[NB: I did NOT read every post in this thread, so if I go over ground already touched on, apos in advance.]
For me the point to living a moral life are the Gold and Silver Rules: Do as you would be done by, and do NOT do as you would NOT be done by.
For me, at least, it is difficult to imagine a more universal maxim than the ethics of reciprocity. Yeah, yeah, we've all heard the supposed conundrum about the masochist and the sadist, so kindly don't bring up that particular piece of idiocy.
I don't commit unethical acts because I wouldn't like to have them visited on me, simple as that. Human beings have, by and large, tastes and goals that are similar enough to make this one of the best possible working standards by which people can get on with one another. The aberrations to the standard are sufficiently rare as not to damage the rule. In fact, virtually ALL instances where human relations fail can be attribute to a violation of the Golden Rule.
Some advantages to this POV are: 1) consequences tend to be in line with the wrong done, as opposite to the lunatic theistic tradition of infinite punishment for finite transgressions; 2) The standard is sufficiently malleable as to permit infractions for a greater good; and 3) The wrong done for a humanistic violation of ethics can be cleared up or addressed by human beings.
And, to forestall the mistake always made, the Golden Rule is NOT original to Jesus. To quote Russell, 'The New Testament is both good and original. But what is good is not original, and what is original is not good.'
Boru
For me the point to living a moral life are the Gold and Silver Rules: Do as you would be done by, and do NOT do as you would NOT be done by.
For me, at least, it is difficult to imagine a more universal maxim than the ethics of reciprocity. Yeah, yeah, we've all heard the supposed conundrum about the masochist and the sadist, so kindly don't bring up that particular piece of idiocy.
I don't commit unethical acts because I wouldn't like to have them visited on me, simple as that. Human beings have, by and large, tastes and goals that are similar enough to make this one of the best possible working standards by which people can get on with one another. The aberrations to the standard are sufficiently rare as not to damage the rule. In fact, virtually ALL instances where human relations fail can be attribute to a violation of the Golden Rule.
Some advantages to this POV are: 1) consequences tend to be in line with the wrong done, as opposite to the lunatic theistic tradition of infinite punishment for finite transgressions; 2) The standard is sufficiently malleable as to permit infractions for a greater good; and 3) The wrong done for a humanistic violation of ethics can be cleared up or addressed by human beings.
And, to forestall the mistake always made, the Golden Rule is NOT original to Jesus. To quote Russell, 'The New Testament is both good and original. But what is good is not original, and what is original is not good.'
Boru
‘But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods or no gods. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.’ - Thomas Jefferson
