How often we forget that we are all free.
We forget that the essence of humanism is to allow and appreciate the freedom of others, while expecting the same in return. It is an exciting aspect of naturalism, provided in the constraints of certain moral theories, to be able to allow our inventive, creative, wonderful nature its full blossoming.
It is easy to be willing, out of fear for scorn, whether personal or (more despicably) politically, to put a cage around our minds and hearts in the name of some standard of conduct, or out of some respect for an invisible punisher. We do this by disguising our emotions – our brilliance, our love, our passion, especially our most human trait, sexuality – under acceptable clothing, mannerisms: How you doing and thank you very much.
Do we walk in within these boundaries because it is good to do so? Or is it true that we walk in line because someone has told us, “Behave, or else.”
We look upon ideals of conduct as valuable maps for our lives – schematics for robotic behavior that ensures we will be accepted by the bigger machine. But why? Given you are not causing any suffering, are there not untold riches to be found when you have elbow room to express yourself naturally? I believe this healthy rebellion and freedom is what gives us all the humanities – what reveals that we truly are fascinating, talented creatures rather than quiet, efficient automatons.
We are a suppressed creature, and naturalism can give us the key to health by establishing a moral standard like this:
The human being is only rightfully constrained by ability and material nature, and that there is no such thing as a victimless crime – there is no act, which when it has caused no suffering nor loss, that can be reasonably described as wrong.
This freedom is in contrast to the whims of the omnipotent and supernatural beings, who would have us appreciate a poisoned freedom from within their regulations – Gods who would make themselves exceptions to the Golden Rule so often preached by their devout by placing others within a caged and non-free system while they remain at large.
Any restraints against the freedom of victimless human expression, experimentation, cognition, opinion, art or activity go against the values of the humanist.
But some would have us believe that you can be religious and also stand up against these wrongs – but I don’t believe that’s true.
They would have us actually consider the freedom of those who crouch under an otherworldly dictator (whose government is conditional love), those who are seeking warmth in a supernatural source of validation and acceptance of their miserable state, seeking to be owned as a form of currency or loved conditionally or within a system or rebirth in which our future is deliberated – can these people, who so desire to be controlled and systematized that they imagine supernatural beings to do it, say anything at all about what it means to be free?
The essence of freedom can not be had by any organization that says “As long as it is within our guidelines, or else.” So when religious organizations tell us that our actions are to be judged in the afterlife, or as some do, that life itself is empty and meaningless (to be transcended through magical thinking by extended meditation, prayer or other practices), we have the essence of immorality: a breach of the golden rule, performed not by men and women but by our supernatural beings.
We are to honor the world as a place conceptualized by these otherworldly spirits such as God, Vishnu or (as religious Buddists would have it) the reincarnated ghosts of the Wheel of Suffering. They tell us these magical processes do indeed exist, have a supernatural origin, and do have magical properties outside space and time – but they don’t stop there.
A supernatural hierarchy with men as vassals, slaves, serfs, sufferers and potentials is, for some, the ultimate guide and anchor to morality. This is not only not right – it can not possibly be right, given the golden rule has anything to do with morality.
Yet, if we are to agree that the golden rule is a basic aspect of morality, these creatures of our imaginations must be immoral. A worldview that perceives reality as a deliberated supernatural hierarchy is morally inferior to one that allows for true human freedom. Within a system of all-powerful spirits and their cosmic destiny for the Universe (a cosmology which has been designed or has some intrinsic mind-made purpose) it easily follows that no one could possibly be free by any definition of the word – we are playing by rules which have been made by other beings for us, far and above our material ability, trivializing the golden rule.
And so the gods who have made this decision to create rules for you, to set boundaries for you, and indeed to create you at all, while they remain omnipotent and free, break the Rule themselves.
Do not do unto others what you would not have them do to you.
So often is the golden rule preached, strangely enough, even by religions whose standards are dictated by a Punisher on High who has little concern for whether eternal punishment would ever be reflected back upon Him.
So we find the golden rule to be a core seed in moral religion, though by no means should it be considered to bloom only out of supernatural water. Take some of these (often hypocritical) passages to heart – these passages make up the room in the house of religion which is not decorated with bloody wallpaper and echoes of magical thinking.
Christianity – All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye so to them; for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:1Confucianism - Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.
Analects 12:2Buddhism - Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udana-Varga 5,1Hinduism - This is the sum of duty; do naught onto others what you would not have them do unto you.
Mahabharata 5,1517Islam - No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
SunnahJudaism – What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellowman. This is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud, Shabbat 3idTaoism - Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.
Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ienZoroastrianism -That nature alone is good which refrains from doing another whatsoever is not good for itself.
Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5
- Do you agree with the golden rule?
- If so, is the true freedom to make the choice to behave by the golden rule even possible if there is any sort of a God who has designed this Universe with you in mind?
- What about an Eastern (Buddhist, Hindu) Universe that is understood to be itself an illusion?
I like this post. A lot of your arguments remind me of the loaded dice argument Ayn Rand buried inside of the John Galt speech.
I was at a feminist lecture this afternoon where the speaker mentioned that she and a group she belonged to need to be *especially* vigilant about being kind because they were Christians. I thought it was interesting because the way she said it made it sound like Christians were either nicer than other people or had to be held to a higher standard. Which is interesting to me–I guess I don’t think that forced kindness is real kindness.
Anyway, nice post.
I view freedom as a more amoral quality. It needs a qualifier to make freedom ‘good’ or ‘bad’. I prefer societies which provide for freedom but within moral bounds. That is, freedom is good only when it is ‘freedom to do good’. ‘Freedom to do bad’ is an evil you good communities.
Obviously ‘moral restrictions’ cannot be imposed to require ‘good’, because that destroys freedom. There is a amoral quality to restrictions too. If freedom is a desired quality of life, then it is best to have boundaries to define obvious ‘bad’ actions. ‘Bad’ is probably best defined by the practical version of the golden rule posed by the Jewish sage, Hillel (~10BCE) “Don’t do to others what you don’t want them to do to you.” The negative quality to this statement of the Golden Rule makes it practical. It does not impose good. Rather is permits good. It also permits neutral behavior or even lack of good behavior. However, it discourages bad behavior. Very practical.
Freedom is amoral. Freedom to do good based on a regulation of immoral behavior is good Freedom.
Traffic laws are always my simplest example of well-regulated freedom. Proper regulation can be applied to any public behavior, including economic behavior, etc. Well-regulated traffic behavior permits freedom to travel anywhere by any legal route … in safety. Total freedom in traffic behavior permits the jerk with the biggest truck to drive across your lawn at any speed. Laissez faire traffic freedom permits the powerful to get across the country efficiently, but there will be a few deaths and injuries along the way. Sounds like Ayn Rand’s unregulated capitalism to me.
We are in agreement, but I feel there’s more for you to say. The golden rule gets a bit tricky when I wonder why it matters on the SHAFT blog and not simply in religious studies.
Such a wonderful quote from Hillel – it almost brings one to tears. Well, as long as we could some how ignore Moses in the background telling devotees to reorganize the genitalia of babies and suck the remains off with their bearded mouths.
Because I do not have enough time in my short life, nor do I have nearly enough caffeine, I don’t dare to mention the brunt of Judaism (and essential Christianity) moral regulations which fall well outside this most prized Golden Rule.
But let’s analyze the most popular ten. From my agnostic-atheist/humanist point of view, while I value your wonderful quote from Hillel as a genuine source of morality, I have to wonder about some things. Particularly, the things that people would like to put in American courtrooms.
“I am the LORD your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt, from the house of slavery. You shall have no other gods in My presence…
“Do not make an image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above…”
“Do not swear falsely by the name of the LORD…”
“Remember [zachor] the Sabbath day and keep it holy”
“Honor your father and your mother…”
“Do not murder”
“Do not commit adultery.”
“Do not steal.”
“Do not bear false witness against your neighbor”
“Do not covet your neighbor’s wife”
I’ll be back later to wonder, in this trek up the side of Mount Sinai, in what part of the forest we dropped the Golden Rule and picked up stone.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/08/26/nyregion/26circumcise.html
Tarbet,
To understand Jewish wisdom (not that I am an expert), one starts with “History matters”. So at the time of Moses, the ten commandments and Moses’s legislative interpretations (5 book of Moses — Torah) were incredible leaps forward in human ethics. The Jewish people live this call to justice with failures and successes. Around 10 BCE, the Jewish sage, Hillel, brings forward an important interpretive rubric for the Torah. Since there are many interpretations of Torah and some are very damaging to the community, one must pursue the best understandings of Torah based on the Golden Rule. An interpretation is good if one learns how to better fulfill “Don’t do to others what you don’t want done to you.” Hillel specifically said that this phrase captures all of Torah, now go study Torah and live it.
History matters. Hillel’s interpretive screen further enhances the ethical beauty of an ancient book on human ethics. So now the Jew (or atheist) abuses Torah if they don’t go ‘through’ Hillel’s wisdom for the most ethical interpretation.
History matters. Humans learn.
Another important Jewish concept is that ‘Torah is no longer in Heaven’. It is on earth and it requires human community to wrestle with it’s call to justice. The answer to “How should I live ethically?” is found in the human task of wrestling with question. One listens to the wisdom from the past (Torah, Hillel, Buddha, others), but for our situations we have to answer the question anew. The past has a voice in the discussion of the question, but it does not have a veto.
Notice, I did not refer to G-d in this comment. These comments can be for the theist and the atheist.
I’ll I really suggest is — try to answer the question “What is my best ethical action right now?” then do it. If feel that generally best answers come from people who continually seek and practice wisdom in humility. While Martin Luther King Jr. was a Christian, he sought wisdom from a Hindu, Gandhi. Don’t demand perfection from their advisors (Moses, Buddha, Hillel, Francis of Assisi, Gandhi, Dorothy Day, etc). Gandhi and these others were far from perfect in all their actions. So they can have a voice and vote into your thinking, but they do not have a veto or a dogmatic demand over your actions.
So if I’m not wrong and I understand your ethical advice the right way, when we attempt to parallel that with Christianity, we have this sort of a situation:
1) God exists.
2) Morality is found not necessarily from God’s specific commandments but just generally all over the place (such as from a Hindu, Gandhi and arguably atheist Buddha)
3) God judges people eternally based on this morality.
It is no surprise that I would have thought God would lay down some very strict rules, perhaps on some stone tablets, rather than trusting the humble wisdom of humanists. Ah, but I mentioned those.
It is difficult to comprehend how a Christian can alleviate cognitive dissonance by agreeing with Gandhi and Buddha on one or two points while entirely ignoring all the rest of everyone’s convictions about the afterlife, such as the moral righteousness of vicarious redemption through blood sacrifice. This seems to be a most ungodly cherry-picking. While I agree with you completely that morality is undoubtedly sourced from the wealth of human experience rather than religious texts, I find it odd that I could possibly agree with the Lord on that point. From consulting the Good Books, this type of ethical piecemeal is bad, bad form in His eyes.
Pingback: Main Street Plaza » Sunday in Outer Blogness: Community and Connection Edition!
I am more Jewish in my thinking about the BIble (Old and New Testaments), though there are reasons that I embrace Christianity instead (in this preference I am not stating that a Jewish life is not valid). Your assumption of either/or belief systems is rather normal for western thinkers. This is not necessary for many non-western approaches (Jewish). This is not saying that everything is right or that there is no right. I see Nietzsche’s radical skepticism as merely a rejection of the claims that a particular right-thinking system captures truth. I move on to a post modern or pre modern view that seeks real wisdom in truth stories. (I reject radical postmodernism that says all stories are equal.)
The pre-modern approach is captured in the Jewish community’s approach to understanding Torah (books of Moses). They start with the acknowledgement that Torah is “on earth”. That is, it is up to the human community to wrestle and interpret the books to produce the best understanding of what is ethical action as a community. The ‘G-d aspect’ is only that there is a call to be a just people. G-d does not give you the systematic set of rules to define ethical action in your life. Rather, you (and the community) must continually wrestle with the ‘call to be just’. You (we) must continually ask ourselves “How should I treat my neighbor?”.
So if there is not G-d … so what? … I suggest that the human is the one who hears the ‘call to be just’. The theist and the atheist needs to wrestle with the question “How should I treat my neighbor?”. To not ask the questions demotes that human into a being who is worse of than other animals. It is the human privilege and requirement to ask the question.
