Have you found a better religion...

[Waterfall]

Namaskaram

https://isha.sadhguru.org/en/wisdom/art ... ar-meaning

Let us inspire our brothers and sisters How do you understand this...

But when the Pharisees heard that he had silenced the Sadducees, they gathered together. And one of them, a lawyer, asked him a question to test him. "Teacher, which is the great commandment in the Law?" And he said to him, "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."

Keep up the good work...



We have a lot to talk about...











Your friend forever

Waterfall

[TRANSPONDER]

I'm not so sure. When the highest form of morality is the golden rule, the worst it can do is be reluctant to interfere when it's badly needed.

But that's not a bad plan and Interference (misguided help) causes So much trouble (1) . But the point was made if I can recall it....extremist peace and reasonableness or some such has got to be good (aside from inaction when action is needed) and thus didn't suffer from the Bad of the extremism of the Activist parties.

Extreme good (and we know what it is, even if we can't define it) is really not so bad as we need to fear it, it is extremes of wrong thinking that cause the problems. And the heart of that is a problem I first realised in my teens even before i took my evening course in rationalist atheism - 'At least he has the courage of his convictions' is the main reason why he's probably doing it wrong.

I think you're right though that when in doubt, it's best to err on the side of not doing anything. I think that's why Star Trek has the Prime Directive. Nobody is saying it's always right, which is why they violate it so much, but what it's really saying is don't bloody dive headfirst into a swamp and try to muck it out without knowing perhaps one or two things about the biosphere you're messing with, first.

But I don't think you're right about the Golden Rule being the most extremist good. The Platinum Rule is considered highest, just look at this, it flat out says, "an even higher rule" which is do unto others as they would have you do. So if some scammer or drunkard wants your money, give it over. The supposed "flaw" of the Golden Rule is that it's not demanding enough, making it lower than the Platinum Rule. With the Golden Rule, I don't have to give anyone my money unless, in a similar situation, I would ask it of them. So the assumption is, morality should be one-sided and self-sacrificing. But then, what is the moral value of discovering a Platinum Rule that will have others one-sidedly sacrificing for everyone, including the discoverer?

In other words, "higher" morality being more demanding, more one-sided, more self-sacrificing, other others others, no you don't get any consideration for yourself, sounds to me like a scam. But I also know that I do not decide what is moral, the collective does, and they seem to have accepted the Platinum Rule, so, what to do?

The method is, the nearest man gets the blame.

I think what happened is also explained by people's general unwillingness to think logically about a situation. They blindly blame a chooser for a bad choice, even if he had no way to know his choice was bad.

The way I solve this is to ask if the chooser insisted upon his own authority. Did someone else tell him better and he ignored it? Well then, he's at fault. If he's always saying he knows best, causing people to accept this and defer to his decisions, then he's at fault. But if that didn't happen, then not. When acting on authority you grab and hold intentionally, you're at fault for all your bad decisions, regardless of whether you could have known better or not, because in the act of hoarding authority, you're saying you know best. If you're taking input and listening whenever there is dissent, will defer to others when they think they are right, then you've no such unilateral responsibility.

But that Platinum Rule you have is just the Golden Rule in different words. Google the Golden Rule in other religions and cultures (Wiki is handy again), and you'll see.

No, the 'Platinum Rule' or at least it was when I started on the morality debate, was "Do your own thing, so long as it isn't messing up anyone else's Thing".

You make a god point about the prime Directive. Or as the Ferenghi call it 'the Piecrust Rule - made to be broken'. And that's one reason we all used to love Startrek because it raises questions about human morality and doesn't answer it any better than we've been able to. And while the Vulcans were written to represent the mist admirable of species, they are regarded frankly as Lacking by humans. And I agree. The answer is not to suppress emotions but understand them.

Your observations are sound. And one thing about atheism, materialism, Humanism and rationalism is the acceptance that there is no perfect answer to Morality, as the Biosystem was made to survive, not to be made perfect and stay that way.

Thus the search for perfection is an ideal that we have invented (along with those inadequate Vulcans and snobby Elves, never mind those deeply flawed gods) and anyone who claims what they have is "Perfect" is a fraud and a grifter.

It is a question of Consensus morality, and not perfect, so anyone demanding that it must be or the religion and Holy book they like (ignore all the others) is the answer is also Fraud and grift. I reckon that, despite resistance and denial, and of course everyone trying to evade it, Democracy and regulated capitalism (except is social charity (infrastructure, education, health) is the system we seem to accept as the best, and even those states that don't do democracy claim to do it.

So Authority lies in the agreed law codes, and, though they fall far short of Perfection, they have made things better, despite the grouchy skepticism of those who are appalled at the way things are going. .

I have seen a lot of denialism about this, and it's just ignorance. If they just did a little reading about how it was back in the old days, they would realise that life has got better, even in a two step forwards, one step back, way. I guess that's why I'm a half - full optimist as there is no point wringing the hands about what's wrong, but encourage what's right.

cue 'moral compass', but I guess I already covered that.

[Purple Knight]

But that Platinum Rule you have is just the Golden Rule in different words. Google the Golden Rule in other religions and cultures (Wiki is handy again), and you'll see.

No, the 'Platinum Rule' or at least it was when I started on the morality debate, was "Do your own thing, so long as it isn't messing up anyone else's Thing".

No no no. It's not! The Platinum rule is: Do unto others as they would have you do. It's the Golden Rule, but with no consideration for such things as: Hold on, if I were in that person's shoes I would never ask that of the other guy. You just do whatever he wants you to. If he wants you to leave him alone, leave him alone. If he wants your beating heart, rip it out and give it to him. (The article won't say that last part; it only gives reasonable examples, but look at it: It's literally do whatever the other guy wants.)

https://effectiviology.com/platinum-rule/
The Platinum Rule: Treat Others the Way They Want to Be Treated

Your observations are sound. And one thing about atheism, materialism, Humanism and rationalism is the acceptance that there is no perfect answer to Morality, as the Biosystem was made to survive, not to be made perfect and stay that way.

The idea that there aren't absolutes about morality, I think I'm one of your deniers. I just don't think the Prime Directive is an example of an absolute; it seems to be an example of a guideline. But there must be absolutes. Because I know you can't just go murder somebody and say it's okay and now nobody can do anything to you. We don't behave as if there aren't absolutes, we behave as if there are. Yes, all of us.

It would be nice if the absolutes were at the level of laws, which all agree to. I've explored this. People born into a society they don't like the rules of, can leave. People shouldn't come if they hate the rules. The thing that ruins it though, are people who think it's their right to lie. They come into an agreement-based society because they hate it, to change it, and the idea that the society's rule to be genuine in this agreement applies to them when they are outside the society (trying to get in, but at that moment they lie and say they agree, they are outside) sort of breaks.

I prefer it, I think agreement to rules and those being the only absolutes, and that being the overriding principle, is the practically best one, I just think it's logically inconsistent and thus cannot be justified. People can still do it, and perhaps they should anyway, but it's unjustifiable. Perhaps you have some way to solve for the problem of liars who believe in their fundamental right to lie, saying they agree to the rules. If so I'd be grateful.

I mean, that's the Star Trek way, right? That planet has the right to have a purge society where murder is legal, if they want. If people are unhappy they can have amnesty in our society. But what will happen, is that they'll ask for amnesty, be lying about saying they give up their right to murder, and come to Earth, then start killing people when still being protected by the Star Trek way of tolerating all ways of life, because, when they said they didn't want to murder, they were lying, which, they say, they have every right to do.

[TRANSPONDER]

That's the Golden Rule, or principle of reciprocity. Of course, like everything else (like the Prime Directive) blind Rule - following raises problems.

Even the guarantee of answered prayer in the Bible has to have limits. Like God cannot make a square circle, or, reasonably, the mountain removal (as promised..metaphorically, no doubt) might have adverse effects.

Which is why relative morality and or consensus at least is the best we can do, and Biblical morality is just another stab at it and not a very good one.

Which is why law codes have to be amended at times, and is why the Golden Rule had the Platinum one (or Platinum amendment) added to modify it so that the problem you pointed up is avoided, hopefully.

But the thing is that The Golden Rule puts the wishes of the other person first, not doing to them what you would think they need (which is the twisted way it is presented in the gospels - in Luke, I recall). But the point of a principle is intent, not a fixed 'Prime Directive' that must be followed no matter if it actually causes harm.

That's why morality is relative. The intent of the Law matters more than the letter, aside the way Lawyers may use the letter to make the law stand on its' head thus requiring an amendment to stop them doing it.

But I still reckon the Platinum Rule is not just the Golden one in different words.

[TRANSPONDER]

I'll need more than a p.s here because you are right that the Platinum Rule is a thing, in business.

The problem is because the Golden rule is the twisted Biblical version Luke 6.31 And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.

And Matthew the same. That Business took it from the Bible is to be expected, but misfortunate, because it means it was 'The Evangelists;' charter' as i called it back in the 90's; that is, if you think the thing is good for them, and in their shoes you would want someone to teach you Christianity, you are morally obliged to shove it down their throat. That is the problem they has to sort by putting the other person first, which is the Golden Rule in other cultures.

It rather nicely illustrates my beef with religion as it twists morality to suit itself, and that is what people think is morality.

That is why the Platinum Rule for me (not that anyone listened to me) back at that time was the Hippy rule. The principle of reciprocity does not need a Platinum amendment (not a new Rule, which it isn't) but a 'No Harm' Platinum amendment.

Not that Business is listening, anyway, as the Method is communication one way only and force on them what you want, not what the customer or user wants.

The Rule about what is hateful to yourslef (the schoolyard "How would you like it it if that was done to you?" first lessons in morality) is in ancient Egypt, India, China and Greece.
Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." Thales[12] (c. 624 c. 546 BCE)
"What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either." Sextus the Pythagorean.[13] The oldest extant reference to Sextus is by Origen in the third century of the common era.[14]
"Ideally, no one should touch my property or tamper with it, unless I have given him some sort of permission, and, if I am sensible I shall treat the property of others with the same respect." Plato[15] (c. 420 c. 347 BCE)
"Do not do to others that which angers you when they do it to you." Isocrates[16] (436338 BCE)
"It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living pleasantly." Epicurus (341270 BC) where "justly" refers to "an agreement made in reciprocal association ... against the infliction or suffering of harm.

The Gospel reversal is a reason to force on others what the believer thinks is good for them, which is interference, not reciprocity. But interference is what missionary religions, like advertising (which i also dislike), are all about.

[JehovahsWitness]

So then there is no limit to empathy and it's as I've thought, when I've pondered the worst: If that man wants to exploit you, pretend you were him and you'd like it, so let him. If he wants to kill you, same.

What a twisted and perverse application "empathy". I am sure this is not the case for you Purple, but I have come across people that read scripture not as it is but through the smokescreen of their own heart * condition. To imply biblical empathy endorses support for perversion, evil and exploitation is twisted in the worse possible way.

*heart is used here idiomatically

Have a really great day,

JW

[TRANSPONDER]

For one, I agree. And with both of you.

But Biblical or Humanistic empathy is the same. Humans try to make our instinct of Empathy and reciprocation work when they were not designed to produce a perfect mechanism, no more than evolution was, which rather tells us all we need to know about the claims of religions to be the arbiters or mentors of morality.

We already know about draconian laws and reject execution for stealing a loaf of bread. And it makes no sense to dismiss car design on the grounds that - at extreme - we could make a car that runs so fact it would kill anyone that tries to drive it.

We can imagine the extreme but we do not do it because it make the whole thing impractical, or more impractical than it already is.

[Purple Knight]

What a twisted and perverse application "empathy".

Why, exactly? Empathy is just putting yourself in the shoes of another. It doesn't automatically exclude people who want to do you harm. If it does exclude them, there would need to be a reason.

If the Bible did support unlimited empathy, even for those who want to do us harm, it would not be alone in supporting this "twisted" idea that empathy does not have any limitations.

See the Platinum Rule: Do unto others as they would have you do. Treat others the way they want to be treated.
https://effectiviology.com/platinum-rule/
The platinum rule is a moral principle which denotes that you should treat others the way they want to be treated. For example, the platinum rule denotes that if someone wants you to leave them alone, then you should do that.

You may think I'm reading unlimited empathy into the Bible when it's not there. But, can we at least agree that I'm not reading anything into this article and it actually supports unlimited empathy, even for those who want to do us harm? It only says to consider the harm it could cause, not that the rule is no longer in effect. And frankly I don't think it's saying or even implying don't let people kill you. I think it's trying to imply don't kill others because people tell you to.

We can imagine the extreme but we do not do it because it make the whole thing impractical, or more impractical than it already is.

The problem with the idea of a moral gradient, rather than actual rules, is that I need to know when and why you are going to punish me so I don't do that thing. If you strip away all the trappings of society, and think about it logically, people who don't like the idea of rules are people who are intentionally keeping secret, how best to accommodate them, so that they can wait for a transgression and punish.

Something might be grey to you and white to me, or it might even be white to me and black to you. A good example is that Libertarians thing blackmail is okay, when almost nobody else does (for the record, I think the mere gossip is doing something wrong too). We need hard and fast rules to deal with this in a fair way and not degenerate into a popularity contest for every action.

[TRANSPONDER]

What a twisted and perverse application "empathy".

Why, exactly? Empathy is just putting yourself in the shoes of another. It doesn't automatically exclude people who want to do you harm. If it does exclude them, there would need to be a reason.

If the Bible did support unlimited empathy, even for those who want to do us harm, it would not be alone in supporting this "twisted" idea that empathy does not have any limitations.

