HOME | DD
doctormo — Secular Commandments
by-sa
Published: 2010-09-25 15:24:38 +0000 UTC; Views: 3696; Favourites: 29; Downloads: 36
Redirect to original
Description
So annoyed was I at the attacks against the secular community by the pope when he visited the UK last week that I felt compelled to dig out and update my secular commandments. More info here: [link]Basically it boils down to the fictitious reasoning that only religious people can be moral and good people because they have these rules they must follow in order to be considered a member of the community of faith in good standing.
We in the secular world have rules too, and if you break them you will be excommunicated from the community. In some instances it's because you've been thrown in jail and in others it's because people in your community and family will no longer speak to or trust you any more.
Related content
Comments: 36
... I only agree with like half of these
But I appreciate your point- secularists aren't some kind of immoral league of ne'er-do-wells XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Let's have an old fashioned epic rhetoric battle then 
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
OH sorry, and as alternatives:
[link]
you can critique mine, too
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
challenge accepted!! ;D
1. in my opinion, it's about HOW you debate, not where or when. If you're respectful and, if possible, even light and friendly about it, then debating should happen as often as possible. It's a much better way to erase ignorance. Of course, if the other person acts like a turd, drop it, but if they're respectful too, then it was probably helpful to everyone.
5. I DON'T BELIEVE IN RESPECT!!! \m/
6. NOT ALWAYS. I would say treat them just like you would treat any human being under the circumstances- if you are aware of the self-sacrifices they made or did not make, act accordingly. I am definitely going to remember my parents because they were very self-sacrificing and were wonderful parents, but in all honesty, I don't blame some kids for moving on and never looking back.
7. for any reason is a stretch. If there's a guy in your basement holding a gun to the head of your child and you have a knife, I would consider it understandable if you killed him. Same with self-defense.
(I really like #9, by the way.)
10. I don't understand this one... explain it to me?
11. I COMPLETELY DISAGREE. Desire is a beautiful and necessary part of the human experience- it is the step that precedes action, and action precedes experience, which is valuable! Desire WITHOUT action is kind of a negative thing, but the negativity stems from the lack of action, not the desire itself.
COME AT ME. ;D
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'll first add that this work was an example of derivative dialectic art. So the items in the list are not an end from which careful consideration of the task was taken. But instead a rewording, rethinking of the existing canon list of commandments.
1. The point of the first element is more about dealing with fantasy and the fantastical point of view we all have about the world. The wording though, that's the trick.
5. Respect is not comparable to critical thinking. They are modular of the correct composure.
6. Neglectful parents don't raise children. But note it says REMEMBER, not respect, not praise. It's about understanding your origins as much as paying tribute to those origins for good or bad.
7. No, I guess the world 'intend' should be stuffed into there. But there is no excuse for setting about to kill someone. I have a child and in that situation I would very quickly sacrifice myself in disabling the kidnapper as quickly as possible, perhaps even stabbing him. The difference is that once disabled I wouldn't wait for him to bleed to death.
10. This one is about saying "It's wrong, but not monstrous to lie to get someone out of jail; but it's is NOT OK to lie to put someone into jail."
11. It doesn't say desire is bad, or wanting new things, new ideas or even pleasure is a problem. The key to 11. is in the way one human being looks at another human being's property and envies it. Causing distress, jealousy and from this preoccupation with inequality breeds many social ills.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
5. What do you mean, comparable? I wasn't comparing, I was prioritizing. Questioning and critiquing is more important to me than being quietly respectful.
6. When you say "remember," you imply more than simply thinking about your origins.
7. There is NO excuse for setting about to kill someone? What if the person is about to commit mass genocide? Silly rabbit, absolutes are for kids!
10. Ah, I see! I agree with you there. Although I can, as always, imagine few exceptions where that wouldn't be true. MORAL RELATIVITY, MY BOY
11. yes, but read my first notation on this- the desire itself isn't the problem, it's the way one goes about it. number 11 says you should be happy with what you have, which is saying don't desire more.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
5. Ordered lists can not be made of items which can not be compared. This is a mathematical logic. Instead they are components of a whole. No critique is whole without perspective, no ambition virtuous without compassion. Respect is not about authority; although you wouldn't think that from the way parents throw the word around.
6. That's a wording error you've brought in. But worth considering if the wording would be made to mean what it should to more people.
7. Kids are working their way through moral escapism OTOH a justification for immoral behaviour is not an excuse for refusing to deal with the consequences and by inviting moral relativism as an adult you abscond with the very notion that certain actions have these consequences. I consider relativism a stepping stone back to a more wise and discretionary absolute philosophy.
10. See 7. Although knowing that vile figures have been put behind bars for tax evasion; one could argue the case. But then you'd set yourself up as judge on cases that you may know know all the facts.
11. Happiness is not contentment (why has society become so dumbed down with it's English use) being happy that you have half a meal is possible, while desiring to have a full meal. Happiness doesn't have to distract one's ambition. right now though we don't modulate our design against what we really internally desire; but against what others around us have. It's a biological thing that may be cured in the future
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
5. Yes, but your commandment implies something different than respect balanced by questioning. It sounds too similar to just respect to me.
