IAI_Admin OP t1_j462wj9 wrote
Abstract: From the 10 commandments to the Buddhist eight-fold path,traditionally we looked to religion to provide moral rules and values to liveby. Today many would turn instead to self-help books, like Jordan Peterson's 'The 12 Rules for Life', but our need for and attachment to formalised rulebooks for life endures. Yet critics argue all such codes are mistaken attempts to reduce life to a set of ideals, and are doomed to failure.
This debate explores whether having rules to live by is useful and desirable, or oppressive and ineffective.
Sophie-Grace Chappell argues while life can’t be reduced to a rule book, rules are often a useful way of navigating the complexities of life. In particular, argues Chappell, we can use moral rules to help us develop the virtues.
Massimo Pigliucci concurs that we cannot condense how to live into a rule book, but argues that rules are more detrimental than helpful. The rigidity of rules renders them unhelpful in navigating human existence. Moreover, he argues that virtue ethics is not compatible with rule making; the answer to moral questions are often circumstantial.
Simon Baron-Cohen argues that we could reduce morality to the rule of ‘do no harm’. This rule, combined with a compassion-based approach to our experiences of others, could be an effective way of navigating life.
8SFY06 t1_j465zov wrote
One can't condensate it all as to "do no harm". Inaction can also cause harm.
Also, using the trolley dilemma example for the sake of the argument, it isn't there to give you a definitive solution to a problem as old as time. It is there to prove a point, it being: it depends.
Laws (as a set of rules to follow in society in comparison to our personal moral values) are more effective in some places than others, for example, because of a plethora of reasons and not just because of how they were written or how they are enforced, but it also doesn't mean that we shouldn't create them and follow them.
It is tiring to seek these answers and try to apply them to our personal lives because most of us have the "efficient market utilitarian" based approach to suffering, in which we avoid it at all costs while externalizing the labor of it somewhere else without considering the consequences. Point being, as presented by Zizek, paying Starbucks a few cents per cup to fight global warming. As things are, you can't avoid harm. It has to go somewhere.
CoweringCowboy t1_j47faa2 wrote
In the words of the wise Geddy Lee - if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.
Count-Rarian t1_j47titt wrote
I like to stall on questions from friends by saying it all depends on what I decide.
goes231even t1_j488jn6 wrote
I see Rush lyrics and it's an automatic upvote
RIP Neil
undivided-assUmption t1_j49i7r0 wrote
I completely agree. I kant believe that people think moral absolutism is still relevant in our globally connected world. The only moral principle I can think of that's universal is that one must consciously choose to be happy in a sad world. I like your take on utilitarianism. It's just a regurgitated take on life's lesser of two evils game, huh? It's as if people aren't forced to read Homer in school anymore. Damn, I hate STEM education.
WrongAspects t1_j476hlq wrote
Five of the Ten Commandments are about God himself and how you are not supposed to think about other gods. Apparently jealousy is half of morality
grandoz039 t1_j4bjlcq wrote
3 of them, if you're Catholic
LepaTheWarrior t1_j49bxz0 wrote
This is a pretty weak take. For the sake of the argument assume that the old testament is 100% accurate. What is the outcome for the Hebrews every time they forget their God and start worshipping idols? It's not good things, let me tell you that much. You can of course disagree on the accuracy of the old testament, but the internal logic is clearly not that God gives one of the 10 commandments out of jealousy.
WrongAspects t1_j4alsoh wrote
It’s not one of the commandments. Half of the commandments are about God himself.
BTW none of the commandments forbid rape or slavery out child abuse.
FaufiffonFec t1_j4qf9ep wrote
Oh come on stop splitting hairs for 5 minutes. These are just details. Look at the bigger picture : God Loves You !
(And he needs MONEY !)
no2K7 t1_j4705up wrote
That "do no harm" is close enough to my own. I navigate life by not invading people's boundaries, unless they want, or seem to require a hand.
Life's easy that way, you be you and I be I without interference from one another, and when we die we die, none of these rules and crap will have relevance then.
YawnTractor_1756 t1_j4dgtvl wrote
>unless they want, or seem to require a hand
So whenever you decide that they seem to want or require a hand, the rule is off.
Pretty convenient rule.
no2K7 t1_j4eg1nh wrote
Unless they want. Or seem to require a hand (some people don't ask for help simply to not cause discomfort in other's, it's a nice gesture when you do things for others that they need but would never expect).
thismightbsatire t1_j47n3w9 wrote
A true philosopher gains knowledge from others and then formulates their own philosophical thoughts. Reading regurgitated references only proves one is well read. Even though your thoughts were presented properly, I can't help but wander; were you STEM educated?
Are you people not familiar with hermeneutics, or are you interpreting my comment wrong?
Please tell me you understand Hegel's dialectic method of learning 🙏
LepaTheWarrior t1_j49cgj4 wrote
Do no harm is quite vague, sometimes causing harm serves a higher moral purpose, for example the punishing of criminals. Call me biased but I think "Love your neighbours as yourself" and "Love God above all else".
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments