A
ASimon
Guest
No doubt, because Divine Command theory insists that any act commanded or enjoined by God is moral by definition, no matter how disgraceful the act is to anyone who doesn’t subscribe to that theory.
- Status
T
tonyrey
Guest
A
ASimon
Guest
Exactly. Only our actions. A great advantage, indeed. As well as a great relief to not be subject to the thought policing of an unanswerable, unaccountable being.
God does command people to commit atrocities. The Bible is rife with examples. As for loving others as you love yourself, it’s a nice thought - but it’s also impossible to achieve (and probably unhealthy in anything more than the short term).
T
tonyrey
Guest
Which explains how the rejection of God is often due to wishful thinking…
It certainly appeals to the criminal mind!
If you are a fundamentalist…
It would be wiser to speak for yourself and not the entire human race!
That belief reveals unsupported faith in the necessity of egoism…
K
karebear92
Guest
I’m not sure that I agree, if done correctly (i.e. not hating yourself so much that you have no choice).
For example, soldiers risk their lives because they love their country, police officers and fire fighters risk their lives to protect others, and I am sure that we would both risk or even trade our lives for the life of a child. It isn’t exactly what we think of as love, but I think that, at least to some extent, love is the root of our selfless tendencies. Otherwise, why do it?
A
ASimon
Guest
Well, on the flip side, do you see how it would become problematic to love literally everyone you meet as you love yourself, in other words, put their interests above yours in every case? Even if you don’t factor in the psychopaths and sociopaths out there, who wouldn’t wait for anyone’s permission to take advantage of them (Jesus doesn’t seem to suggest these should be exceptions), it seems to be following this precept in every situation would have devestating consequences.
Selectively applied, yes - I think “love thy neighbor as you love yourself” is a good moral precept. But Jesus never said we should selectively apply it.
K
karebear92
Guest
I can see what you are saying, but I think there is one problem, and perhaps it arises in the exceptional selflessness of my examples.
You have to love them as you love yourself. Not more than you love yourself. So you can’t let yourself be taken advantage by anyone unless you tolerate the rest of humanity or “your neighbor” to be taken advantage of in the same way. I think loving your neighbor as you love yourself is far healthier than having a slightly narcissistic view of, “well, as long as it doesn’t happen to me.” Otherwise your morals would be relative to the situation.
I do see what you are saying when in a predicament of either sacrificing for others or allowing others to die, however. But I think, in general, it is still applicable. For example, you give a starving women food when you have enough to survive because that is what you would want others to do for you. The only situation where the principle would be put in jeopardy is if you had enough food or oxygen or whatever for one person to survive, in which, theoretically speaking, your actions can’t represent equality. Either your actions will prove that you love you neighbor more than yourself or you love yourself more than your neighbor, as your actions can’t demonstrate equality in that scenario. But, for the most part, I think loving your neighbor as you love yourself is quite healthy.
K
karebear92
Guest
I will admit, however, that to reach that point is incredibly difficult, much like living a sinless life is. It is impossible for one to live by that principle for their entire lives, as children are often naturally selfish. But reaching that level is entirely possible and healthy, much like living without sin (after a certain point) is difficult but healthy and attainable.
A
ASimon
Guest
The problem is, in a zero-sum situation (where one person’s loss is another person’s gain), “loving your neighbor as you love yourself” means sacrificing what you want for they want. If there’s one jug of milk left in the supermarket, and two people who want it, one of them’s going to get it and one of them’s not going to get it. They can’t saw it in half.
If you’re talking about a single slice of pie for two people, then loving your neighbor as you love yourself actually can work out well for everyone. Which brings me back to my original point - this precept only really works when you selectively apply it.
A
ASimon
Guest
I think it might impossible in principle, but more possible in practice. I may not be capable of loving the homeless guy who pesters me for money while I’m putting gas in my car, as I love myself, but in practice, there’s nothing stopping me from giving the guy $10 that I might have spent on myself in the gas station. That might be stretching the definition of “love” to do that, but I doubt very much the homeless guy would care about the finer points of my charity.
K
karebear92
Guest
I agree that it isn’t the orthodox view of love, so it is stretching the typical definition. But I believe that love is shown in many different ways. I’m sure that you love your spouse (if you are married) differently from your parents, and you love them differently than your friends, and you love your cousins differently than them, but you love them all. I think that there is a love of humanity and others that is shown in a different way than how our society typically views love. For example, if you see the pictures of the incredibly famished African children with every bone visible, you feel sadness even though you have absolutely no connection to the child, and that child’s death will have absolutely no bearing on your life.
If you don’t mind me asking, why do people act selflessly or have feeling for strangers in your opinion?
K
karebear92
Guest
Sorry, I missed this post in my first response.
I think in that situation it would not apply for the reason I presented (I think) in post you originally commented on. It would be impossible to demonstrate the love, so it cannot apply (this is a bit different, but since I am talking about demonstration I have to) to the do unto others as you would have them do to you. It isn’t being applied selectively, as the principle is impossible to apply. It is like the scenario of your two kids are hanging off of the cliff, which one do you save (and by extension love more)? In that situation you have to make a choice, but it would be false to say that you love them unequally because of your choice.
On the other hand, it would not be impossible to love them as you love yourself. For example, you are a parent and have to choose to buy shoes but only have enough for one child, so you pick the child who needs it. It isn’t that you don’t love them equally but that you had to make a decision and made the most rational one.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
ASimon
**No doubt, because Divine Command theory insists that any act commanded or enjoined by God is moral by definition, no matter how disgraceful the act is to anyone who doesn’t subscribe to that theory. **
When was the last time Christ commanded an atrocious act?
When was the last time atheists committed atrocious acts at the command of other atheists?
**No doubt, because Divine Command theory insists that any act commanded or enjoined by God is moral by definition, no matter how disgraceful the act is to anyone who doesn’t subscribe to that theory. **
When was the last time Christ commanded an atrocious act?
When was the last time atheists committed atrocious acts at the command of other atheists?
A
ASimon
Guest
I think the foundation of morality can be found in our genes. Humans tends to complicate morality with rules and restrictions, both necessary and not, but I think the foundational principle is something quite simple. We have apparently noticed that, on balance, our well-being is increased when we consider the needs the desires of others in our moment-to-moment quest to get what we want out of life. When we ignore the needs and desires of others, when we act selfishly in other words, it often sparks retributive impulses from others. This can, and often does, negatively affect our lives. But by acting with respect what others want, we’ve found we can sidestep unnecessary conflict in the moment. And indeed, a selfless act for another person’s benefit can often be returned to us by that person at some later date.
Human civilization has intellectualized this idea to an extent and calls it “The Social Contract,” but I think is only a description of the idea, rather than a prescription for it. We see glimmers of moral behavior in animals, in our primate cousins. Chimps have a clear sense of inequity when it comes to food rewards. Monkey will indeed go so far as to starve themselves if they believe it will prevent their cage-mates from receiving electric shocks. Even mice will show greater distress at the suffering of familar mice than they do with unfamiliar mice.
And for those of us who don’t recognize the needs and desires of others when they act (the psychopaths and sociopaths), in both cases, we can account for their behavior through scientific observation - their brains work differently, and in ways that make this sort of behavior quite predictable.
A
ASimon
Guest
You’ll be happy to know that it’s been almost 2,000 years.
No idea. Maybe it happened today - I couldn’t tell you. Though it hardly matters. There’s nothing about atheism which demands behavior that morally normal people would find attrocious. Atheists can commit atrocities, but they usually don’t do them because they don’t believe in God. They generally commit them for the same reasons Believers do - they successfully rationalized their behavior, and they don’t think they’ll ever be held accountable.
K
karebear92
Guest
Just out of curiosity, at what point in the evolutionary chain did our motives change from an entirely reproductive purpose to that of a “good” life? And if it is in our genes, why is it seemingly learned throughout life (why do toddlers fight about the most trivial things)? Or is the foundation simply the basics, which then must be learned through experience? And will we de-evolutionize as we become more and more disconnected from society?
I can see the theory that one realizes throughout life that altruism will gain a reward, and therefore that principle is applied more consistently throughout life. But in my experience with children, most don’t share very well at a young age (I don’t know how they would respond in a starving situation). So I can see a learned morality but not a purely genetic one.
But if it is a learned one, then why are we more willing to help children than adults who would be able to return the favor? Are we subconsciously more concerned with the continuation of our species than the continuation of our genes?
On a side note, if you believe we have a genetic foundation, would that be similar to the divine law written on the heart of all mankind?
A
ASimon
Guest
Well, in order: 1). No idea at one point in the evolutionary chain we learned to want the “good life.” 2). Just because we may be genetically predisposed to want the good life, doesn’t mean we’re always smart enough to act in a way that maximizes it. Even children don’t fight all the time about trivial things, any more than supposedly intelligent adults never fight about them. 3). I tend to doubt it. For one thing, I don’t we are headed toward a disconnected society. Technology might make this more convenient, but we are social creatures. In any event, human civilization probably has a long way to go before we have to worry about this, and the whole enterprise may go bust before we get there.
1). I think the impulse to help children might be tied to the same impulse that causes other mammels (and our African plain ancestors) to protect them from danger. And 2). This could well be possible. I’m only 30, and I generally like kids, and maybe it’s just my “guyness” talking, but I feel more compelled to hang out around them and have fun with them that to find myself a mate and have one of my own.
C
Charlemagne_II
Guest
ASimon
**
No idea. Maybe it happened today - I couldn’t tell you. Though it hardly matters. There’s nothing about atheism which demands behavior that morally normal people would find attrocious.**
There’s nothing about atheism that forbids atrocious acts, though Christ forbids them.
There’s nothing about atheism that forbids the atheist to think he can commit an atrocious act, and, if he is clever enough, never have to pay for it.
Read the Marquis de Sade.
**
No idea. Maybe it happened today - I couldn’t tell you. Though it hardly matters. There’s nothing about atheism which demands behavior that morally normal people would find attrocious.**
There’s nothing about atheism that forbids atrocious acts, though Christ forbids them.
There’s nothing about atheism that forbids the atheist to think he can commit an atrocious act, and, if he is clever enough, never have to pay for it.
Read the Marquis de Sade.
K
karebear92
Guest
So in a way you believe in natural law, but that rather than being written on the heart by God it developed through time by evolution?
A
ASimon
Guest
Quite correct. Atheism is frankly a contradiction in it’s own term, since the “ism” implies a system of belief. Atheism is not a system of belief. It is a single belief - and it begins and ends there. There’s nothing about not believing in God that demands you say, do, or believe anything else.
Christ does forbid atrocious acts, sometimes. Although the thing about beating your slaves for defying their owners’ will, that kinda rubbed me the wrong way.
- Status