Morality in Simplest Terms

[Kathryn]

That is why Kathryn's post is so perfect, it is the only known moral law that would cease all ill will against each other.

However the reason it doesn't work is because not everyone love's God or themselves the same way others do.

First step is to define what Love means. What a can of worms that is though.

Within the context of my Christian beliefs, I believe that man is a fallen creature, so you are exactly right - man does not love others as he loves himself.

A moral code is a goal we should strive toward, in my opinion. And the moral code of Christianity is to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Now whether or not individuals actually DO that is another matter altogether!

 

[Humanistheart]

Something I've been pondering recently: I tend to define "moral/immoral", "right/wrong", "moral obligation", etc, in circular terms. If it is immoral to do something, we have a moral obligation to not do it because it's wrong, and it's wrong because it's immoral, and so on. I might say that something is wrong if it causes harm, but I couldn't explain why.

How would you, personally, break down this concept into simpler terms? What is about the way the world works that makes "right" and "wrong" exist, and assigns it to human actions? Or is it a fundamental assumption that can't be explained in that way?

No, your right, a harm based definition is all one needs. Of course divining what the least harmful action in any given situation is is exceedingly difficult, not to meantion actually performing the correct action for said situation.

 

[Kathryn]

No, your right, a harm based definition is all one needs. Of course divining what the least harmful action in any given situation is is exceedingly difficult, not to meantion actually performing the correct action for said situation.

It ain't so hard - do unto others as you would have them do unto you, and love your neighbor as you love yourself.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Actually it is hard. Not everyone has the same intelligence and as such is not able to recognize as many options. Not everyone has the same creativity or wits about them (able to think on their feet and fast), so some options will require longer to figure out. Not everyone has the same resources so some people will always be better positioned or better placed or better funded to do things.


And as far as do unto others as you would have them do unto you? I certainly wouldn't want a masochist around if I said that. That's why I think the contrapositive is a much more useful statement. Someone might wish to be treated in a bad way, and thus "have license" to do wrong by others. But under the contrapositive I am emphasizing that the more important feature is what you don't do, rather than what you do do.

Doing well by others is fine, but that is a lot more nebulous and hard to define than what is harmful by others.

MTF

 

[blackout]

"Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you."

Nice. Much less room for intrusion and personal twisting this way.

 

[Thief]

Thief here....bad...bad...bad....
You cannot make the golden rule better by using the negative.

It was written long before the Carpenter walked.
No one is sure how far back it goes.
As if to say...I have always been with you.

It is intended to be pro-active.
You first.

When the Carpenter spoke the words in the face of the pharisees...
It was an event where the participants were looking each other...in the eye.

It was a warning....a way of saying back off.

If you want generosity upon you...you first...unto others.
If you desire to be accepted...your transgressions forgiven...you first.
How far can you go?
The angels are waiting to do...unto you...as you did unto others.

 

[Kathryn]

Actually it is hard. Not everyone has the same intelligence and as such is not able to recognize as many options. Not everyone has the same creativity or wits about them (able to think on their feet and fast), so some options will require longer to figure out. Not everyone has the same resources so some people will always be better positioned or better placed or better funded to do things.

You're making this too complicated. Treating others decently and doing the right thing doesn't require a lot of intelligence, creativity, money or power. These traits can ENHANCE a person's options when it comes to being decent but some of the most good hearted and generous people I've ever met have Downs Syndrome (just to give an example).

But in a sense you're also correct - the right thing to do is not usually the EASIEST thing to do.

And as far as do unto others as you would have them do unto you? I certainly wouldn't want a masochist around if I said that. That's why I think the contrapositive is a much more useful statement. Someone might wish to be treated in a bad way, and thus "have license" to do wrong by others. But under the contrapositive I am emphasizing that the more important feature is what you don't do, rather than what you do do.

Now - think about this. A masochist KNOWS that his desire to be hurt is not typical or shared by the majority of the human race. This passage of scripture is a generalization and meant to be interpreted using COMMON SENSE.

When you teach your child "Be honest" or "Don't run out in the street" you don't literally mean "Never ever ever under any circumstances tell a lie!" or "Never ever ever step one foot into the street!"

 

[McBell]

Thief here....bad...bad...bad....
You cannot make the golden rule better by using the negative.

I disagree.
In fact, I disagree with the golden rule as it stands also.

It was written long before the Carpenter walked.
No one is sure how far back it goes.
As if to say...I have always been with you.

So?
What does its age have to do with anything?

It is intended to be pro-active.
You first.

seems to me it is an answer to particular problem.

When the Carpenter spoke the words in the face of the pharisees...
It was an event where the participants were looking each other...in the eye.

It was a warning....a way of saying back off.

If you want generosity upon you...you first...unto others.
If you desire to be accepted...your transgressions forgiven...you first.
How far can you go?
The angels are waiting to do...unto you...as you did unto others.

Yes, an answer to a particular problem.

The mistake is trying to make it universal.

I much prefer:

"Do unto others as they would have done unto them or do nothing at all"
​

Unlike the golden rule, this rule is not about the self, but about the other.

 

[McBell]

Now - think about this. A masochist KNOWS that his desire to be hurt is not typical or shared by the majority of the human race. This passage of scripture is a generalization and meant to be interpreted using COMMON SENSE.

When you teach your child "Be honest" or "Don't run out in the street" you don't literally mean "Never ever ever under any circumstances tell a lie!" or "Never ever ever step one foot into the street!"

oh no...
not the "common sense" argument....

 

[blackout]

I much prefer:

"Do unto others as they would have done unto them or do nothing at all"
​

Unlike the golden rule, this rule is not about the self, but about the other.

And yet another better one!

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Let me throw something new out here.

