Initial assumptions are supposed to be ''obvious'' truths that need no arguments to prove. — TheMadFool

The reason why you cannot prove premises within the formal system is because it would merely lead to infinite regress. Furthermore, as far as I am concerned, expecting premises to be "obvious" is unreasonable. There is no such requirement. There are lots of interesting formal systems of which the axioms are not obvious at all.

Take for example the SKI combinator calculus. It has three basic rules that define S, K, and I:

(1) Ix = x
(2) Kxy = x
(3) Sxyz = xz(yz)

What exactly would there be obvious about the axioms of the SKI combinator calculus?

Still, the SKI system is a very interesting and even intriguing formal system of logic. I would never reject it on grounds that its axioms are not "obvious". That very liberal view is, in fact, the core of the formalist philosophy in mathematics:

Formalism holds that mathematical statements may be thought of as statements about the consequences of certain string manipulation rules. According to formalism, mathematical truths are not about numbers and sets and triangles and the like—in fact, they are not "about" anything at all. Formalists, such as Rudolf Carnap, Alfred Tarski, and Haskell Curry, considered mathematics to be the investigation of formal axiom systems. Formalists are relatively tolerant and inviting to new approaches to logic, non-standard number systems, new set theories etc. The more games we study, the better. Formalism is thus silent on the question of which axiom systems ought to be studied, as none is more meaningful than another from a formalistic point of view. — Wikipedia on formalism

When talking about moral belief systems, the difference between religion and atheism is not that I would prefer the premises of the one or the of the other. That would be more like choosing between Christianity and Islam.

The problem with atheism is that it does not have any premises at all.

Formalism does not allow for that.

You may pick any arbitrary set of premises and start reasoning from there. However, if you refuse to pick premises, then you are not creating a formal system, and then you have adopted a position from which you cannot conclude anything at all.

Formalism is very, very open minded, but atheism fails to comply with even the very few and very liberal rules of the formalist view on logic.

But given the state of our planet, with overconsumption of resources especially our food, and we are limited in our abilities to manufacture it on our farms, combined with climate change, too many children is God's curse on us and he delights in our suffering! — Michael Lee

If you do not want children, then in that case, do not make any. That's your own choice, isn't it? Furthermore, I also believe that people who do not want children, should not make any.

For believers, unlike for unbelievers, it is a bit different, because God wants us to make children. So, that is why we want to make children. Furthermore, I also believe that people who want to have children, should simply make them; and that is obviously what the believers are doing.

I think that this schema clearly explains what is going on. Problem solved.

Sure, possible. Ethics by the numbers. Hmm. Scriptural. Which one? And haven't you heard, both Islam and Christianity are down on sexual deviance, including women's rights. — tim wood

For the one or the other totally incomprehensible reason, there are western people who are totally deluded to believe that their take on women's rights would be universal. That is a complete delusion and even a dangerous one.

We totally disagree on that subject, and it is not even negotiable. In fact, even in the West there are entire popular movements, such as the red-pill philosophy who beg to disagree on the subject. Youtube is full of videos on why and how they disagree.

Another consideration: ethics is essentially creative, a reaction to the now. A data base isn't. A analogy of sorts: Imagine it was decided that humanity had no need of any numbers not already identified. That's a lot of numbers. — tim wood

The database of mathematics also keeps growing.

So how big is the historical corpus of mathematics? There’ve probably been about 3 million mathematical papers published altogether—or about 100 million pages, growing at a rate of about 2 million pages per year. And in all of these papers, perhaps 5 million distinct theorems have been formally stated. — Stephen Wolfram, Computational Knowledge and the Future of Pure Mathematics

Each theorem is a number and each proof is an associated number. So, yes, that is a lot of numbers, (theorem,proof) tuples actually. Many undiscovered numbers are undoubtedly uninteresting.

Interestingness. Of course, the general problem of ranking “what’s interesting” comes up all over Wolfram|Alpha. — Stephen Wolfram, Computational Knowledge and the Future of Pure Mathematics

Unfortunately, in his article, Stephen Wolfram does not really make progress in explaining how to distinguish between "interesting" and "uninteresting". He merely acknowledges the problem.

Certainly many known numbers would suffice for many things, just as many sets of ethics could cover many situations. Do you think something like that is a good idea? — tim wood

I see the solution as a growing databases similar to the collection of theorems on number theory or set theory. In the case of morality, it would be rulings within a database of Jewish law or one with rulings within Islamic law, stored with verifiable proofs from scripture. The problem is that they need to be encoded in the database's formal language. That is relatively hard and also a lot of work.

Stephen Wolfram advocates doing that for the existing corpus of mathematics:

What would unquestionably be worthwhile, however, is to put the theorems into a genuine computable form: to actually take theorems from papers and rewrite them in a precise symbolic language.

