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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Peter_Plato
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I have never had a problem with sex outside of marriage. So when my wife said that my daughter wanted to have her boyfriend sleep over, there was a lot of huffing and puffing on my part until she pointed out what my position on the matter has always been. Was it the case that it was OK for everyone…except my daughter? Well, naturally not. I had to be consistent. And it’s been the same with all moral matters. Drugs, contraception, homosexuality, abortion…**I have to be sure that I have the courage of my convictions. **
So does that entail it is permissible to be immoral if one is not courageous enough to be moral?

If someone points out an hypocrisy on your part, that is sufficient reason to take the morally inferior option because your courage is insufficient to opt for the higher?

Doesn’t it merely entail that the option you lack the courage to endorse or act on is still the right option, but merely that you lack the courage to carry it out? Otherwise, one’s entire moral system collapses to “what I decide I am capable of” or “what I have the courage to carry out.”

That merely justifies the morally timid or tepid, does it not?
 
Let me anticipate, Bradski, that you will contend your “Do no harm” moral view is the only defensible one in a morally diverse culture.

The problem with that view, it seems to me, is that it sets up a minimal and necessary standard, but not one that is sufficient. It is and can only provide a negative moral picture.

The quality of a moral system is determined by its capacity to identify the “good” and propose that in a clear and compelling way. Your merely negative “Do no harm” does not even pretend to define what the good that we ought to aim for might be, so what you have is a sterile morality; a morality that doesn’t point anywhere but leaves everyone to flounder about with no sense of how to get out of our moral predicament, so long as in the floundering about we refrain from poking out each other’s eyes or kicking groins.

As I say, I find that view inadequate precisely because it is incomplete. There is no positive statement of what we ought to do, just that we should not harm anyone while in the state of “not doing.”

Does restraint require moral courage? I don’t know, maybe it does. But it certainly requires much less moral courage these days than actually taking a positive stand and pointing in a definite direction. Our politically correct doctrine of “tolerance” will, paradoxically, get you lambasted for taking that stand. You will be attacked with: “Well that’s your view!” or “Everyone has a right to decide for themselves.” True, that, until you actually do decide, then you’ll be put in your place for being fanatical.

That leads to taking a justifiable “Do not care” attitude regarding the moral turpitude of others, which, I contend, requires more courage than merely acquiescing to a herd (live and let live) morality - a morality that seems to have such an issue with God’s authority to “correct” the herd because it cannot even imagine a concept of “destiny” beyond contented grazing, blissfully unaware…
As it was in the days of Noah, so it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark; and **they knew nothing about what would happen **until the flood came and took them all away. That is how it will be at the coming of the Son of Man. (Matt 24)
 
Not sure how a non-mention merits being cited to support your claim.

Here is a mention, however, from the Bulletin of Ramses II:

Cited in: mandm.org.nz/2011/01/god-and-the-genocide-of-the-canaanites-part-ii-ancient-near-eastern-conquest-accounts.html
It is describing a military campaign. One army vs another not the slaughter of women an children.

It is also being used as an example of hyperbolic language in ancient texts.

It’s not an example of genocide in either case.
 
Are you claiming tribal groups did not have a leadership structure? Or that just calling it a monarchy makes all the difference?
No. I’m saying a tribal structure and a monarchy are different. Do claim they are the same?
 
I never been accused of having a faith in the Ancient Egyptians. That’s a new one. 😃
I didn’t say you have faith in the Egyptians.

I was saying that you have faith in your own unsubstantiated statements.

You are professing,* without a whit of proof or fact*, that the Egyptians had no exposure to genocide.

That’s a faith-based statement.

I find the irony amusing. 😃
 
The access a 3omni being (aka God) would have to all relevant facts and knowledge of all future and past implications, together with infinite goodness would mean, by definition, our judgements would be inferior. So, “in principle” we would always be obligated to doing what is determined by God.
I don’t think I’ve disagreed with that at any time.
The "in fact” question is whether God actually did command the Israelites to carry out the conquest of the Canaanites in the manner claimed in the Old Testament.
Agreed. Although we are going with the fact that the massacre did occur.
Merely because someone claims God has commanded something, does not mean that is true.
An important point which I won’t comment on at the moment.
The reason I bring up this distinction is to counter the typical atheist contention that the Old Testament passages necessarily show the Israelites were wrong in doing what they did because God “could not” command such behaviour.
This is a God that drowned everyone on the planet. A mere massacre doesn’t seem beyond Him.
Whether the Israelites actually did carry out a command determined by God is not one we can absolutely determine. They COULD have because “in principle” it is possible for God to have given the command (as the “in principle” argument shows.)

Did God actually do so?
You have said before that you believe He did. But there’s nothing that follows to confirm that one way or the other.
Would I have been morally obligated to carry out the command? If God commanded it, yes…
Well, it’s taken a while, but we have an answer. If God had given the command, you would be morally obliged to carry it out. Are you absolutely certain? It seems so, because you can say…
…following the “in principle” argument that had ALL the relevant conditions obtained and absolute certainty existed that God commanded the act and that this God was, indeed, the 3omni God, then I would have been obligated to do so.
But I note the need for absolute certainty. Which pertains to the point above where you say that you could not absolutely determine if the massacre took place because of God’s command.
Would I have had the moral courage or strength to have carried it out? I don’t know.
Tough call indeed. Especially as you keep saying that it would be impossible to know if the command was actually divine. Which I’ll try to get to later…
 
I didn’t say you have faith in the Egyptians.

I was saying that you have faith in your own unsubstantiated statements.

You are professing,* without a whit of proof or fact*, that the Egyptians had no exposure to genocide.

That’s a faith-based statement.

I find the irony amusing. 😃
I did provide proof.

I don’t see any evidence to them teaching the Israelites tribalism, they were a monarchy long before the Israelites were in Egypt and after the Israelites left.

There were massacres in the ancient world but I haven’t seen any evidence that the ancient Egyptians were guilty of genocide.

If you have evidence to the contrary, i.e. proof of genocide, I’m open to it. I have no ties to the Egyptians.

There isn’t any faith involved. If you give me proof, I’ll happily change my stance. I’m not tied to it in any way.
 
There were massacres in the ancient world but I haven’t seen any evidence that the ancient Egyptians were guilty of genocide.
Ah, so the Egyptians did indeed have exposure to massacres. They saw it happen. They slaughtered people.

So what is it you are saying about Egyptians not knowing about genocide? And about the Egyptians not having any models of what genocide might look like? Therefore, since the Egyptians had no idea how to commit genocide, (not having any examples of it, and all that), the Israelites could never have gotten the idea from them?

Is that your claim?
 
I did provide proof.

I don’t see any evidence to them teaching the Israelites tribalism, they were a monarchy long before the Israelites were in Egypt and after the Israelites left.

There were massacres in the ancient world but I haven’t seen any evidence that the ancient Egyptians were guilty of genocide.

If you have evidence to the contrary, i.e. proof of genocide, I’m open to it. I have no ties to the Egyptians.

There isn’t any faith involved. If you give me proof, I’ll happily change my stance. I’m not tied to it in any way.
Also, could you please answer why you inserted the word “since” in your original post on this subject? :confused:
 
Also, could you please answer why you inserted the word “since” in your original post on this subject? :confused:
It was a compound sentence. You could make two sentences out of it.

Since they were a kingdom I don’t think they were teaching tribalism.

Since there was no examples of them committing Genocide I don’t think they taught the Israelites genocide.
 
It was a compound sentence. You could make two sentences out of it.
That explains your use of the word “and”. But not “since”, which does not reference any compound sentence structure.
Since they were a kingdom I don’t think they were teaching tribalism.
That is as nonsensical as saying, “Since they had a king I don’t think they were teaching good hygiene”.

What does one have to do with the other?
Since there was no examples of them committing Genocide I don’t think they taught the Israelites genocide.
And this is as nonsensical as saying, “Since you have never committed murder you could never teach your students how to murder.”
 
Ah, so the Egyptians did indeed have exposure to massacres. They saw it happen. They slaughtered people.

So what is it you are saying about Egyptians not knowing about genocide? And about the Egyptians not having any models of what genocide might look like? Therefore, since the Egyptians had no idea how to commit genocide, (not having any examples of it, and all that), the Israelites could never have gotten the idea from them?

Is that your claim?
They were a kingdom that fought wars. There is no evidence that they committed genocide.

The Israelites by their own admission did, at the least, attempt genocide by the order of their god YHWH.

If you have evidence of ancient Egyptians attempting genocide please provide it. With out the evidence the assertion that Egyptians are the source of the Israelite practice of genocide is baseless.
 
They were a kingdom that fought wars. There is no evidence that they committed genocide.
No one has posited that they committed genocide.

What has been proposed is that it’s possible that the Israelites learned about tribalism and genocide from the Egyptians’ paganistic ethos.
 
No one has posited that they committed genocide.

