Commandment of the Agnostic

mentos987

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 millennia’s 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.

unenlightened

Very nice, I have no major complaints. But why so many Mentos?

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:

Leontiskos

↪mentos987

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.

Joshs

↪mentos987

This is a thought challenge where I try to form the perfect commandment for anyone that isn't religious. — mentos987

This strikes me as appealing to those who only think they’re 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.

flannel jesus

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. — Joshs

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:

Joshs

↪Leontiskos

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. — 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 don’t 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 one’s 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?

Joshs

↪flannel jesus

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.
— Joshs

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 — flannel jesus

The question is how ‘good’ is understood. Let’s 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 OP’s 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.

flannel jesus

it assumes a universal ground or standard, the good in and for itself. — Joshs

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.

This conception comes straight from the definition of god as the in-itself. — Joshs

You'd have to demonstrate that for anybody else to accept it.

Joshs

↪flannel jesus

it assumes a universal ground or standard, the good in and for itself.
— Joshs

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 — 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?

• 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 be good and how to seek to be better. — mentos987

You should follow your instincts and your heart and utilize this commandment to remain civil so that you may live in a civilized world. — mentos987

How does our heart direct us to the good without itself being directed by something universal?

This conception comes straight from the definition of god as the in-itself.
— Joshs

You'd have to demonstrate that for anybody else to accept it. — flannel jesus

What Joseph Rouse says about science I think also applies to purportedly non-religious accounts of the good.

I also think a more basic trace of a theological conception remains in many philosophical accounts of science and nature. A theological conception of God as creator places God outside of nature. God's understanding of nature is also external to the world. Such a God could understand his language and his thoughts about the world, apart from any interaction with the world. Naturalists long ago removed God from scientific conceptions of the world. Yet many naturalists still implicitly understand science as aiming to take God's place. They interpret science as trying to represent nature from a standpoint outside of nature. The language in which science represents the world could then be understood apart from the causal interactions it articulates.

wonderer1

This original post brings a certain mild misery to me, to be stirring up mischief through slave morality is cute, but altogether misguided. — Vaskane

Ya know how autistic people tend to focus narrowly on one thing...

Tom Storm

”Spend some effort to find what misery you spread and then try to lessen it.”
– The commandment — mentos987

I can see the appeal in this and I find this frame interesting.

Do unto ‘others’ only applies to others who are like you in certain key respects that pertain to their humanity. — 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.'

Lionino

For instance, ‘if I were a homosexual, I would want you to treat me as abnormal’ — Joshs

You are not a homossexual
You don't want people to treat you as abnormal

180 Proof

This is a thought challenge where I try to form the perfect commandment for anyone that isn't religious. — mentos987

Welcome to the forum! :up:

IMO, no one yet, secular or religious, has improved on ...

That which is hateful¹ to you, do not do to anyone. — Hillel the Elder, first century BCE

i.e. harmful¹

mentos987

Hi all.

in formulating an idea of the good that is universalizable. This requires a kind of faith in goodness, the same faith that underlies godliness. — 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.

How does our heart direct us to the good without itself being directed by something universal? — Joshs

I should maybe reword this. With "follow your heart" I mean more like "follow your feelings" rather than "be good".

Huh, funny how Misery is often paired with Happiness, depending on the outcome of a venture it could be either or. So to reduce your output of possibly making people miserable can affect you risking positive gains. — Vaskane

True, the commandment could make people more cautious, which could lead to a shorter range of extreme emotions overall.

Some peoples appearance/hygiene standards are enough to bring misery and disgust to a person. What are they to do? Butcher themselves under the knife to look like Kim Kardashian? — 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 needn’t 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.

That which is hateful¹ to you, do not do to anyone. — Hillel the Elder, first century BCE — 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.

Joshs

↪180 Proof

IMO, no one yet, secular or religious, has improved on ...
That which is hateful¹ [harmful] to you, do not do to anyone.
— Hillel the Elder, first century BCE — 180 Proof

Shouldn’t 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’. Doesn’t 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 one’s 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.

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. — mentos987

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).

Shouldn’t that be changed to UNJUSTLY hateful or harmful? Isnt hate just a strong version of blame? — 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.

Joshs

↪180 Proof

: in most instances it is, in fact, more hateful/harmful to victims not to "imprison criminals" than it is to do so. — 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.Hillel’s admonition leaves out the crucial question of how to ground determinations of justice and injustice.

mentos987

But I agree about there being a threshold ...however this shows there are always caveats to commandments, always some time when it's acceptable to break and thus it will be wildly interpreted by the vast diversity of humanity. Already fragmenting the commandment into gradations there of that pervert it. — Vaskane

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.

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. — 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.

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. — 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.

180 Proof

↪Joshs

I can't follow you.

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. — 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.

Joshs

↪180 Proof

↪Joshs I can't follow you — 180 Proof

The worst atrocities in history were committed by those who believed they were morally righteous. Technically, they were following Hillel’s admonition, because ‘doing no harm’ offers no way to distinguish who is really acting justly from those who just believe they are acting justly.

180 Proof

↪Joshs

Can you distinguish between politics (or jurisprudence) and ethics, Joshs? Hillel's principle, as I call it, concerns moral encounters with others (M. Buber, H. Arendt, P. Foot), not some instrumental, or ideological, calculus.

mentos987

That which is hateful¹ [harmful] to you, do not do to anyone. — 180 Proof

Likewise, it is hateful [harmful] to be imprisoned except as the only way to (temporarily) prevent me from continue doing to others what is hateful [harmful] to them/me. — 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.

Literalism is the death of reasoning and judgment. — 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.

Joshs

↪180 Proof

↪Joshs Can you distinguish between politics (or jurisprudence) and ethics, Joshs? Hillel's principle, as I call it, concerns moral encounters with others (M. Buber, H. Arendt, P. Foot), not some instrumental, or ideological, calculus. — 180 Proof

I don’t 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 doesn’t this problem make all ethical questions inherently political?

180 Proof

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. — mentos987

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 ...

religious commandments

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".

↪Joshs

If you say so ...

Joshs

↪180 Proof

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.
— mentos987
So what? Most criminals 'believe' they are not guilty of their crimes. — 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 doesn’t magically turn labels like crime , murder, harm and hate into universally transparent meanings.

mentos987

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 ... — 180 Proof

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 isn’t very good. And if a five year old can find logical flaws in the commandment then it isn’t very good either.

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". — 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.

Religious commandments are a cornerstone of civilization and we need them or something like them. — mentos987

mentos987

Merry Christmas! And thank you all for the feedback. I have updated the Commandment with the following text:

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.

180 Proof

↪mentos987

:death: :flower:

A naturalistic, twenty-first century formulation of 'Hillel's principle':

Whatever is harmful to your species, by action or inaction do not do to the harmless.

:sparkle: Merry Solstice & Reason's Greetings :sparkle:

Leontiskos

This is a thought challenge where I try to form the perfect commandment for anyone that isn't religious. — mentos987

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.

Hanover

↪mentos987

Some quibbles.

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

Tom Storm

Hillel’s admonition leaves out the crucial question of how to ground determinations of justice and injustice. — Joshs

Bully for Hillel for being a non-relativist, but this doesn’t magically turn labels like crime , murder, harm and hate into universally transparent meanings. — 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?

Commandment of the Agnostic

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions