Is the Golden Rule a Foundational Moral Principle or A Rule of Thumb?

[Peter_Plato]

By ‘first’ I will assume that you will answer the question ‘second’. I obviously don’t believe that any god is omni anything, but I’ll go along.

You never get around to “going along” but, rather, you avoid answering the question that you know has a logical right answer.

If you were certain you would be acting immorally to do otherwise. You know that is the only answer possible, but you keep backing away from it to hang onto your position which, by refusal, you are attempting to justify an incoherent position that an inferior judgement is, in principle, better than the best logical alternative.

Assuming certainty, there can be no other answer, and you know it. You just don’t want to admit it because it will compromise your atheism. That much is clear.

 

[Peter_Plato]

From the Catholic Catechism -

How does an omnibenevolent being do evil?

The term for what you are doing is “clutching at straws.”

The Catechism - in your quoted passage - is not referring to choosing the lesser of two evils when those are the only two live options. It is referring to doing an evil directly - given a variety of open options - in order to bring about "a good end.” Sometimes moral choices are difficult. The surgeon is not doing evil (cutting off a leg) so that good (saving a life) may come of it, except in your twisted analysis. The surgeon is in a position of being forced to choose between the only two options possible. The logical conclusion from your portrayal of “never choose evil means” is that a surgeon should never amputate a leg. That is just untenable as a moral implication.

Like Bradski, you are having difficulty swallowing the implications of your own inconsistent logic.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

The term for what you are doing is “clutching at straws.”

The Catechism - in your quoted passage - is not referring to choosing the lesser of two evils when those are the only two live options. It is referring to doing an evil directly - given a variety of open options - in order to bring about "a good end.” Sometimes moral choices are difficult. The surgeon is not doing evil (cutting off a leg) so that good (saving a life) may come of it, except in your twisted analysis. The surgeon is in a position of being forced to choose between the only two options possible. The logical conclusion from your portrayal of “never choose evil means” is that a surgeon should never amputate a leg. That is just untenable as a moral implication.

Like Bradski, you are having difficulty swallowing the implications of your own inconsistent logic.

It’s not my logic, it’s the Church’s.

What I think you are trying to invoke is the principle of double effect. Still evil is not permitted to achieve good.

Per the New Catholic Encyclopedia - Bolding mine.

1.The act itself must be morally good or at least indifferent.

1. The agent may not positively will the bad effect but may permit it. If he could attain the good effect without the bad effect he should do so. The bad effect is sometimes said to be indirectly voluntary.

1. The good effect must flow from the action at least as immediately (in the order of causality, though not necessarily in the order of time) as the bad effect. In other words the good effect must be produced directly by the action, not by the bad effect. Otherwise the agent would be **using a bad means to a good end, which is never allowed.
   **
2. The good effect must be sufficiently desirable to compensate for the allowing of the bad effect

 

[Bradski]

You never get around to “going along” but, rather, you avoid answering the question that you know has a logical right answer.

Maybe you missed the bit where I did actually answer the question. Here it is again:

The answer to that is as an emphatic no as I can possibly give.

You have asked me to put myself in a hypothetical position and I have done that to the best of my ability. And to quote you again:

The important questions would be How could anyone be certain? and How would THAT level of certainty be determined? Those would be crucial for determining culpability.

…and:

I have said it before though, that whether or not God actually gave the command to the Israelites is another question altogether.

So knowing what I know about the teachings of the Catholic Church, plus what I feel would be my own personal position, plus that fact that you yourself have actually pointed out the difficulties in knowing whether in fact the command I had been given was divine, I have made a decision. I would have had very serious doubts.

If I was right, then thousands of children would have been saved an unspeakable death. If I was wrong, then I hope that God would see the goodness in my heart and my honest doubt. But I would not have carried out any massacre.

But you don’t seem to have any personal doubts. You have specifically said that the Israelites could do nothing but slash and stab because :

I think God did command it and they could not do anything but follow the command because they had absolute certainty it was God who directed them to do it.

Can it be plainer? You believe that they were working under divine instructions. So, yet again, for I think the fourth time of asking:

If you believe, as above, that the command actually came from God and if you believe that the people carrying out the massacre could not do anything else, if you were there, what would you have done?

Would you have joined me with my doubts and spared the children or would you have stabbed and cut at every child you could find?

 

[PRmerger]

So knowing what I know about the teachings of the Catholic Church, plus what I feel would be my own personal position, plus that fact that you yourself have actually pointed out the difficulties in knowing whether in fact the command I had been given was divine, I have made a decision. I would have had very serious doubts.

That you have now the fullness of revelation, thanks to the Christian ethos, is why you can say that you would not have slaughtered a tribe of people, even if you felt it was the divine command to do so.

But if you had been an Israelite in Canaan, maybe you would have followed what you thought was a divine imperative.

Hard for you to put yourself in that place, given the fact that you have the influence of Christianity now to give you perspective and guidance.

 

[Bradski]

That you have now the fullness of revelation, thanks to the Christian ethos, is why you can say that you would not have slaughtered a tribe of people, even if you felt it was the divine command to do so.

But if you had been an Israelite in Canaan, maybe you would have followed what you thought was a divine imperative.

Hard for you to put yourself in that place, given the fact that you have the influence of Christianity now to give you perspective and guidance.

Without personal revelation or the Christian ethos or the influence of Christianity I still wouldn’t have done it. I would have done what a lot of people do. I would have worked out what I believed to be the right thing to do and stuck to my beliefs. Especially when the only other option was the death of so many innocents.

Yes, Christianity has had an influence on me. How could it not growing up in a Christian family in a Christian country? But I haven’t just read the bible and listened to priests (and I’m not saying that that’s what most Christians do). I have never thought that Christianity must be the only way to live a moral life.

Aspects of it which you might say that I have taken up are not specifically Christian. I learnt that very many years ago. In fact, that realisation was part of the current that lit up the little light bulb above my head. Even at a very early age I could have told you, without any reference to Christianity, that it would be a bad idea to kill people on the off chance that it might do some greater good. As Roscoe has so obviously pointed out, it even forms part of your Catechism.

So I’ll let the sword fall from my hand and suffer the consequences, thanks very much. But I still don’t know what Peter would do.

Would he be certain that it was God’s command and think – well, it must be for the greater good (even though his own church tells him that’s not an option)? Would he be unsure and still go through with it (but how could any sane person possibly do that)? Or would he refuse. In which case, what else can you refuse to do if directly commanded by God?

As Weinburg said: it takes religion for good people to do evil things. Isn’t that what we have here?

 

[PRmerger]

Without personal revelation or the Christian ethos or the influence of Christianity I still wouldn’t have done it.

You can’t really know that, Bradski.

 

[PRmerger]

Even at a very early age I could have told you, without any reference to Christianity, that it would be a bad idea to kill people on the off chance that it might do some greater good.

But imagine you lived in a culture in which stories of this type of behavior were part of your vocabulary…

 

[PRmerger]

I obviously don’t believe that any god is omni anything, but I’ll go along.

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/facepalm/grand/disappointed_gif_44556.gif

Dear Atheists on this Planet:

It is never, ever necessary for you to tell us, when we are in dialogue with you, that you don’t believe in a god, or gods, or any benevolent, “omni-anything”, being. Ever.

We get that.

The “atheist” in your identity tells us as much.

We understand that when you are in religious dialogue, when you give any kind of subjunctive treatises on God, it is with the tacit understanding that you are offering a concession in theory only.

We get that.

We know that you are not conceding, when you dialogue with Believers, that God exists when you say, “God wouldn’t…[fill in the blank]”

IF any Believer ever tells you, in response to the above, “AHA!! So you have admitted that God exists!!! We have WON!!” I give you permission to give a double face palm and never return to dialogue with that person again.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/...5Z2b_V8vJh2h3HBKJODiStfzXJHhysipPPPds9wyPDQ6y

But, please, stop with the caveats of “But I don’t believe in a god” when you are in dialogue with us.

We get that.

Please read this: we understand that for atheists here certain propositions are conferred the status of being provisionally true so that discourse can continue.

Signed,
Believers who are in Dialogue with Atheists

 

[PRmerger]

http://gifsforum.com/images/gif/facepalm/grand/disappointed_gif_44556.gif

Dear Atheists on this Planet:

It is never, ever necessary for you to tell us, when we are in dialogue with you, that you don’t believe in a god, or gods, or any benevolent, “omni-anything”, being. Ever.

We get that.

The “atheist” in your identity tells us as much.

We understand that when you are in religious dialogue, when you give any kind of subjunctive treatises on God, it is with the tacit understanding that you are offering a concession in theory only.

We get that.

