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? — Tom Storm
If it is the case that Kelly has no use for constructs like blame and forgiveness, what is left of the notion of ethics for Kelly? Whether it is the person striving to realign their role with respect to a social milieu that they have become estranged from (Kelly’s unorthodox definition of ‘sin’), or members of a community concerned about the effects of a particular person's behavior on those around them, Kelly's view of ethics provides a pathway around hostility and blameful finger-pointing. We can strive for an ethics of responsibility without succumbing to a moralism of culpability. To the extent that we can talk about an ethical progress in the understanding of good and ‘evil’ from the vantage of Kelly's system, this is not a matter of the arrival at a set of principles assigning culpability, but , from the point of view of the ‘sinner', of the gradual creation of a robust and permeable structure of social anticipations that increasingly effectively resists the invalidation of guilt. Kelly's ‘ethical strategy' to deal with one's own sin, then, is social experimentation in order to achieve a validated social role, which is not at all about conformity to social norms, but making others’ actions more intelligible.
I do not think it is perfect at all. The challenge is to get it as close to perfect at possible, I said nothing of having achieved this ^^. Perfection in this case would be the perfect word combination in English that achieves the purpose that I mentioned in the OP.To offer a criticism: why do you think your commandment is perfect? — Leontiskos
I am pretty sure the creation tale was only recently (100 years ago) accepted to be a figurative interpretation after science established that the 7 days of creation did not add up. There are many more examples like this so the trend is clearly going from literal towards figurative interpretations.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. — Hanover
No, literalism has always been the basis in communication. Figurative meanings are added later. How could you possible instruct anyone in anything technical if your meaning isn't literal? And religious texts contains a fair bit of laws and examples that where clearly meant to be literal.Strict four corners literalism is a modern invention. — Hanover
The bible translation that most did follow during our world wars clearly states "kill", and the meaning of "kill" is clear. If the religious leaders thought that "murder" was more correct then they would change the wording.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. — Hanover
There are 10 main ones, for Jews and Muslims as well. The others you mention I haven't even heard of, nor have most people. So I can confidently say that they are less relevant to the purpose stated in OP.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, — Hanover
I am out to replace the none-religious parts of the main commandments, just the main essence of the best ones, a cornerstone to rest a great civilization upon. All the other commandments you are talking about should stem from the main ones.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. — Hanover
They may be right, but I don't see it written out in any way that I would consider a near perfect commandment.What i would say you have arrived at is a variation in the Christian concept of love — Hanover
I am pretty sure the creation tale was only recently (100 years ago) accepted to be a figurative interpretation after science established that the 7 days of creation did not add up. There are many more examples like this so the trend is clearly going from literal towards figurative interpretations. — mentos987
I didn't say the where not, only that a shift has happened towards increased figurative interpretation.Your assumption is wrong.
Figurative interpretations has been accepted since ancient times: — Hanover
Do you think that the church didn't have trouble with having to adjust to science before this? I do think that Davinci would disagree, since back in his days the church would hunt you down and torture you to death if you were deemed too heretical. And yet the church had to change their standpoints when the evidence against them became overwhelming."Biblical literalism first became an issue in the 18th century,[18] enough so for Diderot to mention it in his Encyclopédie.[19] Karen Armstrong sees "[p]reoccupation with literal truth" as "a product of the scientific revolution".[20]" — Hanover
You sound like you are retroactively trying to save face on behalf of religion. If figurative interpretations were as common back in the day as they are now then you wouldn’t have seen the tensions that the "theory" of evolution brought. Evolution is one of many subjects that the church has had to move towards figurative interpretations in.You need to look at the scholarship and not just surmise that since literal views appear outdated and scientific views current, then history must bear out that figurative views arose as the result of scientific advancement. — Hanover
So you claim that the church hasn't changed its standpoints based on what science has found? Or do you claim that these standpoints merely changed from one figurative interpretation to another equally figurative interpretation?you can determine history by just figuring out what you think likely happened instead of looking at what is documented. — Hanover
I think you can deduce who won that war without opening any history books. Looking at the current flag of the US is a strong indication.You don't figure out who won the Revolutionary War by thinking about it. You look up what happened. — Hanover
So you claim that the church hasn't changed its standpoints based on what science has found? Or do you claim that these standpoints merely changed from one figurative interpretation to another equally figurative interpretation — mentos987
think you can deduce who won that war without opening any history books. Looking at the current flag of the US is a strong indication. — mentos987
I believe that fundamentalism is more of a resurgence of literalism. And I claim that when anyone reads any statement their first interpretation will usually be literal. "I created it in 7 days" (It took me a week’s worth of time to craft something) "He created it in his image" (He crafted something to look like him).What I claim is that the research shows the literalist tradition you reference is a modern invention — Hanover
You can always do deeper research but why would I expend more effort on disproving your statements than I have to. You have made over a half a dozen arguments so far and none of them have been even slightly convincing to me.And there might be more to learn about the war than looking at the flag. — Hanover
Figurative interpretations has been accepted since ancient times:
https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-was-the-genesis-account-of-creation-interpreted-before-darwin — Hanover
Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn. The shame is not so much that an ignorant individual is derided, but that people outside the household of faith think our sacred writers held such opinions, and, to the great loss of those for whose salvation we toil, the writers of our Scripture are criticized and rejected as unlearned men.
