The Ten Commitments

[Sketcher]

No, you said

I did read it, but many people who advocate for equality of outcome say the same things that site does about social justice. That's why I threw that out there.

My response was:
Many Christians once thought slavery was ok, is it ok for me to think that about you because you are a Christian?

I was pointing out the fallacy that just because a group of people use the same language or title does not mean that they believe the same things. So what do you disagree with in the text of the commitments as written in the link about social justice? Not what you think other people mean by social justice.

Thank you for clarifying. I am aware that the possibility exists for social justice outside of fighting for equality of outcome, and I thought my response conveyed room for that. Of course, those same people who support equality of outcome will disagree with that, and they have poisoned the term "social justice" for a lot of people, to the point that it seems to be a dogwhistle for leftist politics. I do not support leftist policies, so I am not going to give an unequivocal "yes".

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Because altruism is evil. You are saying sure, it goes against nature which means against facts but why shouldn't we strive to do it anyway in contradiction to the facts. The whole notion makes a mockery of the concept of good.

As I've said, it is incompatible with human nature and with the nature of every living thing. That means it's incompatible with the facts of reality. Selfless concern for the welfare of others, from the definition in your link, means that the welfare of others must come first and your own second, always.

No, that is not what it says. it says:

Altruism is the selfless concern for the welfare of other living beings without expectation of reward, recognition, or return. The collective welfare of our communities and society depends on the welfare of each individual person. We should always seek to alleviate the suffering and hardships of others with compassionate action. By caring for others around us and lifting each other up, we reinforce healthy connections and contribute to the betterment of our community, society, and the world.

So no it does not say that the welfare of others comes before your own welfare. It says that we should improve the welfare of others without looking for recognition for that action.

If one were to put this principle into action, life would be impossible. It would have to mean the sacrifice of all values including one's own life, as concern for one's own life is selfish.

This is not what the site says at all. It simply says lets do good to others without expecting a reward or recognition for ourselves.

But life requires the achievement of values, not their sacrifice. Life is a process of self-generated, self-sustaining action. By the definition you provided, this is immoral if selflessness is the standard of the moral. That means that to live is immoral.

This is not what I or the ten commitments are advocating. You can do things to advance your goals or that are good for you while doing good for others without the expectation of a reward.

In the whole history of the world, no philosophy has ever justified selflessness rationally. Why do you think that is?

I am or the ten commitments are not either.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Thank you for clarifying. I am aware that the possibility exists for social justice outside of fighting for equality of outcome, and I thought my response conveyed room for that. Of course, those same people who support equality of outcome will disagree with that, and they have poisoned the term "social justice" for a lot of people, to the point that it seems to be a dogwhistle for leftist politics. I do not support leftist policies, so I am not going to give an unequivocal "yes".

Ok, I am not a leftist at all. I am probably the most conservative atheist you will meet. But I understand that social justice can mean immoral things.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

No, that is not what it says. it says:

Altruism is the selfless concern for the welfare of other living beings without expectation of reward, recognition, or return. The collective welfare of our communities and society depends on the welfare of each individual person. We should always seek to alleviate the suffering and hardships of others with compassionate action. By caring for others around us and lifting each other up, we reinforce healthy connections and contribute to the betterment of our community, society, and the world.

So no it does not say that the welfare of others comes before your own welfare. It says that we should improve the welfare of others without looking for recognition for that action.

This is not what the site says at all. It simply says lets do good to others without expecting a reward or recognition for ourselves.

This is not what I or the ten commitments are advocating. You can do things to advance your goals or that are good for you while doing good for others without the expectation of a reward.

I am or the ten commitments are not either.

I have no issue with helping others. The issue between us is that part about receiving a return. What's wrong with recieving something back?

 

[Strathos]

Don't try to argue with a Randroid, their entire philosophy boils down to 'I've got mine, so screw you', no matter how they try to justify it.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I have no issue with helping others. The issue between us is that part about receiving a return. What's wrong with recieving something back?

Depends on the reward. When I do good I get a good feeling or I may even get recognition for it. That is not a bad thing. What this is getting at is that if you only help people out of getting a reward you will not help people if you won't get a reward. We should strive to help others without expecting a reward and any reward we get is ok.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Depends on the reward. When I do good I get a good feeling or I may even get recognition for it. That is not a bad thing. What this is getting at is that if you only help people out of getting a reward you will not help people if you won't get a reward. We should strive to help others without expecting a reward and any reward we get is ok.

Well, then it's not selfless if you get a good feeling. So let's just take the word selfless out. We don't need it. See I do care about the welfare of others. I want everyone to have the best possible life they can. I want people to not only survive but to flourish and enjoy their lives and to pursue their own happiness and that requires reason. So I reject the notion that we should be selfless and just do things for no reason at all. I will bend over backward to help anyone to grasp rational philosophy. I would do it for no other reason than I believe rational philosophy is good and would be an enormous value to anyone who wants to live on this Earth.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

Don't try to argue with a Randroid, their entire philosophy boils down to 'I've got mine, so screw you', no matter how they try to justify it.

Since I don't hold the patently absurd notion of a fixed pie when it comes to wealth, why would I care what someone else has. It's not taken from me. Wealth has to be produced and there's a virtually unlimited amount. On the contrary, I admire those who earn their wealth and despise those who get it by pull or by fraud or force. It's the ones who didn't earn their wealth who say I've got mine so screw you. They know they are not capable of earning it. They think it's their money that gives them worth. The honest man knows that it's he and others like him who produce that give money its worth.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Well, then it's not selfless if you get a good feeling.
So let's just take the word selfless out. We don't need it.

The site defined altruism to mean not selfless but being kind for the sole reason of getting something in return.

See I do care about the welfare of others. I want everyone to have the best possible life they can. I want people to not only survive but to flourish and enjoy their lives and to pursue their own happiness and that requires reason. So I reject the notion that we should be selfless and just do things for no reason at all.

I agree we can get tings in return but as I mentioned above we should not do things for the sole reason of getting something. I think that turns into using people. I don't think anyone can be absolutely selfless. However, doing things for others that is good is not for "no reason all" it is to benefit them.

I will bend over backward to help anyone to grasp rational philosophy. I would do it for no other reason than I believe rational philosophy is good and would be an enormous value to anyone who wants to live on this Earth.

So now you are advocating selflessness?

 

[The happy Objectivist]

The site defined altruism to mean not selfless but being kind for the sole reason of getting something in return.

It defines altruism thusly: "Altruism is the selfless concern for the welfare of other living beings without expectation of reward, recognition, or return. The collective welfare of our communities and society depends on the welfare of each individual person. We should always seek to alleviate the suffering and hardships of others with compassionate action. By caring for others around us and lifting each other up, we reinforce healthy connections and contribute to the betterment of our community, society, and the world."

This is the exact definition of a sacrifice. Sacrifice means to give up something of value to you in exchange for a lesser value or no value at all. Life requires the gaining of values, not their loss. This "moral" principle contradicts the very essence of life. It, therefore, is evil since life is the standard of value. That is why I reject it lock, stock and barrel.

There are two fundamental ways for people to deal with each other: by voluntary trade to mutual benefit or by force. The purpose of a moral principle is to guide one's actions and choices in the achievement of life's values. Altruism inevitably leads to force because it is a morality impossible to practice and when men cheat on it, as they must in order to live and have any semblance of happiness, then this principle justifies forcing them to practice it. If people won't be moral and sacrifice for others then it's the duty of the government or the community to force them to do their moral duty.

The definition above says that we should always seek to alleviate the suffering of others without getting anything in return. That is the definition of sacrifice.

Not only that but it says one should always selflessly concern one's self( a direct contradition) with not just other humans but all living beings which means we should selflessly concern ourselves with the welfare of bacteria. We should put the welfare of bacteria before our own since concern for our own welfare is selfish.

If you want to "contribute to the betterment of our community, society and the world" then you must run from the morality of altruism as fast and as far as you can and practice the morality of rational self-interest. Treat others as sovereign individuals, respect their right to live for their own sake and trade value for value to mutual benefit. If someone tries to replace a value in trade with the muzzle of a gun then it is the propper role of the government to step in and put a stop to it.

And finally, I will say that the "commitment to altruism" is exactly what Hitler called for. Not just Hitler but every dictator throughout all of history has called for this and they all did not hesitate to sacrifice whole communities in its name. That is what you are advocating for whether you know it or not.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I agree we can get tings in return but as I mentioned above we should not do things for the sole reason of getting something. I think that turns into using people. I don't think anyone can be absolutely selfless. However, doing things for others that is good is not for "no reason all" it is to benefit them.

What other possible reason could there be for doing some action than to get something. The only alternative to not doing things for the sole reason of getting something would be a reason in conflict with itself. It would mean doing something to get something but not solely for that reason but also doing it to get nothing? How can this be reconciled? Blank out.

