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

[Peter_Plato]

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.
…

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?

I’ve always believed that the idea of moral discourse was to arrive at an “internally” consistent position. In a very meaningful sense we should refrain from contaminating that position with our personal opinions or preferences. The goal should be working out where sound moral thinking takes us.

To continue to insist that how I would act in a matter is important to determining rightness of the matter is a scurrilous attempt to create an ad hominem. To wit: This horror is what a Bible believing Christian would commit therefore belief in the Bible is wrong. Or even, the Bible tells us to kill children, therefore the Bible is wrong.

The problem, Bradski, is that my endeavor has not been to claim that it is right because the Bible says it. That would be an example of the genetic fallacy.

Which, by the way, you submit to that fallacy in spades by claiming that your choice is right for you BECAUSE you can muster a strong commitment.

Your entire argument, concerning you having the moral courage or fortitude to always do what you believe, is also problematic regarding the genetic fallacy because your claim boils down to, “it is right for me because I am consistent in doing it.”

What I am saying is that “right” is susceptible to determination quite independent of what you or I believe or even what you or I might do.

That has been my intention through this debate. My claim is that a consistent moral position should supercede a determination of “What I would do.” On the other hand, you seem to be claiming that what you would do should take precedence over a consistent moral position. In fact, you seem to be saying that consistency isn’t even a necessary component of your moral beliefs. That just appears to be an untenable position, primarily because it is an irrational one.

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

Except, that you - a non-religious person - have no problem with committing the very same “baby-killing” that you claim is wrong for religious individuals. So it appears that religion, contrary to what Weinburg says, is not “what it takes,” since you are quite content to endorse what the Bible does, but, for you, only the fact that the Bible endorses it is problematic; for you to endorse it unilaterally does make it right, however.

This is precisely why I wanted to keep your position or “my position” out of the issue completely by arguing a logical case. What you are doing here is trying to derail the logic of the case by setting me up for an ad hominem.

Furthermore, I never argued that committing the extermination of the Canaanites was right “because the Bible endorses it.”

What I did argue was that if we begin with a premise of omniscience and omnibenevolence it is not logically contradictory to arrive at the morally consistent position that a 3omni God might determine that a decidedly bad culture ought rightly to be removed from the Earth for much the same reason that a surgeon would be morally within his rights to amputate a leg.

You have not even attempted to argue against that logically consistent position. Notice it says nothing about the Bible. It is a rationally consistent argument beginning with, “If a 3omni God exists…”** then “**…it is logically possible that he could arrive at an “in principle” determination that the removal of a cancerous group would be the right course of action.”

Do you see “Bible” mentioned anywhere in that argument? Why won’t you address it purely on the basis of logic, then? You have no argument, right?

The reason apparently, is you feel introducing the Bible will disguise your obvious lack of an argument behind the fear people have of becoming religious fanatics. “See what happens when you accept Biblical teaching…”

Again, it was you who smuggled the Bible into the argument in order to set up your attempt at a rebuttal that simply fails because the premise was never mine to begin with.

Continued…

 

[Peter_Plato]

…from previous

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.

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

Your point of view then, is this: It is wrong for God to permit the Hebrew people to kill babies, but it is quite acceptable for modern governments to make it permissible, despite the fact that modern governments are neither omniscient nor omnibenevolent. In fact omniscience and omnipotence are the very features that remove God’s authority for making moral determinations altogether.

The fact that your moral position is incoherent - it is okay for women to kill babies for trivial reasons, but not okay for God to do so, WHATEVER his reasons - means that coherent moral thinking, in your view, is not a necessary feature of a set of ethical beliefs. As long as the person is committed to following them, coherency is unnecessary.

To be absolutely clear…

I am not interested in being set up for another ad hominem. What I would personally do regarding the issue is not an important consideration in determining the logic or truth of the argument. In fact, neither is what you would do.

The question, to put it back to a merely rational one, is: Why would it be okay for women to kill babies for trivial reasons, but not okay for God to order it for morally important reasons - for example, to alter the course of human history if that were in jeopardy?

Answer that question without reference to any Biblical event, nor impugning my moral credibility, which is neither here not there regarding your answer to the question.

As to “…we know better now and we can ignore those commands with which we don’t agree…,” it is unclear that inconsistent moral thinking such as yours constitutes “knowing better” other than in the very trivial sense of, “we think that to be true about our own moral thinking.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

I find it interesting that you seem to be implying that Greek and Roman practices were morally inferior to that of the Egyptians. In modern times, it would seem that technology has allowed us to “reach into the womb” and do precisely from an earlier stage in pregnancy what the Greeks and Romans did at a later stage, that is discard babies to manure heaps. (Abortion clinics do regard aborted babies as “medical waste.”

So which practice do you endorse, Roscoe? That of the Egyptians or that of the Greeks and Romans, leaving the question of “origins” or “who to thank” completely aside?

 

[Peter_Plato]

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

A certain death because an Egyptian Pharaoh commanded the death of all male Hebrew babies - if you want to go there.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I find it interesting that you seem to be implying that Greek and Roman practices were morally inferior to that of the Egyptians. In modern times, it would seem that technology has allowed us to “reach into the womb” and do precisely from an earlier stage in pregnancy what the Greeks and Romans did at a later stage, that is discard babies to manure heaps. (Abortion clinics do regard aborted babies as “medical waste.”

So which practice do you endorse, Roscoe? That of the Egyptians or that of the Greeks and Romans, leaving the question of “origins” or “who to thank” completely aside?

I am against people murdering babies in the street, whatever their justification. If they are viable outside the womb I think they deserve any help with survival that any other person is due. I think technology helps with pushing that line further, meaning as technology advances viability becomes increasingly greater at a earlier period.

Maybe in the future the womb won’t even be necessary. Catholics can have “baby farms”, all the unwanted pregnancies could be deposited in mechanical wombs and the children raised by good Catholic families. It maybe problematic since the Church is against IVF but being only theoretical I can only speculate on their position.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

A certain death because an Egyptian Pharaoh commanded the death of all male Hebrew babies - if you want to go there.

There isn’t much evidence that it happened. Even in Exodus. What I find interesting is verse 17.

15 The king of Egypt then spoke to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was called Shiphrah, and the other Puah.

16 ‘When you attend Hebrew women in childbirth,’ he said, ‘look at the two stones. If it is a boy, kill him; if a girl, let her live.’

17 But the midwives were God-fearing women and did not obey the orders of the king of Egypt, but allowed the boys to live.

So we do have a baseline for the Israelites thinking that infanticide was frowned on by God. Which would make a later command for it, at the least, confusing.

 

[Aloysium]

I am against people murdering babies in the street, whatever their justification. If they are viable outside the womb I think they deserve any help with survival that any other person is due . . .

You mentioned earlier:

. . . I don’t want to kill babies because I wouldn’t want my babies killed. That’s a horrible thing to do.

Out of interest, would you want someone to inject a solution into your wife’s womb, her having chosen to no longer carry your child, who would subsequently be killed and “miscarried”? How is it not a horrible thing for someone to do the same thing to another unborn child.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am against people murdering babies in the street, whatever their justification. If they are viable outside the womb I think they deserve any help with survival that any other person is due. I think technology helps with pushing that line further, meaning as technology advances viability becomes increasingly greater at a earlier period.

Maybe in the future the womb won’t even be necessary. Catholics can have “baby farms”, all the unwanted pregnancies could be deposited in mechanical wombs and the children raised by good Catholic families. It maybe problematic since the Church is against IVF but being only theoretical I can only speculate on their position.

Golden Rule:

Do onto others as you would have them do to you.

You are - at least by every indication - a subscriber to that rule.

You, yourself, were once in your mother’s womb. You, that is, the human being that you were - and still are - were once located in your mother’s womb.

You are claiming it would have been morally fine for your mother to have aborted you, meaning you would not exist today. How is THAT not the same as “killing” you today? It is insuring the “non-existence” of you, at some time during your existence, entailing that you would find permissible any action that results in your non-existence provided it is done…when, exactly? Before you became AWARE of your existence, perhaps?

But abortion, at least on atheist materialist grounds, takes away the very possibility of you ever becoming AWARE. How is that any different from someone killing you today and simply removing the possibility of any further awareness today? What difference would it make since you would no longer be around to “miss” your being here?

I find your position to be incongruous with any meaningful understanding of what it means to be human. In fact, it’s a farcical position, when you really think it over.

Why would it be permissible to end a human life at any time after its beginning without some important and just reason?

Your position is no more tenable than Bradski’s and all your ranting against “child killing” stands as a stark inconsistency with your viewing “child killing” as permissible for trivial reasons before birth.

