The Bible: A Moral book?!

[Neo-Scholastic]

Sin is anything not in the expressed will of God.We can not live a perfect life (without sin) so that means our best efforts will result in a moral life. Because the Righteous standard of God is found in the bible it is best to derive one's morality from God's perfect standard.

Nice try, but the question is whether the bible is a moral book. If you say righteousness is the express will of God and that that expression takes the form of the bible, then you cannot use the bible itself to demonstrate its own morality. Are you saying that it's righteous because it says it is?

[Thomas Kelly]

I guess its both a moral and manual book.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Most of the 'goodness' taught by the Jesus character, however, is common to nearly all cultures. The Golden Rule is not of biblical origins.

So are you saying a purely secular golden rule is a rational foundation for morality? A strong case could be built for that position, but you have not done so by appealing to civilization and culture. The golden rule works generally well for relations between rational adults of equal status but has nothing to say about the moral responsibilities we have to ourselves, non- or semi-sentient beings, the insane, or vulnerable populations, like the unborn or the mentally retarded.

[NoMoreFaith]

The golden rule works generally well for relations between rational adults of equal status but has nothing to say about the moral responsibilities we have to ourselves, non- or semi-sentient beings, the insane, or vulnerable populations, like the unborn or the mentally retarded.

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. Likewise with mental retardation.

Which moral responsibilities are you referring to in terms of the self? Generally, they are in terms of the effects upon loved ones etc, but it works fine for the self in that it doesn't apply to the self. If you want to destroy yourself, then as long as it harms no one, I have no problem with that, but rarely is harm to yourself completely victimless.

[Paul the Human]

I simply used the Golden Rule as an example of the kinds of things taught by the Jesus character in the bible. As a central, core value in civilized society, I think it is quite valid. The point was that the "morality of man" does not come from some magical place. Some is hardwired, some is a direct result of societal influence. Much of what Jesus reportedly taught is good, by the standards of most civilized societies. That doesn't make a god the source of the development of 'morality'.

[genkaus]

As I see it, if we say our moral standard is based on human nature, then the next question is 'What is the basis of human nature?' If we then say, human nature is a product of evolution, then how does the amoral process of evolution produce a moral standard? The response is usually that the resulting 'moral sense' has helped us survive. But ultimately survival is an on-going struggle for procreative dominance, both between different species and between individuals of the same species. Right and wrong have no place in that process, only power does. One could take a different approach and say that humans evolved to become rational creatures and as a result are able to reason about morality. True enough, except that implies something about which we can reason that is not part of the evolutionary process.

Firstly, even by your criteria, right and wrong would 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. 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. Survival of the tribe, flourishing of the individual within the tribe, survival through cooperation, dominance through warfare - all could be mechanisms geared towards the same ultimate purpose, but each gives rise to its separate morality.

If you need an example, look at the different types of animal moralities. Ants are extremely altruistic, since they very often sacrifice themselves to protect the colony. By contrast, chimps have hierarchical power structure within a tribe. 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.

---

Some definitions first.

So, when you say definitions, you mean redefinitions. Let's stick to the actual definitions.

Sin is anything not in the expressed will of God.

Wrong. A sin is an act that violates a known moral rule.

Morality is the standard of man. or man's effort to meet the righteousness of God with the sin he is willing to live with, incorporated into that standard.

Wrong. Morality is code of conduct put forward by a society or accepted by an individual for his own behavior.

Righteousness is the sinless standard of God.

Wrong. Righteousness is the quality or state of being just or rightful.

Righteousness says it is never OK to lie.

Wrong. That would depend on the moral code by which right and wrong are defined.

Morality says it is OK to lie to save the life of your friends.

Again, that would depend on your moral code.

We can not live a perfect life (without sin) so that means our best efforts will result in a moral life.

Wrong. Depending on the moral code, we can live a sinless life. It still might not be perfect.