What has been proposed is that it’s possible that the Israelites learned about tribalism and genocide from the Egyptians’ paganistic ethos.
What is the evidence?
 
So does that entail it is permissible to be immoral if one is not courageous enough to be moral?

If someone points out an hypocrisy on your part, that is sufficient reason to take the morally inferior option because your courage is insufficient to opt for the higher?

Doesn’t it merely entail that the option you lack the courage to endorse or act on is still the right option, but merely that you lack the courage to carry it out? Otherwise, one’s entire moral system collapses to “what I decide I am capable of” or “what I have the courage to carry out.”

That merely justifies the morally timid or tepid, does it not?
!
 
I intended to post this in a thread related to opposition to gay marriage being hateful, but that thread was summarily closed. I am hoping that Mr. Turner will continue this discussion.

Mr. Turner made the following observation concerning the Golden Rule and included a number of Biblical quotes to support his contention.

To which I intended to reply:

All your quotes notwithstanding, the golden rule is not to be considered a “moral principle” because it doesn’t “underpin” the ethics of Christianity.

Definition of principle:

The fundamental truth of Christianity is not that we should treat others the way we want them to treat us, because, as a fundamental truth, that would be consistent with sadomasochism.

No, the fundamental truth that underpins or forms the foundation of Christianity is that all human beings are valued eternally by the infinite ground of all reality, aka God. Given THAT basic understanding, i.e., that each of us has eternal - and not just consensual or contractual worth - we are obligated to treat others according to our understanding of that worthiness.

Thus the Golden Rule follows from the more foundational ethical belief concerning human value.

From that basic or foundational understanding we can reason to (recall the definition of principle) the moral rule of thumb that we SHOULD treat others as we would want to be treated, GIVEN the manner WE should be treated as creations valued by the ground of all reality.

That is why the Golden Rule is, strictly speaking, a “rule of thumb” and not a moral principle.
Here’s the definition from Wikipedia:

Clearly, the Golden Rule is not a foundational principle, as you claim, because it assumes the person citing it is familiar with and agrees to the foundational belief that human beings do have eternal value. It is, as the definition from Wikipedia states, the “easily learned,” “easily applied,” procedure for “recalling some value” (the eternal worth of others) or “making some determination” (how to treat them.)

It cannot be the “foundational principle” because without the assumption of eternal worth, the Golden Rule can be quite effectively applied by someone who hates everyone, including themselves, to go on a shooting spree. If he wants to be killed, the Golden Rule would seem to encourage him in the direction of killing anyone he encounters.

The Golden Rule is, therefore, not foundational, but rather functions a “rule of thumb” derived by “a chain of reasoning” (as the definition of principle cited above shows) from the more foundational moral premises of Christianity.

That is the way Christ intended it to be understood; that much is clear. It was intended as a quick and dirty means of assessing how to act in a challenging and pressing situation based on the foundational belief that all humans have equal and eternal worth. It was not an explication of the underlying reality that God values every human being eternally, which is the necessary moral principle undergirding the Golden Rule.
The Golden Rule is an ethical, Humanist principle that existed long before Christianity or any other religion.

The GR is a fundamental precursor to a functioning society. As societies by necessity existsed before Christianity et al, the rule must have existed. Christianity (and doubtless other religions) then wrote it down and pretended they thought of it. It is this ridiculous notion that promotes the laughable (and demonstrably false) presumption that religion is the root of morality.
 
The Golden Rule is an ethical, Humanist principle that existed long before Christianity or any other religion.

The GR is a fundamental precursor to a functioning society. As societies by necessity existsed before Christianity et al, the rule must have existed. Christianity (and doubtless other religions) then wrote it down and pretended they thought of it. It is this ridiculous notion that promotes the laughable (and demonstrably false) presumption that religion is the root of morality.
In these prior societies, was the golden rule achieved by means of reason alone or by means of faith combined with reason? IOW, are you sure these societies did not adhere to the golden rule as part of a religion they practiced? Finally, which societies are you referring to?
 
The Golden Rule is an ethical, Humanist principle that existed long before Christianity or any other religion.

The GR is a fundamental precursor to a functioning society. As societies by necessity existsed before Christianity et al, the rule must have existed. Christianity (and doubtless other religions) then wrote it down and pretended they thought of it. It is this ridiculous notion that promotes the laughable (and demonstrably false) presumption that religion is the root of morality.
Speaking of…do you believe it to be ethical to have in your signature whom you are ignoring, and that you view this poster as a “tomato” (whatever that connotes, although it clearly is not a positive assessment)?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top