NonChristian sources of morality

[Tony2255]

I read a comment that stated, basically, there are better sources for judging a persons morality than the Ten Commandments, Seven Deadly Sins, and Jesus’ Greatest Commandment (Mt 22:37-40) " Love God with all your heart…Love your neighbor as yourself." So, I have a couple questions in reference to the Christian sources.

1. If there are better sources, what is it you believe isn’t covered by the Christians sources?
2. Do you feel that there are any that should be excluded?

I think we can point out the obvious 1-3 of the Ten Commandments and the first of Jesus’ Greatest Commandment. But aside from those.

There is no hidden agenda or an ambush for a debate. I was just wanted a [nonChristian] point of view.

 

[Bakmoon]

I read a comment that stated, basically, there are better sources for judging a persons morality than the Ten Commandments, Seven Deadly Sins, and Jesus’ Greatest Commandment (Mt 22:37-40) " Love God with all your heart…Love your neighbor as yourself." So, I have a couple questions in reference to the Christian sources.

1. If there are better sources, what is it you believe isn’t covered by the Christians sources?
2. Do you feel that there are any that should be excluded?

I think we can point out the obvious 1-3 of the Ten Commandments and the first of Jesus’ Greatest Commandment. But aside from those.

There is no hidden agenda or an ambush for a debate. I was just wanted a non-believers point of view.

That’s a good question. I don’t think I’ve ever thought about the issue myself. As a Buddhist, I would say that the most analogous example is a section from one of our scriptures, the Ambalatthika-rahulovada Sutta:

"While you are doing a bodily action, you should reflect on it: ‘This bodily action I am doing — is it leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Is it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it is leading to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both… you should give it up. But if on reflection you know that it is not… you may continue with it.

“Having done a bodily action, you should reflect on it: ‘This bodily action I have done — did it lead to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both? Was it an unskillful bodily action, with painful consequences, painful results?’ If, on reflection, you know that it led to self-affliction, to the affliction of others, or to both; it was an unskillful bodily action with painful consequences, painful results, then you should confess it, reveal it, lay it open to the Teacher or to a knowledgeable companion in the holy life. Having confessed it… you should exercise restraint in the future. But if on reflection you know that it did not lead to affliction… it was a skillful bodily action with pleasant consequences, pleasant results, then you should stay mentally refreshed & joyful, training day & night in skillful mental qualities.”

[Similarly for verbal and mental acts]

1)I just find it to be better because it is a principle that lends itself more easily to application in different circumstances and it emphasizes the importance of using our moral principles to consistently ponder over our actions to guard ourselves, but that’s just my personal tastes and biases.

1. I don’t quite know what you mean by exclude. If by exclude you mean not be used in government displays, I think that religious displays for the purpose of religion shouldn’t be used regardless of what religion they are from, but of course that is dependent on context. If a government building has a display of various milestones in the field of ethics or law and have other displays too, like something on the code of Justinian and the ten commandments are there to be a part of that, then I think that is perfectly okay, but I would be opposed to having it there if there weren’t some context for it that made sense.

 

[Tony2255]

1. I don’t quite know what you mean by exclude. If by exclude you mean not be used in government displays, I think that religious displays for the purpose of religion shouldn’t be used regardless of what religion they are from, but of course that is dependent on context. If a government building has a display of various milestones in the field of ethics or law and have other displays too, like something on the code of Justinian and the ten commandments are there to be a part of that, then I think that is perfectly okay, but I would be opposed to having it there if there weren’t some context for it that made sense.

No, not government, but a person’s morality. For example, Someone doesn’t agree that honoring their mother and father positively affects a person’s morality.

 

[notself]

Along with the teaching that Bakmoon quoted describing correct action, there are specific teachings by the Buddha on relationships. These teachings seem to be more detailed than the ten commandments. Here they are.

"In five ways, young householder, a child should minister to his parents as the East:

(i) Having supported me I shall support them,
(ii) I shall do their duties,
(iii) I shall keep the family tradition,
(iv) I shall make myself worthy of my inheritance,
(v) furthermore I shall offer alms in honor of my departed relatives.[9]

"In five ways, young householder, the parents thus ministered to as the East by their children, show their compassion:

(i) they restrain them from evil,
(ii) they encourage them to do good,
(iii) they train them for a profession,
(iv) they arrange a suitable marriage,
(v) at the proper time they hand over their inheritance to them.

"In five ways, young householder, a pupil should minister to a teacher as the South:

(i) by rising from the seat in salutation,
(ii) by attending on him,
(iii) by eagerness to learn,
(iv) by personal service,
(v) by respectful attention while receiving instructions.