We know that you are not conceding, when you dialogue with Believers, that God exists when you say, “God wouldn’t…[fill in the blank]”

IF any Believer ever tells you, in response to the above, “AHA!! So you have admitted that God exists!!! We have WON!!” I give you permission to give a double face palm and never return to dialogue with that person again.

https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/...5Z2b_V8vJh2h3HBKJODiStfzXJHhysipPPPds9wyPDQ6y

But, please, stop with the caveats of “But I don’t believe in a god” when you are in dialogue with us.

We get that.

Please read this: we understand that for atheists here certain propositions are conferred the status of being provisionally true so that discourse can continue.

Signed,
Believers who are in Dialogue with Atheists

Oh, and did I mention that we get that you don’t believe in God so it’s not necessary to remind us of this? Ever?



But here’s something from the summer of 2012 in which I posted the above sentiments in another way:

In fact, in the many discussions I’ve had with atheists I often have to invoke this paradigm because when we are discussing theology and a point is made that an atheist cannot refute, he seems to resort to, “Well, I don’t believe in God anyway so…”

If you are an atheist in dialogue with a Believer then it necessitates some presuppositions in order to continue the dialogue.

Thankfully, I haven’t been in a dialogue with an atheist in a while where he has used “I don’t believe in God anyway so the question is irrelevant to me” as a crutch. I think we Christians have pretty much figured out that if your screenname is, say, TheHappyAtheist that you’re going to be, well, atheist, but that you concede certain points for the sake of dialogue here on the CAFs

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

But imagine you lived in a culture in which stories of this type of behavior were part of your vocabulary…

Or imagine that he followed the golden rule Formations that of were known known prior to the invasion of Canaan. (circa 1400 B.C.E) and from the place they had escaped from.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Ancient_Egypt

An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BC): “Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you.”[18][discuss] An example from a Late Period (c. 664 BC – 323 BC) papyrus: “That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another.”[19]

 

[PRmerger]

Or imagine that he followed the golden rule

Except that wouldn’t work if the person thought that it would be fine to be hurt himself, so that the tribe could survive.

Tribal mentality, right?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Except that wouldn’t work if the person thought that it would be fine to be hurt himself, so that the tribe could survive.

Tribal mentality, right?

Huh? Are you saying self sacrifice leads to baby killing?

I was thinking more along the lines of…

Even though we are at war, I don’t want to kill babies because I wouldn’t want my babies killed. That’s a horrible thing to do.

 

[PRmerger]

Huh? Are you saying self sacrifice leads to baby killing?

I am saying that the Golden Rule might not have made you a moral person back in the day, if tribal mentality meant that you could do to someone else what someone else would do to your tribe.

I was thinking more along the lines of…

Even though we are at war, I don’t want to kill babies because I wouldn’t want my babies killed. That’s a horrible thing to do.

And you can thank the Catholic Church for teaching you this. :yup:

 

[PRmerger]

As Weinburg said: it takes religion for good people to do evil things. Isn’t that what we have here?

Are there any studies that show this to be true?

Or is this a faith-driven statement?

 

[Bradski]

But imagine you lived in a culture in which stories of this type of behavior were part of your vocabulary…

You mean if my idea of morality was relative to the time. Yes, I can see your point. Well actually it’s my point. One I’ve been making for some time. That if you or I were in a different era with different values then our sense of morality would be different.

When you ask: ‘what would you have done in that situation?’ then it is literally impossible to give a sensible answer as if you were a person living at that time. You can only answer with the knowledge that you have now. You may as well ask: ‘What would your great great etc grandfather have done?’ He may have been slashing and stabbing with rest of them.

So was it acceptable then? A lot of the discussion seems to say that it was, simply because it was divinely commanded. But people then, as you quite rightly say, lived in a culture when these type of stories were quite common (God says do this, God says do that, God killed everyone in a flood). So if they think that God says ‘Kill the kids’, they do.

Now there is no-one who would massacre children just because they thought God had commanded them. Or at least, no sane person. So it was OK then, because God said so. But not now. Is He losing his authority? It would seem so, because we know better now and we can ignore those commands with which we don’t agree. As I’ve been saying, we have a better sense of morality now than we previously did.

It is never, ever necessary for you to tell us, when we are in dialogue with you, that you don’t believe in a god, or gods, or any benevolent, “omni-anything”, being. Ever.