See the Platinum Rule: Do unto others as they would have you do. Treat others the way they want to be treated.
https://effectiviology.com/platinum-rule/
The platinum rule is a moral principle which denotes that you should treat others the way they want to be treated. For example, the platinum rule denotes that if someone wants you to leave them alone, then you should do that.

You may think I'm reading unlimited empathy into the Bible when it's not there. But, can we at least agree that I'm not reading anything into this article and it actually supports unlimited empathy, even for those who want to do us harm? It only says to consider the harm it could cause, not that the rule is no longer in effect. And frankly I don't think it's saying or even implying don't let people kill you. I think it's trying to imply don't kill others because people tell you to.

We can imagine the extreme but we do not do it because it make the whole thing impractical, or more impractical than it already is.

The problem with the idea of a moral gradient, rather than actual rules, is that I need to know when and why you are going to punish me so I don't do that thing. If you strip away all the trappings of society, and think about it logically, people who don't like the idea of rules are people who are intentionally keeping secret, how best to accommodate them, so that they can wait for a transgression and punish.

Something might be grey to you and white to me, or it might even be white to me and black to you. A good example is that Libertarians thing blackmail is okay, when almost nobody else does (for the record, I think the mere gossip is doing something wrong too). We need hard and fast rules to deal with this in a fair way and not degenerate into a popularity contest for every action.

That's all true, but as i said, thew system is a human one, based on the instincts of empathy and reciprocity that evolved to help the pack survive, not to sort all human ills. We are trying to adapt an instinct socially engineered by us to make it possible for humanity to globally co - exist. No wonder we are having trouble.

Especially as other instincts - tribal conflict and personal place and never mind anyone else, are also instincts. Religion has tried the celestial CCTV and threat of detection and jail which cannot be evaded, but itr doesn't work too well and, at worst, people can use religion to justify their ill doings - 'God is on our side', Putin with his KGB - run orthodox church and the Religious fundamentalists support for Maga and evidence - denial.

I also think that using fairy tales and promising pots of gold at the end of rainbows (Disney corporation is finding out that isn't working) is in principle wrong, even if it makes people behave (which as i suggest, it really doesn't). I would like to see an understanding of ourselves, our instincts and our limitations, not the delusion of a perfect Cosmic law of morality being understood as the basis of morality. Not perfect of course, but at least, true.

[Purple Knight]

I also think that using fairy tales and promising pots of gold at the end of rainbows (Disney corporation is finding out that isn't working) is in principle wrong, even if it makes people behave (which as i suggest, it really doesn't). I would like to see an understanding of ourselves, our instincts and our limitations, not the delusion of a perfect Cosmic law of morality being understood as the basis of morality. Not perfect of course, but at least, true.

I agree with you. It probably does make many behave, but it doesn't do it for others, and it actually sets the good people up to be exploited by cheaters. If something is wrong, we need to just say that, and not have effective double standards like everything is a sin when you do it, but don't you dare judge anybody else. And if something is wrong, we need to come together and punish cheaters. Modern society is as bad as Christianity with its cancel culture if you say one wrong word, but hey if the other person says the same words and doesn't get punished that's perfectly fine because it was never really wrong, you see, it was just that you suffered consequences and he didn't, which is what we should shoot for, according to our society.

Figuring out what is wrong, then making sure we actually act against people doing it, fairly and consistently, is a must. The idea that popular opinion should handle it on a case by case basis, is what takes over when people refuse to decide, and that's as bad, or worse, than any Christian false promise of Heaven if you're good, but defines nobody as good. I mean, even if you don't believe in any of the fairy tales, you could argue that the central narrative is actually quite true. You get into Heaven if you're good, or if you're forgiven by mythological figures, and neither one happens. So the if-then statement passes muster.

You can say, empathy is just an instinct, evolved to help protect the group, but then, if we should follow it, it only goes as far as it does when it helps the group. And if we shouldn't follow it, we need something else.

[TRANSPONDER]

The thing is here, given that human morality is trying to make work as a just system an instinct that was never intended to be even - handed but just to help the individual and group survive, and given that social complexity led to devising law codes, does religion help?

As I see it, it suffers from partiality; it makes people good or bad, not on what they do, but on what they believe. This is a serious problem, and we have known that for a long time. It is no help and indeed part of the problem to suppose that one need only eliminate all the other religions and it'll be fine. Until the schisms and heresies arise, and we will get the same old problems.

No, apart from all but one must be false (and therefore, why not all?) humanism is a better option since it eliminates sectarianism. Like science, it is valid for all. And it looks to me like the best chance of working with what morality is rather than pretending it is the instructions of a man - made god.