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

[Peter_Plato]

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.

“They” being the “elders of the congregation” that came up with the idea. It wasn’t one of the judges or even a group of them.

The influence of the judges had just about run its course by that time (Eli and and his sons were either corrupt or ineffectual and Eli’s protege, Samuel, was the last Judge before King Saul was anointed.)

The decision in question was made by the “elders of the congregation” which would be analogous to the “leaders of the community” or even “the Council of Elders” or “the Sanhedrin” in later times.

Does it surprise you also that the Sanhedrin initiated the crucifixion of Jesus? Isn’t it entirely consistent to think that if a leadership cohort could come to a decision to crucify the embodiment of moral goodness, the “Just Man,” in the New Testament that a similar claim could have been made about the moral weakness of the council of elders in the Old?

Human leadership is consistently portrayed as failing in the Old Testament. Read the litany of evil kings (…”he did evil in the sight of The Lord…") in the books of Kings and Chronicles. These were supposed to have been an upgrade or improvement of leadership from their predecessors, the judges.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

“They” being the “elders of the congregation” that came up with the idea. It wasn’t one of the judges or even a group of them.

The influence of the judges had just about run its course by that time (Eli and and his sons were either corrupt or ineffectual and Eli’s protege, Samuel, was the last Judge before King Saul was anointed.)

The decision in question was made by the “elders of the congregation” which would be analogous to the “leaders of the community” or even “the Council of Elders” or “the Sanhedrin” in later times.

Does it surprise you also that the Sanhedrin initiated the crucifixion of Jesus? Isn’t it entirely consistent to think that if a leadership cohort could come to a decision to crucify the embodiment of moral goodness, the “Just Man,” in the New Testament that a similar claim could have been made about the moral weakness of the council of elders in the Old?

Human leadership is consistently portrayed as failing in the Old Testament. Read the litany of evil kings (…”he did evil in the sight of The Lord…") in the books of Kings and Chronicles. These were supposed to have been an upgrade or improvement of leadership from their predecessors, the judges.

The whole book of Judges is a cycle of redemption and punishment. Samson had redeemed them. It’s a dark note it ends on. It isn’t a condemnation, or punishment. It foreshadows the Kings. But the cycle ends there. There’s no real condemnation.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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?

Neutral, in the sense of unbiased towards any particular vested interest in the question. In the same sense as a judge ought to be (but often is not) neutral or impartial or in the sense of justice being “blind” to or not partial to the vested interests of litigants, although these interests would be taken into consideration, though not to unfairly favour one or the other.

A neutral morality would not “side with” any “competing” moralities but make a determination not biased by any of them. In a sense, the requirement would be that ultimate morality transcends bias although it may rule in favour of one or other moral position.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The whole book of Judges is a cycle of redemption and punishment. Samson had redeemed them. It’s a dark note it ends on. It isn’t a condemnation, or punishment. It foreshadows the Kings. But the cycle ends there. There’s no real condemnation.

There is a difference between “judgement,” “punishment” and “condemnation.” Judgement is a determination of where things are at. It may bring about punishment but need not imply condemnation, but rather the need for redemption. Punishment may be a means of changing or challenging behaviour, but it is not the same as condemnation.

Samson didn’t redeem anyone. He was an incomplete representation of the possibility of and need for redemption. Just as Moses and Exodus incompletely represent the promise of salvation (the Promised Land), Samson points forward, as a symbol, to redemption as requiring the sacrifice or “giving up” of one’s past life.

Recall that by his death he brought down the “works of evil.” In that, he prefigured Christ, but the fact that he also died and was not resurrected shows, minimally, that his own life exhibited a measure of evil. He, too, died in the destruction (judgement of God) that he, as its instrument and judge of Israel, brought down on the Philistines.

Condemnation implies no possibility of redemption. Israel and the nations around her were repeatedly judged and punished by God (through various instruments), but no where is condemnation (in the sense of beyond hope of redemption) ever stated or implied.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m familiar with Matt 22.

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

The very last line of Judges, “Everyone did what was right in their own eyes.” That means the people were not doing what was right “in the eyes of God,” but rather only what they thought to be right. Note, they didn’t seek God’s “advice” in the decision, they just did what they thought was right. That is Biblical code for, “You did WHAT?”

 

[PRmerger]

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.

Why would you be surprised?

Are you of the belief that the Bible contains stories of only saintly men and women?

 

[PRmerger]

I never said that it was. I was pointing out an example where people where obligated to rape.

Can you please answer the question: do you believe that there is another answer to the question, “It is sometimes permissible to rape another person.”

