This is a thought challenge where I try to form the perfect commandment for anyone that isn't religious. — mentos987
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
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
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
it assumes a universal ground or standard, the good in and for itself. — Joshs
This conception comes straight from the definition of god as the in-itself. — Joshs
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
• 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
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
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.
”Spend some effort to find what misery you spread and then try to lessen it.”
– The commandment — mentos987
Do unto ‘others’ only applies to others who are like you in certain key respects that pertain to their humanity. — Joshs
Welcome to the forum! :up:This is a thought challenge where I try to form the perfect commandment for anyone that isn't religious. — mentos987
That which is hateful¹ to you, do not do to anyone. — Hillel the Elder, first century BCE
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.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 should maybe reword this. With "follow your heart" I mean more like "follow your feelings" rather than "be good".How does our heart direct us to the good without itself being directed by something universal? — Joshs
True, the commandment could make people more cautious, which could lead to a shorter range of extreme emotions overall.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
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.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
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.That which is hateful¹ to you, do not do to anyone. — Hillel the Elder, first century BCE — 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
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.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
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.Shouldn’t that be changed to UNJUSTLY hateful or harmful? Isnt hate just a strong version of blame? — Joshs
: in most instances it is, in fact, more hateful/harmful to victims not to "imprison criminals" than it is to do so. — 180 Proof
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.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
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.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
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.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
Literalism is the death of reasoning and judgment.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
↪Joshs I can't follow you — 180 Proof
That which is hateful¹ [harmful] to you, do not do to anyone. — 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.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
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.Literalism is the death of reasoning and judgment. — 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
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 ...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
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".religious commandments
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
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.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
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.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
Religious commandments are a cornerstone of civilization and we need them or something like them. — mentos987
Whatever is harmful to your species, by action or inaction do not do to the harmless.
This is a thought challenge where I try to form the perfect commandment for anyone that isn't religious. — mentos987
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.