The Ten Commitments

[Ken-1122]

The Ten Commitments:

1. Critical Thinking
2. Ethical Development
3. Peace and Social Justice
4. Service and Participation
5. Empathy
6. Humility
7. Environmentalism
8. Global Awareness
9. Responsibility
10. Altruism

They are explained here: Living Humanist Values: The Ten Commitments - TheHumanist.com

Seems to me that anyone, no matter what their beliefs, can get behind these ideas.

What do you object to here or what do you think should be changed or added?

They are all subjective; they will mean different things to different people.

 

[Soyeong]

Any worker anywhere needs enough money to put a roof over their head, to buy food, and perhaps even start a family. Putting a specific dollar on it is a red-herring.

AND, it's not perverted to think people ought to be paid enough to live.

What is wrong with allowing employers the freedom to offer a job for a certain wage and employees the freedom to voluntarily choose whether they are willing the do that job for that wage? If someone needs a certain wage to support their family, then they can pass on those job offers, but if someone is willing to do that job for that wage, then they should have the freedom to do that regardless of how much they can afford with that wage. Employees are going to look for the higher paying jobs, so if businesses want to attract employees, then they need to offer competitive wages, but if business want to stay in business, then they need to pay their employees less than the value that they add to them. Not every task that someone can do adds enough value to afford certain things, so it is perverted to prevent business from offering those jobs and to prevent people from accepting those jobs. Putting a specific dollar on it was to make the point of the absurdity of you arbitrarily deciding that wages that other people are voluntarily willing to work for are unjust.

If you have a task that you want to hire someone for, such as needing a house cleaner, then you should have the freedom to try to find the person that you think will do the best job for the lowest cost and they should have the freedom to decide how low they are willing to work for in order to afford want they need, and you should be free from anyone else getting to decide whether or not the wage you agreed to pay them and they agreed to work for is just.

 

[disciple Clint]

Why call it perverted just because someone called it social justice?

From Social justice - Wikipedia

Social justice is the relation of balance between individuals and society measured by comparing distribution of wealth differences, from personal liberties to fair privilege opportunities. In Western as well as in older Asian cultures, the concept of social justice has often referred to the process of ensuring that individuals fulfill their societal roles and receive what was their due from society.[1][2][3] In the current global grassroots movements for social justice, the emphasis has been on the breaking of barriers for social mobility, the creation of safety nets and economic justice.[4][5][6][7][8] Social justice assigns rights and duties in the institutions of society, which enables people to receive the basic benefits and burdens of cooperation. The relevant institutions often include taxation, social insurance, public health, public school, public services, labor law and regulation of markets, to ensure fair distribution of wealth, and equal opportunity.[9]
​

{There's more}

The rough idea is that people should not be exploited just because other people can pull it off. Should Jeff Bezos get billions while his lowest wage earners get $7.50 an hour (n.b., I don't know what Amazon's lowest wage is). His company could afford to pay everyone from a picker to janitor at $20 without affecting the Board of Directors income in any noticeable way.

Social justice is the relation of balance between individuals and society measured by comparing distribution of wealth differences

Capitalism does that much more fairly, those who do what is required to earn more are rewarded for their efforts. who wants to work 80 hours a week so that they can feed their family after some who elects not to work at all gets half their income.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Ok, some have many choices, but I'll just use the first 1 or 2 that pop to mind.

1. Critical Thinking -- 2 parts. 1rst, over and over Christ challenged the thinking processes of his followers, provoking them to begin thinking more logically. e.g. Mark 8:21 Then He asked them, "Do you still not understand?" (and many other similar instances where He show them they need to think more fully/completely/logically)
2nd, the chapter of Matthew 23 as very strongly critical thinking. Also, as a proverb says: "Do you see a man who is hasty in his words? [speaks without much careful thought] There is more hope for a fool than for him."

2. Ethical Development -- "But you have neglected the more important matters of the law--justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former." Mt 23:23

3. Peace and Social Justice --
"Wash and make yourselves clean.
Take your evil deeds out of my sight;
stop doing wrong.
17Learn to do right; seek justice.
Defend the oppressed.
Take up the cause of the fatherless;
plead the case of the widow."
Isaiah 1:16-17, James 1:27

4. Service and Participation -- Jesus...got up from the meal, took off his outer clothing, and wrapped a towel around his waist. 5 After that, he poured water into a basin and began to wash his disciples’ feet, drying them with the towel that was wrapped around him. -- John 13:3-5, also:
"You, my brothers and sisters, were called to be free. But do not use your freedom to indulge the flesh; rather, serve one another humbly in love." Gal 5:13

5. Empathy -- Rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep. -- Rom 12:15

6. Humility -- "God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble" (throughout the bible), and "Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven." -- Mt 18:4

7. Environmentalism -- "For six years you shall sow your field, and for six years you shall prune your vineyard and gather in its fruits, but in the seventh year there shall be a Sabbath of solemn rest for the land, a Sabbath to the Lord. You shall not sow your field or prune your vineyard. You shall not reap what grows of itself in your harvest, or gather the grapes of your undressed vine. It shall be a year of solemn rest for the land" -- Lev 25

8. Global Awareness -- "The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself..." (Lev 19:34, Mt 25:25
9. Responsibility, and 10. Altruism -- "So in everything, do for others as you would have them do for you" -- Mt 7:12
“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

40“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’"
Mt 25

Thanks for the response. What about the verses that are in contradiction to these ideas?

Such as throwing people in fire, Mt 3:10, 7:19 or dividing families Mt 10:21, or the flood Mt 24:37 etc. This is why I think the Bible is a bad source of morality. It has good and bad things in it.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I wouldn't agree. Humanism is fundamentally and inherently opposed to the Christian faith - the focus on the self, the moral relativism, the denial of our need for salvation that can only be attained through Jesus Christ.

That is not humanism. It is not opposed to Christianity it just ignores it for a better reasoned morality. It is Christians that fight against humanism.

So on the surface level, empathy and humility and such sound nice (why not also throw in health, success, positivity, education, beauty, etc) but since they are not grounded in God, not rooted in Truth, then the commitments aren't ideas that 'anyone, no matter their beliefs' can support - on the contrary, there are a million different directions each item on the list can be taken when you dig into them, even picking different verses than the ones posted previously, BECAUSE the commitments themselves aren't rooted in anything absolute and we are fallible. Interesting question!

Did you read what the commitments were on the link? It defines what they mean by the terms. What id wrong with each of the items as ideas in themselves? Are they only bad because they do not reference God?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Those are way too vague and could be interpreted as meaning quite different things to different people.

The link describes what each term means. Did you read that?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Is this based off of the Georgia guidestones

No.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I can't get behind these when the context to some of these articles are vague. What am I responsible for? Who or what am I empathetic to? Why should I commit to social justice? Service and participation in what?

Did you read the link? It explains then there.

These commitments seem like virtue signalling.

So we cannot even talk about good values or morals without virtue signaling? How then do we discuss these things?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

They are all subjective; they will mean different things to different people.

This is why we discuss them. Also, did you read what the author of these means by them in the link?

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

The Ten Commitments:

1. Critical Thinking
2. Ethical Development
3. Peace and Social Justice
4. Service and Participation
5. Empathy
6. Humility
7. Environmentalism
8. Global Awareness
9. Responsibility
10. Altruism

They are explained here: Living Humanist Values: The Ten Commitments - TheHumanist.com

Seems to me that anyone, no matter what their beliefs, can get behind these ideas.

What do you object to here or what do you think should be changed or added?

In general I'd have no issue with these, though we might differ on the application (e.g. modern Woke is problematic, even though it would probably align with the above also).

The only one I don't think Christians would stand by would 'Ethical Development' especially as it is defined in the article: "acknowledging that nobody is perfect or has all the answers."

Christians would say that God has all the answers. And the way it is phrased implies that ethics can change (develop) which basically means that ethics are what the majority say it is, not some objective truth. One can see that society isn't always a good chooser of ethics - there are numerous examples of society making choices that are deemed to be ethical by the most vocal, but which aren't necessarily so: Holocaust is the most obvious case, but also Critical Race Theory, abortion & transgenderism are still hot topics.

There are other issues: How does someone of low IQ think critically? Social Justice generally comes at the expense of peace, and peace is often enforced by violence. The power hungry would love the idea of others being humble. Altruism works well as long as it doesn't descend into the communist model or by our altruism we are encouraging scrounging.

 

[Silly Uncle Wayne]

Those are good.

They are perfectly lined up with (so well they could have been written as a brief reminder list of) instructions to us in the New Testament.

On the whole, I'd agree with you, but I'm not sure that Ethical Development does - particularly as defined in the article. See my comments above.

 

[Astrid]

Why call it perverted just because someone called it social justice?

