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

[PRmerger]

How con you have an “absolute” when you have multiple answers?

Some things do have multiple answers.

Some things don’t.

For example, do you have a different answer to this: “Is it ever permissible for a man to take another man’s wife for his own?”

Or to this, “Is it ever obligatory for a man to rape?”

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

How would it be a theocracy …

I don’t understand what you are proposing?

Theocracy: a form of government in which a country is ruled by religious leaders.

The laws of the land are the same as the religious ones. Laws are dictated by Dogma. Compulsory adherence.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Some things do have multiple answers.

Some things don’t.

For example, do you have a different answer to this: “Is it ever permissible for a man to take another man’s wife for his own?”

Or to this, “Is it ever obligatory for a man to rape?”

There are biblical cases

Levirate marriage (another mans wife)

Judges 21 (rape)

16 The elders of the assembly said, “What shall we do for wives for the survivors? For the women of Benjamin have been annihilated.”h
17 They said, “There must be heirs for the survivors of Benjamin, so that a tribe will not be wiped out from Israel.
18 Yet we cannot give them any of our daughters in marriage.” For the Israelites had taken an oath, “Cursed be he who gives a wife to Benjamin!”
19 Then they thought of the yearly feast of the LORD at Shiloh,i north of Bethel, east of the highway that goes up from Bethel to Shechem, and south of Lebonah.
20 And they instructed the Benjaminites, “Go and set an ambush in the vineyards.
21 When you see the women of Shiloh come out to join in the dances, come out of the vineyards and catch a wife for each of you from the women of Shiloh; then go on to the land of Benjamin.
22 When their fathers or their brothers come to complain to us, we shall say to them, ‘Release them to us as a kindness, since we did not take a woman for every man in battle. Nor did you yourselves give your daughters to them, thus incurring guilt.’”*
23 The Benjaminites did this; they carried off wives for each of them from the dancers they had seized, and they went back each to his own heritage, where they rebuilt the cities and settled them.

 

[Peter_Plato]

What pray tell is the test?

Do you understand that a difference exists between quality and quantity?

Things that are valued - goodness, truth (in the sense of being meaningful) and beauty - are not susceptible to being measured in a quantifiable sense.

You cannot empirically assess the value of a person’s life, the meaningfulness of an experience, the goodness of an object, the moral goodness of a person or act, the beauty of a work of art because there is no (external) instrument by which to measure these qualities.

Actually, I would argue that the instrument does exist - the instrument is a fully actualized human person. The ruler, gauge, instrument, measuring stick (whatever you choose to call it) is a fully functioning human person. If we were all perfectly functioning we would all measure these qualities with precisely the same results. The problem is that as instruments for assessing truth, goodness, beauty, etc., we are all to a greater or lesser extent defective.

I would further argue, that by “tuning” ourselves properly (with regard to goodness, truth, beauty) the results will become more accurate and consistent.

We would not use defective instruments to measure wind speed, bone density, chemical composition, etc. so as assessors of beauty, truth and goodness, we have a responsibility to tune ourselves regarding these qualities.

In fact, that is what makes us responsible and culpable as human beings. We are morally responsible (and culpable) for our actions precisely because we have the capacity to measure these qualities built into our very beings. Choosing to ignore that capacity or let the instrumentation become inutile will not excuse us.

To claim we don’t agree, therefore there is no standard, as an excuse for not making responsible assessments regarding truth, goodness and beauty will not fly. We ARE that standard and are imputed with the responsibility to assess all of these accurately.

Why would the instrument best suited to measure standards of human beauty, goodness and meaning, offload that responsibility to a less reliable instrument? **What empirically reliable instrument exists to measure moral “goodness” better than a morally good agent? **There is no other more capable instrument. Which is why we are responsible for our moral agency.

Bradski, there is your answer regarding appeal to deity.

Ultimately, the Deity will hold each of us accountable for our own assessments. I would suggest to anyone that they had better be absolutely certain and not leave any stone unturned before blithely dismissing to Whom we are responsible.

For one thing, without Deity, the very fact that we have an inherent capacity for truth, beauty and goodness which are not innate qualities of matter, just as consciousness is not an innate quality of matter, would point definitively to the existence of One who has “written” these qualities into reality. Matter, by itself, does not explain the reality or existence of these qualities.

 

[PRmerger]

The laws of the land are the same as the religious ones. Laws are dictated by Dogma. Compulsory adherence.

My question was not, “What is a theocracy”.

I will restate/rephrase my question: why is it that you believe that a moral society = theocracy?

That seems to be a peculiar conclusion.

Do you believe that a society in which adultery never occurs is a theocratic one?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Actually, I would argue that the instrument does exist - the instrument is a fully actualized human person. The ruler, gauge, instrument, measuring stick (whatever you choose to call it) is a fully functioning human person. If we were all perfectly functioning we would all measure these qualities with precisely the same results. The problem is that as instruments for assessing truth, goodness, beauty, etc., we are all to a greater or lesser extent defective.

I would further argue, that by “tuning” ourselves properly (with regard to goodness, truth, beauty) the results will become more accurate and consistent.

I agree that becoming “fully actualized” in pop culture speak is a worthy goal. It still leaves the problem that the answers may not be the same. A Catholic Saint and A Bodhisattva may intersect on many points but not all. It isn’t an absolute morality.

Compassion seems to a running theme in most moralities which leads us back to the Golden Rule.

 

[PRmerger]

There are biblical cases

Levirate marriage (another mans wife)

Judges 21 (rape)

You seem to be operating under a misapprehension that what is in the Bible = permitted by God.

You are aware that there are cases of people denying Christ in the Bible, yes?

It is a peculiar conclusion to state, “Therefore, it is moral to deny Christ.”

So can you answer the questions, please?

Is there ever another answer to the question, “Is it ever obligatory for a man to rape?”

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

My question was not, “What is a theocracy”.

I will restate/rephrase my question: why is it that you believe that a moral society = theocracy?

That seems to be a peculiar conclusion.

Do you believe that a society in which adultery never occurs is a theocratic one?

Peter was proposing a society were a shared morality was obligatory. I was suggesting that the only way to achieve that was if everyone shared the same religion. To ensure that everyone shared the same religion it would have to be the law of the land.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There are biblical cases

Levirate marriage (another mans wife)

Judges 21 (rape)

A Levirate marriage does not consist in taking “another man’s wife” because the other man has died. That is an illegitimate stretch of an example, not a case in point.

There is nothing in Judges that makes a claim that this act was a legitimate or morally correct one. “This is what happened” does not translate to “this was morally good.”

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

You seem to be operating under a misapprehension that what is in the Bible = permitted by God.

You are aware that there are cases of people denying Christ in the Bible, yes?

It is a peculiar conclusion to state, “Therefore, it is moral to deny Christ.”

So can you answer the questions, please?

Is there ever another answer to the question, “Is it ever obligatory for a man to rape?”

Yes, I gave you an example. They were obligated to rape.

I don’t see it as moral but there it is. Unless you are willing to condemn the Judges/ the Assembly in Judges, as immoral or Evil, I’m not sure what your point is.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

A Levirate marriage does not consist in taking “another man’s wife” because the other man has died. That is an illegitimate stretch of an example, not a case in point.

There is nothing in Judges that makes a claim that this act was a legitimate or morally correct one. “This is what happened” does not translate to “this was morally good.”

Who’s wife is she in Heaven?

It was ordered by The Assembly, the Judges that were to have special knowledge of God in order to lead the Tribes. You’d have to denounce them as evil or at least advocating evil.

 

[PRmerger]

Peter was proposing a society were a shared morality was obligatory. I was suggesting that the only way to achieve that was if everyone shared the same religion. To ensure that everyone shared the same religion it would have to be the law of the land.

Again, an appeal to “it is never permissible to rape” is not borne of religion.

No referent to Scripture or revelation has ever been proferred here regarding morality.

Thus it is quite possible to have a moral society without having a theocracy.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Peter was proposing a society were a shared morality was obligatory. I was suggesting that the only way to achieve that was if everyone shared the same religion. To ensure that everyone shared the same religion it would have to be the law of the land.

Actually, it is another stretch to claim that common morality depends upon common religious beliefs.

Human morality concerns the common “earthbound” good. It is entirely possible for a well-developed human morality to be consistent with a set of religious beliefs and yet not require those beliefs. Religious beliefs concern the eternal good of humankind. If that eternal good is consistent with living a morally good life as a physical human being, then religious beliefs can coexist with a common morality that does not require those religious beliefs.

On the other hand, religious beliefs that are inconsistent with a fully developed human morality would be problematic.

You would have to show that common religious beliefs are the only way to achieve a common, but fully developed morality.

I know atheists who would argue against your claim, as I would. Religion might provide a context* for adhering to strong moral convictions that atheism lacks, but to claim a well-developed set of moral beliefs requires theism is not a defensible position.

*By this I do not mean negative incentive (like Hell). What I do have in mind is a sense of ultimate purpose to existence, that a strict materialism would deny.

 

[PRmerger]

Yes, I gave you an example. They were obligated to rape.

I don’t see it as moral but there it is.

Egg-zactly.

You have only one answer to this question: is it morally permissible to rape?

You cannot countenance any other answer as being moral.

As far as this being a moral obligation in the Bible, I think that you are not familiar enough with the Scriptures to be able to discern what is a divine command and what is not.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Who’s wife is she in Heaven?

Do you read the New Testament or only the Old and incomplete one? Jesus addressed this very point. I’ll leave it to you to find his answer.

It was ordered by The Assembly, the Judges that were to have special knowledge of God in order to lead the Tribes. You’d have to denounce them as evil or at least advocating evil.

Apparently, you don’t read the Old one either. The judges were typically strong leaders who were raised up to lead the people against threats of some kind. Their role sometimes led to making judgements concerning right and wrong, but that was not their primary role.

The judges, typically compromised morality (think of Samson as a good example) and eventually became totally corrupt which led the people to clamor for a “king” to lead them, just like the other nations. The later judges were clearly denounced as evil in the Old Testament itself, and earlier judges were tacitly shown to indulge in evil. Samson, for example, took a wife (Delilah) from the Philistines and indulged in illicit activities even though his vow and common morality expressly forbade him.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I agree that becoming “fully actualized” in pop culture speak is a worthy goal. It still leaves the problem that the answers may not be the same. A Catholic Saint and A Bodhisattva may intersect on many points but not all. It isn’t an absolute morality.

Compassion seems to a running theme in most moralities which leads us back to the Golden Rule.

The “fully actualized” in pop culture speak is not what I am getting at.

The points where a Catholic saint and a bodhisattva intersect may help in discerning more accurately where true morality is to be found.

Just as an aside, the very last verse in Judges makes a very appropriate observation that, "Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." This points to the reason that the Israelites were having great difficulties at this point in their history as attributable to their relativistic view of morality. That there was no discernible right or wrong that could be appealed to was precisely the problem.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Again, an appeal to “it is never permissible to rape” is not borne of religion.

No referent to Scripture or revelation has ever been proferred here regarding morality.

Thus it is quite possible to have a moral society without having a theocracy.

I never said that it was. I was pointing out an example where people where obligated to rape. It comes from the book of Judges. I don’t think it was moral but they thought it necessary. I am surprised that you also find the Judges immoral.

I agree, it is possible to have a moral society without it being a Theocracy. Where I differed is saying that if the complete morality must be homozygous and obligatory, a Theocracy is the only method.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Actually, it is another stretch to claim that common morality depends upon common religious beliefs.

Human morality concerns the common “earthbound” good. It is entirely possible for a well-developed human morality to be consistent with a set of religious beliefs and yet not require those beliefs. Religious beliefs concern the eternal good of humankind. If that eternal good is consistent with living a morally good life as a physical human being, then religious beliefs can coexist with a common morality that does not require those religious beliefs.

On the other hand, religious beliefs that are inconsistent with a fully developed human morality would be problematic.

You would have to show that common religious beliefs are the only way to achieve a common, but fully developed morality.

I know atheists who would argue against your claim, as I would. Religion might provide a context* for adhering to strong moral convictions that atheism lacks, but to claim a well-developed set of moral beliefs requires theism is not a defensible position.

*By this I do not mean negative incentive (like Hell). What I do have in mind is a sense of ultimate purpose to existence, that a strict materialism would deny.

I just addressed this but to reiterate. A limited morality like don’t Lie, Steal, Rape or Murder, can be and is shared by most societies and is enforced by civil laws. I would say we qualify under that limited scope. But a comprehensive morality of the whole of human conduct, I don’t think is possible unless the civil and religious are the same authority.

If you are looking to an utopian society where no one is petty, or greedy or selfish… sign me up. I’d love to see it.

 

[meltzerboy]

The problem with tolerance is that it doesn’t resolve the deep issues between moral perspectives, it simply ignores them under the umbrella of being tolerant.

As those moral differences deepen and become irreconcilable, the facade of tolerance will break apart and the “liberty” of those with power will undermine or subdue the liberties of those without.

This is precisely what has happened with abortion. The political power of women with a voice has simply overwhelmed the voiceless unborn. The unborn, largely because they have no voice have been relegated to non-person status by political fiat.

The morals of the less endowed, politically speaking, will simply be ignored or overwhelmed by the quest for liberties by the more powerful. Liberty is, at best, amoral.

Any political system that is based solely on the power of the majority will always be susceptible to the problem of political might (majority rules) makes right. The Casey Decision enshrined that ultimate flaw as law.

Morality functions as the governing control for liberty. Having a sound moral system is the only means by which the excesses of liberty (even of the majority) can be kept in check. A neutral (or natural) moral system must be the final arbitrator or the political system will impose political might rather than moral right.

The existing moral stasis will always be challenged by those who seek greater liberty and thus tension will always exist between liberty and morality. That tension exists within each of us and within every human society.

The danger in the current situation is that we have in the modern western world an inchoate admixture of moral positions that have been lumped together by globalization. That moral soup has no legs - no common base - from which to adequately assess, morally speaking, the overwhelming demands by libertarians that personal liberties be viewed as civil “rights.”

The fact that we do have varying moral positions has led to the assumption of moral relativity as the de facto position, so there is no neutral moral standard or ground from which to assess the moral quality of those demands concerning personal liberty.

Libertarians have seized the opportunity within the existing moral vacuum to push forward their ostensibly morally neutral, but, in reality, morally flawed view that personal liberties ought to be paramount.

My own view is that the situation is a powder keg waiting to ignite. The personal liberties of some will always bump up against the personal liberties of others. So liberty cannot be the standard by which differences or conflicts about liberty are to be resolved.

A common morality is the only possible solution because liberties by their very nature must have limits in human society and must be abided (seen as obligatory) by every member of that society in order for the tension between personal liberty and the welfare of all to be balanced.

There is so much going on in your comment, much of which I question, that it is hard to know where to begin. One thing I am curious about is your statement regarding a common morality as being “neutral.” In what sense is it, or any morality for that matter, neutral? You say that “…there is no neutral moral standard or ground from which to assess the moral quality of those demands concerning personal liberty,” and you blame this on “moral relativity” as the “de facto position.” But wouldn’t a common morality be based on shared and consensual values that are NOT neutral in either the rational or emotional meaning of the term? True, morally relative values are even less neutral since they also incorporate a cultural, contextual framework; but can any morality really be neutral? Or do you define neutrality not so much as the process of arriving at a consensus of moral values but more the end-product which can serve as an anchor or reference point by which to measure more recent ideas concerning morality?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Do you read the New Testament or only the Old and incomplete one? Jesus addressed this very point. I’ll leave it to you to find his answer.

Apparently, you don’t read the Old one either. The judges were typically strong leaders who were raised up to lead the people against threats of some kind. Their role sometimes led to making judgements concerning right and wrong, but that was not their primary role.

The judges, typically compromised morality (think of Samson as a good example) and eventually became totally corrupt which led the people to clamor for a “king” to lead them, just like the other nations. The later judges were clearly denounced as evil in the Old Testament itself, and earlier judges were tacitly shown to indulge in evil. Samson, for example, took a wife (Delilah) from the Philistines and indulged in illicit activities even though his vow and common morality expressly forbade him.

I’m familiar with Matt 22.

Can you point to where the Rape by the Benjamites is condemned specifically?