Will it be possible to do this automatically? Eventually I suspect large parts of it will. Today we can take small fragments of theorems from papers and use the linguistic understanding system built for Wolfram|Alpha to turn them into pieces of Wolfram Language code. But it should gradually be possible to extend this to larger fragments—and eventually get to the point where it takes, at most, modest human effort to convert a typical theorem to precise symbolic form. — Stephen Wolfram, Computational Knowledge and the Future of Pure Mathematics

I personally do not believe that it can be done automatically, not even just "large parts". He also exaggerates the ability of Wolfram|Alpha to encode natural language into formal language. In my opinion, it won't require "at most, modest human effort". I think that it will be an enormous amount of work to do that.

Still, I do agree that it will be worthwhile. The most important reason why nobody is currently working on a curated corpus of mathematics, is because the corporate academic-publishing oligarchy has hijacked many of the copyrights on mathematical publications.

Does this apply to religions as well? I guess it must because most religions are nothing more than money making corporations. — Sir2u

I agree for organized clergy. They are as much under control of the corporate oligarchy as for example doctors. So, yes, beware of mouthpieces of the powers that be.

I agree, but that is about the religion, the church, not about the people. Just like every other religion there are good and bad people in it. As a muslim you should understand that the bad part of the religion is the one that out shines all of the good that exists in it. — Sir2u

The scriptures are excellent foundations for a system of morality. This is certainly the case for Abrahamic religions. I was absolutely not criticizing Jewish (or Islamic) law when criticizing organized clergy. On the contrary, I consider any conclusion that syntactically entails from the scriptures to be legitimate.

Why do I or my kids need a religion to tell me what are lies and what is truth? — Sir2u

Modern society is very much at odds with religion. It advocates behaviour that is contrary to religion. If modern society says one thing and religion says another on the morality of behaviour, then you can safely assume that religion is right while modern society is depraved, wrong, and even dangerous.

All institutions of modern society are now totally corrupt: public-school indoctrination camp, mass media, politics, medicine, organized clergy, workplaces, corporations, and so on. They all advocate horrible depravities. They cannot be trusted in any way.

In my opinion, concerning morality, all other sources besides religious scriptures are entirely corrupt and depraved. So, yes, amidst this cesspool of corruption, you need the scriptures as a reminder about the truth on morality.

A restatement of P v. NP. But I wonder if this is really an NP (or worse - probably much worse) problem. For example, ethical problems are often (usually? always?) contextual, even personal, problems. That is, right for the situation/right for the person. How can a computer handle that, being itself neither contextual nor a person? — tim wood

If you look at a practical example of a formal system for morality, it seems to be possible to generally answer a good number of questions, e.g. https://islamqa.info in morality.

The answers are produced as syntactic entailments from scripture.

In my opinion, it should be possible to mechanically verify a syntactic entailment using a proof assistant such as Coq or Isabelle. The difficulty consists in encoding the scriptural base as well as the advisories in the tool's formal language.

Hence, this kind of project would consist in going through the existing database of advisories and re-encode them. That is a lot of work but I think it should be possible.

If I guess wrong and choose the wrong religion, then after I die? Really, really bad stuff will happen to me. — EricH

I suspect that you may be seeing too much in that.

If you refrain from the kaba’ir (major sins) you have been prohibited from, We will expiate your sayyi’aat (minor sins) and allow you entry into Jannah (Paradise). — Quran, an-Nisaa: 31

In other words, you would need to knowingly do some really bad things to be refused entry into Paradise. With some self-discipline, not even that much, it should be possible to avoid engaging in the absolutely worst behaviour.

It is similar to avoiding the death penalty on earth by not overly misbehaving. How many people end up on death row each year? Not that many either.

Wouldn't an even "higher" option be to do what is right (what we think is right) even though you are not "obligated"? — ZhouBoTong

Islamic law is a "self-obligation", i.e. self-discipline. Nobody in particular told me to start keeping its rules. If I break these rules, I do not expect anybody to show up at my house to blame and shame me. Still, self-discipline gives a lot of satisfaction. It mostly makes you feel better, and in that way, contributes to your happiness. The idea of "fitrah" is that we are naturally predisposed to enjoy keeping Islamic law. Of course, you can only figure that out by trying ...

If Kant views ethics as a logical problem,
and if machines are made to solve logical problems,
then should machines be able to solve ethical problems as logical problems? — logos

A formal system of ethics will have system-wide premises, if only, the axiomatization of logic itself.

Unless you adopt an extreme form of logicism, the axiomatization of logic itself is insufficient to address ethical problems. Therefore, you will need to add the system-wide premises of your ethics in your formal system.

Stephen Wolfram believes that it is possible to discover theorems, i.e. "answer questions", in a formal system by mechanical enumeration. His (simple) example is boolean algebra. I personally do not believe that it will (generally) be possible. For example, it took 350+ years to discover the proof for Fermat's Last Theorem entailing from the system-wide premises of number theory. I do not believe that a machine would have discovered it.

However, I do believe that mechanical verification of proof within a formal system is attainable. Hence I do not believe that machines will "solve" ethical problems but I do believe that machines can "verify" that a proposed solution is indeed a legitimate solution.