My position, which I have argued consistently, is that child killing is not permissible except for morally justifiable reasons. A woman’s convenience is not one of those, but a determination by God (using the faculties of omniscience and omnibenevolence - note omnipotence is not required for making a moral determination, which is the reason I left it out) might provide a morally justiable reason. You have not provided a case against THAT except to keep insisting it’s “child killing.” Well… So is abortion, but THAT does not seem to stop you from accepting “child killing” when it suits you.

Let me construct a scenario where I think you would have to agree that child killing in the sense I am arguing would indeed be necessary.

Suppose, as a researcher into virulent strains of viruses, you came to discover a new super strain that had the capacity to spread worldwide very quickly, say within, days or weeks and, due to the manner in which it affected the brain and nervous systems of humans, would decimate the population of the world very quickly. Suppose, also, that you have found that specific virus to have made its way into the bodies of a group of children and their families, currently under quarantine in an apartment building. The chance of the virus escaping through any kind of contact means no food, water (even sewage), garbage, nor any substance can be exchanged with those in the building. In fact, the probability is that waiting more than a day to take extreme measures will result in an 80% chance the virus will get out and infect many others. You “know” all of this for certain.

You also know that the only way that the virus can possibly be contained is to burn the people and the building itself.

Are you saying it would NOT be morally permissible to do so, given that inaction will mean the deaths of virtually every human being?

What would the morally right thing entail, then? Killing babies? Perhaps there are times when choosing the lesser of two evils is necessary, no?

The Golden Rule would, it seems, endorse burning the building since as a person in the building, I would accept that burning the building would be the only morally acceptable option available to those outside, given that the fate of all humanity is at stake. As a moral person, following the Golden Rule, it is possible to consistently hold that the “virus fighters” should do to others (in the building) at that time what they would want done to them (if they had the misfortune of being the infected and unfortunate humans inside the building.) Taking the unprecedented step of burning people and children alive could in this case be the only moral option, no?

Answer that question, please, before moving to “Well, the case in the Old Testament is different.”

What I am saying is, what IF something very much like it was the case? Could God under conditions similar to the virus scenario have been justified in issuing a command?

Yes or No? Don’t indulge another foray into “baby killing is bad,” please answer the question, if you don’t mind.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am against people murdering babies in the street, whatever their justification.

So, wrong to do it in the street for any reason, but in the womb, okay for any reason?

Location for murdering makes that much of a difference?

The fact that unborn babies can’t make it to “the street” to find safety is just an unfortunate moral disadvantage for them? Hello?

 

[Peter_Plato]

There isn’t much evidence that it happened. Even in Exodus. What I find interesting is verse 17.

15 The king of Egypt then spoke to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was called Shiphrah, and the other Puah.

16 ‘When you attend Hebrew women in childbirth,’ he said, ‘look at the two stones. If it is a boy, kill him; if a girl, let her live.’

17 But the midwives were God-fearing women and did not obey the orders of the king of Egypt, but allowed the boys to live.

So we do have a baseline for the Israelites thinking that infanticide was frowned on by God. Which would make a later command for it, at the least, confusing.

This is all entirely beside the point.

The baseline for killing generally, is that it should never be done without morally justifiable reasons. That implies morally justifiable reasons, do, in fact, exist. The question is when do those conditions come about that would justify killing? You would accept that they do?

Self-defense? To protect an innocent party? What about to protect all humanity against a virulent disease?

Killing is also “frowned upon” by God and the Israelites, as well. That does not mean killing never can be justified. It sides mean that when it is not justified, it shouldn’t be done.

This would hold with babies (in the street or otherwise) and with fully grown humans as well. God, consistently, frowns on unjust killing. That does not entail justified cases of killing are necessarily “frowned upon,” not desireable perhaps, but duly permitted should the circumstances make it the only “moral” option.

 

[Peter_Plato]

17 But the midwives were God-fearing women and did not obey the orders of the king of Egypt, but allowed the boys to live.

I was under the impression - according to your Egyptian history lesson - that the Egyptians were the moral source and mentors for the Israelites. Yet here, “God-fearing” seems to be the motive for the Israelite women not to follow Egyptian guidance and mentorship - according to your Biblical history lesson - regarding infanticide.

Perhaps the confusion stems from you wanting to apply a strict deontic reading of events but only when that application suits your perspective. I can see how trying to sustain an inconsistent perspective would get confusing - once the surface is scratched - for you.

 

[meltzerboy]

There isn’t much evidence that it happened. Even in Exodus. What I find interesting is verse 17.

