Philosophy Now Forum

Greta wrote:Heh, my mother referred to herself as a lapsed Catholic but she still seemed to believe. Basically she wasn't interested in going to church. I was raised C of E and forced to go to Sunday school, which bored me to tears. I was more interested in nature and the skies than old people's myths.

I'll have a go at some commandments:

1. try to be reasonable

2. remember, animals and plants are people too. Is a blowfly a person?

3. be grateful because there's many doing it tougher than you

4. forgive - (but NEVER FORGET)

5. keep your sense of humour

6. do your bit.

7. Though shalt respect the body of the child and protect them from unwanted interference.

8. Thou shalt not discriminate due to gender, or colour of skin.

9. Thou shalt not start a war for gain.

10. Respect the environment and the ecosystem, replacing what you use.

Contortionist wrote:The Ten Commandments were absolutely appropriate for the community that created them .

No they were not.
The first 4 were a complete waste of time, and was a self imposed slavery to an invisible deity.

Greta wrote:Heh, my mother referred to herself as a lapsed Catholic but she still seemed to believe. Basically she wasn't interested in going to church. I was raised C of E and forced to go to Sunday school, which bored me to tears. I was more interested in nature and the skies than old people's myths.

I'll have a go at some commandments:

1. try to be reasonable

2. remember, animals and plants are people too

3. be grateful because there's many doing it tougher than you

4. forgive

5. keep your sense of humour

6. do your bit.

Those are good rules too Greta. I think a good set of rules recognizes the needs and rights of others, considers the Earth and the other animals on it, contains do's and don'ts which are fundamental for a successfully functioning society, and takes responsibility. Yours do all those things nicely.

Skip wrote:Share your toys.
Feed my sheep.
Cross with the light.
Be kind to dogs and squirrels.
Clean your own shoes.

All the laws of gad and man? That will paralyze you into permanent inaction. Both of them have made far too many contradictory laws!

How about:
Walk softly, pay attention and do as little harm as possible.
?

St. Peter got rid of the kosher rules, and St. Paul got rid of circumcision. Nobody in their right mind grows long bushy beards anymore except orthodox Persians and orthodox Jews. The crazy clothing that some fanatics wear are useless for everything but showmanship, and Jesus said NOT to be a showman.

So keeping ALL the laws of God simply takes a few readings of the Bible in some reliable translation, and then remembering to follow them by doing NO harm to anyone or anything. I make a clear harm exception for self defense and defense of nation. Those are the only 2 occasions that anyone should be killing anyone else. I'm fine with capital punishment for murders too, or any treasons that got someone killed.

There is nothing special about Moses' 10 Commandments unless you were a Hebrew slave in Egypt.

The most amazing thing about the Ten Commandments is that they do not appear in the Bible.

There are lots of rules in the Bible but in no way do they add up to Ten.

The bulk of Moses' message, coming off 40 hungry days with The Lord, is: "Bring Me sacrifice. Lots and lots and lots of lovely sacrifice. Build me a nifty house of expensive woods and fabrics, decorated with precious metals and stones, and burn me some virgin cattles." Which is a very odd thing to command a bunch of escaped slaves in the middle of a desert. Seems like God took a keen interest in lucre and the minutiae of tithing, even back then. Probably why he told them to steal all the Egyptians' gold and silver before taking off.
But, yes, it's in there. The succinct version is Exodus Ch 20. The two rules about worship take several verses to relate; the common laws are a single line each. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Exodus-Chapter-20/ The glaring irony is how he's setting his chosen people up for two thousand years of mutual intolerance with all their neighbours.

So keeping ALL the laws of God simply takes a few readings of the Bible in some reliable translation,

You left out the second half. "All the laws of God and man". If you think reconciling God's laws, then and now, here and there, is difficult, try reconciling them with the criminal code of Astana, the banking regulations of Oslo and the traffic rules of Cincinnati.

I make a clear harm exception for self defense and defense of nation. Those are the only 2 occasions that anyone should be killing anyone else. I'm fine with capital punishment for murders too, or any treasons that got someone killed.

Yup. You make exceptions that have potentially so wide an interpretation that you may as well scrub the forbidding in the first place. And that's just for homicide! Imagine all the other harm you do, directly and indirectly. What rules apply?

Wouldn't it be easier to just behave sensibly?

Verily, I bring onto thee a new commandment, and this shall render all old commandments void:

Don't be a dick!!

@Hobbes' Choice

2. remember, animals and plants are people too. Is a blowfly a person?

Yes, but there's conflicts of interest to consider - as there are with other humans.

yiostheoy wrote:I think a good set of rules recognizes the needs and rights of others, considers the Earth and the other animals on it, contains do's and don'ts which are fundamental for a successfully functioning society, and takes responsibility.

That's pretty well it. The dos and don'ts of functioning societies can be debatable. I've long been a fan of the legal "reasonable person" concept. In terms of philosophy or psychology it's a nonsense notion, relying on commonsense - another contestable concept - but I get it. There is something to "get". It's patterns of behaviour, patterns of association that we instinctively recognise, and other species recognise some of them too.

I guess that makes me a believer in objective morality, although not always a subscriber myself.

Greta wrote:

yiostheoy wrote:I think a good set of rules recognizes the needs and rights of others, considers the Earth and the other animals on it, contains do's and don'ts which are fundamental for a successfully functioning society, and takes responsibility.

That's pretty well it. The dos and don'ts of functioning societies can be debatable. I've long been a fan of the legal "reasonable person" concept. In terms of philosophy or psychology it's a nonsense notion, relying on commonsense - another contestable concept - but I get it. There is something to "get". It's patterns of behaviour, patterns of association that we instinctively recognise, and other species recognise some of them too.

Immature minds as well as criminal minds do not seem to have a good sense of what is right or wrong however.

That's why there needs to be rules we call civil and criminal law. Crimes are all some variation of theft or injury -- theft of property or theft of a life or theft of the truth. Civil law covers injury. Criminal law covers violations of state rules of conduct.

Anytime you have 2 or more people you are going to have power issues. And anytime 3 or more then political issues.

It seems to me that governments have evolved to protect the majority against those rogue minority elements which have no conscience. In some cases they are juvenile. In the majority of cases however they are criminally minded adults who will try to get something at any cost to others.

On second thoughts, I'll reserve the sardonic comment on government.