Or is there only one answer: it is never permissible to rape another person.

 

[PRmerger]

I agree, it is possible to have a moral society without it being a Theocracy.

Excellent.

Where I differed is saying that if the complete morality must be homozygous and obligatory, a Theocracy is the only method.

Only if the morality is imposed from without, rather than from something internal.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.”

To address this point using a different approach. If morality is “relative,” then in principle there is no means of adjudicating between different viewpoints.

To come to a “judgement” concerning conflicting liberties, there must be the “in principle” possibility that one position or other is going to be the “correct” one.

It is possible to desire consensus in all matters, but that is simply unrealistic where conflicting liberties are at stake. In order to resolve the issue, there must be an understanding from both parties that each of them could be “in principle” holding the incorrect view and a willingness to allow the impartial “judge” to determine the outcome.

If one, other or neither party is willing to concede that their position could be vulnerable, and defer to an ultimate, I.e., neutral, authority or accept an obligation to a higher (ostensibly neutral) moral authority, there can be no possibility of arriving at a solution.

Moral relativism is the position that all parties are, in principle, holding a correct moral view. Good luck resolving a dispute between two parties that both hold to that view.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Why would you be surprised?

Are you of the belief that the Bible contains stories of only saintly men and women?

No, but the Judges were put in place by God, to guide the people back from disobedience. The people stray, the Judges bring them back. They had been led back by Samson and the story ends in rape. To dismiss the Assembly as immoral is surprising.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Can you please answer the question: do you believe that there is another answer to the question, “It is sometimes permissible to rape another person.”

Or is there only one answer: it is never permissible to rape another person.

That’s why I pointed to Judges. The people stray away from God, they are punished. They are led back to God by a Judge. It’s cyclical. The Judges ends with the rape story. It seems that they got along with it until Ruth. And the Kingdom begins.

I don’t know if it’s seen to be a necessary evil, but it’s not punished. It seemed to be permissible.

With in my moral standards, I can’t’ think of anything plausible but I can concoct a scenario.

Man A forces Man B to rape or Man A will kill man B’s family. I would say that’s morally permissible. Ridiculous but permissible.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Only if the morality is imposed from without, rather than from something internal.

That’s the crux. Internal or External. Internal would have to have a motivator, I am saying compassion, i.e. the Golden Rule. But if you don’t feel it, you have to be externally motivated, punitive or reward.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

To address this point using a different approach. If morality is “relative,” then in principle there is no means of adjudicating between different viewpoints.

To come to a “judgement” concerning conflicting liberties, there must be the “in principle” possibility that one position or other is going to be the “correct” one.

It is possible to desire consensus in all matters, but that is simply unrealistic where conflicting liberties are at stake. In order to resolve the issue, there must be an understanding from both parties that each of them could be “in principle” holding the incorrect view and a willingness to allow the impartial “judge” to determine the outcome.

If one, other or neither party is willing to concede that their position could be vulnerable, and defer to an ultimate, I.e., neutral, authority or accept an obligation to a higher (ostensibly neutral) moral authority, there can be no possibility of arriving at a solution.

Moral relativism is the position that all parties are, in principle, holding a correct moral view. Good luck resolving a dispute between two parties that both hold to that view.

This is why I keep bringing up a test. How do we find this morally neutral position on which to judge against? How do we know when we’ve found it?

 

[Bradski]

That is, some things may be moral because of one’s motive. But if one’s motive changes, it may become immoral.

It may become immoral in one person’s view, but not another’s. And as Roscoe asks, how do we know what the ‘right’ answer is? How do we know what the absolute truth is without reference to the divine?

I think that logic and reason have been applied to almost every moral question you’ve ever addressed here, Bradski.

I’m sure that you’d agree that we are all fallible. I don’t actually use the phrases: ‘As far as I’m concerned’ or ‘it would appear to me’ all the time. But I do use them quite a lot and if they don’t appear in any given quote, then you must assume that they’re there in any case. That is, I try not to be, how shall I say, too dogmatic about what I believe that there may not be one answer that fits all.

But if there is such an answer – an absolute truth, how do we know when we’ve arrived at it without reference to the divine. If you use logic and reason, who is to say that mine is better than yours and I am right?

One may never do evil so that good may result from it;

I’m sure we could all come up with plenty of examples where doing something evil will result in good. Isn’t there a get-out-of-jail clause that might suggest that if you did do something wrong that results in a greater benefit, then what you have done is not necessarily evil?

I would suggest that killing someone to protect one’s child is not evil, so the statement becomes worthless.

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.

