Litmus test

[worldslaziestbusker]

@ worldslaziestbusker

A problem with religion, is the notion that one central ethic can be imposed, the problem with this thinking is that no single ethic can be stretched to fit all situations.

Kant's categorical imperative comes as close as any I've come across to date.

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

Kant thought long and hard about ethics and formulated the wording of his imperative such that you can use it to test the ethical merit of any given decision using logic. This allows us to test an idea as from as near first principles as possible.

Eg: Can I steal and still be a good person?
Theft is taking property without permission.
If I want to steal and still be good, I need societal approval of that act.
I want permission to take property without permission.

That the syllogism falls in a heap of incoherence is the first sign that something is amiss. I cannot be considered good if my actions are logically incoherent in the reference frame of my community (this is why I only state that it is as near to a first principles examination as possible, because valuing ownership of property is the premise required to set the scene for the logical assessment).

But we can also assess it less abstractly. If I want society to be okay with theft, I can't justify that without affording the same right to everyone else. If everyone is free to take property without permission, theft becomes pointless because there is no way it can help any individual get ahead. Theft as a concept is only of benefit to a thief if the bulk of the community do not condone it. Without condemnation of the act generally, the act loses any appeal specifically.

So to state that this is just my opinion is incorrect. This is a logical extension of an established philosophical model which I've yet to see successfully disputed. If you cannot extend the rights you want to enjoy to everyone, you have no justification in calling for that right to be respected in your case.
If you are an abusive asshole, you have no sound footing from which to criticise the actions of those who abuse you.

The expression of anger is just as valid, as a thought through precise bit of intellectual play. I find little difficulty differentiating personal abuse from, a thoughtful argument. If your problem is that your cannot, the answer is to fix yourself, not to reduce others to your level.

Anger is a powerful motivator and it has wound up the clockwork of many great humanitarian people and causes, but it cannot justify abuse.
I think I am doing fine in my ability to spot when I am about to be abusive and to balk at that fence, but I see plenty of evidence of atheists who are either ignorant or indifferent of the repurcussions of their decisions and was eager to try to model a mechanism by which people could more readily assess their actions.
If I am broken, please show me where my ideas fall apart by presenting the requested example of intended harm from which the victim cannot benefit which does not negate any of your rights in turn.

---

So basically you're making a word soup out of saying we should police ourselves and make sure we're being nice to everyone.

You don't have to be nice to anyone, you just have to avoid being an asshole.
You do have to be ethical if you want to claim the rights you want respected. Ethical isn't nice or nasty, it's neutral, because at a basal level being ethical is a zero sum game. You don't oppress anyone, no-one oppresses you.
It creates a level playing field from which situations that aren't zero sum can arise, and from which a society can begin to thrive.