True. But I guess it’s the equivalent of a Christian complaining, when other gods are mentioned, that these so called ‘other gods’ are not the real deal either (‘We have to stop equating some concept of gods that Aztecs or any primitive
tribe believed in as essentially en par with the actuality of God’).

I don’t expect a Christian to equate the one with The Other, but it’s equally redundant to tell me that I have to stop doing so because, as you say: ‘you don’t believe in a god, or gods, or any benevolent, “omni-anything”, being. Ever’.

Are there any studies that show this to be true?

Apparently God told some Christians to kill babies and they did. It’s in the bible.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Would you have joined me with my doubts and spared the children or would you have stabbed and cut at every child you could find?

Interesting to note, however, that you have no problem with abortion and yet here you are taking me to task over an historic event with largely unknown precipitating circumstances but you continue to defend the right of individual women and abortionists to do precisely the kind of child killing that you continue to decry so “passionately.”

So an omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient God who can see all the repercussions of an event down through the entire course of history has NO “right” to intervene - even to save the future of humanity - but individual women, merely to protect their “lifestyle” or “right to their own body” can destroy millions of babies despite the fact that they have very little understanding of the moral repercussions or what is at stake because of their actions?

God does have the power to create from nothing and even recreate a baby from nothing. Women do not.

Yet YOU find my position disturbing, but your own, paradoxically, quite defensible? I can only imagine the excruciatingly painful twisting and contorting of neurons that must be taking place between your ears to allow both those views to take up residence side by side.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Apparently God told some Christians to kill babies and they did. It’s in the bible.

Whereas today we don’t need God to give that permission, do we?

Clean hands, Bradski?

 

[Bradski]

Interesting to note, however, that you have no problem with abortion and yet here you are taking me to task over an historic event with largely unknown precipitating circumstances but you continue to defend the right of individual women and abortionists to do precisely the kind of child killing that you continue to decry so “passionately.”

Yet YOU find my position disturbing, but your own, paradoxically, quite defensible? I can only imagine the excruciatingly painful twisting and contorting of neurons that must be taking place between your ears to allow both those views to take up residence side by side.

I’m quite happy to make a decision on moral matters and then stand by it. If I find I’m performing mental gymnastics to hold on to a particular view, then it would appear to me that I might need to revise it. Otherwise I stand by what I believe.

I’m not a vegetarian because I have no problem eating meat. But I would be quite happy to kill what I eat myself. I have no problems with abortion and as I said, if things had turned out differently then I wouldn’t have a problem performing them. If I don’t believe in a country (even my own) going to war, then I won’t support it. If I do support it, I would be prepared to fight.

If you don’t agree with abortions, then don’t support them and do everything in your power to try to reduce them. If you don’t like the treatment of farmed animals, then become a vegetarian. If you don’t support going to war, then refuse to fight.

But I don’t find your position in regard to the massacre of children disturbing because I don’t know what it is. You’ve said that you believe it was commanded by God yet you won’t tell us if you’d obey Him.

So would you or not?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I am saying that the Golden Rule might not have made you a moral person back in the day, if tribal mentality meant that you could do to someone else what someone else would do to your tribe.

And you can thank the Catholic Church for teaching you this. :yup:

Except they had spent years in the culture of Egypt. So perhaps we could thank Egypt, maybe even Isis and Horus.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide#Ancient_Egypt

In Egyptian households, at all social levels, children of both sexes were valued and there is no evidence of infanticide.[15] The religion of the Ancient Egyptians forbade infanticide and during the Greco-Roman period they rescued abandoned babies from manure heaps, a common method of infanticide by Greeks or Romans, and were allowed to either adopt them as foundlings or raise them as slaves, often giving them names such as “copro -” to memorialise their rescue.[16] Strabo considered it a peculiarity of the Egyptians that every child must be reared.[17] Diodorus indicates infanticide was a punishable offence.[18] Egypt was heavily dependent on the annual flooding of the Nile to irrigate the land and in years of low inundation severe famine could occur with breakdowns in social order resulting, notably between 930-1070 AD and 1180-1350 AD. Instances of cannibalism are recorded during these periods but it is unknown if this happened during the pharaonic era of Ancient Egypt.[19] Beatrix Midant-Reynes describes human sacrifice as having occurred at Abydos in the early dynastic period (c. 3150-2850 BCE),[20] while Jan Assmann asserts there is no clear evidence of human sacrifice ever happening in Ancient Egypt.[21]

Let’s not forget Moses who was saved from certain death as an infant.