15 The king of Egypt then spoke to the Hebrew midwives, one of whom was called Shiphrah, and the other Puah.

16 ‘When you attend Hebrew women in childbirth,’ he said, ‘look at the two stones. If it is a boy, kill him; if a girl, let her live.’

17 But the midwives were God-fearing women and did not obey the orders of the king of Egypt, but allowed the boys to live.

So we do have a baseline for the Israelites thinking that infanticide was frowned on by God. Which would make a later command for it, at the least, confusing.

Unless that command was NOT for literal infanticide but rather a midrashic lesson against the evils of idolatry written in an exaggerated action language that the ancient Hebrews might best understand. IOW, as I stated previously, the Book of Deuteronomy is in large part written in a didactic style, not a literal narrative style, in order for Moses, nearing the end of his earthly life, to instill in the Jewish people the courage to continue to abide by the monotheistic, moral Law after his departure.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

You mentioned earlier:

Out of interest, would you want someone to inject a solution into your wife’s womb, her having chosen to no longer carry your child, who would subsequently be killed and “miscarried”? How is it not a horrible thing for someone to do the same thing to another unborn child.

Am I part of the decision? What is the reason? Where is she in the pregnancy?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Golden Rule:

Do onto others as you would have them do to you.

You are - at least by every indication - a subscriber to that rule.

You, yourself, were once in your mother’s womb. You, that is, the human being that you were - and still are - were once located in your mother’s womb.

You are claiming it would have been morally fine for your mother to have aborted you, meaning you would not exist today. How is THAT not the same as “killing” you today? It is insuring the “non-existence” of you, at some time during your existence, entailing that you would find permissible any action that results in your non-existence provided it is done…when, exactly? Before you became AWARE of your existence, perhaps?

But abortion, at least on atheist materialist grounds, takes away the very possibility of you ever becoming AWARE. How is that any different from someone killing you today and simply removing the possibility of any further awareness today? What difference would it make since you would no longer be around to “miss” your being here?

I find your position to be incongruous with any meaningful understanding of what it means to be human. In fact, it’s a farcical position, when you really think it over.

Why would it be permissible to end a human life at any time after its beginning without some important and just reason?

Your position is no more tenable than Bradski’s and all your ranting against “child killing” stands as a stark inconsistency with your viewing “child killing” as permissible for trivial reasons before birth.

My position, which I have argued consistently, is that child killing is not permissible except for morally justifiable reasons. A woman’s convenience is not one of those, but a determination by God (using the faculties of omniscience and omnibenevolence - note omnipotence is not required for making a moral determination, which is the reason I left it out) might provide a morally justiable reason. You have not provided a case against THAT except to keep insisting it’s “child killing.” Well… So is abortion, but THAT does not seem to stop you from accepting “child killing” when it suits you.

Let me construct a scenario where I think you would have to agree that child killing in the sense I am arguing would indeed be necessary.

Suppose, as a researcher into virulent strains of viruses, you came to discover a new super strain that had the capacity to spread worldwide very quickly, say within, days or weeks and, due to the manner in which it affected the brain and nervous systems of humans, would decimate the population of the world very quickly. Suppose, also, that you have found that specific virus to have made its way into the bodies of a group of children and their families, currently under quarantine in an apartment building. The chance of the virus escaping through any kind of contact means no food, water (even sewage), garbage, nor any substance can be exchanged with those in the building. In fact, the probability is that waiting more than a day to take extreme measures will result in an 80% chance the virus will get out and infect many others. You “know” all of this for certain.

You also know that the only way that the virus can possibly be contained is to burn the people and the building itself.

Are you saying it would NOT be morally permissible to do so, given that inaction will mean the deaths of virtually every human being?

What would the morally right thing entail, then? Killing babies? Perhaps there are times when choosing the lesser of two evils is necessary, no?

The Golden Rule would, it seems, endorse burning the building since as a person in the building, I would accept that burning the building would be the only morally acceptable option available to those outside, given that the fate of all humanity is at stake. As a moral person, following the Golden Rule, it is possible to consistently hold that the “virus fighters” should do to others (in the building) at that time what they would want done to them (if they had the misfortune of being the infected and unfortunate humans inside the building.) Taking the unprecedented step of burning people and children alive could in this case be the only moral option, no?

Answer that question, please, before moving to “Well, the case in the Old Testament is different.”

What I am saying is, what IF something very much like it was the case? Could God under conditions similar to the virus scenario have been justified in issuing a command?

Yes or No? Don’t indulge another foray into “baby killing is bad,” please answer the question, if you don’t mind.

I hold a different view of abortion than you do, so applying your moral standard to my view isn’t really something I can do. I no more think a zygote a human being anymore than I think an acorn a tree. We can talk of potentiality but it’s not an actuality.

I don’t see your example of the virus as a case of the golden rule but rather utilitarianism but for the sake of discussion. If it was the truly the only way to contain the virus, I would give the people a choice in their method demise. Something painless. Then burn the building. I wouldn’t burn them alive. In fact I find it a bit disturbing on your part.

I should note that I’m not an omnipotent being which factors into my process.

 

[Aloysium]

Am I part of the decision? What is the reason? Where is she in the pregnancy?

To me none of the answers to the above make any difference at all to the morality of the decision, and legally, where I live, the last question is the only one that would be paid lip service to.

Lets say your wife got the abortion in the second trimester without your consent because she did not want anything inside of her that had anything to do with you.
Would you be more concerned about your child than you would be if you both agreed to terminate its life at three months gestation for economic reasons?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I was under the impression - according to your Egyptian history lesson - that the Egyptians were the moral source and mentors for the Israelites. Yet here, “God-fearing” seems to be the motive for the Israelite women not to follow Egyptian guidance and mentorship - according to your Biblical history lesson - regarding infanticide.

Perhaps the confusion stems from you wanting to apply a strict deontic reading of events but only when that application suits your perspective. I can see how trying to sustain an inconsistent perspective would get confusing - once the surface is scratched - for you.

I’m confused by God ordering the killing of babies.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

To me none of the answers to the above make any difference at all to the morality of the decision, and legally, where I live, the last question is the only one that would be paid lip service to.

Lets say your wife got the abortion in the second trimester without your consent because she did not want anything inside of her that had anything to do with you.
Would you be more concerned about your child than you would be if you both agreed to terminate its life at three months gestation for economic reasons?

Yes. If the child was viable outside the womb, I would want the option to care for it.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Unless that command was NOT for literal infanticide but rather a midrashic lesson against the evils of idolatry written in an exaggerated action language that the ancient Hebrews might best understand. IOW, as I stated previously, the Book of Deuteronomy is in large part written in a didactic style, not a literal narrative style, in order for Moses, nearing the end of his earthly life, to instill in the Jewish people the courage to continue to abide by the monotheistic, moral Law after his departure.

Are we to take the Pharaoh’s order as attempt to drown monotheism, rather than actual babies as well.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I hold a different view of abortion than you do, so applying your moral standard to my view isn’t really something I can do. I no more think a zygote a human being anymore than I think an acorn a tree. We can talk of potentiality but it’s not an actuality.

This issue isn’t whether a different view is plausible, the issue is whether it is moral. Just calling a zygote an acorn isn’t an answer. You were once a zygote. The destruction of that particular zygote would have ended your life. If permissible then, why not now? You have a distinct and traceable span of existence. The only reason you don’t consider a zygote to have the privilege of existence you do is because you have the possibility of changing its future by your action. That zygote has started its existence that inevitably would become what you are now - a functioning human being. What right do you have to determine WHEN to stop the process - without adequate moral justification?

As for the acorn - if it were the last acorn in existence - if all oak trees went extinct - we would accord it the same value as an oak tree precisely because we would see it as the “last hope” for oak trees. Without it, oak trees would cease to exist. So yes, it is and would be the last oak tree, even though you have a misconception that it is not.

I don’t see your example of the virus as a case of the golden rule but rather utilitarianism but for the sake of discussion. If it was the truly the only way to contain the virus, I would give the people a choice in their method demise. Something painless. Then burn the building. I wouldn’t burn them alive. In fact I find it a bit disturbing on your part.

That is very humane of you, but the option still might come down to burning them alive under some circumstances, so that might still be the required choice. Whether you are disturbed or not is irrelevant - bringing it up is still an attempt at an ad hominem - what the scenario presumed was the burning alive was the only option to contain the virus. If it wasn’t clear enough, let’s stipulate that now - What if that was the only option and doing otherwise would result in infecting the world? Calling it utilitarianism doesn’t make the moral problem disappear. You see, there are conditions under which something morally distasteful could be the only moral option.

By the way, we don’t know how “merciful” or humane the Israelites were supposed to have been in carrying out the command, so your (and Bradski’s) imagined merciless slashing and maiming need not have been part of the OT scenario except in your imagination.

 

[Peter_Plato]

In fact I find it a bit disturbing on your part.

No more disturbing than you trivializing the taking of a human life by calling it a zygote.