"In five ways, young householder, do teachers thus ministered to as the South by their pupils, show their compassion:

(i) they train them in the best discipline,
(ii) they see that they grasp their lessons well,
(iii) they instruct them in the arts and sciences,
(iv) they introduce them to their friends and associates,
(v) they provide for their safety in every quarter.

"In five ways, young householder, should a wife as the West be ministered to by a husband:

(i) by being courteous to her,
(ii) by not despising her,
(iii) by being faithful to her,
(iv) by handing over authority to her,
(v) by providing her with adornments. { today it would be a retirement account and insurance }

"The wife thus ministered to as the West by her husband shows her compassion to her husband in five ways:

(i) she performs her duties well,
(ii) she is hospitable to relations and attendants[10]
(iii) she is faithful,
(iv) she protects what he brings,
(v) she is skilled and industrious in discharging her duties.

"In five ways, young householder, should a clansman minister to his friends and associates as the North:

(i) by liberality,
(ii) by courteous speech,
(iii) by being helpful,
(iv) by being impartial,
(v) by sincerity.

"The friends and associates thus ministered to as the North by a clansman show compassion to him in five ways:

(i) they protect him when he is heedless,
(ii) they protect his property when he is heedless,
(iii) they become a refuge when he is in danger,
(iv) they do not forsake him in his troubles,
(v) they show consideration for his family.

"In five ways, young householder, should a householder minister to ascetics and brahmans as the Zenith:

(i) by lovable deeds,
(ii) by lovable words,
(iii) by lovable thoughts,
(iv) by keeping open house to them,
(v) by supplying their material needs.

"The ascetics and brahmans thus ministered to as the Zenith by a householder show their compassion towards him in six ways:

(i) they restrain him from evil,
(ii) they persuade him to do good,
(iii) they love him with a kind heart,
(iv) they make him hear what he has not heard,
(v) they clarify what he has already heard,
(vi) they point out the path to a heavenly state.

Other than the commandments regarding actions towards a god or gods, all belief systems cover the same things in much the same ways whether based on a divine teaching or a human one.

Nice to see you again Bakmoon.

 

[cap76]

The “greatest commandment” is a summary of the ten commandments and everything else God commands in His Word. Matthew 22, “You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the great and first commandment. And a second is like it: You shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments depend all the Law and the Prophets.”

We don’t have to wonder at who’s moral and who’s not. God’s Word condemns us all as morally depraved, Romans 3, “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one. Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive. The venom of asps is under their lips. Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness. Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known. There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

The standard of righteousness we need to strive after is the righteousness apart from the law, that is, the righteousness of faith: Romans 3 continued, “the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe.”

A living faith in Jesus Christ is our only hope of a moral standing before God. As far as man’s judgment of who’s moral and who’s not, I say with Paul, “Let God be true and every man a liar.”

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I think we can point out the obvious 1-3 of the Ten Commandments and the first of Jesus’ Greatest Commandment. But aside from those.

From what I recall the first four commandments deal with worship. A non-Christian (which could be an atheist or some one of another religion) could follow a moral code while disregarding these commandments. I’m not quite sure what to say of the last commandment, especially in a capitalist society. . It’s possible for some one to stay within the limits of the other 5 while still causing suffering for others.

As to trying to find something that’s better or as a supplement, I suppose that would depend on your motivations for asking the question, such as are you asking because you want to make improvements in your own life style? Are you asking to evaluate others (we can’t really know any one else’s mind)?

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

I know the break down of the commandments depends on the subset of christianity. If memory serves, what Roman Catholics and Lutherans consider the first three commandments the other non-Lutheran protestants consider the first four. Also I believe what they have as the tenth commandement is split up by Roman Catholics into the ninth and tenth.

I agree with ThinkingSapien when he said non-Christians do fine without the first four (or three depending on the breakdown) commandments.

I personally would keep the ninth commandment (about not coveting a neighbor’s wife)while getting rid of the tenth (coveting a neighbor’s belongings). As a capitalist, I have no issue with striving for something. But that’s more me, and I would guess it’s not something that would get universal praise along the lines of “do not kill”.

What would I replace them with? Honestly, I’ve only given this about 10 minutes thought but “You shall not rape,” “You shall not support slavery,” “Attain wisdom both internally and externally,” and “Respect others” aren’t bad ideas.

 

[Bakmoon]

No, not government, but a person’s morality. For example, Someone doesn’t agree that honoring their mother and father positively affects a person’s morality.

I don’t think that any of the moral commandments can really be left out. I think you could generalize them a bit if you wanted to though. I think a bigger issue is what is potentially left out of the ten commandments, as the only way to have a functioning moral code is to have it deal with general principles that are applicable anywhere. If you interpret the commandments as general principles as well as specific commands, and live according to both the spirit and the letter of the commandments, then I don’t think that anything is superfluous or missing, at least nothing I can think of off of the top of my head.

 

[JK8619]

I read a comment that stated, basically, there are better sources for judging a persons morality than the Ten Commandments, Seven Deadly Sins, and Jesus’ Greatest Commandment (Mt 22:37-40) " Love God with all your heart…Love your neighbor as yourself." So, I have a couple questions in reference to the Christian sources.

This is a good question which I have heard asked before, but I have never heard a decent response from an atheist. Usually they try to side step it and change the subject.

Personally, even when my faith waivered and I considered myself agnostic, I still considered the Bible the best source for moral standards. I especially still loved Jesus and his teachings, even in those times.

 

[Tony2255]

I like the series of the “five way,” they’re interesting. I understand what you mean Bakmoon about general principles. Many of those could fall under the “treat others as you want to be treated” commandment. The only problem I see is when someone says, “I like being punched in the face, so that’s how I treat others.” Ridiculous, I know. The Bible and the Catechism, as a whole, gives us a much deeper understanding, but I’m off track. I was trying to focus on the three sources in my initial question, they seem to be the ones used when referencing morals.

 

[UknowsI]

As an atheist, I feel like the seven deadly sins/virtues is the best moral code I have found so far. Because they address intention more than specific actions, they are timeless and general. Without getting into the commandments regarding faith, I don’t feel like the other commandments are absolutes.

You should not steal, but I don’t think it’s wrong to steal to save a child from starving.
You should not kill, but bloodshed may be inevitable in war.
Honour your father and mother, but not all fathers and mothers deserve your respect.
Even lying can have a positive outcome in some situations.

I am aware that the commandments can be interpreted differently, but that only makes them more vague in my opinion. On the other hand, I can’t really find anything negative with avoiding the seven sins and following the accompanying virtues. Living a humble life, but striving to do your best, without being corrupted by ambition and greed, is a recipe for living what I consider a successful life.

 

[Ben_Quincy]

Keep this thread focused on non Christian or secular understandings/sources of morality. Please do not delve directly into atheism. Violations will result in infractions.

 

[Theflipside]

I’m an atheist.

My morality comes from a Kantian prospective, and his ‘categorical imperative’.

It sums up to “A rule or behavior can only be moral if it can be applied to everyone equally”

For example, if I just live on welfare and preach, this is immoral because if everyone did it, the world would starve.
I can’t be a lazy parasite, because if I do, then we all starve. (Those two were the same example)
I can’t hate gays, because under the categorical imperative this spreads out to “It is ok for me to hate groups of people” (Hello, racism?)

While homosexuality is immoral by these terms (If we all only slept with people of the same sex our species would die out), any action regarding it is worse (and possibly borderline eugenic.)

It gives us atheists a very firm sense of morality without fighting the bible, which (in our point of view) is possibly the most immoral book ever written.

 

[zro_x]

I’m an atheist.

My morality comes from a Kantian prospective, and his ‘categorical imperative’.

It sums up to “A rule or behavior can only be moral if it can be applied to everyone equally”

For example, if I just live on welfare and preach, this is immoral because if everyone did it, the world would starve.
I can’t be a lazy parasite, because if I do, then we all starve. (Those two were the same example)
I can’t hate gays, because under the categorical imperative this spreads out to “It is ok for me to hate groups of people” (Hello, racism?)

While homosexuality is immoral by these terms (If we all only slept with people of the same sex our species would die out), any action regarding it is worse (and possibly borderline eugenic.)

It gives us atheists a very firm sense of morality without fighting the bible, which (in our point of view) is possibly the most immoral book ever written.

when you say “in our point of view” do you mean Kantianists or atheists?

If you mean Kantianists, why do you think the Bible is “possibly the most immoral book ever writen” from that perspective?

(I ask because I consider myself to subscribe to Kantian ethics)

 

[Sair]

when you say “in our point of view” do you mean Kantianists or atheists?

If you mean Kantianists, why do you think the Bible is “possibly the most immoral book ever writen” from that perspective?

