well, as long as you got your wife & childrens beside ya – and i think she’s a great woman because look at you and this ‘rockin’ awesome’ blog (my grandkids’ words) – you are gonna be just fine, son, just fine.

i think that’s what religion is trying to do for us – honor our life partners. period.

everything is bullshit.

trust an old man who’s been there.

well, gotta help the mrs. with dinner – she’s massaging my weak shoulder to stand up and help her.

(Sorry, John. Couldn’t resist poking a bit of fun at what’s clearly a spammer who admittedly made me bust out laughing.)

How is this not reciprocity-based? (Not saying that’s wrong either. I think the recognition of mutual need is a powerful and reality-based moral motivator.)

What I like about the ‘golden rule’ is that it’s about being treated as you feel is fair. It’s not ‘treat others as they (actually) treat you’ but ‘treat others as you wish they would treat you’. It’s so proactive because the person following the rule is treating the other person fairly (in accordance with one of the easiest ways to judge fairness – what you would consider fair if it were you) before any consideration of how they themselves have been treated. It invites fair behaviour from others but is not reliant on it.

But is it really moral to help your sister just because some unseen guy you’ve heard and read about would want you to, or because he might be watching? Is it moral to help others because you might be hoping your god will reward you someday? Or is it more moral to help your sister simply because you know she needs your help? Which is really the more “moral” choice? I posed this question to my sister and she didn’t have a response. But I could tell she thought about it.

So, you’re good because you want a reward and don’t want to be punished. And that’s better than being good all by yourself because that’s just the right thing to do… how again?

Adding, maybe we don’t agree about how we arrive at our ethical system but I bet we both agree that we don’t have difficulty framing one we can rely on without basing it on a god-centered cosmology.

I agree.

Even saying this, everyone doesn’t have the same needs. It isn’t a complete analogy. Just a familiar and available one.

In the end, it comes down to our sincerity and ability to exercise a conscience of our highest intention rather than one of rationalization or convenience.

But I don’t think we disagree in kind — only degree and coloration perhaps.

What I meant is that I don’t base my morality on the basis of reciprocity, but on a belief that all beings deserve ethical treatment, (regardless of how I am treated).

Indeed, if more people followed the golden rule, this would be a far better society. I just think that, for me, there is something idea to base my morality on. That’s all I meant.

Appreciate your point of view, Craig. And I suppose I can see how that could be true. But, like most of life, I think it’s a matter of how you use the tool.

In my case, I guess I see how my own experiences and feelings enable me to be empathetic. Then the business of applying humane, equal treatment with that tool has to be my objective. And, when it is, I build that sense of security in being able to rely on other people’s empathy.

It’s true it’s based on the individual but in the context of the individual’s place in the community. I suppose we’ve all told our kids they were important human beings and that everyone else is too. In that sense I think we all need a positive sense of ourselves to ensure our effectiveness in seeing other people positively and with specific demands on us as well.

Like everything else, it comes down to the individual’s commitment and choices and everything can be framed positively or distorted and there are no end of rationalizations for the distortions, huh? ;>

One example that’s always struck me profoundly is the case of solitary confinement as a correctional technique. Today it’s used as the last case, most punitive and retaliatory measure. But it was the go to method in early American Quaker Pennsylvania. Their concept of it was that when person transgressed they had gone off the rails for some reason that they needed to adjust. They thought that a brief constructive period of reflection — best accomplished without distractions in a solitary environment — would help the person identify the error and assess the means to get back on track. This strikes me as much more humane but that sense of it has gotten lost in generations of focusing on controlling behavior… Field and focus.

Indeed. Exactly.

Michael and Craig: I sometimes say that my personal value system is based on my fundamental postulate that life is precious, and that human life is especially so. Most of my value system flows in what appears to me to be a relatively logical manner from this moral axiom.

While I haven’t built a rational foundation under this cornerstone of my value system, I’m not sure if I’d go so far as to call it “faith.” Or if I did assign the term to this belief/value, then it seems like the usage of the word would be qualitatively different from all of the meaning assumed in, say, claiming faith in, say, a Trinitarian God or universal karma.

I’m an atheist as well, and for me, it’s less that I believe in “the Golden Rule” and more that I believe that all people deserve humane, equal treatment, regardless of any other consideration. To me, the Golden Rule is self-serving and based on the same concept as revenge.

I base my morality on the fact that as social animals, we’re all in this together, and we need each other to survive and prosper.

Also, it has nothing to do with faith.

I agree that people want a feeling of security in society and for many it comes from having a common world view. For added validity, some people turn to their churches for this security, others to government. I know this may be an oversimplification, but this is just my observation and humble opinion, as I have gone through similar experiences of looking for the “self-worth” factor in my existence.

And thank you to all who have made comments, keeping the comments civil and respectful. And thank you, John, for hosting this forum.