|
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
 Posted - 05/29/2012 : 00:17:42
|
I was thinking on this last night. Religious (so called "absolute" and "unchanging") morality is at best flawed as it reflects a brutal period of slave-state history.
Yet there are a few moral principles that religion shares with secularists (even though the religious -- and we secularists, too -- often ignore them), such as the "Golden Rule." The Golden Rule indeed seems to be a practical social principle, and is nearly universal (if too often ignored) in many civilizations, ancient and modern. It certainly predates Christianity.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is the Christian way of expressing this moral guideline. Wiccans say almost the same thing, "An it harm none, do what ye will." I think the essence of this ethic of reciprocity is basic to civilized (ie, urban) living, as paying attention to it makes life less violent and easier, especially in crowed situations.
Of course, even applying such a "simple" moral standard as the Golden requires a good deal of thinking about whether another person really needs what you need, and about how to define "harm." Yet, generally, I think, it's a useful rule.
So I was thinking: If secularists (as I believe) have to make up much of our morality, and apply it carefully in relation to our actual changing environment, what other rules are already out there that make enough sense that we should be following them and teaching them to our children? What NEW rules should be considered in compiling a "secular morality"? What maxims should be tossed in the dustbin? Are there "meta-maxims" that could guide us in creating moral maxims? (Is the Golden Rule itself that "meta-maxim"?)
I don't have a lot to add right now, as I've only begun considering morality in this particular manner. But there's one new (?) maxim that I think merits consideration:
It is everyone's duty to try to understand the universe surrounding them as much as is possible. Being ignorant is no crime. Staying ignorant is, because ignorance leads to danger to oneself and to others.
Anybody have other moral guidelines (old or new) that they'd like to add, or criticisms of what I've written?
[Edited to beef up (or at least add Hamburger Helper ® to) my maxim.]
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
Edited by - HalfMooner on 05/29/2012 04:26:17
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2012 : 04:05:08 [Permalink]
|
I have argued for such an addition before, but having learned a few things since then, will drop a strict evidentialist view in favor of a pragmatic, critical-thought-based reliabilism.
Note that reliabilism is merely an epistemic theory which (paraphrasing Wikipedia) can be summed up as:One has a justified belief in something if, and only if, the belief is the result of a reliable process. It can be turned into an ethical guideline as follows:One has a duty to believe in something only so far as the belief is the result of a reliable process. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2012 : 04:12:26 [Permalink]
|
That reliabilism thing: Is it reliable?
If so, it may point the way to developing "new" morality. Serving the role of that "meta-maxim" thing I was hoping for. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 05/29/2012 : 22:18:19 [Permalink]
|
Another "secular moral maxim," though a minor one:You have a right and duty to point and laugh at the follies of others, but you may only do this if you are willing to be mocked for your own. |
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Secular Morality: Can it be Better than Religious?
