• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The basis of morals

Visbek said:
Uhm... I explained why it's the case, right in the section you quoted.
Click to expand...

And I gave a counter-example of a fact whose basis--whose underlying principles--we do not know, but we still know how and when to apply it, what exceptions there are, etc. So if you're saying there's a principle that generally holds--something like "we must know the basis of a fact (the answer to the question why the fact obtains) to know how to implement it amidst the vagaries and variances of everyday life"--it seems that principle is not universal. What makes you think it holds up in this case?

Visbek said:
For example, which of the 6 remaining rules of the Decalogue tell us whether the following are moral or immoral?
- pedophilia
- incest
- totalitarianism
- assault
- domestic violence
- rape
- statutory rape
- consuming marijuana
- consuming opiates
- prescribing opiates
- donating blood
- donating organs after death
- donating money or time to charities
- voting
- paying your taxes honestly and on time
- using loopholes to reduce your tax burden
- keeping your dog on a leash
- treating everyone as equal under the law
Click to expand...

Heck if I know. Why are you asking me? I never said I am a proponent of the Decalogue, or that I think it's a good basis for a moral system (and for the record, I do not think it is). I was asking you about a claim you made that doesn't seem to be right, as far as I can tell--though I am genuinely curious whether you've got an argument for it.

Visbek said:
I.e. it is very clear that "You shall not murder" is completely devoid of the necessary nuances to develop any sort of practical ethics.

Or: The foundational principles of an ethical system is analogous to the axioms of your geometric or mathematical system. If the only thing you know is that "π is 3.1415926...." that doesn't tell you the definition of a circle, or a plane, or a point. You won't get very far applying π to Euclidian geometry if you don't know Euclid's postulates.
Click to expand...

This last bit, I think, gets to the heart of the issue, but it seems to me it also shows you've confused two different issues. Notice that Euclid's postulates and axioms are also not the basis for the fact that the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter is 3.1415926... Rather, it simply seems to be a brute fact that pi is the ratio of circumference to diameter. However, as you correctly point out, we know how to apply this ratio, when it has exceptions, etc. because we know other things as well--not because we know the basis for why the ratio pi is what it is.

So it's not so much that we need to know the basis for why it is wrong to kill for the principle "it is wrong to kill" to be useful, but rather, we need to know lots of other truths as well, including not only truths that describe a given situation in which the rule against killing might apply but also truths that compass the relations between one moral truth and another. None of those other truths need be some underlying foundation for why it is wrong to kill--it may just be a brute fact that it is wrong to kill in the absence of some fact creating an exception. Perhaps it was the idea that the Decalogue contains rules that obtain in all instances where another more specific rule does not create an exception--again, heck if I know--the point is merely that such possibilities cannot be ruled out.

Now of course, that means that your criticism of the ten commandments as rather too "bare-bones" to be useful as a moral code is correct--we need to know rather more than ten moral truths. The principle "it is wrong to kill" if taken to mean "it is always and in all cases wrong to kill" is probably false, so as a moral code, the Decalogue probably fails. Does it fail as a basis for morality? Well, I think it does, but not for any reasons that you've brought up. Perhaps it might have been the case that, in the time and place in which the Decalogue originated, someone who devoted herself to its commandments would have been so oriented, psychologically speaking, toward goodness and virtue that she'd also understand the various exceptions that might arise. Again, I do not know whether such is the case or not--it just doesn't seem like the possibility is so easily dismissed.
 
Last edited:
Ignatius said:
So what? That irrelevant. No that's subjective as hell. You have applied your feelings to it and you think it is objective. There is No objective reason why that can't be the moral standard. Someone will live a life and if that person can enslave people all the better. There is no objective reason fobkot live by those standards. Your feelings about mean squat
Click to expand...

In this particular example, I was not necessarily talking about feelings. It’s about consequences. Certain behaviors have certain consequences. If you try to kill people, they or their family/friends are going to kill you back. For most people, that’s an objectively undesirable consequence.

Besides, you seem to disparage feelings too much. Feelings are very important, and makes the world go around. After all, the only thing that keeps the human species going is the feeling of erotic/romantic love. People don’t have sex for rational reasons. People don’t like to eat food because of rational reasons. They do it because it tastes and feels good.

Feelings have evolved over many eons to make the species more adaptable. Most humans find killing other humans distasteful and unpleasant, for the same reason many other species of animals don’t like to kill their own kind. There are exceptions, of course. But for the most part, a species which has no feelings of disgust at killing its own kind is not going to survive for very long.

There are diseases where, in humans, these systems go wrong: The clinical disorder is called antisocial personality disorder, more commonly known as psychopaths or sociopaths. They lack the brain centers for empathy or feeling someone else’s pain, in the same way that a dyslexic cannot read. Their brain is just not wired properly for those emotions. It’s not that they’re stupid or irrational. Some of them may have IQs in the genius range. scientist have even been able to identify the specific brain centers where the disorder occurs: it seems to be the limbic system of the brain, specifically the amygdala, where feelings of disgust and fear originate. They are atrophic or missing entirely in these patients. Reading religious scripture to such patients has not been found to be very effective treatment.

But those are pathologic conditions. It has nothing to do with rationality. It’s just a pathologic inability to feel certain emotions. So I would not be quick to dismiss emotions so readily.
 
Last edited:
Ignatius said:
The pages of the bible are irrelevant as this isn't about religion. Of you have been following along youd know that but you can't help yourself can you. The fact is slavery was legal and the question stands. As near as I can figureyou aren't sure to,its immoral because you said "probably not" then went into your rant
Click to expand...

Actually, did you know that slavery is sanctioned in the 10th commandment?

When it says that you should not covet your neighbor‘s property, that includes his wife, oxen, sheep, and servants- The word “servant” here does not mean employees. At the time of the writing of the King James Bible, that was the term used for slaves. That was actually used by religious people to show how slavery was actually sanctioned by the Ten Commandments.

“... under the same protection as any other species of lawful property...That the Ten Commandments are the word of G-d, and as such, of the very highest authority, is acknowledged by Christians as well as by Jews...How dare you, in the face of the sanction and protection afforded to slave property in the Ten Commandments--how dare you denounce slaveholding as a sin? When you remember that Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Job--the men with whom the Almighty conversed, with whose names he emphatically connects his own most holy name, and to whom He vouchsafed to give the character of 'perfect, upright, fearing G-d and eschewing evil' (Job 1:8)--that all these men were slaveholders, does it not strike you that you are guilty of something very little short of blasphemy?"
-MJ Raphall, 1861

—————
So really, trying to use the 10 Commandments to show why slavery is wrong is going directly against the 10 Commandments. So what other reason might you have for thinking it is wrong?
 
ataraxia said:
In this particular example, I was not necessarily talking about feelings. It’s about consequences. Certain behaviors have certain consequences. If you try to kill people, they or their family/friends are going to kill you back. For most people, that’s an objectively undesirable consequence.

Besides, you seem to disparage feelings too much. Feelings are very important, and makes the world go around. After all, the only thing that keeps the human species going is the feeling of erotic/romantic love. People don’t have sex for rational reasons. People don’t like to eat food because of rational reasons. They do it because it tastes and feels good.

Feelings have evolved over many eons to make the species more adaptable. Most humans find killing other humans distasteful and unpleasant, for the same reason many other species of animals don’t like to kill their own kind. There are exceptions, of course. But for the most part, a species which has no feelings of disgust at killing its own kind is not going to survive for very long.

There are diseases where, in humans, these systems go wrong: The clinical disorder is called antisocial personality disorder, more commonly known as psychopaths or sociopaths. They lack the brain centers for empathy or feeling someone else’s pain, in the same way that a dyslexic cannot read. Their brain is just not wired properly for those emotions. It’s not that they’re stupid or irrational. Some of them may have IQs in the genius range. scientist have even been able to identify the specific brain centers where the disorder occurs: it seems to be the limbic system of the brain, specifically the amygdala, where feelings of disgust and fear originate. They are atrophic or missing entirely in these patients. Reading religious scripture to such patients has not been found to be very effective treatment.

But those are pathologic conditions. It has nothing to do with rationality. It’s just a pathologic inability to feel certain emotions. So I would not be quick to dismiss emotions so readily.
Click to expand...

It's pretty commonplace for philosophers to recognize that emotions inform us about our moral intuitions. If you see someone harmed unjustly and you feel angry or sorrowful (or some other strong appropriate emotion), that feeling is essentially a sense datum that tells you what you just saw was wrong.
 
Ignatius said:
For Christians the basis of morals is handed down by God through the bible. With the removal of God from public life others have posited that morals come from consensus. In other words people decide what's moral. Now some have argued that God himself is a creation of mankind. Now if that's true then it seems to follow that any moral dictates found in the bible would by definition then be man made. Let's then assume for a moment that this is true why are things like the 10 commandments not valuable if they are all man made morals?
Click to expand...

it comes from our conscious too which makes us feel bad after doing something wrong
 
The ten commandments are real and true and coming from our Lord Almighty. Having said that, even the doubters can admit that adhering to these rules can only improve our current standards. Why? Because doing no harm to another is a code we all should live by.
 
ashurbanipal said:
It's pretty commonplace for philosophers to recognize that emotions inform us about our moral intuitions. If you see someone harmed unjustly and you feel angry or sorrowful (or some other strong appropriate emotion), that feeling is essentially a sense datum that tells you what you just saw was wrong.
Click to expand...

Our emotions only tell us how we feel about something, not about its morality. Someone may watch a boxing match and get a bad feeling from it but does that mean that boxing is morally wrong?
 
Ignatius said:
For Christians the basis of morals is handed down by God through the bible. With the removal of God from public life others have posited that morals come from consensus. In other words people decide what's moral. Now some have argued that God himself is a creation of mankind. Now if that's true then it seems to follow that any moral dictates found in the bible would by definition then be man made. Let's then assume for a moment that this is true why are things like the 10 commandments not valuable if they are all man made morals?
Click to expand...

The ten commandments in a story about a leader whose tribe was out of control so he carved some rules on stone tablets and told them they came from god. And the story goes that they pretty much bought it and fell in line.
 
Ignatius said:
why are things like the 10 commandments not valuable if they are all man made morals?
Click to expand...

Because the 10 commandments are thousands of years old, and the "consensus" on what is good and what is not has changed.
 
ashurbanipal said:
It's pretty commonplace for philosophers to recognize that emotions inform us about our moral intuitions. If you see someone harmed unjustly and you feel angry or sorrowful (or some other strong appropriate emotion), that feeling is essentially a sense datum that tells you what you just saw was wrong.
Click to expand...

Biologists and psychologists agree as well.
 
OrphanSlug said:
Assuming for a moment you are being serious, and I have my doubts on that, there is a real discussion to have on ownership of "morals." And to start the idea of morals as applied to governance and law, social order and climate, influencers, and just about anything else the concept could be applied to predates the Bible by a long ways.

If you are going to conclude that the 10 commandments are still valuable then we have no choice but to evaluate that in terms of your use of the term morals.

The first 4 commandments have little to do with morals, and are more about a focus on the God you believe in in a way that God wants you to believe in him. You have a few other commandments in there regarding lying, adultery, focusing on what others have, and honoring parents which is getting closer to a moral basis (not that many Christians follow that to the letter.)

So, you basically have 2 commandments left that are meaningful to law and social order. Lets not kill each other or take each other's things, that is about it. Not stealing or killing.

Morals as applied to anything meaningful in any culture needs to include a few other things that plenty of other nations, states, social climates, whatever else figured out without needing the Bible or other Bronze Age myths to tell us. Some of those who again predate the Bible and realized that social climate needed to include a few other things like... no assault, rape, child abuse, torture, false imprisonment, slavery and owning a human being, and plenty of other things the Bible and the 10 Commandments glossed right over.

It is not about "consensus" in the context you put it but rather reasonable people coming together and agreeing on a set of laws, influencers, etc. that guide society into a means of social cohesion extending far beyond anything the OT had in mind (which when written had a few interesting things to say about dealing with people that is actually against most modern laws.)

Everything in your argument falls flat on its face.

The Bible is not a source of moral code, it is just a set of lessons and stories from the Bronze Age to perpetuate a system of belief that is as outdated and irrelevant as it can be. Especially if used to try to justify moral code.
Click to expand...

I think you said it very well. The OT is full of God commanding killing and God being a mass murderer. The Christian's will rationalize this as God being able to do anything because "He" is God. Like you, I really don't find any morals in the bible that humans wouldn't craft on their own for the orderly functioning of society, so that humans can live peacefully side by side without killing off or maiming their fellow humans. For instance, if there weren't laws against theft humanity couldn't progress past the cave men days because we would never be able to have possessions since we would worry about someone stealing them. The fact that you can and will go to jail and suffer miserably is the deterrent. If man hadn't invented "God", they would STILL have laws against theft. The commandment against not coveting your neighbors wife is one of those where society needs to keep the family intact so that society as a whole can function better. This doesn't need a God to mandate. It is just common sense and a societal rule that is violated routinely by Christian and atheist alike.

Fortunately, the psychopaths are only about 1% of the population. It is that small group that the biblical laws and societal laws are made. For that group, it is "If you don't believe in the bible, fine. Society imposes it's OWN rules and laws to keep you sorry ass in check. You'll go to jail."
 
Paradoxical said:
I think you said it very well. The OT is full of God commanding killing and God being a mass murderer. The Christian's will rationalize this as God being able to do anything because "He" is God. Like you, I really don't find any morals in the bible that humans wouldn't craft on their own for the orderly functioning of society, so that humans can live peacefully side by side without killing off or maiming their fellow humans. For instance, if there weren't laws against theft humanity couldn't progress past the cave men days because we would never be able to have possessions since we would worry about someone stealing them. The fact that you can and will go to jail and suffer miserably is the deterrent. If man hadn't invented "God", they would STILL have laws against theft. The commandment against not coveting your neighbors wife is one of those where society needs to keep the family intact so that society as a whole can function better. This doesn't need a God to mandate. It is just common sense and a societal rule that is violated routinely by Christian and atheist alike.

Fortunately, the psychopaths are only about 1% of the population. It is that small group that the biblical laws and societal laws are made. For that group, it is "If you don't believe in the bible, fine. Society imposes it's OWN rules and laws to keep you sorry ass in check. You'll go to jail."
Click to expand...

There was no such thing as theft until man invented the concept of property.
 
The real test of an atheist is moral relativism. If the person doesn't believe in "moral relativism" they're agnostic at best.
 
swing_voter said:
The real test of an atheist is moral relativism. If the person doesn't believe in "moral relativism" they're agnostic at best.
Click to expand...

Atheism has nothing to do with morals at all. Morality is a separate issue.
 
swing_voter said:
The real test of an atheist is moral relativism. If the person doesn't believe in "moral relativism" they're agnostic at best.
Click to expand...

Morality is just a set of rules and expectations society has for ordering itself. Thinking that it is something prefabricated and coming from an external source is like thinking there is a specific way the universe wants you to organize your room, And it’s your job to try to figure that out, rather than just trying to figure out some thing that works.

Morality is not something pre-fabricated and waiting for us to discover it. We make it up to order our societies. It requires more the mindset of the artist or the engineer, rather than of an explorer or scientist trying to find things that are already out there. There is nothing out there. We have to make it. And we can do it in better and worse ways depending on how intelligent or imaginative we are. It is not something to be discovered, it is something to be created.

So looked at from that perspective, there is no real reason to posit a God or moral lawgiver To believe in morality. It’s just a matter of how imaginative, clever, and intelligent you are.
 
Last edited:
ataraxia said:
Morality is just a set of rules and expectations society has for ordering itself. Thanking that it is something prefabricated and coming from an external source is like thinking there is a specific way the universe wants you to organize your room, And it’s your job to try to figure that out, rather than just trying to figure out some thing that works.

Morality is not something pre-fabricated and waiting for us to discover it. We make it up to order our societies. It requires more the mindset of the artist or the engineer, rather than of an explorer or scientist trying to find things that are already out there. There is nothing out there. We have to make it. And we can do it in better and worse ways depending on how intelligent or imaginative we are. It is not something to be discovered, it is something to be created.

So looked at from that perspective, there is no real reason to posit a God or moral lawgiver To believe in morality. It’s just a matter of how imaginative, clever, and intelligent you are.
Click to expand...

The bible says to bash babies against rocks and to kill disobedient children and this "loving God" ordered the killings of the Amalakites and the taking of the nubile virgin females. As is customary with humans, they pick and choose what they personally like and ignore what they don't. Here we had a bible that NEVER once tells it's readers that this imaginary God of theirs ORDERS them not to have slaves but instead has a passage as to how much beating of their slaves is condoned. This allegedly timeless document was written for stone age men and contains very little wisdom, except for what was plagiarized from secular morality predating the bible.

One of the most telling things that show the bible is fabricated is the way it treats women as second class humans who are supposed to obey their man and the taking of virgins. Most of the bible is written for the benefit of men. There are very few women of prominence.Even the apostles were all men. NO woman had any part whatsoever in it's writing. BOTH the OT and NT were written to control the populace by men who also wanted subservient women.
 
Last edited:
Ignatius said:
For Christians the basis of morals is handed down by God through the bible. With the removal of God from public life others have posited that morals come from consensus. In other words people decide what's moral. Now some have argued that God himself is a creation of mankind. Now if that's true then it seems to follow that any moral dictates found in the bible would by definition then be man made. Let's then assume for a moment that this is true why are things like the 10 commandments not valuable if they are all man made morals?
Click to expand...

The basis of morals is our instinctive need for socialization and relationship oriented behaviors. Morality is a drive, just like the need for food or sex. This means the human need for morality will not change, no matter our environment. It also means we will seek a way to express it, no matter what. The only way to change that would be to change our genetic setup or introduce certain kinds of brain damage.

However, it does not mean God did put it in us :). We have that drive and God will always be reintroduced by humanity because of it.

Morality being a drive also helps to explain why we have any number of philosophies to explain it (or to try and live by) and none of them work very well.
 
Last edited:
Paradoxical said:
The bible says to bash babies against rocks and to kill disobedient children and this "loving God" ordered the killings of the Amalakites and the taking of the nubile virgin females. As is customary with humans, they pick and choose what they personally like and ignore what they don't. Here we had a bible that NEVER once tells it's readers that this imaginary God of theirs ORDERS them not to have slaves but instead has a passage as to how much beating of their slaves is condoned. This allegedly timeless document was written for stone age men and contains very little wisdom, except for what was plagiarized from secular morality predating the bible.

One of the most telling things that show the bible is fabricated is the way it treats women as second class humans who are supposed to obey their man and the taking of virgins. Most of the bible is written for the benefit of men. There are very few women of prominence.Even the apostles were all men. NO woman had any part whatsoever in it's writing. BOTH the OT and NT were written to control the populace by men who also wanted subservient women.
Click to expand...

It's rare that I find myself agreeing with you, but this may be one of those times.

Religion is just the projection of man's latest and best knowledge, opinions, and culture, to a heaven of immutable and eternal certainty. The pro of that is that it gives it a lot of force and authority in society. The con is that is fossilized and stagnates that society, closing it off to any other new ideas or observations or learning.

Back when we thought the Earth was the center of the universe, that's what was standard Church doctrine. The concept of "spare the rod, spoil the child" was the wisdom of child-rearing, only until studies in child psychology in the 1960s started showing that it doesn't really work well and the only thing it teaches young children is that might makes right and bullying and intimidation is the tactic to use to get people to do what you want.

"Intellectually, religious emotions are not creative but conservative. They attach themselves readily to the current view of the world and consecrate it. They steep and dye intellectual fabrics in the seething vat of emotions; they do not form their warp and woof. There is not, I think, an instance of any large idea about the world being independently generated by religion."
-John Dewey

"The trail of the human serpent is over everything."
-William James
 
tacomancer said:
The basis of morals is our instinctive need for socialization and relationship oriented behaviors. Morality is a drive, just like the need for food or sex. This means the human need for morality will not change, no matter our environment. It also means we will seek a way to express it, no matter what. The only way to change that would be to change our genetic setup or introduce certain kinds of brain damage.

However, it does not mean God did put it in us :). We have that drive and God will always be reintroduced by humanity because of it.
Click to expand...

And it's not just humans who need it or understand it. Dogs can show intense loyalty, friendship, love, and trust. Where does that come from? Do they read scripture?

There is great sense of community, loyalty, family, and friendship among herds of elephants. Where does that come from?

Why does the worker ant work so sacrificially for its colony?

Why do meerkats let out such a loud warning sound at great risk to themselves, to warn the rest of their group of an approaching predator?

Where did this family cat get the idea to risk its own life and attack a dog 3 times its own size that was biting this toddler?

 
ataraxia said:
It's rare that I find myself agreeing with you, but this may be one of those times.

Religion is just the projection of man's latest and best knowledge, opinions, and culture, to a heaven of immutable and eternal certainty. The pro of that is that it gives it a lot of force and authority in society. The con is that is fossilized and stagnates that society, closing it off to any other new ideas or observations or learning.

Back when we thought the Earth was the center of the universe, that's what was standard Church doctrine. The concept of "spare the rod, spoil the child" was the wisdom of child-rearing, only until studies in child psychology in the 1960s started showing that it doesn't really work well and the only thing it teaches young children is that might makes right and bullying and intimidation is the tactic to use to get people to do what you want.

"Intellectually, religious emotions are not creative but conservative. They attach themselves readily to the current view of the world and consecrate it. They steep and dye intellectual fabrics in the seething vat of emotions; they do not form their warp and woof. There is not, I think, an instance of any large idea about the world being independently generated by religion."
-John Dewey

"The trail of the human serpent is over everything."
-William James
Click to expand...

It is highly unusual for someone who is staunchly conservative as I am to be a non believer. In this sense, I am a rare breed. My very large family was Catholic. I was raised by nuns and was an altar boy and taught by nuns. Catechism was a required subject and the church was right next door to the school so I had to attend for various events, including the lent season. There was this thing called "The stations of the cross" where you had to kneel before statues in 12 different areas and say prayers It was back breaking. The nuns were there all the time and they had the notion that suffering brought them closer to heaven. I was only about 10 or 11 at the time and I remember thinking as I watched them kneeling and praying for hours "What if they are wrong?" But, it wasn't until my early twenties that I realized that religion WAS wrong, and that it was fabricated As time went on, I understood that religion and government are just a means for others to control us. Now you know why I disdain BOTH.
 
Paradoxical said:
I think you said it very well. The OT is full of God commanding killing and God being a mass murderer. The Christian's will rationalize this as God being able to do anything because "He" is God. Like you, I really don't find any morals in the bible that humans wouldn't craft on their own for the orderly functioning of society, so that humans can live peacefully side by side without killing off or maiming their fellow humans. For instance, if there weren't laws against theft humanity couldn't progress past the cave men days because we would never be able to have possessions since we would worry about someone stealing them. The fact that you can and will go to jail and suffer miserably is the deterrent. If man hadn't invented "God", they would STILL have laws against theft. The commandment against not coveting your neighbors wife is one of those where society needs to keep the family intact so that society as a whole can function better. This doesn't need a God to mandate. It is just common sense and a societal rule that is violated routinely by Christian and atheist alike.

Fortunately, the psychopaths are only about 1% of the population. It is that small group that the biblical laws and societal laws are made. For that group, it is "If you don't believe in the bible, fine. Society imposes it's OWN rules and laws to keep you sorry ass in check. You'll go to jail."
Click to expand...

In a way I am offering a philosophical conversation on the rational for what best influences a society into some degree of acceptable order (and I am using that expression purposefully with the standard being laws and influencers that create the norm for that 99% of the population.)

So it comes down to the value of 'religious principles' as a social influence tool and/or a legal system of some regard as a social expectation tool.

I'll admit it is just my opinion on this but the 10 Commandments falls pretty flat on being a good barometer for society outcome, and in some ways becomes and instigator when combined with the various OT text for exclusionary or oppression based principles.

I'll also admit, and again being philosophical about it, I highly doubt there has ever been or will ever be a time that someone does something or does not do something exclusively because of the letter of any set of laws. Even under the most strict social controls from whatever government imagined, theocratic to authoritarianism to totalitarianism, that tends to be the real factors for reducing the number of people who operate outside of those controls. I mention theocracy on purpose as we have no examples of that working out beyond 99% either, someone somewhere ends up out of line with those social expectations and usually speaking by history pays dearly for it.

Our only alternative is reasonable people coming together with a reasonable set of laws and process to handle that 1% that odds are will not care who tells them what no matter if rooted in governmental and/or religious authority. Since we have seen this throughout history, agreed to ranging levels of success and failure, we know that people can be capable of deciding on things like: lets not murder each other, take each other's things, assault, destruction of private property, rape, imprison, endanger one another, the list goes on and on.

To the OP, there is no reason to cling to Bronze Age thinking for these things. Especially since the overwhelming majority of the 10 Commandments is questionable in application of acceptable social order and expectation in practice. When various cultures try to lean theocratic, we end up seeing a litany of getting things dead wrong.

Emphasis on dead.
 
Paradoxical said:
It is highly unusual for someone who is staunchly conservative as I am to be a non believer. In this sense, I am a rare breed. My very large family was Catholic. I was raised by nuns and was an altar boy and taught by nuns. Catechism was a required subject and the church was right next door to the school so I had to attend for various events, including the lent season. There was this thing called "The stations of the cross" where you had to kneel before statues in 12 different areas and say prayers It was back breaking. The nuns were there all the time and they had the notion that suffering brought them closer to heaven. I was only about 10 or 11 at the time and I remember thinking as I watched them kneeling and praying for hours "What if they are wrong?" But, it wasn't until my early twenties that I realized that religion WAS wrong, and that it was fabricated As time went on, I understood that religion and government are just a means for others to control us. Now you know why I disdain BOTH.
Click to expand...

I can see where you are coming from. But my only question is then: what is the alternative? Anarchy? Because that's just the tyranny of the strong over the weak and the law of the jungle. Any concept of justice goes completely out the window and it's just chaos. That doesn't seem like a very attractive option either.

IOW, what are your thoughts of the idea of self-rule, IOW, Democracy? What would your thoughts be, for example, on the quote below, rejecting religious authority in law but advocating for self-rule?

" "During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution...In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the Civil authority; in many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny: in no instance have they been seen the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty, may have found an established Clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just Government instituted to secure & perpetuate it needs them not.”
-James Madison
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom