion, about the thinking of religious people historically, on the basis of the views of a few intellectuals?
And so what followed was the Protestant revolution, which did in fact challenge that tenant, specifically holding that the common man had the authority to interpret and understand the Bible without an intervening human authority (like a priest or the Pope)..
https://theconversation.com/on-the-reformations-500th-anniversary-remembering-martin-luthers-contribution-to-literacy-77540#:~:text=Luther%20argued%20that%20ordinary%20people,God%20speak%20read%20Holy%20Scripture.%E2%80%9D
This authority to interpret required that greater numbers be literate and that the Bible itself be available for publication. None of this requres that the interpretative scheme be a four corners literalism, but it would allow just as well for metaphorical interpretations depending upon the intellect of the reader.
The question of when the brand of Christian fundamentalism we all know about today arose isn't debatable. It's just a matter of historical record. It is true it is a reactionary position, where inerrancy of text and simplistic, literal meanings are accepted in response to perceived threats by science eliminating the need for religion, but it is not true that this system existed since the time the ancient Hebrews first got hold of the consolidated Bible we now recognize.
This article pretty clearly sets out the history: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christian-fundamentalism
That is, the thesis that the world accepted a literal translation of the Bible up through modern times until science began posing threats to it, and then that resulted in people loosening the literalism of the interpretation is not what happened.
What happened was that religion was relied upon for all sorts of answers and the people who read and interpreted the Bible were highly creative (as in extremely creative) in using the Bible, passed down traditions, other writings, prevailing contemporary philosophies, logical reasoning, and whatever else they had available in figuring out how to run their worlds. As secularized views began to prevail, a particular reactionary branch of Christianity emerged that began demanding simplisitic literalism where any Tom, Dick, or Harry could read the words on the page and fully know that it meant only exactly what those words said.
Where the mistake is made is in thinking that these Christian Fundamentalists are comprised of the true primitive Christians, truly as they began and have existed for thousands of years. That might be the narrative they would like to advance in order to appear most authhetic, but it's just not the case. They are a modern reactionary group that presents a very limited and simplistic view of the Bible.
Well of course societies have continually evolved, and the form literalist Christianity has taken has varied. Are you sure there is anyone here making this mistake?
A few days ago I offered this (ignored by @Joshs & @mentos987) ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/864587
Thoughts?
Sorry, I lost track.
Quoting 180 Proof
I like it, but I do not love it: "harmful to your species" would need defining -- "or inaction" I dont think people should be forced to act -- "to the harmless" I like that it leaves room to deal with "harm". -- "to your species" It probably doesn't handle animal cruelty very well. -- And 0% harm is hard to achieve, probably impossible.
Fairly good, but following it literally would be difficult and it would therefore suffer all the figurative drawbacks I wanted to avoid.
I like the idea of being able to crystallise moral thinking in the way you have done. I'm not sure about the 'do not do to the harmless' part of this principle. Does this mean you can do what you want to those who are harmful?
Hillel's original formulation works fine for me as a personal code. I see Josh's point about its potential failings, but it's not a perfect world. I'm not convinced that people will look at Hillel's maxim and take from it that genocide or stealing is permissible. And the kinds of folk who do wish to support such actions are probably not amenable to any principles. And yes, I make judgements about the behaviours of others and sure, these come from my own imperfect understanding of the world.
Are these sorts of maxims ultimately just variations on, 'Do not cause suffering?'
More or less I'd put it: 'Prevent or relieve more suffering than you cause'.
Quoting mentos987
As I've already pointed out ...
Quoting 180 Proof
To follow any rule, the context in which it is applied needs to be interpreted adapted to in order for the rule to be effective; therefore, "following it literally" is myopic and usually counter-productive.
Quoting mentos987
Insofar as an animal is harmless is not causing or threatening harm or has not caused harm "cruelty" towards that animal is clearly proscribed.
Nice. I might co-opt this one.
Quoting 180 Proof
The role of judgement in this seems critical. I have been mulling over this for some time. In work I sometimes have to make fast decisions around a person's care. Sometimes a colleague will ask me what policy I followed. I tend to answer that I used my 'practice judgement'. Of course, my intuitions here are merely part of a web of intersubjective practices that most in my field would employ, so I can't claim innovation or any paradigm shifts. Someone from another area might form entirely different intuitions. Which goes to @joshs point.
Quoting 180 Proof
One of the areas in which I have done insufficient thinking is that of the 'harmful'. I have asked for my team to not practice retribution or punishment in their approach to violent or aggressive clients. We understand that such behaviors make sense to people and that in a subculture where violence is the norm (on the streets, prison, etc) we must make some form of allowances. While we can exclude people for violence and aggression for a period of time (our cultural expectations), I generally hope we avoid a blame or punishment ethos to consequences.
I consider this to be nothing but fluff. There are pros and cons to everything. The upsides to figurative wording are that it allows for a greater range of meanings and that it is often more thought provoking. The downside is that "thought provoking" can be hard to grasp and that the greater range of meanings means that the intended meaning can be lost.
Quoting 180 Proof
There is a range of rigidness. You get the best results if you can achieve the highest effect while still maintaining little room for slack. Many rules/laws are rigid and need not ever be adapted to new circumstances, such as laws of science. But even judicial law can be rather rigid in some areas.
Quoting 180 Proof
Well, you did write that it was for our own species. To be clear, I do not think this is an issue, your commandment need not cover everything.
Quoting Tom Storm
Maybe the following helps ...
Thoughts?
Commandments in terms of morality/ethics only make sense within religion. Outside of religion, the very concept of a commandment (in terms of morality/ethics) is unintelligible.
Of course it does. Your system of morality is structurally the same as a religious one, except that in your case, it isn't a god sitting at the top. But you operate from the same assumptions of objectivity and universality of morality as religion does.
Morality and ethics are hardly exclusive to religion. A commandment is, in essence, a command that you adhere to throughout your entire life. This particular commandment assumes that you already want to "be good" and that you are willing to listen to suggestions on how to go about that. Please elaborate on the problem you see.
Do you still want to go with "commandment", or would something like "motto" be better for your purposes?
Or, to quote you, "Don't be a cunt."
It's just that for Harry, Dick is a cunt, and for Dick, Harry is a cunt, and neither of them think of themselves as cunts. Now what?
No one, it would be a shared belief and at most you would be pressured by your peers to follow it.
Quoting baker
None, except by any laws/norms that would be built upon it. I'd say our laws already do push us towards "being good".
Quoting baker
This may be true, I'd say the difference between a motto and a commandment is the scale of it and the heavier weight of the commandment.
How do you propose to measure this?
It seems the OP and several other posters here take for granted that the meaning of hate/harm (as well as goodness, evil, etc.) _should_ be transparently obvious to everyone. And that if a particular person doesn't think/feel the way they do, then the fault is with that person (ie. said person is "morally or cognitively defective").
Yes and yes, I agree.
There are many issues here. To begin with, how do we account for the fact that different people have different ideas about what counts as "good"? Should those who think differently than oneself simply be written off as "morally or cognitively defective"?
Quoting baker
Well, I focus on misery and I do define it.
Quoting mentos987
The commandment would be a way to be good, not the way.
"Commandment" can be an awfully semantically loaded word, if what you mean is something more along the lines of "something likely to be beneficial for all of us to subscribe to in a social contract."
Nicely put.
"Measure" what? I didn't propose to quantify anything.
It's vital to the topic at hand. (Waiting for @Joshs to chime in.)
Quoting 180 Proof
You said:
Quoting 180 Proof
If you want to "prevent or relieve" _more_ "suffering than you cause", then, clearly, you need to have some measurement in mind. How else can you know whether you're preventing or relieving more suffering than you cause?
:lol:
I think that's often, but not always, the case. But there's no magical pathway out of a values clash, is there? I remember talking to an old Nazi 30 years ago, "We were trying to improve the world and create a golden era. The bad guys won," he said.
Do we take the above to mean there is no point in trying to improve our moral behavior since everything is just a maelstrom of personal perspective?
Spend some effort to find what misery you spread, then try to lessen it.
or
Spend some effort to find what misery you spread and then try to lessen it.
?
1. @Hanover is simply correct that figurative interpretations have been accepted since ancient times.
2. You claim is not in evidence, for Augustine spoke of an "ignorant individual." Not a lot of folks have time to drum up strange theories, then or now (but especially then), and before the printing press books were extremely costly.
3. Low-hanging fruit is not unique to Christianity. For example, the Enlightenment clarion call of "Sapere Aude!" turned quickly to, "Oh shit, the masses are way dumber than we realized."
1. I'm not arguing against figurative interpretations existing since ancient times, as I already explained to Hanover. I'm simply pointing out that the Augustine quote itself points to literal interpretations existing alongside figurative interpretations in ancient times.
2. You seriously think that Augustine wrote that to discuss the behavior of one individual? Ok, consider the fuller quote with emphasis added:
This is not the part of his claim that sparks a debate. The part that I question is where he claims that the amount of figurative interpretations has remained the same or lowered since the forming of the religion. He is arguing that fundamentalism has made religion more literal than is ever was, I disagree on this point. For I think that fundamentalism was mealy a resurgence of old ways, an angry reaction to the change in interpretation towards an ever more figurative meaning.
Figurative interpretations have always been a large part of all religion. But this was never in question.