I disagree with your libertarian premise of victimless actions. This begins with the assumption that we are truly individuals without community. Libertarian ethics eventually lead to blinders against seeing the collateral damage of accumulative ‘victimless’ actions. How will we ever manage to regulate the damage of driving big polluting pickups in Cache County on cold winter days? Isn’t driving my stinky truck a victimless crime? There are no actions without community consequences. Some consequences are good some are neutral and some are evil. Real ethics must start with the acknowledgement of the community (human and all of creation) as well as the individual. Hillel’s statement of the Golden rule acknowledges your own self and the other self.
As to my use of G-d and Christianity in my discussions. Get over it. When you see “Vince”, then assume that Vince expects to see atheists in his heaven (I also leave heaven a rather undefined quantity). In spite of your accusations about the certainty of my faith statements, I cannot really admit to certainty in heaven, G-d, creation, good, etc. Faith is hope. Faith is not certainty. True faith is a hope that leads to action. So how do I manage a Christian faith without heaven if I am not certain about the possibility of heaven? I interpret the Psalms phrase ‘Your (G-d’s) lovingkindness is better than life.’ as — “even if there is no afterlife, I must acknowledge G-d’s goodness”. This is a common interpretation (e.g., Abraham Joshua Heschel). Even in my uncertain hope, I cannot give up my sense of a ‘call to be just’ (kind, good, etc) and my sense of a ‘need to be forgiven’ (humble, forgiving, etc) and a hope that G-d is ‘for me’. G-d (a term I prefer to leave fairly undefined) speaks these calls in words without sound. One can even hear these calls as an atheist, for example Derrida and Levinas. I cannot prove the ground for my hope in G-d. That is why Paul Tillich calls G-d ‘the groundless ground’ of the believer. Even in my uncertainty I have an unexplainable need to stand on this groundless ground. To me the world is meaningless without ‘the calls’. I do embrace the Christian eschatological hope primarily as a hope that injustice will be resolved to justice and humility will be lifted up into full joy. I have no clue how eschatological hope works itself out.
In the end, the golden rule is merely the question being asked of every human who must live in the community and asked of every community to help each other find wise answers. The golden rule doesn’t come with a systematic set of answers, just a collection of voiced opinions — some wise, some foolish.
Under my proposal of the Golden Rule, driving a giant polluter is absolutely not a victimless crime. By its own definition!
Exactly. This is what I was trying to condense the ethical problems down into: A golden rule that says, “Do not do unto others as you would not have them do to you.” I can not imagine this sentence making any sense on an island alone; in fact nothing in the whole post makes any sense if I were just mumbling to myself ‘beyond good and evil’. Essentially, I wonder if the social contract theory might qualify this even further, leading to the universal declaration of human rights, but I don’t know much about it.
This is where I tend to find myself at a loss when discussing moral issues with “Buddhists” or “Christians” – the lack and skirting around definition. I have spoken with people who call themselves Christian without thinking that Christ even existed, nor that the Bible was true – this is some kind of blatant confused misfire against the word Compassion.
Is the Torah a guide for ethics, or not? Are the ten commandments solid, or not? Should we follow the Four Noble Truths or not? Did Jesus rise from the dead or not? The only authority on who’s really a “Christian” is… who?
Isn’t it the scriptures? It can not just be “God,” because God makes it blindingly clear all throughout Christian scripture what the answers to these questions really, really, really are. Either they are or are not.
The gradual cherry-picking and graying-out of scripture and history means “Christian” is becoming whatever one would like – it is the liberalization of Christianity that will be its own downfall, when people begin realizing they’re just dealing with Energy, Compassion and Ethics rather than God, Jesus and the Bible.
When you remove Christ and the Bible from the philosophy of Christianity, you are left with New Age Abstract God. This is not Christianity. But this is better than the alternative! It is ironic that as an agnostic/atheist I am actually less opposed to common vagueness about doctrine than even the fundamentalist Christians are, because fundamentalism tends to be severely unhealthy for everyone involved!
You have a better way of thinking about things than those who are dogmatically inclined to actually walk the walk, and I can respect views about God which don’t entail denial of nature or moral hypocrisy – say, giving up your possessions, fighting against evolution and waiting for the end of the world and such.
I can relate – If I were to walk the walk of the real atheist, I would resemble Nietzche and live in the mountains with a giant mustache.