So, in my opinion, machines should be able to verify the solution for ethical problems as logical problems.

Can I choose any religion for me & my children? — EricH

Yes, certainly. It is your choice.

I would like to add: be careful with organized clergy. There is a major difference between asking advice to an independent religious scholar of your choice, who gives you an answer that entails from scripture, versus organized clergy who may manipulate you into adopting society's imperatives, especially, when that society is obviously corrupt. The corporate oligarchy controls pretty much all organized clergy nowadays.

That is why it is worth struggling and fighting to get a good education no matter how difficult things may become. — Sir2u

I guess that the first red pill to take concerning "a good education" is Aaron Clarey's notorious book "Worthless".

Clarey's first book, "Worthless: The Young Person's Indispensable Guide to Choosing the Right Major", is the kind of small, hard-hitting book that jolts a young person away from the present-day swamp of lies. A swamp created by the government, the media, and the higher education establishment. Without exaggeration, this little book could save a young person scores of thousands of dollars and prevent decades of angry misery - the lot of so many young Americans who are un- or underemployed, crushed by debt, and begin their day by wretchedly sending out resumes on various websites. — "

But then again, even high school is a dangerous public-school indoctrination camp. Even if young men may (or may not) manage to find that elusive "well-paid job" after decades of indoctrination, these hereto feminized boys will still have to contend with the prospect of spending their lives as friend-zoned beta orbiters. It is incredible difficult to undo the usually fatherless boy's emasculation -- pretty much equivalent to a physical castration -- that takes place in the education system.

Rollo Tomassi's book The Rational Male is undoubtedly another red pill to take on the subject:

The school will simply castrate your boys.

The meta red pill is to understand that almost everything you believe is a manipulative and deceptive lie that does not serve your own interests but the ones of the corporate oligarchy.

Even the evil, anti-biological, crappy food -- worthless calories -- that you buy from Walmart is purposely designed to make you sick. Without expensive corporate health insurance you are not supposed to survive for too long the onslaught on your body of worthless processed food surreptitiously laced with sickening high-fructose corn syrup.

According to Rollo Tomassi, somehow still a Catholic, it is the Church that has become the worst scam of all:

Church culture is now openly hostile towards any expression of conventional masculinity that doesn’t directly benefit women and actively conditions men to be serviceable, gender-loathing Betas.

The social contract of marriage from a religious perspective has shifted into the ultimate leap of faith for men. They literally risk everything in marriage – child custody, sexual access, any expectation of true, male authority or respect, long-term financial prospects, etc. – but this leap of faith comes with a metaphysical price tag.

For over five generations now, the modern church has become a Beta farm existing only to produce the same masculinity-confused men that the secular world has perfected today.

Either there is nothing for him there or he is despised and denigrated, openly in a faith altering way or discreetly in resentment, or in pandering ridicule of his juvenilized maleness. — Rollo Tomassi in 'Losing My Religion'

Why is your way of saying things better than mine? Why would anyone want to risk their well being on something that has no evidence of existence? — Sir2u

Islam has a tremendously red-pilling effect. It helps you understand that most messages flying around in modern society through school, mass media, church, workplace, and so on, are manipulative and deceptive lies.

The core red-pill message is:

All of society's institutions are now highly corrupt and try to manipulate you with their deceptive lies. If you don't fight back, you will simply start believing these lies and become very unhappy, if these dangerous lies do not kill end up killing you first.

When the shit hits the fan my kids will survive while yours are down on their knees trying to get divine intervention on their behalf. And it won't get them anywhere. — Sir2u

My kids will believe that they can make it out of their predicament. They will have faith. The future looks bright because God takes care of us. That is why their plans will succeed. That is why it is worth struggling and fighting no matter how difficult things may become. Things will work out just fine. Do your part and God will take care of the rest.

Believers have the motivation to deal with setbacks. They know that they can do it, and that is why they can. Praise the Lord!

My parents stuck together when it would have been better for my brother and me if they had gotten divorced. Or not? Who’s to say how things would have turned out? Maybe my dad would have gotten joint custody and been more abusive without my mother with him. Or not. My dad was religious. My mom is not. What does that say? — Noah Te Stroete

With confidence and self-discipline you can overcome the demons of your past. If only you believe that you can, and have faith, you can emerge victorious. All you need to do, is to ask. If you implore and beseech our beloved Master, he will give you. Our Lord is there to guide you. The believer does not need to fear, and that is why the believer does not fear:

Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil, for you are with me; your rod and your staff, they comfort me. — Zabur/Psalms 23:4

he last couple of years (2-3) have been on disability — Wallows

I wonder how many months per year you need to live in the USA so that you can still keep receiving your disability benefits? In fact, the paying government office may not even audit the situation particularly thoroughly. So, maybe if you keep an address in the USA and forward your phone calls, you could possibly spend most of your time in Poland already while still keeping your benefits.

