Are "rules" enough?

[USIncognito]

I hate to delve into apologetics, but for some reason this issue is stuck in my craw today...

Can one make a justification for abiding by certain moral/ethical rules simply by appealing to abstracts like the Golden, Silver and Brass/Bronze rules?

The way I see things. The Golden rule is what you strive for. Be nice to people, respect their space, privacy and property. Help those in need since some day you might be the one in needs. The Silver is important to. Have a lisp? Then don't make fun of those with a harelip. Don't want people stealing from you? Then don't steal from them.

It's all pretty simple and doesn't require a deity or even a government to mete out "justice." But for the same reason that Communism will never work, it's hard to have a society built just on the Gold and Silver rules, the Brass/Bronze rule comes into play, and usually in terms of the government enforcing collectively agreed upon transgretions and sanctions.

I guess what I'm getting at is can a society without a deity to enforce ultimate sanction on rule/ethic/moral trangressors exist if they only rely on the Golden, Silver and Brass/Bronze rules?

[melikio]

I guess what I'm getting at is can a society without a deity to enforce ultimate sanction on rule/ethic/moral trangressors exist if they only rely on the Golden, Silver and Brass/Bronze rules?

I don't know of anyone who is not honored or served by "LOVE". And it seems (to me), that Jesus intended to illustrate that among other things.

I am a Christian, but I almost walked-away from it on account of not ACTUALLY realizing that human being CANNOT always deliver the kind of love that Jesus certainly could. (Christians were once my arch enemies, and I never intended for that to happen.) Christians handle homosexuality worse than almost anything I've ever witnessed. Some hypocrites I saw, seemed to throw out every rule related to decent/helpful human relations, just to prove (seemingly to themselves) that they were "tough" on homosexuality. I understand that, but I have always questioned how many who call themselves "Christian", actually treat homosexual people. If those people represent "Jesus" in actuality, then their behavior is not commensurate with what I know to be true/believed.

I would say that "rules" are very general, compared to the standard of LOVE which Jesus promoted. And I think He would SPANK today's legalists, as he did before. Yes, what it looks like to me, is that some have managed to justify HATING the "sinner" and not merely the "sin" (soley).

LOVE trumps "law", in almost every social, spiritual and practical sense. If people REALLY cared for others, it's clear to me that most rules/laws would be simple things to abide (especially where morality came into view or question).

So, I would say that rules themselves aren't enough; not by any means (if we are referring to barometers for the TOTAL human experience. Rules and instructions can guide the human heart, but agape affects the human heart directly; law is no match for that.

-Mel-

[USIncognito]

What an excellent response.

A few comments:
- The rules I cited are more philisopical concepts than actual rules and in case you or other readers are unfamiliar with those appellations, we're all familiar with the ideas.

Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
Silver Rule: Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.
Brass Rule: Do unto others as they do unto you.

I think your citation of "love" is more an amalgam of more specific concepts like compassion, empathy and altruism (for the Golden Rule), sympathy and a sense of society (for Silver), and justice (for Brass).

I'm of the opinion that all of these similar, but discernable emotions/thoughts can be justified without a deity and have definate roots in evolution and evolutionary biology. And more importantly that they do exist - something many theists claim cannot be if there is no deity.

As far as how certain fundamentalist denominations treat homosexuality or other "sins" they find so offensive it's a myopic focus on their part... that's the problem of said group, not Christianity as a whole. I'd like to see them spend more time on the poor, the alienated and the disposessed like Jesus did, but I'll grudgingly give them the benefit of the doubt that their misguided focus is rooted in what they think is love.

[melikio]

I'm of the opinion that all of these similar, but discernable emotions/thoughts can be justified without a deity and have definate roots in evolution and evolutionary biology. And more importantly that they do exist - something many theists claim cannot be if there is no deity.

I think "love" is so massively important and effective.

I'm not sure of its actual origins, merely certain that the kind of love Jesus lived/promoted, is superior to any other human behavior I have ever witnessed.

Peace and grace to you all.

-Mel-

[ST88]

I guess what I'm getting at is can a society without a deity to enforce ultimate sanction on rule/ethic/moral trangressors exist if they only rely on the Golden, Silver and Brass/Bronze rules?

Just using the word "society" makes this a game of governments. If there were no governments -- anarchy -- then there wouldn't be a need for rules like these in order to keep society intact (i.e., there wouldn't be a society that needed to be kept intact). If we agree to live in a society, to benefit from the benefits it gives us, then we should be able to cede certain animal instincts we may have in favor of the higher "human" behaviors. Break the rules and you get no bones. But just because you can officially discourage the bad doesn't mean you can officially encourage the good.

In a deity-less society, the Golden Rule is irrelevant on a practical level. It is a sad fact of life that we don't always get what is coming to us (in this life, he said ironically). It only works on a level that is a step above the mere perpetuation of a society. If someone does good to someone else and expects another good to come to him as a result, he will be sorely disappointed. So the answer to your question is: not really. The enforcement can't be done on the level of government, because the reason for the good is not essentially a practical one, it's a speculative one.

[USIncognito]

So, I'm guessing you weren't a big fan of the movie, nor the message of Pay it forward?

[Dark Haibane]

Governments and law are essential for human society. We create new forms when the former form of government fails. A group left alone in the wilderness with no knowledge of government (maybe they had amnesia. xP) would form a system of government. Such systems are the means of carrying out the rules which you have stated. This is of course what governments are intended to be ideally, once they become too corrupted by those who wish to use others as tools... the system eventually collapses and another one is created to fill the space, such is history.
So my answer is no the concepts are not enough alone, but are the basis of government.

[ST88]

So, I'm guessing you weren't a big fan of the movie, nor the message of Pay it forward?

I didn't see that movie, so I don't know exactly what it's about, but from your comment it sounds like it's some form of altruism in practice. I have nothing against altruism, but you can't legislate it.

[Bugmaster]

I guess what I'm getting at is can a society without a deity to enforce ultimate sanction on rule/ethic/moral trangressors exist if they only rely on the Golden, Silver and Brass/Bronze rules?

I think there's a distinction between morality and legislation. A government does not have the power to make certain acts immoral; it can only make them illegal.

In a democracy, if enough people think that some action (such as murder) is immoral, they use the government as a tool to make this action illegal. I think this mechanism served us reasonably well so far; hopefully, Bush's ascension to godhood will not go as planned, and we'll be able to continue enjoying democracy in the future :-)