Where the mistake is made is in thinking that these Christian Fundamentalists are comprised of the true primitive Christians, truly as they began and have existed for thousands of years. — Hanover
A few days ago I offered this (ignored by @Joshs & @mentos987) ...Do you think it is possible to formulate any general principles that can be used to assess actions? — Tom Storm
Sorry, I lost track.ignored by Joshs & @mentos987 — 180 Proof
I like it, but I do not love it: "harmful to your species" would need defining -- "or inaction" I don’t think people should be forced to act -- "to the harmless" I like that it leaves room to deal with "harm". -- "to your species" It probably doesn't handle animal cruelty very well. -- And 0% harm is hard to achieve, probably impossible.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. — 180 Proof
Whatever is harmful to your species, by action or inaction do not do to the harmless. — 180 Proof
More or less – I'd put it: 'Prevent or relieve more suffering than you cause'.Are these sorts of maxims ultimately just variations on, 'Do not cause suffering?' — Tom Storm
As I've already pointed out ...... following it literally would be difficult... — mentos987
To follow any rule, the context in which it is applied needs to be interpreted – adapted to – in order for the rule to be effective; therefore, "following it literally" is myopic and usually counter-productive.Literalism is the death of reasoning and judgment. — 180 Proof
Insofar as an animal is harmless – is not causing or threatening harm or has not caused harm – "cruelty" towards that animal is clearly proscribed.It probably doesn't handle animal cruelty very well. — mentos987
More or less – I'd put it: 'Prevent or relieve more suffering than you cause'. — 180 Proof
As I've already pointed out ...
Literalism is the death of reasoning and judgment. — 180 Proof
Insofar as an animal is harmless – is not causing or threatening harm or has not caused harm – "cruelty" towards that animal is clearly proscribed. — 180 Proof
I consider this to be nothing but fluff. There are pros and cons to everything. The upsides to figurative wording are that it allows for a greater range of meanings and that it is often more thought provoking. The downside is that "thought provoking" can be hard to grasp and that the greater range of meanings means that the intended meaning can be lost.Literalism is the death of reasoning and judgment. — 180 Proof
There is a range of rigidness. You get the best results if you can achieve the highest effect while still maintaining little room for slack. Many rules/laws are rigid and need not ever be adapted to new circumstances, such as laws of science. But even judicial law can be rather rigid in some areas.To follow any rule, the context in which it is applied needs to be interpreted – adapted to – in order for the rule to be effective; therefore, "following it literally" is myopic and usually counter-productive. — 180 Proof
Well, you did write that it was for our own species. To be clear, I do not think this is an issue, your commandment need not cover everything.Insofar as an animal is harmless – is not causing or threatening harm or has not caused harm – "cruelty" towards that animal is clearly proscribed. — 180 Proof
Maybe the following helps ...One of the areas in which I have done insufficient thinking is that of the 'harmful'. — Tom Storm
For me, harmful denotes causing or increasing harm and harm denotes (bodily / emotional) impairment-to-disability via deprivation, injury, terror, betrayal, bereavement, loss of agency, etc the vulnerabilities to which are usually specific to each natural species; and in this regard, we can know exactly what harms all h. sapiens – what all h. sapiens avoid by reflex (à la conatus ~Spinoza) – as moral facts, or reasons (to cultivate habits) to help¹ prevent or reduce harm to every harmless – not causing or threatening harm or has not caused harm – individual; therefore we (can) know what each one of us ought (i.e. conatus + moral reasons) to do¹ and we (can) observe, all things being equal, whether one does it or one does not do it.
Of course it does. Your system of morality is structurally the same as a religious one, except that in your case, it isn't a god sitting at the top. But you operate from the same assumptions of objectivity and universality of morality as religion does.The OP thought-experiment mentions "commandment" for nonreligious persons. Nothing I've said here has any whiff of "divine command theory". — 180 Proof
Morality and ethics are hardly exclusive to religion. A commandment is, in essence, a command that you adhere to throughout your entire life. This particular commandment assumes that you already want to "be good" and that you are willing to listen to suggestions on how to go about that. Please elaborate on the problem you see.Commandments in terms of morality/ethics only make sense within religion. Outside of religion, the very concept of a commandment (in terms of morality/ethics) is unintelligible. — baker
No one, it would be a shared belief and at most you would be pressured by your peers to follow it.who is the one doing the commanding — baker
None, except by any laws/norms that would be built upon it. I'd say our laws already do push us towards "being good".under threat of what penalty — baker
This may be true, I'd say the difference between a motto and a commandment is the scale of it and the heavier weight of the commandment.something like "motto" be better — baker
It seems the OP and several other posters here take for granted that the meaning of hate/harm (as well as goodness, evil, etc.) _should_ be transparently obvious to everyone. And that if a particular person doesn't think/feel the way they do, then the fault is with that person (ie. said person is "morally or cognitively defective").Are we to simply presume that what these terms stand for is transparently obvious to everyone? — Joshs
Yes and yes, I agree.Isnt the problem of interpretation the central issue of ethics? And doesn’t this problem make all ethical questions inherently political?
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.