I know people who do that in Europe with their social security retirement benefits. In theory, they have to stay put in the country that pays them, but in practice they still mostly live in the Philippines.

exhausted my options in the US — Wallows

How did you do that?

On second thought, I think, quite honestly, I would have to work there too, ehh. xD — Wallows

Poland seems to have a thriving economy. I wouldn't worry too much about that part.

I am a non believer, and I have no problems reproducing! — Sir2u

Atheism does not affect your immediate capacity to reproduce. It is a longer-term process.

Religion gives both spouses a common moral system. Absence of religion does not mean no moral system but almost surely two different ones. You cannot reasonably expect two atheists to believe the same things. That is the insidious part of it. Atheists do believe things about morality but they may not even know themselves what exactly they believe, especially, given the subtle manipulations from the public-school indoctrination system, the mass media, the commercial advertisements, and so on.

Hence, they more often than not end up with fundamentally incompatible differences, which in turn, more often than not lead to the failure of the relationship. Given the damage to children caused by divorce, the situation in the next generation can only be worse. Someone who grew up in a divorced situation is likely to repeat that pattern. So, things just get worse and worse. At some point, the damage will be so important to children that they will no longer survive into adulthood and will no longer reach a position to try to reproduce by themselves.

The current marriage (and fertility) rates are already at a historical low but not yet at their lowest, which is an error term that will be almost indistinguishable from zero.

For example, the current marriage/fertility rate does not yet reflect the impact of movements such as red pill and mgtow where men simply refuse to engage in any kind of long-term relationship. It also does not reflect that many young men do not even strive to become ready for a role as breadwinner but instead prefer to play video games; and so on. The stable point for that kind of society is marriage/fertility rate that in all terms is practically zero.

As an atheist you may still be able to reproduce but your progeny is pretty much scheduled to die out. So, you are probably just wasting your time.

We eat what we can afford, which isn’t exactly good food. — Noah Te Stroete

As a general rule of thumb, the more expensive the food, the more it has been processed, and therefore, the unhealthier it is. That is why poor people in SE Asia are so healthy. They simply do not have enough money to eat the bad stuff. Three or four days of the week, I eat their kitchen. Fantastic flavours and super healthy.

Even in the USA, if you buy 50-pound bags of rice, potatoes, carrots, and onions, you have most of the food that you need, and it is healthy. Buy some Mediterranean herbs, olive oil, garlic and butter to cook it with the occasional chunk of fish, meat, and/or bell pepper and you have the healthiest meals in the world. The remainder of the week I eat Mediterranean instead of Asian. It's not the ingredients that are so different but the spicing.

Bread and corn are problematic staples because they tend to be overly processed. That is why I avoid them. Still, once in a while I still eat chestnut sourdough bread with French camembert (cheese). That's a bit more expensive (and processed!) but I only do it once a month or every two months.

It's not uncommon for immigrants with a mental illness or mental disorder to be deemed "inadmissible", and barred from entry to the U.S. Countries definitely to ask.

Still, I do not remember them asking that kind of questions in the USA. the last time I flew to the USA, more than a decade ago, they just stamped my passport with a 3-month leave to stay. No questions asked. This otherwise simple procedure may have changed, of course.

In the last countries I flew into, Thailand, Vietnam, Cambodia, Indonesia, Philippines, and Malaysia, they just stamped my passport with the standard duration for visitors (1, 2 or 3 months). I did extend twice in the Philippines at the travel agent, and they didn't ask anything. Just handing over my passport was enough. Same for Vietnam (a visa is needed prior to arrival at the airport). No questions asked there either.

In the free part of the world, visa requirements are relatively simple.

North America, Australia and New Zealand are well known to be exceptions to the standard immigration procedure elsewhere for ordinary visitors. But then again, I am not interested in visiting these places either. These places are not holiday destinations where people go to relax or expect to get lots of value for money. Why would I fly there if I could instead have a good time in, for example, Bali, Indonesia? My condo building looks like a holiday resort, with swimming pool, gym, sauna, and so on, and I pay less for my two-bedroom condo than what people pay for just a room in a shared flat in Seattle.

Most people don’t have the financial means to leave the country, let alone their own state (in the US). — Noah Te Stroete

They have the wrong idea on what it would cost because they have never done it.

People who have never visited other countries, other continents, or other cultures are very, very limited, with the worst limitation being their ignorance on exactly these limitations.

I have a German friend here, whose name is Friedrich, and who spends 7 months in Germany as a security guard, making less than $1000/month, saving up, and then spends the other 5 months here in SE Asia. It works fine for him, even though he probably makes less than someone on the Seattle $15/hour minimum wage flipping burgers at McDonalds.

Americans are poor because they have been manipulated into running up all kinds of debt (credit card, student loans, car loans, mortgages, and so on) for stuff they don't need. The rest they spend on biologically worthless processed food. Someone in Vietnam can happily survive on $200/month but not if he started eating all his food out of cans and boxes in order to get spectacularly obese on worthless calories.