Of course, no one can be absolutely selfless. Everyone has to get something for their actions even if only some water to drink and enough bread to keep one going.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

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.

All of that is simply "justice".

Already covered in numerous passages in the OT and the NT:

Deut 25: 3 “You shall not have in your bag differing weights, a heavy and a light. 14 You shall not have in your house differing measures, a large and a small. 15 You shall have a perfect and just weight, a perfect and just measure, that your days may be lengthened in the land which the Lord your God is giving you. 16 For all who do such things, all who behave unrighteously, are an abomination to the Lord your God.

Unjust weights were used to cheat people.

Proverbs 20:23 Diverse weights and diverse measures,
They are both alike, an abomination to the Lord.

The 8th commandment also prohibits us from taking our neighbor’s goods “by means that appear legitimate”. Fraudulent merchandising and inaccurate weights and measures are two such means Unjust weights and measures are forbidden throughout Scripture. There are several ways that a seller can alter measurements to fool buyers into thinking they are getting more than they are actually receiving, which is theft.

My brothers and sisters, show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory” (James 2:1)

The political hacks need to learn you don't judge a guy harshly for doing something because he is a political opponent and then approve that same action (or just give it a pass) when someone on "your side" does exactly the same thing.

You are arguing that Jeff Bezos here deserves the same as his workers. Maybe not, maybe so. The point is that it is up to Jeff Bezos, since it is his company, to make this right.

It is not up to the government to determine that Jeff Bezos make the same as his workers and use enforcement to make it happen.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

It defines altruism thusly: "Altruism is the selfless concern for the welfare of other living beings without expectation of reward, recognition, or return. The collective welfare of our communities and society depends on the welfare of each individual person. We should always seek to alleviate the suffering and hardships of others with compassionate action. By caring for others around us and lifting each other up, we reinforce healthy connections and contribute to the betterment of our community, society, and the world."

This is the exact definition of a sacrifice. Sacrifice means to give up something of value to you in exchange for a lesser value or no value at all. Life requires the gaining of values, not their loss. This "moral" principle contradicts the very essence of life. It, therefore, is evil since life is the standard of value. That is why I reject it lock, stock and barrel.

I don't understand what you are saying. How is it evil to help someone else without the reason being personal gain?

There are two fundamental ways for people to deal with each other: by voluntary trade to mutual benefit or by force. The purpose of a moral principle is to guide one's actions and choices in the achievement of life's values. Altruism inevitably leads to force because it is a morality impossible to practice and when men cheat on it, as they must in order to live and have any semblance of happiness, then this principle justifies forcing them to practice it. If people won't be moral and sacrifice for others then it's the duty of the government or the community to force them to do their moral duty.

Why? These are not mandated values. And I am not saying everything we do it altruistic. It is simply saying that we should try to help others when we can without expecting something back.

The definition above says that we should always seek to alleviate the suffering of others without getting anything in return. That is the definition of sacrifice.

I think you are reading too much into the wording. Maybe it is their fault but I don't think they mean this is all we do. I think they mean whenever we can we should alleviate suffering of others.

Not only that but it says one should always selflessly concern one's self( a direct contradition) with not just other humans but all living beings which means we should selflessly concern ourselves with the welfare of bacteria. We should put the welfare of bacteria before our own since concern for our own welfare is selfish.

This is a good discussion point of what they mean by living beings.

If you want to "contribute to the betterment of our community, society and the world" then you must run from the morality of altruism as fast and as far as you can and practice the morality of rational self-interest. Treat others as sovereign individuals, respect their right to live for their own sake and trade value for value to mutual benefit. If someone tries to replace a value in trade with the muzzle of a gun then it is the propper role of the government to step in and put a stop to it.

I think altruism encompasses these values of sovereign individuals, respect right to live their lives and trade for mutual benefit. Most people do some acts for people they love not for the reason of expecting a reward from them. Like, I took my wife's car to put gas in it so she would not have to. I do receive her appreciation but if that is not the reason I did it. I fail to see how this is evil.

And finally, I will say that the "commitment to altruism" is exactly what Hitler called for. Not just Hitler but every dictator throughout all of history has called for this and they all did not hesitate to sacrifice whole communities in its name. That is what you are advocating for whether you know it or not.

And there it is. Hitler. Whatever. No one is advocating forcing altruism on others. Saying “altruism is evil” because an evil person was “altruistic” is a fallacy.

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

What other possible reason could there be for doing some action than to get something. The only alternative to not doing things for the sole reason of getting something would be a reason in conflict with itself. It would mean doing something to get something but not solely for that reason but also doing it to get nothing? How can this be reconciled? Blank out.

