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

I would throw out the notion of immorality as bad intent, and along with it justice as blame and culpability. In place of principles to assess moral blame, I would focus on techniques and strategies of exploring, refining and clarifying workable ways of making sense of and relating to others. How do we know when our social sense making is failing us? Affectivities such as guilt, anger, anxiety and threat define the contours of the disintegration of permeable ways of anticipating the actions of others and oneself.

In a paper on George Kelly’s ethical model, I wrote:

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.

Thanks, I'll look into this futher. It's challenging stuff.

Hi all.

To offer a criticism: why do you think your commandment is perfect? — Leontiskos

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.

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

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.

Strict four corners literalism is a modern invention. — 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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

What i would say you have arrived at is a variation in the Christian concept of love — Hanover

They may be right, but I don't see it written out in any way that I would consider a near perfect commandment.

Again, thanks for the feedback. Feel free to come at me with more teeth.

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

Your assumption is wrong.

Figurative interpretations has been accepted since ancient times:

https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-was-the-genesis-account-of-creation-interpreted-before-darwin

Additionally:

"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]"

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_literalism

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.

History is whatever it is, regardless of whether it follows what you think should have logically flowed. That you just keep saying what you think instead of looking at the research indicates you're not interested in taking your post seriously.

Your assumption is wrong.

Figurative interpretations has been accepted since ancient times: — Hanover

I didn't say the where not, only that a shift has happened towards increased figurative interpretation.

"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

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.

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

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.

But, none of this matters much for the objective here. The important thing is that figurative interpretations allows for confusion, corruption and less simplicity. So I do think that a good commandment needs to be able to stand on its own without any figurative crutches.

I couldn't care any less about religion. I'm just saying your analysis is wrong, largely because you think you can determine history by just figuring out what you think likely happened instead of looking at what is documented.

You don't figure out who won the Revolutionary War by thinking about it. You look up what happened.

you can determine history by just figuring out what you think likely happened instead of looking at what is documented. — 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?

I don't need to research this, because I see it. It still happens to this day:

“Evolution in nature is not in contrast with the notion of divine creation because evolution requires the creation of the beings that evolve,” -- Pope Francis

This is one of his many statements done in order to align the Catholic Church with modern science.

You don't figure out who won the Revolutionary War by thinking about it. You look up what happened. — 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.

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

What I claim is that the research shows the literalist tradition you reference is a modern invention and the way the ancient users of the biblical text is not as you've said.

You can read the articles or not, but your general opinions are no better than the information they are based upon, and that information is in fact very limited.

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

And there might be more to learn about the war than looking at the flag.

What I claim is that the research shows the literalist tradition you reference is a modern invention — Hanover

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).

But, whether of not the religious texts were meant to be figurative from the start still does not matter for the OP. If they were meant to be 100% figurative from the start then it only makes them worse. The problem remains.

And there might be more to learn about the war than looking at the flag. — 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.

Figurative interpretations has been accepted since ancient times:

https://biologos.org/common-questions/how-was-the-genesis-account-of-creation-interpreted-before-darwin — Hanover

Sure, there have always been some intellectuals who attained figurative views. However consider this Augustine quote:

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.

This quote doesn't make much sense except there having been a context where Augustine was under the impression that there were an embarrassing number of Christians who aren't such critical thinkers.

So the evidence presented by Biologos itself, provides evidence of literalists going way back in history.
Does it really make sense to jump to a simplistic conclusion, about the thinking of religious people historically, on the basis of the views of a few intellectuals?

Augustine, obviously a Catholic, was of the tradition of a specific heiracrchy having special authority to interpret scripture and understand its meaning. Those who held otherwise were a threat to that concept.

And so what followed was the Protestant revolution, which did in fact challenge that tenant, specifically holding that the common man had the authority to interpret and understand the Bible without an intervening human authority (like a priest or the Pope)..

https://theconversation.com/on-the-reformations-500th-anniversary-remembering-martin-luthers-contribution-to-literacy-77540#:~:text=Luther%20argued%20that%20ordinary%20people,God%20speak%20read%20Holy%20Scripture.%E2%80%9D

This authority to interpret required that greater numbers be literate and that the Bible itself be available for publication. None of this requres that the interpretative scheme be a four corners literalism, but it would allow just as well for metaphorical interpretations depending upon the intellect of the reader.

The question of when the brand of Christian fundamentalism we all know about today arose isn't debatable. It's just a matter of historical record. It is true it is a reactionary position, where inerrancy of text and simplistic, literal meanings are accepted in response to perceived threats by science eliminating the need for religion, but it is not true that this system existed since the time the ancient Hebrews first got hold of the consolidated Bible we now recognize.

This article pretty clearly sets out the history: https://www.britannica.com/topic/Christian-fundamentalism

That is, the thesis that the world accepted a literal translation of the Bible up through modern times until science began posing threats to it, and then that resulted in people loosening the literalism of the interpretation is not what happened.

What happened was that religion was relied upon for all sorts of answers and the people who read and interpreted the Bible were highly creative (as in extremely creative) in using the Bible, passed down traditions, other writings, prevailing contemporary philosophies, logical reasoning, and whatever else they had available in figuring out how to run their worlds. As secularized views began to prevail, a particular reactionary branch of Christianity emerged that began demanding simplisitic literalism where any Tom, Dick, or Harry could read the words on the page and fully know that it meant only exactly what those words said.

