Stosh Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 (edited) Not necessarily if your moral code is based on objectivism. In that case the highest good is the individual happiness and social order is the result of selfishness, no? Humanity as individuals is basically interested in self preservation. However, humanity is also interested in intercooperation among the individuals of the species. Obviously procreation is not all that important to the individuals' welfare, but it does promote the continuance of the species which tends to be a natural tendency as well. But in order for that to happen, cooperation between individuals must occur or dominance will need to prevail. History has shown both avenues have been employed over the years. Tribal codes of mutual protection for cooperative individuals have been seen as the first step in preserving a more "civilized" approach to preserving the species than the dominance approach. It hasn't done much for extinction of the dominance model over the long run, but it's still a preferable option for many. Edited September 15, 2015 by Stosh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walk in the woods Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 I suppose the objectivist might argue the only intercooperation that matters in a society is the exchange of value for value. Thus, each person is free to pursue their own selfish interests regardless of the interests of the other which results in a cooperative and functioning civil society. Dominance only occurs when some members of the society make claims on other members of the society without providing some value in exchange. This behavior results in strife and collapse of functioning society. Kind of like when folks refuse to participate in fundraising but expect to have full access to all the program the fundraising provides. But hey, who's to say which moral code is best. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlyn_LeRoy Posted September 15, 2015 Share Posted September 15, 2015 By paying attention to people who are experts in the language, but who don't have an axe to grind and so disagree with the experts to whom you pay attention. I'm not disagreeing with experts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CalicoPenn Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 So I can't use English to determine what an English translation of the 10 Commandments means? Since you're a Hebrew scholar would you mind giving a more literal translation of the 10 Commandments? Which English translation is most acceptable to you? When I was growing up, the 6th commandment was almost universally translated in English as Thou Shalt Not Kill. Today, many English translations read You Shall Not Murder, which is then used as justification for killing people in war, or giving people the death penalty - after all, murder is a specific subset of kill and it isn't murder if you've killed someone in war. Is this a proper translation? Considering the word Murder is derived from Old English and proto-Germanic languages arounf 1300 CE, it would be a pretty big stretch to translate a biblical hebrew or bibilical aramaic word (or words) into the word Murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eagledad Posted September 16, 2015 Share Posted September 16, 2015 A rabbi once explained that the Hebrew intent of the sixth commandment encompasses everything from a mere disparaging thought of the person to the prideful act of taking their life. Jesus said to look at a person with lust in your heart is the same as doing the act. Although Jesus was referring to adultery, I take that as all immoral thoughts. Barry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David CO Posted September 17, 2015 Share Posted September 17, 2015 I am a science guy. It is fortunate for us science guys that the world doesn't apply the same standards to science as those commonly used to go after religion. Most people accept that the natural world is what it is, and that it is not altered by our perceptions and opinions. There are many opposing, competing, and contradictory theories in science. They can't all be true. Most aren't true. We aren't expected to give them equal respect. Science takes hard work and discipline. We generally expect scientists to master the skills before we will listen to their opinions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclops Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 I am a science guy. I'd love to see the everyone apply to religion the kind of critical examination that we apply to those scientific hypotheses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stosh Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Science is limited only to identifying what God made. Science has only just begun to try and understand what God has made. It's going to be a long time before Science catches up if ever.... Even with all the proven scientific knowledge stored up out there, there are still far more "mysteries" that haven't even been addressed properly by science. The best we have is the Big Bang and now even that has been tossed under the bus. When all is said and done even science won't have the last word.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJCubScouter Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 When all is said and done even science won't have the last word.... On the question of who will have the last word when all is said and done, my money is on you, Stosh. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclops Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 I nearly just fell out of my chair laughing when I read your comment, NJCubScouter. Good one! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
qwazse Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 You can't determine what the original meaning is, no. And I'm not a Hebrew scholar. Fortunately, Hebrew scholars have gone to great pains to document nuances for us ... So, for fits and giggles, I decided to pull down Strong's Exhaustive Concordance. (Took me a while as I had misplaced it beside Al Mawrid instead of Josephus). Anyway ... The commandment's "kill" does, in fact, mean kill. But, this is the first time that particular word choice (ratsach) is used in the Bible. This term seems to be chosen because it's removed from the method that death is brought about. E.g., in previous chapters of Genesis and Exodus the word-choice for what got translated as "kill" included a sense of hitting, attacking, or offering up for sacrifice. The word was later to describe honor killing (by "the avenger of blood") and accidental death, and not any specific means of doing so. Thus, some English translations use the word "murder" to capture the sense that here the writer is not merely discussing death by fisticuffs, but rather death by careful calculation and systematic scheming. Understanding the word makes the "don't even think about it" theme of Jesus seem a little less original, but then again he claimed he wasn't teach anything that wasn't already etched in stone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattR Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Which English translation is most acceptable to you? When I was growing up, the 6th commandment was almost universally translated in English as Thou Shalt Not Kill. Today, many English translations read You Shall Not Murder, which is then used as justification for killing people in war, or giving people the death penalty - after all, murder is a specific subset of kill and it isn't murder if you've killed someone in war. Is this a proper translation? Considering the word Murder is derived from Old English and proto-Germanic languages arounf 1300 CE, it would be a pretty big stretch to translate a biblical hebrew or bibilical aramaic word (or words) into the word Murder. Several rabbis have told me translating Hebrew is difficult at best. There are lots of subtleties in Hebrew that requires context to understand. Most words are built from 3 letter roots that group words in interesting ways. There are subtleties in Hebrew and consequently lots of options (and puns) in the Hebrew that never show up in English because the translators just went with a translation. Anyway, in this case the scholars have to go and look at where else the word is used in the Bible and decide the closest meaning from that. In this case Murder is closer than Kill. Kill is just a bad translation but it's been around for a long time. As for a moral code, I don't know. The 10 commandments are fairly solid (sort of) but it's still just a small part of what is moral. Asking forgiveness from someone you wronged is an important part of the High Holy days we're now in but what if they don't forgive you? There are roughly 613 rules in the Bible that might be called a moral code but they don't cover this case. The many rules are more about getting closer to God than how to interact with people, which is a roundabout way of teaching how to interact with people. There are a lot more stories about how people do and don't get along with each other than laws. The term moral code sounds like a simple algorithm. Do this and you're good. There is very little in the Bible that is simple and clear. The characters, even the good ones, have checkered pasts. Rather than moral code I'd call the Bible moral motivation. Morality has to be woven through your every fiber to encourage you to do the right thing when the outhouse hits the fan. A code is merely a set of rules and that will be gamed just like a scout gaming the requirements for a merit badge. Some people don't need that motivation but I certainly have benefited from it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyclops Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 (edited) As for a moral code, I don't know. The 10 commandments are fairly solid (sort of) but it's still just a small part of what is moral. There is very little in the Bible that is simple and clear. The characters, even the good ones, have checkered pasts. Rather than moral code I'd call the Bible moral motivation. A code is merely a set of rules and that will be gamed just like a scout gaming the requirements for a merit badge. You know, I think we're missing a money-making opportunity. We could, you know, like write a new set of these things and make the claim they are divinely-inspired (RBP, of course) and in time we could develop a cult-like following (BSA?) with true believers who devote large amounts of their time quibbling about the true meaning of it all. We could call it a new religion and maybe name it something catchy like 'Scientology' or 'Latter Day Saints' and our new book could be called 'The Book of Arnold' or maybe 'The Quran' or 'Handbook for Boys', lol. In time even government would recognize it as 'establishment' religion and boy, when others were saying, "Praise the Lord (RBP)" we'd really be thinking "Pass the Loot!" LOL, we're missing an opportunity. Edited September 18, 2015 by cyclops Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stosh Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 Mankind has always had free-will and for that reason makes choices according to criteria either he/she sets up or those set up by others. Those that select self directed criteria usually tend to base those decisions on what "feels right" and that is a problem in that those feelings can be manipulated by the person as well as environmental factors surrounding the individual a the time. We have massive amounts of coping mechanisms to justify our actions and choices. Those that live by their own wits are very successful in creating the delusion of self-justification very well. but the world is not based on self-justification, but on corporate or community based justifications also known as moral codes. Whether these codes are divinely inspired or are just best practice results of trial and error, they seem to work in providing a certain amount of protection from other self-serving, self-justifying individuals. It is that common protection that theoretically will hold community together. The dynamics of self-interest are, however, constantly working against it by the choices made by individuals seeing to get a step up on the next guy. The choice is always yours, but the consequences is always measured by the corporate/community code of conduct or morality of those in the vicinity. If it be in one's best interest to self-justify against that code, then they run the risk of consequences in the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walk in the woods Posted September 18, 2015 Share Posted September 18, 2015 When I was growing up, the 6th commandment was almost universally translated in English as Thou Shalt Not Kill. Today, many English translations read You Shall Not Murder, which is then used as justification for killing people in war, or giving people the death penalty - after all, murder is a specific subset of kill and it isn't murder if you've killed someone in war. . I've also heard liberal clergy use this argument to justify abortion. It can't be murder if it's not a person, right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now