The bible tells us to deny ourselves if we really Love God. So, it can be said we should expect that from others to deny themselves and seek the kingdom of God.

That gives a whole new light to the golden rule, and one that is more fitting to what the bible actually teaches. Because the moment we think about ourselves everything get's F'd up.

 

[Thief]

Thief here....
The golden rule has a thread of it's own.
But since we are here for the moment....

Moses wrote...an eye for an eye...a tooth for a tooth.
This is yet another version of the same idea, except that it is reactive.
It brings peace by intimidation.
Submission is brought by fear of reprisal.

Most of this world operates on this reactive technique.
You do harm...you will be harmed.

Much better to be proactive...do good things unto others.

Some of this discussion indicates no action is good.
Not so.
Being idle when you could be doing some good is a missed opportunity.

If heaven be heaven....you will receive your efforts in return.
If you black my eye...my Brothers will want to know who did it.
And you would be received by Them with the same gesture you dealt me....
as many times as I have Brothers.

If you did something good for me....They will do unto you as you did unto me....as many times as I have Brothers.

 

[MSizer]

From a Christian perspective, right and wrong hinges crucially on the purposes and intentions of the Creator for His creation, not to mention the personality of the Creator. For more information on that, though, one would have to enter into issues of revelation and whatnot.

And THAT is exactly why religion is bad. Not because some people use religion for their own benefit at the expense of others. It is because a hodgepodge of old folklore is treated as truth, and it is encouraged that people follow it regardless as to whether it makes sense. The result? An obstacle to moral intelligence.

 

[Dunemeister]

And THAT is exactly why religion is bad. Not because some people use religion for their own benefit at the expense of others. It is because a hodgepodge of old folklore is treated as truth, and it is encouraged that people follow it regardless as to whether it makes sense. The result? An obstacle to moral intelligence.

My experience does not bear this out. It is only after I converted to the Christian faith that my moral intelligence got a serious workout. It is because of my Christian faith that I have a lifestyle more or less devoted to thinking through moral issues and acting on them in creative and life-giving ways.

That "hodgepodge of old folklore" is actually quite profound. It has been commented, studied, attacked, defended, used, abused, celebrated and condemned more than any other text. If it was just "old folklore" it would hardly have generated this sort of interest from believers and skeptics alike. No, it seems that this "folklore" has stricken some nerves, and whether you believe the stories or not, the fact remains that they have a depth, importance, and relevance to moral issues that exceeds just about any other text. And all this not just because it provides all the answers. It doesn't. Rather, it provokes the right questions, which sets our intellect moving.

 

[Amill]

The natural morality within us can be summed up as "not wanting to do harm to things you care about or feel for." Harm being physical or mental. Obviously there are times when this natural feeling is overpowered by impulse or emotions. But I think this natural sense developed by means of Evolution to enhance survivability, and I think it's present in a lot of mammals.

Even in the old days when from our perspective, things appeared pretty savage, the people still were able to coexist in communities and families, love each other, all while slaughtering humans in neighboring communities. They were socially connected to people in their families, and cared about those people.

 

[Copernicus]

My experience does not bear this out. It is only after I converted to the Christian faith that my moral intelligence got a serious workout. It is because of my Christian faith that I have a lifestyle more or less devoted to thinking through moral issues and acting on them in creative and life-giving ways.

That does not respond to MSizer's point. Religion provides no criteria for evaluating the various interpretations of the ancient hodgepodge. People of faith are encouraged to follow doctrine regardless of whether or not it makes sense from a humanitarian or even personal perspective.

That "hodgepodge of old folklore" is actually quite profound. It has been commented, studied, attacked, defended, used, abused, celebrated and condemned more than any other text. If it was just "old folklore" it would hardly have generated this sort of interest from believers and skeptics alike. No, it seems that this "folklore" has stricken some nerves...

This is hardly surprising, given that most people are encouraged to believe that it forms the basis of morality, yet there are so many different interpretations of exactly what moral guidelines it proposes. It has been used to both justify and attack slavery, for example. That is bound to give rise to more than a few attacks and defenses.

...and whether you believe the stories or not, the fact remains that they have a depth, importance, and relevance to moral issues that exceeds just about any other text. And all this not just because it provides all the answers. It doesn't. Rather, it provokes the right questions, which sets our intellect moving.

Nonsense. You can say the same about any fictional work, for example, Shakespeare or the epic tales of Gilgamesh. You do not need the Bible to raise and address profound questions about the human condition. The fact that it is used for such purpose is not a good argument that it ought to be.

 

[MSizer]

whether you believe the stories or not, the fact remains that they have a depth, importance, and relevance to moral issues that exceeds just about any other text. And all this not just because it provides all the answers. It doesn't. Rather, it provokes the right questions, which sets our intellect moving.

I strongly disagree Dunemeister, the bible is, from a moral perspective, less sophisticated than a "for dummies" book. At least the "for dummies" books contain useful information. Hume, Kant, Payne, Nietzche, Spinoza, & Sartre are names I can come up with just off the top of my head who have all written works far deeper in thought about morality. Furthermore, I could be wrong, but it seems you think I don't know biblical content. I do. It's one of the reasons I left the church at a young age.

 

[Thief]

Thief here...hate to see a good thread die so poorly.

Hey Msizer...so you got disgruntled and left the 'church'!
Who cares?

How is your denouncement relative to the issue?

 

[lunamoth]

IMO, religion teaches that we should be moral, not the details of how to be moral. Morality is not based on laws found in the Bible or anywhere else. Those are just our best attempt to be systematic about morality.

The broad-stroke how to be moral taught by Christianity is to love one another as God loves us.

Materialism/logical positivism can't give a reason for why we should be moral. It may explain how we evolved to become moral animals, but not why we continue to be so.

If reason can never trump instinct, then you've pretty much gutted reason.