Posted on 08/02/2003 4:43:59 PM PDT by betty boop
Clearly, you are ignoring the existance of the 'golden rule' as the historical basis of all moral codes.
In which case, they need to explain, it seems to me, why they wish to attack the one thing that, on the historical record of mankind, fundamentally enables human society to cohere, on the basis of free mutual exchanges, and persevere over time. Thus to survive, hopefully unto their generations….
As I noted at 486, Betty, you attack the a-theistic, the non-religious, at every opportunity. You seem to think that the "one thing" holding society together is your vision of religion.
As Koestler remarked, it may be that mans excessive devotion to 'the cause' could now be mankinds biggest threat.
We have a great deal of knowledge of the cultural anthropological record of homo sapiens sapiens by now. It goes back about 40,000. Based on what is now known on both the anthropological and historical records (primitive societies are still extant today), ample research suggests that "order" – and then a sanctified and sanctifying base for that order – were the first two "orders of business" for the human imagination, once man began to settle into communitarian (e.g., pair-bonded and tribal) life.
Our modern civilization is far beyond the need for tribal order, and tribal religions, as we see in the middle east, where tribal religions are tearing their world apart.
One thing's for sure: There can be no moral code in a situation where everybody is "free" to make up his own as he goes along.
Directly contradicted by the first two hundred years of our american experiment in a constitutional republic.
The false expectation that this might be possible probably stems from the currently fashionable "radical individualist" interpretation of human meaning.
To preserve our republic, we should encourage more individualism, under the rule of constitutional law. -- Not less.
To which one might reply: Man is doubtlessly "individual"; but he is also by nature a "social animal." And both individual and group potential got its first huge boost by man's association with mutually-sustaining, cooperative communities. Which definitely improved his overall survival prospects, and that of his progeny – and also that of his community.
We have learned how to survive in the physical realm. Now we must learn how to survive in a crowded world. The socialisic/communitarian based theories have been failing, as shown in the holocasts of the 20th century.
Rightwhale said:
"Ultimately it [i.e., the moral code] may [serve the survival interest of the human community] … or maybe not."
-RightWhale-
Indeed. The old religions, the old tribalistic moral codes, may not serve for todays society. They may be our problems.
They don't in general. Even the debate about abortion, assumed to be Biblical on the prohibition side, turns out to not to be so upon further analysis. St. Thomas Aquinas thought the soul, the essence of humanity, entered the foetus when the foetus had grown enough to have definite human form, not at conception. This was codified at the Council of Vienne about 1312. Since then, with the early microscopes the "homunculus" was observed, and the Church decided the soul entered at conception, and since then further advances in microscopic observation showed the "homunculus" was not there after all, but the Church stuck to its new edict in spite of that and of Vienne which is still in force. It's doctrine, and if that is religious, then this morality debate is religious, otherwise it seems unrelated to religious views.
There are other moral codes than the Western, Christian, and Platonic, other histories or realizations. The Confucian system is based on li, functional duty, performance of which provides true humanity. Buddhist, Tao, early Gita, and some of the African systems aren't reliant on the principle of reciprocity but have completely different bases of personal perception or responsibility.
That's a very simplistic, even confused, comment on the thrust of what I said, but if it makes you happy...
and presented no moral framework for America.
'America'? You mean as a framework for our republican form of government? Right on. It didn't.
Just a quick question: whose depictions of history do you read?
No doubt the same ones you read, spinner, - although we obviously arrive at different conclusions from the same info.
I'd suggest you look into your:
"excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation."
-Koestler-
They don't in general.
I even see them as being dangerous in Koestlers sense, -- that they encourage the divisions among peoples, rather than teaching us to learn to live with our differences under the rules of constitutional laws.
There are other moral codes than the Western, Christian, and Platonic, other histories or realizations. The Confucian system is based on li, functional duty, performance of which provides true humanity. Buddhist, Tao, early Gita, and some of the African systems aren't reliant on the principle of reciprocity but have completely different bases of personal perception or responsibility.
I was trying to find an article about the golden rule, posted here at FR several years ago.
It's author tied togeather quotes from every major religion, and dozens of minor ones, that showed that its premise of realistic self interest is, and was, present in all known societies.
This must include various constraints and extentions. The individuality we obviously possess is, in some thought, going to be carried right through to our ultimate evolution and, if anything, strengthened while we all recognize and respect the individuality and uniqueness of each other. If we each remain self-absorbed and turn from society, we limit our individual possibilities, the error of the hermit, and if we form a perfect society, we each can realize our own maximum potential--never getting there, of course, always getting closer to the asymptote in a logarithmic way. The Golden Rule must be carefully applied. It might not always be that our neighbor wishes to be treated as we wish to be treated; if we would like to be given a jelly-filled donut, he might not: it might even kill him if he has an allergy. We need to be careful about rules.
Business as usual, it seems.
"excessive capacity and urge to become identified with a tribe, nation, church or cause, and to espouse its credo uncritically and enthusiastically, even if its tenets are contrary to reason, devoid of self-interest and detrimental to the claims of self-preservation." -- Koestler
Good quote. Jesus Christ said something very similar to those who would make the above mistakes of trusting man's rules (including Koestler's apparent kind of self interest): "''They worship me in vain; their teachings are but rules taught by men.' You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to the traditions of men.' And he said to them: 'You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!"
(I.e., you seem to be stating that Christianity did not convey morality and wisdom to Americans which has been vitally important to our republican government, whether in its foundation, structure, or maintenance.)
I soberly suggest you read more from such political theorists as those most credited by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, for our republic, including Algernon Sidney and John Locke, instead of the writing of revisionists who spent their impressionable years steeped in Marxism. Also, the writings of the other founders, are preferable to the Koestlers, Rands, etc. of the world. Why not go to the authentic founders our republic, instead of 20th Century Marx-reactionaries? Of those two groups, which were the ones who were there and who actually did it?
Here are citations with links:
Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America
(An aside in this thread, but very germane to FreeRepublic.com.)
RW, when looking into what is Biblical, it is most apt to read the Bible. :-)
And how do we "fix" that problem, tpaine?
Here's a take by a physicist (Menas Kafatos) and a historian of science (Robert Nadeau), from their outstanding book, The Non-Local Universe:
"What is privileged in the struggle for survival is not competition between parts (c.f., Darwinism). It is complementary relationships between parts and wholes that result in emergent self-regulating properties that are greater than the sum of the parts and that serve to perpetuate the existence of the whole....
"In our view, however, there is probably little hope that scientific knowledge per se will occasion the massive cooperative efforts between people and governments needed to effectively deal with [the acute global problems that mankind now faces].
"Cooperation on this scale could be dependent on the rapid emergence of something like a global ethos, termed here a new ecology of mind -- that would serve as the basis for more universally accepted guidelines in ethical thought and behavior. This new ecology of mind, which is consistent with, although not legitimated by, our current scientific worldview -- could evolve without any appeal to metaphysics or in the absence of any dialogue between science and religion. However, we believe this will not occur for the following reasons: The foundations of ethical thought and behavior have rarely (if ever) followed the dictates of pure reason, and virtually all such changes have historically resulted from the influence of people with the capacity for profound religious awareness." [emphasis added]
Methinks you want to "throw out the baby with the bathwater," tpaine.
From what we see in Scripture and other history, such movements, when not centered on the Gospel are very harmful and sad, and the more pervasive the more tragic.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.