Because the Righteous standard of God is found in the bible it is best to derive one's morality from God's perfect standard.

Finally, something relevant. So, if bible is taken as the source of moral codes, then god fails his own test several times over.

[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? ;-)

[Godscreated]

Sin is anything not in the expressed will of God.We can not live a perfect life (without sin) so that means our best efforts will result in a moral life. Because the Righteous standard of God is found in the bible it is best to derive one's morality from God's perfect standard.

Nice try, but the question is whether the bible is a moral book. If you say righteousness is the express will of God and that that expression takes the form of the bible, then you cannot use the bible itself to demonstrate its own morality. Are you saying that it's righteous because it says it is?

No, he is saying that the Bible is a book of moral standards because they came from the God who is righteous an will judge you by his righteousness. Righteousness is not the will of God, righteousness is who God is. The will of God is that you would live by his righteous standard.

[Greatest I am]

[

Sin is anything not in the expressed will of God.

Righteousness says it is never OK to lie.

Morality says it is OK to lie to save the life of your friends.

Scriptures are clear that God lies and causes others to lie.

Is he still righteous?
Or is he allowed to break his own commands?

Regards
DL

---

The character "Jesus", for the most part, taught goodness. I agree with that. The book itself is full of retchedness and wickedness and downright evil, mostly perpetrated by the character called "God". That's how I see it.

Most of the 'goodness' taught by the Jesus character, however, is common to nearly all cultures. The Golden Rule is not of biblical origins.

For the most part his unworkable rhetoric was good rhetoric.

You say most part. What of when his preaching was not so good?

His divorce policy for one. Let no man put asunder would mean that a wife who gets beat twice a week would have to grin and bear it and never be able to seek a loving partner.

Regards
DL

---

I guess its both a moral and manual book.

Genocide is moral is it?
It is more moral to kill than to cure is it?

Regards
DL

[NoMoreFaith]

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.

Agreed on all counts. Hence why I wanted a bit more detail. Appreciated, makes good sense.

I would never argue that the Golden Rule is the sole means to obtain morality, personally I combine it with the harm principle, however, I would not place as many restrictions as you do, and your examples of its failings are based upon the failings of social and economic factors, rather than the rule itself.

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.

This is slightly faulty, in that the objection to pregnant women drinking and smoking is more a response to the harm it causes to the human in potentia rather than the current state of non-sentient cells (depending on the stage of pregnancy). Are people actually concerned about the harm done to the blastocyte? or the harm committed by the damage of development of the final human being? The distinction is vital to the argument.
I think many would not assert an undeveloped foetus before sentience is a human being, human cells which are developing into a human being, but not currently a human being. Again, in potentia. I would like to avoid this becoming an abortion thread, merely the consensus on Human Being is by no means as cut and dried as you make it out to be.

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.

Exactly why I disagree with your assertion regarding what a human being is. Is a human being a Zygote, Blastocyte, Embryo, Baby?
The golden rule does not apply, because the definition of human being supplied does not fully apply.

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.

I completely disagree, the confusion comes from the pro-life absurdities of human cells = human being while trying to avoid the absurdity of treating morally those whom are only in potential rather than in actuality.

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.

This doesn't detract from the Golden Rule, it merely means that people have tried to redefine aspects of the vulnerable to avoid the guilt inherent in contradicting a solid moral rule. The rule has not failed here.

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.

Interesting viewpoint, my only real response to that, is that any action which is pre-supposed as badly, inherently contradicts the spirit of the golden rule.
The concept, whilst grammatically simple, implies the consideration of others, and how they would want to be treated, not how you wish to be treated yourself.
If you self-harm, you do not make a pre-supposition that others wish to be harmed, but rather whether they would wish to be harmed.

However, I completely agree that the Golden Rule is not an ethical system, merely a moral rule, and others, such as Harm principles etc should always be taken into consideration when devising your ethical principles.

Damn Chad, you always make me think hard