Philosophy Now Forum

This is from artisticsolution's thread, you know the one. It just seems a bit tidier here. For the moment.

Immanuel Can wrote:There are, in fact, only four traditions in which there is a positive version of the Golden Rule...

This is not true. The Wikipedia article I referred to gives examples and sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule wrote:
"Zi Gong asked, saying, "Is there one word that may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not reciprocity such a word?" – Confucius
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." – Laozi
An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BC): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you."
In Mahābhārata, the ancient epic of India..."treat others as you treat yourself."

Furthermore, the article adds:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule wrote: The "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic" from the Parliament of the World’s Religions (1993) proclaimed the Golden Rule ("We must treat others as we wish others to treat us") as the common principle for many religions. The Initial Declaration was signed by 143 leaders from all of the world's major faiths, including Baha'i Faith, Brahmanism, Brahma Kumaris, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Indigenous, Interfaith, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American, Neo-Pagan, Sikhism, Taoism, Theosophist, Unitarian Universalist and Zoroastrian. In the folklore of several cultures the Golden Rule is depicted by the allegory of the long spoons.

Immanuel Can wrote:But now, all of that is unimportant. Because even if all of the religious traditions DID have the GR, that would still fail to show in any way that the GR was right. For it might well be a very widely-believed mistake, instead of a core truth. And since, on an Atheist view, there is no price to be paid for NOT following the GR, why should we not, say, appear to honour it to fool our neighbours, and then secretly shaft them all, so long as we believe they'll never detect it or we're willing to assume the associated risk they will? You would have to show that.

Don't be silly. Immoral behaviour is not conditional on getting caught.

Immanuel Can wrote:For again, the enemy of the Atheist's attempt to form any moral justification is not the Christian...it's the Nihilist. It's not the person who agrees that morality exists: it's the person who is a skeptic, who denies that morality has any objective authority. He's the guy you've got to beat.

It's not about beating anyone, it's about answering people who pose questions such as this:

Immanuel Can wrote:When I left I had put up an opportunity for all the Atheists out there. I had simply put to them HOW they know right from wrong.

Had you forgotten?

Immanuel Can wrote:And the Nihilist has no reason to accept the Golden Rule unless you can give him one.

The nihilist has nothing to do with it.

Immanuel Can wrote:

The idea that it is an exclusively Christian standard is demonstrably false, because there are versions that are centuries, even millennia, older than Jesus Christ himself.

Only Judaism has any such thing, and even there it's questionable as to whom it includes. Moreover, since Jesus Christ clearly saw Himself within that Jewish tradition, if we can regard the Judaic version as a precursor, then that's really no surprise at all. Everybody else has only the "leave everyone alone" version.

Not true. See above.

Immanuel Can wrote:But again, that would be irrelevant. A Nihilist will not be convinced.

Once again: the nihilist has nothing to do how atheists know right from wrong.

Immanuel Can wrote:

You also clearly do not understand what atheists believe; it is not that everything attributed to Jesus is untrue, rather it is that the claim that Jesus is 'the son of god' has a plausibility somewhere between nil and not much.

That makes no sense either. For then, why regard Him as a moral authority when you believe most of what He said were lies or delusions?

I'll say it again, then:

uwot wrote:You also clearly do not understand what atheists believe; it is not that everything attributed to Jesus is untrue...

Immanuel Can wrote:And to know that, the Atheist would have to have a standard external to the one offered by Jesus Christ, one that showed them he was "wrong" in some way. And what standard would that be?

Any of the other versions of the Golden Rule. You've probably forgotten, but if I refer you back to the top of this post, you will be reminded that there are lots of them.

Immanuel Can wrote:

Duty has little or no role in ethics.

This is incorrect. "Duty," in ethical-speak, simply means "moral obligation," or "oughtness." If a precept is nothing you "ought" to do -- that is, if it comes with no duty to obey it, then it's not in any sense an ethical or moral directive. If we only had to do what we feel like doing, never what we don't feel like doing but ought to do, that is, have a duty to do in spite of our feelings, we would need no ethics at all.
That's basic to the field.

It is only basic to the deontological field.

Immanuel Can wrote:

You have put quotation marks around something I did not say.

Well, you certainly said it below. See your quotation of yourself...unless your'e objecting to the word "the".

The words you attributed to me were: "The outcome of the agent" Look again; I did not say that:

uwot wrote:What I said was: "the morality of an action is provisional according to the intended outcome of the agent."