From Social justice - Wikipedia

Social justice is the relation of balance between individuals and society measured by comparing distribution of wealth differences, from personal liberties to fair privilege opportunities. In Western as well as in older Asian cultures, the concept of social justice has often referred to the process of ensuring that individuals fulfill their societal roles and receive what was their due from society.[1][2][3] In the current global grassroots movements for social justice, the emphasis has been on the breaking of barriers for social mobility, the creation of safety nets and economic justice.[4][5][6][7][8] Social justice assigns rights and duties in the institutions of society, which enables people to receive the basic benefits and burdens of cooperation. The relevant institutions often include taxation, social insurance, public health, public school, public services, labor law and regulation of markets, to ensure fair distribution of wealth, and equal opportunity.[9]
​

{There's more}

The rough idea is that people should not be exploited just because other people can pull it off. Should Jeff Bezos get billions while his lowest wage earners get $7.50 an hour (n.b., I don't know what Amazon's lowest wage is). His company could afford to pay everyone from a picker to janitor at $20 without affecting the Board of Directors income in any noticeable way.

Exploitation does not equate with justice.

 

[d taylor]

Ok they are good things to live by. A big area they are missing out, these guides do not offer Eternal Life.

 

[ViaCrucis]

There is nothing perverted about social justice.

And the irony of a Christian calling social justice perverted shouldn't be lost. Much of the time when the Bible talks about justice, it is talking about social justice. Social justice has always been a fundamental component of Christian faith, practice, and social ethics. If we aren't caring for the widows, the orphans, the poor, the hungry, the sick, the foreigner, the naked, and the imprisoned; then we are being unrighteous, unjust.

When we deprive the least of these of justice, we are ourselves unjust, and thus demonstrate our own unrighteousness.

A Christianity that is unconcerned with social justice and social welfare is a non-Christianity, at least by the standards of the Bible and two thousand years of Christian theological and moral teaching and tradition.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Astrid]

And the irony of a Christian calling social justice perverted shouldn't be lost. Much of the time when the Bible talks about justice, it is talking about social justice. Social justice has always been a fundamental component of Christian faith, practice, and social ethics. If we aren't caring for the widows, the orphans, the poor, the hungry, the sick, the foreigner, the naked, and the imprisoned; then we are being unrighteous, unjust.

When we deprive the least of these of justice, we are ourselves unjust, and thus demonstrate our own unrighteousness.

A Christianity that is unconcerned with social justice and social welfare is a non-Christianity, at least by the standards of the Bible and two thousand years of Christian theological and moral teaching and tradition.

-CryptoLutheran

Could explain the difference between justice and
social justice?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I can't get behind these when the context to some of these articles are vague. What am I responsible for? Who or what am I empathetic to? Why should I commit to social justice? Service and participation in what?

These commitments seem like virtue signalling.

Try reading the Sermon on the Mount. Or what St. Paul wrote to the Church in Rome in chapter 12 of his epistle. Also, read the Prophets, and the Proverbs.

This really isn't complicated. The Great Commandment given to us by Christ our God is that we love God and love our neighbors as ourselves. Who is our neighbor? Literally everyone. Or how about the Golden Rule, our same Lord Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, this is the entirety of the Law and the Prophets". He said that the poor inherit the kingdom, the least is greatest, the last shall be first, the greatest in the kingdom is the slave.

So a better set of questions:

Who are you not to be empathetic too? Why would you not commit to social justice? Who shouldn't you serve in love?

In light of Christ's Word and Command to His Faithful, on what grounds do we have to justify not carrying our cross as His disciples in this world?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Could explain the difference between justice and
social justice?

Justice means "that which is right", to do justice, to commit to justice, to pursue justice is to put justice into practice--to make things right.

Social justice is the application of justice in society. Justice for the poor. Justice for the hungry. Justice for the oppressed.

Social justice is therefore about establishing justice in our societies and communities. Setting things right.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Astrid]

Justice means "that which is right", to do justice, to commit to justice, to pursue justice is to put justice into practice--to make things right.

Social justice is the application of justice in society. Justice for the poor. Justice for the hungry. Justice for the oppressed.

Social justice is therefore about establishing justice in our societies and communities. Setting things right.

-CryptoLutheran

Seems a distinction without a difference, to me.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Seems a distinction without a difference, to me.

I think of it this way: Justice is about crime, punishment, and restitution; Social Justice is about fairness and equity.

 

[Astrid]

I think of it this way: Justice is about crime, punishment, and restitution; Social Justice is about fairness and equity.

I'd think that way if that were the definition.