Hey, hang on a minute. So my ‘well-developed human morality’ as an atheist is fine…just as long as it is ‘consistent with a set of religious beliefs’. Do you have any particular set in mind? What if mine differs in some areas? Areas where I have reached my decision through ‘logic and reason’. Does everyone who has this well-developed sense of morality reached all their decisions by the same route? Or are they relying on their set of religious beliefs?

If it’s logic and reason, then you’re going to have a hard time convincing me that everyone has come to exactly the same conclusion in regard to all matters of morality. If they are following their ‘set of religious beliefs’, then let’s be honest about it.

As PR says: ‘I may have appealed to the Bible or to the Catechism in dialogue with atheists in order to provide apologia for why Catholicism proclaims something, but I never do this in an attempt to convince an atheist. I appeal to logic and reason alone.’

 

[Peter_Plato]

That’s why I pointed to Judges. The people stray away from God, they are punished. They are led back to God by a Judge. It’s cyclical. The Judges ends with the rape story. It seems that they got along with it until Ruth. And the Kingdom begins.

I don’t know if it’s seen to be a necessary evil, but it’s not punished. It seemed to be permissible.

With in my moral standards, I can’t’ think of anything plausible but I can concoct a scenario.

Man A forces Man B to rape or Man A will kill man B’s family. I would say that’s morally permissible. Ridiculous but permissible.

You seem to feel that God does not work in mysterious ways, but overtly and immediately. Where does the Bible say that God’s “retribution” is always immediate? Exodus 20:4-6 seems to explicitly refute that idea.

The end of Judges has an ominous tone to it. It is necessary to see the entire context of Biblical history in order to “get” it. The people have their own ideas of what they deem morally right (recall the line from the end of Judges.) That is why they ask for a king, “like the other nations,” and that mindset of thinking they know what is best for them results in a lineage of kings that continue to mess up, ending up in endemic slavery under Solomon and the kingdom being torn apart and finally exiled by the Assyrians and Babylonians. Note: the punishment didn’t happen at the end of Judges, it continued on through to the end of the Old Testament. How did you miss that?

That “messing up” is precisely the retribution that God allows. You get what you ask for is the message. Whenever, the people or their leaders ask God’s advice things work well, when people do things their own way, things go wrong. That is the entire narrative of the Old Testament.

Abram disobeyed God’s direction to “leave his relatives” (Genesis 12) because he didn’t “leave” them, he let some of them, Lot’s family, go with him. Does it explicitly say, God punished Abram for that failure? No, but Abram ran into difficulty (famine symbolic of shortage because he didn’t follow directions) precisely because he disobeyed. Notice that he ended up in Egypt (without Lot) where things worked out (because he had left Lot behind) even though Abram bumbled in every possible way. It is necessary to read “between the lines” to get that. The problem here is that you expect God’s Word to be understood literally. Perhaps this is why you run into difficulties with it?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Hey, hang on a minute. So my ‘well-developed human morality’ as an atheist is fine…just as long as it is ‘consistent with a set of religious beliefs’.

I am sure we can agree on some.

Do you have any particular set in mind? What if mine differs in some areas?

Obviously, you’d be wrong.

Areas where I have reached my decision through ‘logic and reason’. Does everyone who has this well-developed sense of morality reached all their decisions by the same route? Or are they relying on their set of religious beliefs?

I would argue that, in principle, it would be possible to arrive at the same set by logic and reason. The problem is the starting point, the basic premises. Some are willing to entertain premises that are problematic for others, but that is precisely why the process of reason and logic are necessary, just as scientific principles are not obvious and handed to us, they have to be gleaned from empirical reality. What’s the problem with viewing the moral landscape in the same way? People started with errant ideas about science. Similarly, the fact that some have errant ideas about ethics does not nullify pursuing moral discourse. Why should it?

If it’s logic and reason, then you’re going to have a hard time convincing me that everyone has come to exactly the same conclusion in regard to all matters of morality. If they are following their ‘set of religious beliefs’, then let’s be honest about it.

I don’t need to convince anyone that “everyone has come to exactly the same conclusion in regard to all matters of morality” precisely because they haven’t. But that does not entail correct conclusions are impossible. People don’t agree on scientific matters either. That is the point of scientific pursuit. I would argue ethics have similar objective features, though methods are different.

As PR says: ‘I may have appealed to the Bible or to the Catechism in dialogue with atheists in order to provide apologia for why Catholicism proclaims something, but I never do this in an attempt to convince an atheist. I appeal to logic and reason alone.’

I agree with her. Natural morality is not premised on religious beliefs, but at the same time should not be disqualified because it happens to align with religious beliefs. That is simply a irrelevant feature.

People who don’t like some moral conclusions often try to hide behind the accusation that these conclusions arise from religious beliefs, which is often simply untrue. They may conjoin with religious beliefs, but are often defensible based solely on natural moral law.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

You seem to feel that God does not work in mysterious ways, but overtly and immediately. Where does the Bible say that God’s “retribution” is always immediate? Exodus 20:4-6 seems to explicitly refute that idea.

The end of Judges has an ominous tone to it. It is necessary to see the entire context of Biblical history in order to “get” it. The people have their own ideas of what they deem morally right (recall the line from the end of Judges.) That is why they ask for a king, “like the other nations,” and that mindset of thinking they know what is best for them results in a lineage of kings that continue to mess up, ending up in endemic slavery under Solomon and the kingdom being torn apart and finally exiled by the Assyrians and Babylonians. Note: the punishment didn’t happen at the end of Judges, it continued on through to the end of the Old Testament. How did you miss that?

That “messing up” is precisely the retribution that God allows. You get what you ask for is the message. Whenever, the people or their leaders ask God’s advice things work well, when people do things their own way, things go wrong. That is the entire narrative of the Old Testament.

Abram disobeyed God’s direction to “leave his relatives” (Genesis 12) because he didn’t “leave” them, he let some of them, Lot’s family, go with him. Does it explicitly say, God punished Abram for that failure? No, but Abram ran into difficulty (famine symbolic of shortage because he didn’t follow directions) precisely because he disobeyed. Notice that he ended up in Egypt (without Lot) where things worked out (because he had left Lot behind) even though Abram bumbled in every possible way. It is necessary to read “between the lines” to get that. The problem here is that you expect God’s Word to be understood literally. Perhaps this is why you run into difficulties with it?

In the context of Judges it does work that way. It cycles. The people do evil, They are punished, God raises up a leader, They defeat an enemy, they are at peace again. It ends with “What to do with the Benjamites” and the rape and it seems that all is well again. If it was worth punishment, it would have followed if it was to keep with the cycle of the book. In the context of the book, it’s a resolution to the problem of the Benjamites.

 

[Peter_Plato]

In the context of Judges it does work that way. It cycles. The people do evil, They are punished, God raises up a leader, They defeat an enemy, they are at peace again. It ends with “What to do with the Benjamites” and the rape and it seems that all is well again. If it was worth punishment, it would have followed if it was to keep with the cycle of the book. In the context of the book, it’s a resolution to the problem of the Benjamites.

Or a strong indicator that the cycle required a bigger fix because to continue the cycle forever would be futile.

Obviously, Judges was not the “happily ever after” ending of the story.

The world of the Israelites remained “broken” for precisely the reason stated at the end of Judges.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I am sure we can agree on some.

Obviously, you’d be wrong.

I would argue that, in principle, it would be possible to arrive at the same set by logic and reason. The problem is the starting point, the basic premises. Some are willing to entertain premises that are problematic for others, but that is precisely why the process of reason and logic are necessary, just as scientific principles are not obvious and handed to us, they have to be gleaned from empirical reality. What’s the problem with viewing the moral landscape in the same way? People started with errant ideas about science. Similarly, the fact that some have errant ideas about ethics does not nullify pursuing moral discourse. Why should it?

I don’t need to convince anyone that “everyone has come to exactly the same conclusion in regard to all matters of morality” precisely because they haven’t. But that does not entail correct conclusions are impossible. People don’t agree on scientific matters either. That is the point of scientific pursuit. I would argue ethics have similar objective features, though methods are different.

I agree with her. Natural morality is not premised on religious beliefs, but at the same time should not be disqualified because it happens to align with religious beliefs. That is simply a irrelevant feature.

People who don’t like some moral conclusions often try to hide behind the accusation that these conclusions arise from religious beliefs, which is often simply untrue. They may conjoin with religious beliefs, but are often defensible based solely on natural moral law.

How do you know if you’ve arrived. In science you have a repeatable results that are peer reviewed. What is the method to arrive at a moral absolute? Many philosophies have purposed many solutions to moral questions. What is the testing process?

Are you using “natural moral law” in the Aquinas sense?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Or a strong indicator that the cycle required a bigger fix because to continue the cycle forever would be futile.

Obviously, Judges was not the “happily ever after” ending of the story.

The world of the Israelites remained “broken” for precisely the reason stated at the end of Judges.

As you pointed out, it is the whole story of the Old Testament, of people falling short. It would seem odd to end it where it began, no progress would have been made.