Immanuel Can wrote:

uwot wrote:It is the intention to minimise distress or suffering, or spread joy and happiness, if you wish, that is dependent on a human beings ability to empathise with another one. Some people cannot do this, they're called psychopaths and are a problem for everyone.

Well, here you say essentially that you think joy and happiness are good and suffering is bad.

Are you not familiar with the words 'intended' or 'intention'?

Immanuel Can wrote:I'm sure most people feel the same way, despite the problems of some suffering being good (as when a weightlifter pains his muscles to improve his body, for example), and some happiness being bad (as when a molester really enjoys his activities).

I'd better say it again:

uwot wrote:It is the intention to minimise distress or suffering, or spread joy and happiness, if you wish, that is dependent on a human beings ability to empathise with another one. Some people cannot do this, they're called psychopaths and are a problem for everyone.

Immanuel Can wrote:And you've also said that if people do not do it then society rejects them.

No I have not.

Immanuel Can wrote:But you've begged the question: what makes society's rejection "right," and what shows that people who disagree with your view are "bad," and hence deserving of social ostracism and a label like "psychopath"?

The Golden Rule, Immanuel Can. If it's good enough for Jesus Christ to appropriate, is it not good enough for society?

marjoram_blues wrote:Perhaps the idea of 'sin' is useful to keep in one's head - but I think not; especially when it relates to other religious concepts such as hell as a punishment.

I think 'sin' is a very loaded term, from what I understand it means 'offensive to god x'. If it stops religious nutters from doing harm, it is probably a good thing. Much more insidious, I think is the idea of original sin, that really is a terrible idea.

marjoram_blues wrote:So, I guess what I'm asking here is: what philosophy - or way of thinking - would more usefully replace such terms?

I haven't really got a problem with religions, at heart they are just ways that people make sense of this crazy world, with a few excuses to have the family round thrown in. If you look at the range of views expressed, there is little to suggest that religion has much effect on how you conduct yourself. Religious people appear to swear less, but they are capable of breathtaking rudeness.

attofishpi wrote:

uwot wrote:...rather it is that the claim that Jesus is 'the son of god' has a plausibility somewhere between nil and not much.

What you talkin bout willis - i mean uwot? Care to expand?

You like the blog, eh? http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/

The name's Will. How do you do?

attofishpi wrote:Of course to an atheist the likelihood of God existing in the first place is about the same..

Well, yes; that's essentially what I mean.

uwot wrote:

marjoram_blues wrote:Perhaps the idea of 'sin' is useful to keep in one's head - but I think not; especially when it relates to other religious concepts such as hell as a punishment.

I think 'sin' is a very loaded term, from what I understand it means 'offensive to god x'. If it stops religious nutters from doing harm, it is probably a good thing. Much more insidious, I think is the idea of original sin, that really is a terrible idea.

marjoram_blues wrote:So, I guess what I'm asking here is: what philosophy - or way of thinking - would more usefully replace such terms?

I haven't really got a problem with religions, at heart they are just ways that people make sense of this crazy world, with a few excuses to have the family round thrown in. If you look at the range of views expressed, there is little to suggest that religion has much effect on how you conduct yourself. Religious people appear to swear less, but they are capable of breathtaking rudeness.

OK - I'm not so much concerned with religions -their purpose and effects in society - but the individual who is attempting to change their way of thinking. Someone who might have intellectually discarded, or is questioning. a belief in God, along with the language of fear.
For some, the emotional ties and thought processes persist. Or they can't totally get rid without having some replacement.

So, the thread title ' how to be good without god' - not just a question of being moral but questioning the concepts and strategies used.
If there is a void, where once God and his standards resided, how can philosophy help, if at all?

uwot wrote: Religious people appear to swear less, but they are capable of breathtaking rudeness.

You must display a bit of Christian forbearance, mate, and forgive them for they know not what they do. However you're dead bloody right. To suggest that a non-believer must necessarily live according to a lesser moral code than one who has his morality defined for him by an invisible best friend is an insult of staggering hubris.

Obvious Leo wrote:

uwot wrote: Religious people appear to swear less, but they are capable of breathtaking rudeness.

You must display a bit of Christian forbearance, mate, and forgive them for they know not what they do. However you're dead bloody right. To suggest that a non-believer must necessarily live according to a lesser moral code than one who has his morality defined for him by an invisible best friend is an insult of staggering hubris.

It's OK for my Christian friend to be rude; she is 'just being honest' !

uwot wrote:

attofishpi wrote:

uwot wrote:...rather it is that the claim that Jesus is 'the son of god' has a plausibility somewhere between nil and not much.

What you talkin bout willis - i mean uwot? Care to expand?

You like the blog, eh? http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/

The name's Will. How do you do?

attofishpi wrote:Of course to an atheist the likelihood of God existing in the first place is about the same..

Well, yes; that's essentially what I mean.

Hi Will,

Haven't ventured to your blog for a long while, thanks for the invitation...love this:-
"After we came out of the church, we stood talking for some time together of Bishop Berkeley's ingenious sophistry to prove the nonexistence of matter, and that every thing in the universe is merely ideal. I observed, that though we are satisfied his doctrine is not true, it is impossible to refute it. I never shall forget the alacrity with which Johnson answered, striking his foot with mighty force against a large stone, till he rebounded from it -- "I refute it thus.""
The Life of Samuel Johnson, LL.D. (1791 James Boswell)

In light of the above, as far as im concerned 'insight' from a Bishop of 1791 and today's scientific appreciation of the complex nature of reality, the position of atheism still puzzles me, i have to admit. The more things get broken down scientifically to the minute, things become rather much just fields of vibrating energy, sub-atomic particles are what 'zip' around, and the nature of our seemingly stable material reality become all the more 'quest.ion.able'

Apparently as the man upstairs stated - "i AM the LIGHT."

I can understand atheism in its militant stance against all the follies that can be attached to theism, but when considering the complex nature of reality as is scientifically understood at present, how can you justify giving the concept of 'God' -or an intelligent backbone to reality, the flick as totally implausible?

Oh yeah - havent plugged mine for a while!
http://www.androcies.com

Obvious Leo wrote:... forgive them for they know not what they do.

Oh nooooo! That's Jesus on the cross and not entirely up to his God-son senses. No, one is held to the 10 Commandments and thus sentenced to much pains in the afterlife after such sins or sinful life because one sin seldom comes by itself! "May the devil wait for them well!" Ho-ho-ho-ho!

marjoram_blues wrote:OK - I'm not so much concerned with religions -their purpose and effects in society - but the individual who is attempting to change their way of thinking. Someone who might have intellectually discarded, or is questioning. a belief in God, along with the language of fear.
For some, the emotional ties and thought processes persist. Or they can't totally get rid without having some replacement.

To be honest, I don't think the god hypothesis is any more ridiculous than all the others that aim to explain how or why there is a universe. Whatever the truth about reality, it is not mundane and dreary, it is indistinguishable from a fucking miracle. (Just thought I'd throw that in to reinforce my sweary atheist credentials.)

marjoram_blues wrote:So, the thread title ' how to be good without god' - not just a question of being moral but questioning the concepts and strategies used.
If there is a void, where once God and his standards resided, how can philosophy help, if at all?

By illustrating the richness and beauty of human thought (some of it). We're all in this together, trying to make sense, but it is the ones who claim to know the most who invariably know the least. I'm afraid uncertainty is the antipole of dogma.

Obvious Leo wrote:You must display a bit of Christian forbearance, mate, and forgive them for they know not what they do. However you're dead bloody right. To suggest that a non-believer must necessarily live according to a lesser moral code than one who has his morality defined for him by an invisible best friend is an insult of staggering hubris.

The thing that makes me laugh is that if you take a deontological view of the golden rule, you presumably need your invisible best friend to tell you what you like having done to yourself. Maybe I'm weird, but to me that's a good joke.

uwot wrote: I'm afraid uncertainty is the antipole of dogma

If dogma is north and uncertainty is south, what do west and east stand for?
What happens if one's heart is centre point and one's head is up one's arse?

attofishpi wrote:...The more things get broken down scientifically to the minute, things become rather much just fields of vibrating energy, sub-atomic particles are what 'zip' around, and the nature of our seemingly stable material reality become all the more 'quest.ion.able'

Apparently as the man upstairs stated - "i AM the LIGHT."

Well, I think you have to be cautious attributing the word 'energy' to anything other than the power or potential to cause change. There's a page in my blog about it: http://willibouwman.blogspot.co.uk/2014 ... -does.html

attofishpi wrote:I can understand atheism in its militant stance against all the follies that can be attached to theism, but when considering the complex nature of reality as is scientifically understood at present, how can you justify giving the concept of 'God' -or an intelligent backbone to reality, the flick as totally implausible?