Then there’s the problem of gaining citizenship. — Noah Te Stroete

Why would you need citizenship in any Asian country? Just pay a few hundreds of dollars for your yearly visa fee and be done with it. I don't have and don't even want citizenship from a foreign country. What for?

That’s downright impossible for someone diagnosed with a mental illness. — Noah Te Stroete

For a starters, no immigration officer anywhere in the world has never asked me or anybody else at the border for any such diagnose. It is against a gazillion number of different laws and statutes to circulate that kind of information anyway. However, if you start behaving weirdly, and especially violently, they may refuse access to the territory to you or even deport you later on. Hence, the real question is rather: Can you function normally?

If you regularly have schizophrenic episodes in which you lose your mind, then you could possibly be a danger to society, not just in Asia, but also in your own home country. In that case, it is up to your doctor to advise you to move to an (open) institution or so, where they can keep an eye on your episodes. If you are not a danger to others, then you can freely move around in your own country but also abroad.

Can you provide your thoughts about the specific type of change that would allow those with mental disorders or issues to lead a more fulfilling life? — Wallows

To the extent that unhappiness would be some kind of mental disorder, I think that you can tremendously increase your happiness by moving outside of the West. Well, it certainly worked like a charm for me. I live in SE Asia now, and I cannot imagine ever moving back. Pick any other society, move there, and you will quickly start feeling better.

You will probably still need to make a living but that is actually easier than it looks like, if you make the preparations needed to achieve that.

Seriously, the simplest solution is to abandon ship. It's not worth it anyway. Furthermore, why lead a shitty life if you could also lead a happy one?

The two most important things that religion brings to the life of the believer are in my opinion:

(1) confidence (faith, motivation, optimism, resilience, perseverance, ...)
(2) self-discipline (a formal system of rules that you can try to keep)

The advantages of confidence and self-discipline are manifold. They are core ingredients for attaining any goal in life.

A shared concept of self-discipline is also what allows for better relationships, especially in families, which are the cornerstone of the social fabric of society. You can clearly notice that unbelievers are gradually but surely losing the ability to form families and to reproduce, which is something that the old adage already had predicted : children are a gift from God.

So doing as little as you can possibly get away with is your definition of an utmost humble servant? — Isaac

Yes, since arrogance is the utmost flawed belief in your unlimited capacity to do more.

“[Allah] said, “Descend from Paradise, for it is not for you to be arrogant therein. So get out; indeed, you are of the debased.” — Quran 7:13

Tzedakah is the Hebrew word for charity, and it is mandatory, and it generally agile should be 10% of your income under the tithe rules. That's the Jewish rule. — Hanover

The Torah, i.e. the source of written Jewish law, is considered a holy scripture in Islam, on the same basis as the Injil (Gospel) and the Zabur (Psalms). Even though the specific details of his view may not be generally shared by other Muslims, I believe what Hans Joachim Schoeps writes about the origins of many of the members of the first Islamic congregation:

Hans Joachim Schoeps observes that the Christianity Muhammad was likely to have encountered on the Arabian peninsula "was not the state religion of Byzantium but a schismatic Christianity characterized by Ebionite and Monophysite views."[115] Thus we have a paradox of world-historical proportions, viz., the fact that Jewish Christianity indeed disappeared within the Christian church, but was preserved in Islam and thereby extended some of its basic ideas even to our own day. According to Islamic doctrine, the Ebionite combination of Moses and Jesus found its fulfillment in Muhammad.[116] — Wikipedia on the original 'congregation of the poor'

In this view, the kernel of the Islamic congregation trace their origins back to the congregation of Moses, over the congregation of Jesus, i.e. the 'congregation of the poor', through his successor (and brother) in Jerusalem, James the Just.

In Islam, the mandatory zakaat levy is also 10% on income from agricultural produce. On urban income, the calculation rule is different, and instead, based on wealth accumulation. It is the same principle but a different calculation rule.

So when it comes to question of race and sexual identity, it is easy to say "look at the continuum in between the 'races' and between the 'sexes'". — Gregory

The existence of sexes is considered to be a biological matter related to reproduction:

Organisms of many species are specialized into male and female varieties, each known as a sex.[1][2] Sexual reproduction involves the combining and mixing of genetic traits: specialized cells known as gametes combine to form offspring that inherit traits from each parent. The gametes produced by an organism define its sex: males produce small gametes (e.g. spermatozoa, or sperm, in animals) while females produce large gametes (ova, or egg cells).

One of the basic properties of life is reproduction, the capacity to generate new individuals, and sex is an aspect of this process.

Sexual reproduction in eukaryotes is a process whereby organisms produce offspring that combine genetic traits from both parents. Chromosomes are passed on from one generation to the next in this process. Each cell in the offspring has half the chromosomes of the mother and half of the father.[20]

Many animals and some plants have differences between the male and female sexes in size and appearance, a phenomenon called sexual dimorphism.

Sexual dimorphisms in animals are often associated with sexual selection—the competition between individuals of one sex to mate with the opposite sex.[43] — Wikipedia on the concept of sex

Concerning the existence of exactly two sexes, we are talking about biological functionality and necessity. Deviation from this pattern is most generally simply biologically disfunctional. This is not the case for race. Offspring with grandparents from four different races are not more or less functional than offspring from just one race. Hence, race and sex are very dissimilar subjects.

Do they still do it that way in Malaysia? — frank

Well, how am I supposed to know? It sounds like another long investigation ...

You see, some countries have access to special revenue, such as royalties on mineral rights, or from oil and gas revenue sharing agreements. They may fund free services with that income, as a way to make the general population benefit from it. I was specifically thinking of countries in the Persian Gulf. Malaysia may also have special income to distribute, such as revenue from the Petronas oil company, and other such sources of income.

From there on, you may see that they fund some free services for the entire general population and not just for the poor and needy. As long as they do not fund free services for the general population from mandatory zakaat levies earmarked for only the poor and needy, I think that this could possibly work too. That kind of things need to be investigated on a case-by-case basis.

I asked you why you chose to err on the side of doing as little as you can get away with. — Isaac

Because I can.

I asked you why you do not advise doing more, contrary to the advice of your religion. — Isaac

Because I do not really, actually advise on religion. I am just a user of religious theory. I do not seek to discover new theorems, because the ulema/scholars, specialized as they are in the subject matter, are much more efficient at that job than myself. So, I just tend to reuse their work. In fact, that is the case with almost every subject, except for the minute areas in which I specialize by myself. Furthermore, I have noticed over the years that I dislike teaching. I just do stuff by myself, and leave it to other people to teach on it.

- Every Muslim has to give sadaqah. — Isaac

Agreed.

However, since it was never specified how much exactly should be spent on sadaqah, just one cent also satisfies the obligation. Furthermore, there are certainly situations in which I sympathize with a possible recipient of charity, which makes it a lot easier to give. As far as I am concerned, charity works better in personal interactions.

What's more, as long as the zakaat budget is not exhausted, I will prioritize giving charity out of funds earmarked for zakaat. It is mostly a question of not carrying over negative outstanding zakaat balances to the next fiscal year.

As I have mentioned previously, we have not been burdened with endless obligations to the wider society. I am just an utmost humble servant of our Master, Lord of both worlds, Creator of this universe, and I really do not try to solve all the problems of this world.

So, if any conclusion is premature at this point, why have you opted to err on the side of doing as little as possible for your fellow man? Is that what you take to be the general gist of the Quran? "Do as little as possible for others, keep as much of your own wealth as you can get away with". How many clerics do you think would agree with that summary? — Isaac

Voluntary charity ("sadaqah") is not mandatory. Therefore, according to Islamic law, it is perfectly legitimate to limit one's charitable contribution to mandatory charity only ("zakaat").

It is not me who made the rules.

Do you support universal healthcare? — frank

In this context, I have looked up the following information:

Health as a Human Right in Islam. Responsibility of state. As he passed through Al-Jabiyah, Umar passed by a group of Christians suffering from leprosy. He ordered that they be given a portion of zakat and a food allowance. — Dr M.H. Al-Khayat

Islamic Perspective to Health Care Facility Design, paper presented at UIAWP Public Health, 17-27th July 2002, Berlin, German.

“You shall not attain virtue unless you spend (for the welfare of the poor) from the choicest part of your wealth” (Quran 3:92)

“ O You who believe! Spend (for the poor) from the worthiest part of (the wealth) you have earned and crop-yields, and do not give away from its unworthy parts-such that you yourselves will not take until you examine (its quality) minutely-and know that God is not in your need and all praise belongs to Him” (Quran 2:267)

Hospitals. In Mansuri Hospital, men and women were admitted in separate wards. All races, creed, and sex, age group, single or in groups, foreigners or local citizens, Muslim or non-Muslims, were accepted without any limit to their inpatient stay until they are fully recovered.

The Funding of the Establishment. Islamic hospitals were established in charitable principles, run by the government and financed by the wealthy members of the society as part of their obligatory duties from the Five Pillars of Islam - zakat, and were therefore free. These hospitals were financed from revenues of pious bequests called waqfs. Wealthy men, especially rulers, donate property as endowments (property could consist of shops, mills, caravans era is or even the entire village), whose revenue went toward building and maintaining the institution. The income from this endowment would pay for the maintenance and running costs of the hospital including stipends for patients upon discharge. Part of state budget also went toward the maintenance of hospital. — Norwina Mohd. Nawawi, International Islamic University Malaysia

Historically, the original scriptural interpretation was that the ruler had an obligation to organize hospitals for the poor and/or needy and to make use of the mandatory charity levy ("zakaat") for this purpose. I think that this interpretation is still sound. Health care for the rest of the population, however, should not be funded from the proceeds of mandatory charity ("zakaat").

Still not answering the question then. I'm not going to ask again, I think it's now quite clear to all that you're just using your religion as post hoc justification for your own selfishness. Doesn't surprise me, religion is mostly post hoc justification for something. — Isaac

At the moment, we do not even have a definitive jurisprudential advisory on what exactly entails from the scriptures on this matter. Therefore, any conclusion is obviously premature at this point. You refuse to follow the procedure but at the same time you claim that the procedure fails.

your personal justification for your personal belief, not whatever some cleric has to say. — Isaac

Well, unlike what Stephen Wolfram seems to believe, I do not believe that it is (generally) possible to discover a syntactic entailment from the foundations of a particular formal system merely by mechanical enumeration. If that were possible, I would simply use a mufti program instead of a mufti person in order to discover the answer. In my opinion, the best that will ever be achieved is mechanical verification, while mechanical discovery will remain a pipe dream.

Since it requires extensive training and quite a bit of exposure to the subject to successfully discover a jurisprudential ruling, I am not the right person to ask for that effort.

Such advisory is meant to be an objective statement. Either the ruling necessarily follows from its scriptural foundations or else it doesn't. I do not see what there is to personally believe in that respect. That would simply be too late in the game. Personal belief is more about questions like what scriptural foundations to work from. Once you have picked the scriptures to work from, however, it is no longer a question of personal belief but one of syntactic entailment.

You have presumed that "do good" is covered by "pay money to". — Isaac

Yes, that is how I understood it. I was thinking of unilateral charity payments to the poor and/or needy.

If you're not just making that up off the top of your head, then you should easily be able to point me in the direction of the scripture which has that equivalence written clearly in it. — Isaac

That amounts to scanning the entire scriptural base for any information that could be relevant in this regard. Again, that is rather something that a religious scholar does. I may be moderately familiar with the knowledge database of existing Islamic advisories but I do not do any serious academic work on the subject and certainly not on a regular basis. The enumeration that you seem to be interested in, could even entail the production of a completely advisory. Therefore, as far as I am concerned, it makes much more sense to forward the question to someone who is used to work on jurisprudential advisories.

So where is it written down that a person need do no more than pay their 2.5% alms? You can't support that statement with "I don't know, if you ask a scholar they'll give a ruling". If you don't know, then you're not obtaining your knowledge from a written source are you, you just made it up. — Isaac

There is no endless list of mandatory unilateral contributions to non-kin third parties that rest as a burden on the believer in Islam, if only, because the scripture is not endless. If you want verify the complete enumeration, as I pointed out in an earlier comment, it would be safer to ask a religious scholar ("mufti") for a jurisprudential advisory on the matter.

So you don't even know what the instruction means? How do you know how to treat your neighbours, the needy etc if you don't even know what "do good" means? And why are you advising people on what their obligations are in society when you don't have sufficient expertise, I thought people just making stuff up based on what they reckon was all "systemless bullshit" to you? Is that what you're engaged in now? — Isaac

As you seem to be interested in particular details of Islam, I was simply referring you to religious scholars who will be more than happy to answer your questions. As I wrote before, Islamic law limits unilateral individual obligations to wider society beyond the extended family to a very reasonable burden. Therefore, if you want something from other people you will generally have to compensate them.

I didn't ask you about charity. I asked you about the clear instruction to "do good". Are you saying that the sum total of what the Quran considers covered by all that is "good" is a proportional financial payment? If so, I want to see your scriptural support for that assertion, that "do good" according to the Quran, is synonymous exactly with "pay money to" and nothing more. — Isaac

I am not the right person to ask for an in-depth ḥukm (حُكْم) on jurisprudential matters. A good site to ask for this kind of jurisprudential ruling (according to the hanafi madhhab) is:

http://efiqh.com/ask-a-question-2/

The Sharī‘ah ruling given is based specifically on the question posed and should only be read in conjunction with that question. Due to the number of queries received, please allow a minimum of 10 days for your question to be answered. If there are more than two questions asked or the question requires a detailed research, please allow three to four weeks for your response.

eFiqh.com provides answers to questions relating to Sharī‘ah. These questions and answers are placed for public view on eFiqh.com for educational purposes only. However, many of these answers are unique to a particular scenario and should not be relied on or treated as a basis to establish a ruling in another situation or another environment. eFiqh.com bears no responsibility with regards to these questions and answers being used out of their intended context. Any information relating to a persons identity has been removed. — efiqh.com: Ask for a jurisprudential ruling

There are at least a dozen other popular "online mufti" sites (and hundreds of less popular ones) where you can ask for a jurisprudential advisory.

You must "do good" top parents, relatives — Isaac

These beneficiaries are not the wider society. We obviously and clearly distinguish between people who are kin and other people who are not kin.

orphans, the needy and neighbours — Isaac

That is covered by zakaat and sadaqah.

And that's just the general proscription to non-muslims — Isaac

Charity to non-muslims is covered by sadaqah, and according to some interpretations also by zakaat, but that last part is debatable.