Of course, no one can be absolutely selfless. Everyone has to get something for their actions even if only some water to drink and enough bread to keep one going.

I agree that we get something back from doing good. However, we can do good without that being the reason we do them. I am not saying that getting something back for doing good is a bad thing. I think it can be a good thing. Doing good solely to advance your interests I think is what they are getting at.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

I agree that we get something back from doing good. However, we can do good without that being the reason we do them. I am not saying that getting something back for doing good is a bad thing. I think it can be a good thing. Doing good solely to advance your interests I think is what they are getting at.

I will answer your other post later today when I have time. This one is easy because I have already answered it. The only alternative to doing something solely to advance one's interests is to be acting in contradiction to one's self. It would mean doing something to advance your interest but also not to advance your interests. Since you've already agreed that there is nothing wrong with doing something in exchange for something, I don't see the problem. I know where this idea of getting nothing in return comes from. Do you?

 

[Bradskii]

What other possible reason could there be for doing some action than to get something. The only alternative to not doing things for the sole reason of getting something would be a reason in conflict with itself. It would mean doing something to get something but not solely for that reason but also doing it to get nothing? How can this be reconciled? Blank out.

Of course, no one can be absolutely selfless. Everyone has to get something for their actions even if only some water to drink and enough bread to keep one going.

I don't think that behaving altruistically is something on which anyone suggests you should base your whole life. You've got to earn a living. You can't volunteer your time for everything. But altruistic behaviour is simply helping out at the school sports day. Helping little old ladies across the street. Giving your neighbour next door a hand laying his new lawn. Lending a friend your chain saw. Making sure your elderly neigbour opposite can get to the surgery.

Where in heaven's name did the idea that it was evil spring from. And Hitler? Whaaaat?

 

[Bradskii]

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?

I gotta say that I'm pretty bemused by the negative reaction to your list (possibly as a result of you having the term 'atheist' in your forum details?). There seems to be an unwillingness to accept even basic and entirely neutral ideals such as empathy. But what are the alternatives? How could anyone reject anything on the list - and more to tbe point, what could be substituted for each of them?

1. Critical Thinking: What's the alternative? Not to think? To think uncritically? To accept anything without question?

2. Ethical Development: Well, this will obviously depend on one's personal interpretation of the term 'ethics'. But whatever it is, would it be better to not develop an understanding of ethical concepts? Do we teach our children nothing about how to live a moral life and what is expected of them to do so?

3. Peace and Social Justice: I guess strife and war might be better. And we have justice in the leagalistic sense. But does that mean we can skip the idea that equality and fairness and giving everyone equal opportunities are to be encouraged?

4. Service and Participation: Hey, no need for anyone to join the armed services. Leave it to others. No need to do your bit as regards jury service. No need to volunteer as a little league coach. Let's each of hs look inwards and consider only ourselves.

5. Empathy: Best not to make any attempt whatsoever to understand how people feel about matters that are of common concern. That might lead to agreeing with their position. Or worse, having sympathy for them!

6. Humility: Who needs it! Teach your kids to big note themselves. To always consider them better than others. It's a dog-eat-dog world out there and we don't want our children showing any signs of humility.

7. Environmentalism: Who cares about the environment? Why is this even a thing? Why can't we ignore it? If we do, it'll eventually go away...

8. Global Awareness: Insularity is what we should teach. Bloody foreigners. They don't even speak English. Travel doesn't broaden tbe mind. It's just too...confusing.

9. Responsibility: Accept none. Deny everything. 'It's not MY fault' be the mantra. We'll always be able to find smeone else to blame.

10. Altruism: Little old ladies can help themselves across the bloody street. Don't look to me to help them. They'll only want to cross back again later. Where will it end!

 

[AV1611VET]

On a lighter note:

One interpretation of the Gilligan's Island/Deadly Sins correspondence:

Pride - the Professor
Covetousness - Mr. Howell
Lust - Ginger
Anger - Mrs. Howell
Gluttony - the Skipper
Envy - Mary Ann
Sloth - Gilligan

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

I gotta say that I'm pretty bemused by the negative reaction to your list (possibly as a result of you having the term 'atheist' in your forum details?). There seems to be an unwillingness to accept even basic and entirely neutral ideals such as empathy.

It is mainly because God is left out of it in my opinion. All of a sudden altruism is evil and of course social justice is just a code word etc.

 

[AV1611VET]

The Ten Commitments:

Sounds like Promise Keepers has some competition.