7. it's not a justification for immoral behavior- in that case, it was the moral thing to do. It's moral, but only relative to the situation.
11. again, your wording implied something very different. And I have no problem with unhappiness or incontinence with one's current situation. I think it's a necessary part of life without which many people's lives wouldn't improve.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And this I think we reach the crux of most of the problems. Wording. This might be because I'm British and worse, northern. My education and culture colours my wording differently and it's apparent with sensitive subjects like morality, care to remove misreading is important.
7. No, killing someone might be considered just, but it can never be considered moral. Justice is a matter of relative and more importantly, social consensus. While morality is principle and involves personal responsibility. So, you may kill someone in a just situation; but making reparations to their family or regretting needing to is a moral consequence. What bugs me about relative moral thinking is that is dissolves principle in favour of excusing and responsibility especially since human brains are awfully good at retrospective rationalisation.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
so you're saying the word "moral" refers to the act per se, but "just" refers to the act relative to other conditions? And relative moral thinking allows excuses where excuses need to be. I would kill someone who was about to kill others and, although I would be traumatized, I would feel that it was just... I don't believe in moral absolutism, so I basically just can't even use your use of the word moral.
Looks like our little battle is coming to a close... WHO WON? ;D
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Who won? We won! That's what _should_ come out of any debate. Better understanding of ideas.
OK, I do understand why some have a problem with absolutism; but really, that's just a problem with a perception of inflexibility rather than an understanding of what needs to be flexible and what does not.
Just as in justice is about what is the right thing to have happened in a social consensus context. You can feel that something is right, but it only becomes just is most people would agree with you (especially a judge
The problem with not having a strong moral code, is I think one ends up carrying around guilt and pain for events and situations where actions rightfully or wrongfully were internally judged to be wrong. With no ability to externalise those into reparations or to conclude them in closure... could lead to problems.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
Oh and in response to your last paragraph:
the problem WITH having a strong moral code is that it's most likely full of black-and-white thinking and convictions, which are, according to Nietzsche, a stronger enemy of truth than lies. Like I said, what most people consider to be morality consists of a bunch of generalizations that- while usually are a fairly good guide- are not ALWAYS right. Strong moral codes do make a person feel safe and guilt-free, but is it worth the possibility that they're wrong? I don't think so. My only moral principle is to always maintain objectivity; to try to see situations clearly from all angles, including the perspectives of others, which fosters understanding and compassion and prevents hurting people. Since this principle is based in a search for clarity, I don't think it could blind me to the feelings of others or to new ideas, which are the greatest dangers. Otherwise, my moral code is practically empty. That one takes care of all of it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
But everything needs to be flexible! Anyway, you can't really consider it flexible if it doesn't have a definite starting spot to begin with. We are limited by our perspectives as far as morality is concerned.
When I think of the word just, I get negative feelings because I imagine a world that coldly punishes every action without looking behind the action at the cause- a world not all that far off from our own, now that I think about it. An eye for an eye and crap like that.
See, I still think the act would be moral. Murder is too generalized and thought of as one definite taboo, but in reality, the causal factors behind each situation are different. The generalization of an act as taboo makes a person feel safer and more secure, but sometimes NOT murdering is actually the immoral thing to do- for instance, if you have to kill one person in order for a trainload of other people to survive (I have no idea how that would happen XD but work with me lol) in my opinion, the murder would be moral. It's because I prefer the wide view where I include every factor of the situation in my final judgement of moral vs. immoral rather than zeroing in on the act itself separate from context (because that doesn't make any sense- a person who lives that way wouldn't have killed the person and would have, by inaction, killed a trainload of people. Context is necessary because it's real- although humans may zero in on something in our minds, that's a limit that doesn't actually exist.)
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
The reason why you can't see your actions as immoral is that you want to feel that all of your actions have always been moral. Even when they haven't been. It's a psycological safty net to save the ego from the very humbeling truth that we do intentionally and unintentionally things which cause sufferings, pain and death all the time.
And I would suggest that any society like our own which perpetrates high-inequality results in many individuals who can not even live without committing immoral acts. they are bound to using slave labour as much as the slaves. But so long as they continue to feel that they can spin their moral thinking retrospectively, their ego can be saved the grief and their life saved the trouble of doing something about it.
The requirement of a strong moral code is that it not be nailed directly to actionable thinking. You understand that you will do things despite your best efforts, which will cause other's trouble. It's better to use your moral code as a guide and more importantly a retrospective tool as the information comes in. It's no good to make ones core principles relative (basically destroy them) because one doesn't have the mental tools to consider acts in context. Morality isn't a zero sum game and one immoral act doesn't get magically turned into a moral one just because someone else is going to do a greater immoral act if you don't.
An eye for an eye leaves everybody blind. But in a relative moral philosophy taking an eye for an eye is moral (apparently). and I don't accept it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Are you saying that because I'm a moral relativist, I don't experience guilt? No, I don't just apply "oh, it was okay" to every situation. I just believe in taking every variable into account. For instance, if there was a man who was about to detonate a bomb that would kill a room full of people and I had a gun, I would kill him (or disable him, whatever happened in the moment) and while it would be traumatizing, I would consider the action to be moral because I am including in my judgement the people in the room. You can't just separate the act from the context to support your black-and-white thinking of something always being wrong, because the act is not actually separate from the context- that's just something that happens due to human subjectivity. We can focus in on something and ignore the other part. But the other part is STILL THERE.
what? nailing your morals directly to your actions is what a strong moral code IS. and "one immoral act doesn't get magically turned into a moral one just because someone else is going to do a greater immoral act if you don't." actually, yes- yes it does. First of all, moral and immoral don't technically exist, because that's black and white thinking, which is obviously flawed. Every act is on a grayscale in between. Also, you are defining each act as one or the other individually, which is simply subjectivity. It's like saying noses exist separately from the face (like most people do when they're drawing faces,) when in reality, there is nothing separating the nose from the face and the separation is happening purely in our heads. Same with arms, legs, toes, whatever- no separation, all one body, but the separation we make in our minds makes the body easier to handle. However, it wouldn't make sense to say someone's healthy by just looking at their arm when they've got athlete's foot. See?? XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
And that is where we fundamentally disagree. I think you need restrain any comment on moral philosophies that are different from being naive. I got the impression that you've pre-judged my thinking.
In other news; most disagreement is about wording. There's probably not much between our actual moral code.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What do you mean when you say "restrain any comment on moral philosophies that are different from being naive?" It sounds like you're saying if my comment isn't naive, don't post it. O.o
haha in other news XD Well, good wording is completely necessary for me to be able to verify that claim. But in the end, yes, most people's morals come down to hurt other people as little as possible. XD
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
heh, I mean to say: don't call others naive, there is no telling how much thought they've truly put into their moral thinking. I found myself having to swallow my reaction to 'silly rabbit', although I learned online that you're referencing a cereal advert that doesn't exist in the UK.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
OH! yes, that's a common saying here. Right, I actually did feel kinda bad about saying that afterwards. It was too snide XD I'm sorry *sulks away*
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I would have to take exception to #1(and #7 because it's so absolute). There's a difference between being able to voice your irrationality (street preacher) and forcing it on others(teacher, mayor, doctor).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
There are some absolutes, but then morality is really split on the whole between philosophical morality and social morality. Killing and harming in general we would consider a philosophically immoral act.
I've never known an instance where killing was ever required, although I admit it does save on cleaning up the mess later.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Morality is partly a social convention and partly instinct due to evolution favoring somehwat moral people. So it's by definition social, directly or indirectly. The whole thing of "philosophically immoral" sounds outright alien to me. I had to google it to see that it was actually in use by anyone else.(result: [link] ) I see it's used simply to emphasize just how immoral something is. They could have said that "it's immoral", but they want to lend credibility from philosophy to say that abortion, nuclear bombs and Microsoft etc. are really immoral or perhaps objectively immoral.
Just when it is required to kill someone is a different question but my issue was mainly with the absolute wording. Proper self defence (when it's not used as an excuse) would be enough for me. In hindsight clever people can find many ways out of difficult situations, but you can't think of everything when you're life is threatened.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah well I was trying to explain my thoughts through language use, not lend any credibility to them. Please do take them as you find them.
I'd love a definition of an indirectly social moral and a directly social moral. These may just be the same definitions I'm using will different words.
The problem with typical objective morality is that it normally betrays an ability to be empathetical by excusing the wrong doing as simply a blindness. Self imposing a blindness then becomes the principle job of anyone who wants to ignore the implications of what they do to others. Another social system paradox really.
I merely wished to make a distinction between so-called-morals which are top level social flotsam. Like wearing clothes, talking about sex, eating with the wrong fork. And deeper morals (even though, yes technically also social) are more universal to us as a species (to such a degree that removing them removes the humanity in many philosophies).
I would argue that doing immoral things is likely, defending yourself and so forth. It's what you do afterwards that probably has the biggest impact on perception. Modern society tends to be more clever about dealing forgiveness and understanding rather than the mobs, lynchings and expulsions.
The immorality is quite easily absolute, what we do about it... that's where your grey is required.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
this is perfect, I'm actually having to take a class in religious ethics right now and are officially and respectfully asking to use this as evidence to throw back at m teacher the next time we debate and he questions my understanding of ethics through lack of faith.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
See the license terms on the piece. It's Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike. I'd be happy for you to start selling t-shirts and broadcasting it on commercial radio. Knock yourself out.
Just remember to attribute (that this piece was made by me) and link back tot his page.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wonderful!
I love non-insulting positive atheist commandments.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
How about adding:-
"Thou shalt not enforce thine own mythology upon any other human being"?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Very good indeed...and I wholeheartedly agree with you!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
You know The question as to God is rather complex , but I must say that thought I cant affirm or deny the existence of god , I do NOT approve religion and their institution that takes mens freedom away . The anwser they give are like shortcut . unknown anwser = god . Though believing in something give someone a sens of security .
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Religion is the opium -for- the people - Karl Marx
👍: 0 ⏩: 1