You know why I know this isn't true?

Africa.

Please be more specific, because Africa was what I used to whittle down the list to those five.

I would disagree on your first line and your last.

Samurai code permitted samurai to kill peasants just because of the difference in rank, for instance. And many cultures blur the line of murder with human sacrifice. So while I would agree that these five are more or less universal, there are exceptions.

I would also argue this list is not inclusive. For instance, most cultures require some sort of honoring or obedience of authority, special times where honesty is required (such as during judgment), retribution as recompense for criminal acts, etc. I'm sure you could write a comprehensive list of items which are obeyed by 100%, 90%, or 80% of cultures, but it would be a doctoral project, not a twenty line Internet post.

I don't think this question is valid. It's like asking if a bank robber's car is as valid a tool as a taxi driver's car. Cars are cars, they aren't 'valid' or 'not-valid'.

Plus, it's extremely broad, since Islam and Christianity are both made up of a huge range of sub-groups, which use dogma in a myriad of ways.

For example, to focus just on the Catholic Church (which is handy because they have a single, well-documented dogma) ...

Their dogma includes things such as:
Jesus is the spiritual savior of mankind
Mary was assumed into heaven as a virgin
Murder is wrong
Priests must be male.

But what makes a dogma 'valid'?



I would say if you went through the entirety of the RCC dogma, yes, most of it supports good behavior. Much of it that doesn't directly supports the framework which supports good behavior (Jesus was spiritual savior. Jesus said to do good works. Ergo dogmatic statement 1 still supports good behavior.)

A few perhaps do not (for example, limitations on birth control). But those decisions are results of debate and study; they aren't arbitrary. So you can disagree with them (I do), but even if you do disagree with them, at least you can recognize that the intent is for good behavior.



It's a mix, and it depends, of course.



This is a very tough question, and really deserves its own thread. 'What defines 'good' is a cornerstone of philosophy, and probably not something we can adequately answered tucked in as a side argument here.



Also a very tough question. Is doing good because you are told it is good sufficient? What is the moral 'weight' of doing bad when told it is good? (Dealing with a conflict between what you are told, I think, is much less of an issue, at least on the individual level).
This message was last edited by the GM at 20:25, Sat 16 June 2012.

[yay got the quote feature working]

Ok so what is "good behavior" and "bad behavior", please?

If the behavior is irrational, it will also encourage it, right?

Well ... that's a huge issue deserving a thread of it's own :) I would say that worshiping God is good behavior, but the source for that would be religious texts, which perhaps you don't accept. I would say that 'live and let live' is good behavior, but the source for that is a recognition of abstract values such as liberty and self-determination, which perhaps you don't recognize. I'd say that murder is wrong, but the source of that is the recognition that other people have the same rights that I have, and I think everyone believes they have a right to not be personally murdered, but perhaps you don't share those assumptions.



Yes, dogma can encourage irrational behavior. However, irrational behavior is not necessarily harmful (case in point, I would argue that a modern ban on pork is, while not irrational, misguided. But not eating pork doesn't do harm, and per the compelling arguments of many vegetarians and animal-rights philosophers, doing some good.)

Your statement is so illogical in the context of our discussion/debate, I had to laugh. I am not insulting you as a person, just the reasonableness of your assertion that my positions could be such based on the evidence available. Do you really wonder if I share those assumptions? Or are we actually in the “second grade”?

But never mind. Let us see if we can make forwards progress. Before I attempt to give my thoughts on some of the “bigger picture” so we can see if there is some resolution on dogma, I am curious if you can clarify something:

in the lesbian wedding dress example in the homosexual marriage thread, there are teachings of Jesus that would allow you to come down on the side of selling the dress to her, right?

But you decide it is better not to.  Are those statements you would agree with?

1. The murder one I'd need to think on.
2. Stealing seems to be an almost unanimously fine thing to do.  Music downloading and file sharing is basically culturally accepted now despite the fact that it's theft.
3. Children are used and abused by cultures and are historically viewed as objects to be exploited.  The treatment of children in many African countries as child fighters and sex slaves stems from a view of them as objects and not as people.  This isn't limited to Africa obviously, but seems to be much more rampant there due to where those countries are at financially etc.
4. There are countless stories of pregnant women having their children hacked out of them during the course of a war.  Horrific but people don't seem to have issues doing it.
5. The entire planet is basically insanely selfish, so I don't see this happening at all.

Truth be told saying Africa is really a lousy answer.  I should have just said Earth.  People on this planet are, in general, horrific pieces of selfish animalism.  Treating one another with even a shred of dignity and respect seems to be the exception, not the norm.

Not you personally. But 'you' in the general sense. I've met people who are fine with stealing from other people, just not with themselves, or who struggle with abstract concepts like 'liberty'. Some of those people are in positions of power. How do we come to an agreement about what is good?