(I ask because I consider myself to subscribe to Kantian ethics)

Is it a good thing for everyone to engage in genocide, or to stone their children to death for disobedience? There are plenty of precepts and recommendations in the Bible that would be disastrous if applied as categorical imperatives, not the least of which is the idea of vicarious atonement…

(Incidentally, I am not a Kantian!)

 

[kingpomba]

I read a comment that stated, basically, there are better sources for judging a persons morality than the Ten Commandments, Seven Deadly Sins, and Jesus’ Greatest Commandment (Mt 22:37-40) " Love God with all your heart…Love your neighbor as yourself." So, I have a couple questions in reference to the Christian sources.

Although it might seem a bit nit-picky, if this is going to get into any kind of serious philosophy, we really do need to handle the semantics and make sure we’re talking about the same thing.

How would we even bother to work out what is better? If your criteria is that if it differs from the bible (since the bible must be superior) and therefore, it is bad, you are really just leading us into a trap of kinds (which im sure you dont intend).

I think its hard to say some morals are “better” than others. I think we can divide them into either basically good morals or basically bad morals.

It also depends on your interpretation and how much you read into the words of the bible. I could read Mt 22:37-40 as suggesting we look at things using the veil of ignorance for example.

1. If there are better sources, what is it you believe isn’t covered by the Christians sources?

I don’t think my morals are any better or worse than your but i think they are good morals and i think i have good reasons to follow them and defend them.

1. Do you feel that there are any that should be excluded?

Well, i think we can do a lot of the ones that are rooted in the local culture or the history of the times. The commandment against working on sundays for example, obivously, i see no good reason why i should not work on sunday.

I have a friend who studies psychology and pointed out to me, quiet amazingly, even across cultures, morals are relatively the same with regards to the very biggest questions. Of murder, of theft, things like that.

Likewise, i’m sure plenty of people saw plenty wrong with murder before the bible, they certainly didn’t need the bible to tell them this but that isn’t to say it isn’t a good rule.

They were good morals before the bible, these ideas existed pre-bible, they were just transmitted by the bible.

Some of you may of heard of the Euthyphro dilemma does God command things because they are good (which suggest things exist independent of God) or are things good simply because God commands them or says so?

There is just something basically, inherently and universally wrong with murder or rape, God is just transmitting this or is one method of learning this is long. As the article mentions, certain islamic theologians were on this side and Aquinas might of been on this side, so, it could be much the same in this case.

 

[Tony2255]

Is it a good thing for everyone to engage in genocide, or to stone their children to death for disobedience?

Where in the The Ten Commandments, Seven Deadly Sins, or Jesus’ Commandments does it say to commit genocide or stone children for disobedience?

I wasn’t asking about the general morality of the entire Bible, but three specific sources. The Ten Commandments, Seven Deadly Sins, and Jesus’ Commandments.

No I am not looking to lead anyone into a trap.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tony2255 View Post

1. If there are better sources, what is it you believe isn’t covered by the Christians sources?
   I don’t think my morals are any better or worse than your but i think they are good morals and i think i have good reasons to follow them and defend them.

Ok. But which of your morals do you feel isn’t included in those three sources?

Well, i think we can do a lot of the ones that are rooted in the local culture or the history of the times.

Again, which of those isn’t included?

The commandment against working on sundays for example, obivously, i see no good reason why i should not work on sunday.

Let me ask you a follow up question. Do you believe in working 365 days a year? No days off, no vacations, and no sick days? I’m not asking in reference to why God commands us to remember the Sabbath or to set you up. I just want to know if you believe in taking a day off, for whatever reason.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Where in the The Ten Commandments, Seven Deadly Sins, or Jesus’ Commandments does it say to commit genocide or stone children for disobedience?

Most of the punishments for voilation of the ten commandments are in the book of deuteronomy. More specifically what you are looking for is in Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

I’m not asking in reference to why God commands us to remember the Sabbath or to set you up. I just want to know if you believe in taking a day off, for whatever reason.

Numbers 15:32-36 - working on the sabbath could get you stoned! Though many modern day Christians have decided to change the day of worship from the Sabbath to Sunday.

 

[Tony2255]

Most of the punishments for voilation of the ten commandments are in the book of deuteronomy. More specifically what you are looking for is in Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

Numbers 15:32-36 - working on the sabbath could get you stoned! Though many modern day Christians have decided to change the day of worship from the Sabbath to Sunday.

I wasn’t asking about punishments…

 

[ThinkingSapien]

I wasn’t asking about punishments…

No, but you did ask about stoning children. So I thought I would offer the biblical references.