I've just responded to marjoram_blues saying that I don't. I have no idea what the backbone of reality is, and frankly, I wouldn't rule anything out.

attofishpi wrote:Oh yeah - havent plugged mine for a while!
http://www.androcies.com

Be my guest.

marjoram_blues wrote:

uwot wrote: I'm afraid uncertainty is the antipole of dogma

If dogma is north and uncertainty is south, what do west and east stand for?
What happens if one's heart is centre point and one's head is up one's arse?

Fair enough, antipole is over stating it, but without religious, or any other conviction, nothing is certain. The good thing is you are free to learn.

marjoram_blues wrote:

Obvious Leo wrote:

uwot wrote: Religious people appear to swear less, but they are capable of breathtaking rudeness.

You must display a bit of Christian forbearance, mate, and forgive them for they know not what they do. However you're dead bloody right. To suggest that a non-believer must necessarily live according to a lesser moral code than one who has his morality defined for him by an invisible best friend is an insult of staggering hubris.

It's OK for my Christian friend to be rude; she is 'just being honest' !

Hi Leo, M and uwot,

Jesus H Christ!

But Christians do this to each other too...so I wouldn't take it personally. lol If I had a nickel for every time I was called anti-God (anti moral) by a christian, simply because I asked them to hold themselves accountable!

It is one of the reasons I wanted to just talk about Christianity only in my thread. I wasn't intentionally being 'rude' to atheists, I simply wanted Christians not to be able to seek refuge in a straw man argument that side steps the issue of their morality... which they always do when defending their morality to atheists. Instead I wanted them to defend their morality to God.I wanted them to face it head on...using the only tool they have for morality...the bible. As it IS their moral compass...so I don't know why they don't use it the way it was supposedly intended(by their own account) for morality.

If IC is going to say God gave the entire human race a set of morals which come from the bible, then why would he take Gods words out of context and twist them into their own meaning and ignore the 'goodness' of God, by the Christians own account? (i.e. IC believes he is only accountable for 9 commandments not 10...and other things he has quoted in the bible that are taken out of context...meaning they don't quite mesh with all God has to say...but leaves out important passages to suit his (IC's) agenda. Sort of like a mechanic working on a car by tearing it apart, and then putting it back together only to discover a whole bunch of superfluous parts that he then sweeps under the carpet.

This has nothing to do with atheists as they don't believe in God or the bible and so why should they argue morality based on those set of rules? What happens in most instances is the atheists wants to knock 'sense' into the theist by using reason to disprove God's existence. This does not usually work on Christians as, like you said, they already think their morality comes from the highest court. They already think their way (God's way) is better. The christian is taught to be on guard, as there is evil lurking around every corner! It would take an act of God to get the Christian to believe in the atheists code of morals as most Christians are already skeptical of how the atheist can even BE moral at all! The Christian believes he, and anyone else for that matter, is only moral because of God...and that he would be a terrible wretch without God....as in he would throw caution to the wind.

Which leads me to believe, it is the Christian who is on shaky ground...because he needs a book to tell him right from wrong. The atheist is usually not on as shaky of ground because he can know right and wrong from his natural cognitive function i.e. moral compass.

Furthermore, and I think the statistics back me up on this, I don't think an atheist understands how much the christian needs the bible to even begin to know where and how to lead a moral life. You atheists think it's bad now? I would hate to think of a world where the christian mindset, did not have even a book to guide them! Meaning, how can we be sure that the mindset to follow God in the first place, isn't akin to a brain abnormality, that they aren't able to fully aware to understand right from wrong without a book...in varying degrees? I wonder how many people in prison are Christians who lost their way (i.e. backsliders) vs. atheists who lost their way? I have noticed that "Backsliders" (people who were christian but left the church) go hog wild usually when they leave the church. As in, if they forget about the book that holds their moral standard and..., anything goes!

And again, I am not talking about the person who has an internal understanding of right vs. wrong separate from a bible (the atheist), as I am aware that there are plenty of people who leave the church to become atheists, but that I think those people would have a lower incidence to go 'hog wild' because of the mindset (The mindset being one of a natural cognitive function when it comes to thinking about right and wrong...i.e. a moral compass).

I hope that made sense...anyway...just saying.

Sorry if I hijacked your thread uwot...paybacks are a bitch...lol.

AS
Just to clarify, the Christian friend I spoke about - it wasn't you.
And I think I've said all I want to on this particular subject.
Where are we again ?
'Ethical theory'...
Hmmm...
Cozy natterings