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. That might be the narrative they would like to advance in order to appear most authhetic, but it's just not the case. They are a modern reactionary group that presents a very limited and simplistic view of the Bible.

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

Well of course societies have continually evolved, and the form literalist Christianity has taken has varied. Are you sure there is anyone here making this mistake?

Do you think it is possible to formulate any general principles that can be used to assess actions? — Tom Storm

A few days ago I offered this (ignored by @Joshs & @mentos987) ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/864587

Thoughts?

ignored by Joshs & @mentos987 — 180 Proof

Sorry, I lost track.

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

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.

Fairly good, but following it literally would be difficult and it would therefore suffer all the figurative drawbacks I wanted to avoid.

Whatever is harmful to your species, by action or inaction do not do to the harmless. — 180 Proof

I like the idea of being able to crystallise moral thinking in the way you have done. I'm not sure about the 'do not do to the harmless' part of this principle. Does this mean you can do what you want to those who are harmful?

Hillel's original formulation works fine for me as a personal code. I see Josh's point about its potential failings, but it's not a perfect world. I'm not convinced that people will look at Hillel's maxim and take from it that genocide or stealing is permissible. And the kinds of folk who do wish to support such actions are probably not amenable to any principles. And yes, I make judgements about the behaviours of others and sure, these come from my own imperfect understanding of the world.

Are these sorts of maxims ultimately just variations on, 'Do not cause suffering?'

Are these sorts of maxims ultimately just variations on, 'Do not cause suffering?' — Tom Storm

More or less – I'd put it: 'Prevent or relieve more suffering than you cause'.

... following it literally would be difficult... — mentos987

As I've already pointed out ...

Literalism is the death of reasoning and judgment. — 180 Proof

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.

It probably doesn't handle animal cruelty very well. — mentos987

Insofar as an animal is harmless – is not causing or threatening harm or has not caused harm – "cruelty" towards that animal is clearly proscribed.

More or less – I'd put it: 'Prevent or relieve more suffering than you cause'. — 180 Proof

Nice. I might co-opt this one.

As I've already pointed out ...
Literalism is the death of reasoning and judgment. — 180 Proof

The role of judgement in this seems critical. I have been mulling over this for some time. In work I sometimes have to make fast decisions around a person's care. Sometimes a colleague will ask me what policy I followed. I tend to answer that I used my 'practice judgement'. Of course, my intuitions here are merely part of a web of intersubjective practices that most in my field would employ, so I can't claim innovation or any paradigm shifts. Someone from another area might form entirely different intuitions. Which goes to @joshs point.

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

One of the areas in which I have done insufficient thinking is that of the 'harmful'. I have asked for my team to not practice retribution or punishment in their approach to violent or aggressive clients. We understand that such behaviors make sense to people and that in a subculture where violence is the norm (on the streets, prison, etc) we must make some form of allowances. While we can exclude people for violence and aggression for a period of time (our cultural expectations), I generally hope we avoid a blame or punishment ethos to consequences.

Literalism is the death of reasoning and judgment. — 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.

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

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.

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

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.

I don't find any of your objections or commentary substantive so I won't respond any further to you on this topic. Good luck with your inquiry.

One of the areas in which I have done insufficient thinking is that of the 'harmful'. — Tom Storm

Maybe the following helps ...

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.

Thoughts?

Yes, you put it that way and there's a much more substantive, purposeful and, shall we say, 'objective' dimension to it.

commandment for anyone that isn't religious — mentos987

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.

The OP thought-experiment mentions "commandment" for nonreligious persons. Nothing I've said here has any whiff of "divine command theory". — 180 Proof

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.

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

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.

To begin with, iIf something is a "commandment", who is the one doing the commanding, to whom, under threat of what penalty?

Do you still want to go with "commandment", or would something like "motto" be better for your purposes?

Are these sorts of maxims ultimately just variations on, 'Do not cause suffering?' — Tom Storm

Or, to quote you, "Don't be a cunt."

It's just that for Harry, Dick is a cunt, and for Dick, Harry is a cunt, and neither of them think of themselves as cunts. Now what?

who is the one doing the commanding — baker

No one, it would be a shared belief and at most you would be pressured by your peers to follow it.

under threat of what penalty — 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".

something like "motto" be better — 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.

More or less – I'd put it: 'Prevent or relieve more suffering than you cause'. — 180 Proof

How do you propose to measure this?

Are we to simply presume that what these terms stand for is transparently obvious to everyone? — Joshs

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").

Isnt the problem of interpretation the central issue of ethics? And doesn’t this problem make all ethical questions inherently political?

Yes and yes, I agree.
There are many issues here. To begin with, how do we account for the fact that different people have different ideas about what counts as "good"? Should those who think differently than oneself simply be written off as "morally or cognitively defective"?

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. — baker

Well, I focus on misery and I do define it.

“misery” define misery please. — mentos987

Should those who think differently than oneself simply be written off as "morally or cognitively defective"? — baker

The commandment would be a way to be good, not the way.