The Bible: A Moral book?!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Could you expand on that. The golden rule works quite well for vulnerable populations if you would treat them the same way you would want to be treated if the situation was reversed.

Interpretation of the 'golden rule' nearly always occurs within each era's dominant social constructs.

Suppose for example that I was a 15th century landed noble with serfs. To me application of the golden rule would mean something like this: how would I want to be treated if I were a serf? I probably would not question the institution of serfdom's morality, even though a modern me would. Today I would apply the golden rule as meaning that enslaving another human being is wrong because I would not want to be enslaved.

The golden rule is not a sufficient guide because it must be supplimented with other moral principles such as human dignity and recognition of each other's humanity. In other words, we need extra moral guides and principles to evaluate the social constructs used to define who qualifies as a person to which we have moral obligations.

For example, very few people would assert that a fetus is anything other than a human being, a very young undeveloped human, but a human none the less. Do we have any moral obligations to them no matter how insignificant? Most people look at pregant women that smoke and drink with scorn. Presumably they believe mothers have a moral obligation to care for the health of their unborn babies. Yet, currently the unborn are legally non-persons to which we (under the law) have few or no moral obligations. The dominant culture does not apply the golden rule to unborn babys. What if I asked someone "how would you want to be treated if you were an unborn baby?" i.e. the golden rule. Who would say, "I would accept being killed if my birth created an economic hardship on my mommy." I'm not saying that unborn humans have the exactly same moral status as fully developed humans only that the golden rule isn't much help when thinking about the kind of moral obligations to the weak who cannot speak on their own behalf.

The idea of vulnerable populations is not confined to the unborn. Various eras defined away the humanity of blacks, Jews, the insane, homosexuals, the deformed and mentally retarded. Doing so allowed the dominant culture to selectively apply the golden rule.

Just as a practical matter, putting ourself in the shoes of the unborn or mentally retarded is highly speculative and we do so from a position of power.

Which moral responsibilities are you referring to in terms of the self?

Under the golden rule, you're only obligated to treat others as well as you would like to be treated. Suppose you treat yourself badly. Does that mean you can treat other people badly. I believe people have a moral responsibility to use their rational capacity and cultivate personal virtue. How you treat yourself serves as reference point for how to treat others. Determining how you shouldtreat yourself is a moral question that preceeds the golden rule.

---

...by your criteria, right and wrong would [still] have a place in the evolutionary process. Anything that enhances the procreative dominance would be right and anything that detracts from it would be wrong.

If procreative dominance is the moral criteria, then the logical conclusions of this principle are the following: Abortion is evil because high-birth rates improve overall chances of the species' survival. Homosexuality is wrong because it does not continue a person's genetic legacy. Polygamy is preferable to monogamy because it focuses economic resources on females to reduce infant mortality, etc. I'm uncomfortable with such results.

However, that is a very simplistic understanding of the evolutionary process. While overall it may be seen as struggle for procreative dominance, it can be accomplished through many mechanisms.

Simplistic by overall accurate. All survival mechanisms relate to directly to power - power to subdue foes, the power to enforce order on society, etc. It's still just "might makes right" wrapped in a nicer package.

It is only in humans that the moral sense is made much more sophisticated by the rational mind, which is also a product of evolution.

Are we truly rational or do we only approximate an ideal of rationality? ;-)