Duties to fellow Muslims are even more strict. — Isaac

No, they are not particularly strict. They are common sense: 59 examples of how the Quran tells Muslims to behave.

Whoever is cruel and hard — Isaac

It is debatable if not being "cruel nor hard" needs to be counted separately as a contribution to society. Furthermore, it is not a one-sided thing. You reciprocate by not being "cruel nor hard" to others because they are not "cruel nor hard" to you.

So where in your scripture does it say that the sum total of all that is encompassed by the terms "do good", and a lack of cruelty, defence of rights, burdens more than they can bear... all that, is covered by a 2.5% alms, and nothing else? — Isaac

You can also give voluntary charity ("sadaqah") in addition to the 2.5% mandatory levy on net capital gains ("zakaat"), but such contribution to the wider society is not mandatory albeit certainly commendable.

I do not believe that the Quran mentions other unconditional contributions to wider society.

While people may surely confer unilateral benefits because of kinship to extended family, all other social arrangements and transactions are naturally of a tit-for-that nature, unless specifically mentioned otherwise, i.e. you do something for me and I do something for you, as agreed.

Seriously, other people do not owe you anything. If they give something to you for free, make sure to gratefully consider that as an exception and not the rule.

I feel not obligation to contribute to society. — Wheatley

In order to get arbitrary people to provide you with goods and services, you will have to pay them with money that you received for providing other arbitrary people with goods and services.

Your participation in that exchange is your main contribution to society. According to Islamic law, you are supposed to distribute 2.5% of your yearly capital gains to the poor and needy. If you are in the designated age range, you may possibly be drafted to defend your community. As far as I know, there is no other obligation to contribute anything else to society.

How do you expect it to be documented? What form would you imagine it taking? Why would it be documented? — Brett

First, there are the first principles of morality. These basic rules allow us to reason from first principles, and discover theorems in the formal system of morality, i.e. the moral theory. These theorems are syntactic entailments that necessarily follow from other theorems or from the first principles.

The enormous advantage of formal systems is that the derivation of their theorems can (conceivably) be verified mechanically. For me, this is very important, because I do not believe in conclusions for which the derivation cannot be verified mechanically.

As a matter of fact, there are no functioning formal systems for morality besides Islamic jurisprudence:

Principles of Islamic jurisprudence, also known as uṣūl al-fiqh (Arabic: أصول الفقه‎, lit. roots of fiqh), are traditional methodological principles used in Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) for deriving the rulings of Islamic law (sharia). — The epistemology of Islamic jurisprudence

Pretty much every alternative for determining morality turns out not to be a formal system and simply does not allow for axiomatic derivation. I really do not need those alternatives, and I completely reject them, because I insist on the possibility of objective, mechanical verification of the theorems' derivation paperwork.

How so? — Brett

Where exactly is modern society's morality documented?

One reason why such society does not want to document it, is because they want to keep changing it as it suits them. The lack of of documentation points to its fundamentally deceptive and manipulative nature.

For example, is a government willing to "risk its life" for its subjects? — Tzeentch

Bureaucracy is a construction by which a person is conveniently separated from the consequences of his or her actions.

If you do not take risks for your opinion, you are nothing. — Nassim Taleb in 'Skin in the Game'

Modern society has decided that revenge is immoral and hinders the function of society. — ZhouBoTong

The Qisas or equivalence verse in Quran is,[1]

O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty.
— Quran 2:178

The Qur'an allows the aggrieved party to receive monetary compensation (blood money, diyya, دية) instead of qisas,[6] or forfeit the right of qiṣāṣ as an act of charity or in atonement for the victim family's past sins.

We ordained therein for them: "Life for life, eye for eye, nose for nose, ear for ear, tooth for tooth, and wounds equal for equal." But if any one remits the retaliation by way of charity, it is an act of atonement for himself. And if any fail to judge by (the light of) what Allah hath revealed, they are (No better than) wrong-doers.
— Quran 5:45 — Wikipedia on the Qisas

I do not particularly care about the undocumented views of so-called "modern society" on the matter, if only, because I do not consider the lack of documentation to be anything to aspire to. The way in which morality works in so-called "modern society" is rather something for an illiterate society. Things become simply too easy when you do not have to supply any form of justification for what you say. Therefore, I reject all undocumented opinions on morality as manipulative and deceptive.

"Revenge" is a very weak concept morally anyway. — ZhouBoTong

That is a very undocumented view on the matter. Everybody and their little sister could say that kind of things, but there is no reason to believe that it properly fits in any serious formal system of morality.

I do not reject your opinion because it would be wrong or right. I reject it because it is clearly undocumented and because it makes no reference to any documented formal system of morality.

What prevents anybody else from just inventing that kind of views on the fly?

Are you an expert on range of problems requiring solutions? — Isaac

No, of course not. I just don't like people who say "trust me", because that is number one reason why I don't trust them.