Religious and Ethical Codes

[atiguhya padma]

I was wondering about religious commandments, ethical codes etc. It seems to me, one reason why I don't think they work very well, is that they assume that we are all basically the same. The 10 Commandments, for instance, assumes that it will always be right in every situation, for everyone to obey these rules.

But why should we listen to a doctrine that is going to treat us all like robots? like machines? Why listen to a code of conduct that doesn't recognise the essentially changing nature of our physical and cultural environment?

We are all different. We thrive because we are diverse. Specialists become environmentally dependent, but us generalists, we will survive against the odds. We should celebrate that fact. Yet we seem to be forever trying to make ourselves feel guilty and dependent on sets of rules.

[IWilKikU]

thats why I disagree with any form of religeous fundamentalism, whether Islamic, Jewish, Catholic, Prodistant, or Other.

[Cassandra]

Yeah, taking any rule to literally can be bad, which is why the law is always changing. Rules like the 10 commandments also depend on interpretation ie God let them murder philistines even though he disagreed with murder, I guess they did not see it that way. religious caommandments like laws have to be interpreted with the situation and only really fundamental people take everything literally which I hate (although I do agree with the 10 and 2 commandmants)

[imthefoolonthehill]

these rules assume we are all basically the same? I don't think so. If we were all basically the same we wouldn't need such rules. It is because of our difference in nature that these rules must be in order to protect the weak from the strong.

[atiguhya padma]

Interesting point. But if rules are imposed upon us because we are different, why bother with the rules? These rules are supposed to apply universally aren't they? It is because of this, that they assume we can all universally obey them.

[Sancho]

How ‘bout the simpler “Golden Rule?” Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Or its negative cousin: Do not unto others what you would not have others do unto you. Practically every religion on the planet uses some form of the golden rule as ethical principle. Of course it’s not always practiced as we well know.

[atiguhya padma]

It can't always be followed either. Masochists put the whole thing out of kilter. It again assumes that we will all be similar. In a world of very diverse people, this rule won't work.

[crisaor]

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
I was wondering about religious commandments, ethical codes etc. It seems to me, one reason why I don't think they work very well, is that they assume that we are all basically the same. The 10 Commandments, for instance, assumes that it will always be right in every situation, for everyone to obey these rules.
It will, in most of the situations. They're pretty good rules, and if everyone managed to follow them (albeit it's impossible), then things would surely be a lot better.

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
Why listen to a code of conduct that doesn't recognise the essentially changing nature of our physical and cultural environment?
Because it has nothing to do with our changing nature. For example, killing is always bad, no matter what. Of course, there are some extreme circumstances in which this can't be avoided, but it's still regrettable, same goes for stealing.

Originally posted by atiguhya padma
We are all different. We thrive because we are diverse. Specialists become environmentally dependent, but us generalists, we will survive against the odds. We should celebrate that fact. Yet we seem to be forever trying to make ourselves feel guilty and dependent on sets of rules.
We are different, and yet we're very alike at the same time.
Rules are tools designed for specific purposes. Most of the times, the law helps maintaining a society together. But if a law does more damage than good, then I agree that maybe it shouldn't be followed. Of course, it all depends on the person's view.

[Sancho]

AP here’s why I think that the golden rule has, if not universal, at least broad applicability on the planet. I think the golden rule works well for just the reasons you stated: humans are very diverse and ever changing. Naturally every rule has some exceptions and in this case I’d rule out psychopathic criminals, the severely retarded, young children who don’t know any better, people with brain injuries, etc. The beauty of the golden rule lies in its simplicity, also in its interpretability.

A vulgar interpretation would be something like this: treat all others the way I would like to be treated and treat others as though they were just like me. To borrow an analogy from a course I once took: My tribe grows corn; your tribe hunts buffalo. – Therefore, your tribe isn’t allowed to hunt buffalo, only to grow corn. Works well for me but not so good for you. Some religions have a real bad habit of seeing the world this way I think.

A more acceptable interpretation goes something like this: Treat others the way I would like to be treated and so long as your way of life doesn’t restrict my way of life we can let bygones be bygones. I call this the “Rodney King” interpretation, “Why can’t we all just be friends?” This interpretation has flaws as well, particularly as the world gets more and more populated and cultures more and more diverse there will inevitably be some overlap that restricts one culture or another.

But I’m sure there are certain values that all reasonable humans share: we don’t kill innocents, we’re trustworthy, loyal brave… (wait a minute, that’s the boy scouts not the bible.) We don’t sleep with our neighbor’s wife/husband … uhhh, well OK, a lot of people just pay lip service to that one.

Awe shucks, maybe you’re right.

[Avalive]

For me, religion is my own conscience. An advanced form of human's art, where my wishes dwells and never turns old.

[West12]

I don't understand how people say that their conscience is their religion. How does your consience decide what is right and what is wrong? Is it instinct? If so where does the instinct come from? People weren't just born knowing right and wrong. They were born with a sinful nature.

[papayahed]

I high school we were required to take a class called Christian morality (yes, I went to catholic school). This class went through the Ten commandments and interpreted what they meant in today's world. We were taught that practically anything besides going to church was a sin. To me that was the epitome of what AP was talking about.

Taking away all the christian domga bull****, like Crisor said the ten commandments in most cases will apply.

[fayefaye]

I was wondering about religious commandments, ethical codes etc. It seems to me, one reason why I don't think they work very well, is that they assume that we are all basically the same. The 10 Commandments, for instance, assumes that it will always be right in every situation, for everyone to obey these rules.
I don't think our differences make any difference to how the rules apply. You can't really say 'let's have these rules.... except for these people. They're different. Let's make them exempt.' the rules apply regardless. In some situations people think they can justify breaking them... but in most cases they probably can't.


We are all different. We thrive because we are diverse. Specialists become environmentally dependent, but us generalists, we will survive against the odds. We should celebrate that fact. Yet we seem to be forever trying to make ourselves feel guilty and dependent on sets of rules.
ati, haven't you noticed how societies value conformity over difference [and yes, I realise this is fairly off-topic]. One of the arguments put against religion is that it attempts to suppress natural human urges [though this is something to reproach society for, since it happens with or without religion] as well as individuality. [uh oh.... now I'm arguing against myself??! :goof: ] Like I said, it's society and yes, off topic.

Actually, on topic, this is kinda interesting because I was talking to a pretty religious friend a while ago who said she would rather be killed herself than kill another person. 'it's still sin' Do you think that murder, etc is ever justified? When is it really a 'time to kill'?

[emily655321]

Depends how much worth you put on your own satisfaction. Contrary to what people like to think, killing is never a "duty." Whether the person enjoys the act or sees it as a means to an end -- as in war or capital punishment (in which case, revenge takes the most central role), -- they are doing it to fulfill a desire of theirs. Therefore, killing can only be justified by someone who places the importance of their own desires over all else, including human life.

[Sancho]

Once again, this thread is just too juicy to resist. I certainly don’t have the answers, but over the years I have asked myself many of these same questions. In fact, a few years ago in an attempt to answer a few questions, I took a lecture series on the philosophy of morals and ethics. It was given by Professor Robert Kane of the Univ. of Texas at Austin. He discussed many moral and ethical dilemmas facing modern societies and individuals. In one section he discussed the morality of using violence against our fellow human beings; violence, up to and including death. Hopefully I won’t slay the man’s ideas too badly with this post.

As I recall, he defined a “Moral Sphere” that encompasses the majority of the earth’s population. This is to say, most of us consider it immoral to lie, cheat, steal or murder. By the same token, most of us admire certain personality traits such as: trustworthiness, honesty, bravery etc. The moral sphere can be relatively small for certain communities of the truly devout. But this nuclear core is encapsulated by the overall moral sphere of the vast majority of humanity. As for how to treat others, he tied the “moral sphere” idea to Emanuel Kant’s “Ends Principle.” A gross oversimplification of Kant’s ends principle would be stated thus: Treat others as an end unto themselves; not as a means to an end.

OK, so the vast majority of us live within the “Moral Sphere” of humanity. Yet there will always be an element of society living outside of any moral sphere: Jeffery Dalmer, Tim McVeigh, Charles Manson, Adolph Hitler etc. At times it is necessary to use violence against someone outside of the moral sphere in order to protect someone within the moral sphere. Use violence only if there is no other alternative, and use the lowest level of violence necessary to resolve the situation. You cannot morally shoot someone who cuts you off in traffic but there may be certain circumstances in which torture is acceptable. Torture may be morally acceptable in order to extract the location of an innocent child who has been buried alive with a limited supply of oxygen.

A historical example Professor Kane gave was from the 18th century Quaker community in Pennsylvania and their encounter with the pirates lead by William Kidd. Kidd was well aware of the Quaker’s philosophy of pacifism and he exploited this knowledge. The pirates raided and plundered the Quaker villages. They raped and murdered Quaker women while able bodied men stood by helplessly - bound by their pacifist philosophy. The point is, by not joining in the fight against the pirates to defend their women, the men were enabling the pirates. Violence and death was visited upon innocent Quaker women by persons outside of the moral sphere and allowed by persons within the moral sphere. The example is supposed to illustrate that in certain circumstances you cannot sit on the fence. You have to take a side. The Quaker men, by their inaction were, de facto, taking the side of the pirates. The Quakers could not use the “ends principle” in this case with respect to the pirates since, obviously, the pirates were well outside of the moral sphere. The pirates, of course, were only using the Quakers as a means to their own ends.

The good professor then lightened up the discussion considerably with an old joke that Quakers like to tell: One night a Quaker farmer was visiting his chicken coup when he surprised a would-be chicken thief. Raising his rifle, he said, “Sir, I will not harm you, but I must warn you; you are standing where I am about to shoot.”

[Jessika]

“Sir, I will not harm you, but I must warn you; you are standing where I am about to shoot.”

Isnt that hypocritical? Like using beatiful words to hide a not very good action in itself? (that sentence has reminded me of Homer Simpson wanting to eat or Bart wanting to hurt Lisa :lol: ) They warn the other but in fact, they are on movement already (ok, this isn't a good example xD)

Anyway, is it a good principle/way of behaviour(?) hurting before you get hurt? Because if you hurt the first, then you are justifying whatever it comes later to you. or not? think of Minority Report :lol: To what extent can you predict your foe's intentions?

Just thinking and wondering.. not a strong idea of this (i know we are not allowed to talk about politics here, but .. it is difficult not to relate this and think of current events happening)

[Sancho]

Hey Jessika, someone finally read my post. And embarrassingly enough, I think that I misquoted the professor. The joke should go: “Pardon me sir, I do not wish to hurt you, but you are standing where I am about to shoot.” Ah well, details – details.

Of course you are correct; it’s hypocritical a statement. But it’s just a joke, and I certainly couldn’t pretend to be a spokesman for the Pennsylvanian Quakers anyway. I thought it fit well here because it sort of illustrates the dilemma that A.P. originated this thread with: can a religious code be universal?

Anyhow, since we’re both walking that fine line between religion and politics, I’ll lay out another quote (and I’ll try to get this one right) from my personal favorite historic political figure, Mahatma Gandhi: “An eye for an eye - and the whole world goes blind.”

Peace.

[Jessika]

It's a good quote :nod:

a religious code universal..
I think that is difficult.. impossible I would say, since our common sense differ from one part of the world to the other.. imagine a religious code, even more difficult.
(I differentiate between common sense and religious morality, as religions need you to have 'blind' faith and you have to believe almost every thing you are told without questioning it , and common sense is suppoused to be common, universal, and it's empiric, i would say. So, I think a universal common sense code would be easier to achieve.. but it's that: conditional tense)

[Ickmeister]

Yeah, taking any rule to literally can be bad, which is why the law is always changing. Rules like the 10 commandments also depend on interpretation ie God let them murder philistines even though he disagreed with murder, I guess they did not see it that way. religious caommandments like laws have to be interpreted with the situation and only really fundamental people take everything literally which I hate (although I do agree with the 10 and 2 commandmants)


The Commandment really is, "Thou shalt not murder." Though in translation, it is rendered, "Thou shalt not kill." If God tells you to kill someone, you are killing them; not murdering them. That is why there can be just war.

[Ickmeister]

I was wondering about religious commandments, ethical codes etc. It seems to me, one reason why I don't think they work very well, is that they assume that we are all basically the same. The 10 Commandments, for instance, assumes that it will always be right in every situation, for everyone to obey these rules.

But why should we listen to a doctrine that is going to treat us all like robots? like machines? Why listen to a code of conduct that doesn't recognise the essentially changing nature of our physical and cultural environment?



We are all different. We thrive because we are diverse. Specialists become environmentally dependent, but us generalists, we will survive against the odds. We should celebrate that fact. Yet we seem to be forever trying to make ourselves feel guilty and dependent on sets of rules.



First Paragragh... 2 Timothy, chapter 3:16-17 16: All scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17: that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.


Second Paragraph... Romans, chapter 12 verse 2 2: Do not be conformed to this world but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that you may prove what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

Third Paragraph... The Books of Proverbs, chapter 28 verse 4: Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but those who keep the law strive against them.
1 Timothy, chapter 1 verse 8: Now we know that the law is good, if any one uses it lawfully, 9: understanding this, that the law is not laid down for the just but for the lawless and disobedient, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for murderers of fathers and murderers of mothers, for manslayers, 10: immoral persons, sodomites, kidnapers, liars, perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound doctrine, 11: in accordance with the glorious gospel of the blessed God with which I have been entrusted. 2 Timothy, chapter 2 verse 5: An athlete is not crowned unless he competes according to the rules.



And as for this entire conversation... Titus, chapter 3 verse 9: But avoid stupid controversies, genealogies, dissensions, and quarrels over the law, for they are unprofitable and futile.