More specifically, I've seen a very large number of people SAY they support concepts like liberty or privacy, but then act to the contrary when given the first opportunity.



I'm not sure. I honestly can't think of any off the top of my head. There are people much better versed in the bible than I though, so perhaps they can supply one.

(And before anyone comes up with 'treat others as you would have them treat you', remember that Jesus did not exempt anyone from following God's law. The golden rule isn't 'you're okay, I'm okay'.)


re: Duolos -- 2. file-sharing isn't theft, it's violation of intellectual property rights. That probably doesn't mean anything to you, but as someone who works in the industry, I can tell you it's a pretty big difference.

3. You can cut this either way. Yes, there are child sex-slavery rings in Africa, but I don't think that implies Africans think it's okay, any more than the fact that there are sex-slavery rings in the Americas implies Americans think they're okay. HOWEVER, many African countries support involuntary marriage of children, which could be (but not necessarily is) a method of child abuse, in some cases. I'm not familiar enough with the cultures to say which, if any, view abusive child marriages as sinful.

4. Acts of war I also don't think are indicative of the moral beliefs of a culture.

As far as I am concerned there is no difference.  That music/movie/tvshow does not belong to us and we take it anyways.



If people are doing it then they must think there is some justifiable reason for it, thus, in that particular context - ok.



I think it's exactly the moral beliefs of a culture.  It's just that those moral beliefs only exist within a certain set of conditions that arise during war time.  If people wel and truly did not believe in those acts - ever - then they would never do them.  They do perform them, therefore they must beieve that it is justified.

That's fine, just be aware that you are technically wrong, and therefore can't be used as evidence in a debate/discussion :)



This goes back to something I struggled with initially. Alexei's original post said 'universal', which seems to imply 100% of people. But yes, one sociopath is enough to disprove the 100%. I assumed he was referring to 95% people, so we can discount that minority who run child sex slave rings. Alexei can clarify this for us.



I understand that war is a funny issue. However, every study I've read on the subject indicates that people active in war tend to enter into a more 'primal', survival-oriented state. War fighters are psychologically changed by the experience. I suppose I would assume that individuals who have been violently shifted from their natural mental state shouldn't be counted as representatives of that cultural group for the purpose of studying morality, but I can understand that perhaps that's cherry-picking.

Ah, but note the proviso: the accepted norm has become that media and so called 'intilectual property' should be freely shared for the benefit of the society: thus those who are trying to restrict its use are not "useing thier wealth justly", and are valid targets.

There is a difference between what is done and what is considered 'right', I know of no existing culture that considers doing any of these things right, but they will often turn a blind eye during war or a period of anarchy.
For example: Children may be veiwed as objects, but all parents which are not mentaly ill will seak to protect them. It is once they are taken from thier parents that the trouble begins.

I guess I just looked at that list and mentally checked them all off as things that people in large numbers have had no issues carrying out at various times.

Anyways, carry on the discussion.

In reply to Doulos (msg # 24):

Understood, and it is true that many individuals will not have issues with some or all of the things on the list, but taken as a group over time all societies will conform to the list or cease to exist as a society. It is on that basis I consider the list universal.
In a final note: the last item on the list is in various phraseings and translations the core of every major religion on earth: this cannot be coincidence.

Do unto others ... unless they are of a lower caste and the screw em. ;)

Actually I think the provision is, 'unless they are from a different society'. The rules Alexei outlined are, as he himself said, necessary for a society to function. But that doesn't apply when dealing with people from other societies.

I was speaking of Hinduism, but no matter.  The main point of this thread has been lost and should probably be restored.

If the forum moderators are listening perhaps this side topic of universal codes of human behavior warents its own thread?

(hakootoko returns from a long weekend of wine festing, poor, tired, and sunburned, to find this thread has wandered off track)



I guess I misunderstood your definition of dogma, and I now disagree with it. I thought it meant "dogma is established precedent" not "dogma is commands from the present church leaders". You now seem to be using the latter. I think a religion where the leadership can give arbitrary orders to the membership without the authority of tradition behind those orders has crossed the line into a cult (another difficult term to define).

The spiritual philosophy of kindness in the Golden Rule is an example of what I man by dogma. Some religions have it and say members should follow it, even if (as is always the case in human affairs) the members frequently fail at it.

I would tend to agree with hakootoko on that point. I don't think 'dogma' is specifically 'obedience to temporal authority'(although it can be, in some cases).

So the Catholic Church running the Spanish Inquisition circa the 15th c+ was a "cult" ?

Yes, I see your point. I don't think there was much in there about compassion, not shunning others, or treating people with dignity...

So in your opinion, the bible says I should never tell a person 'no' or 'I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable participating in that', because it might hurt their dignity?
This message was last edited by the GM at 11:09, Wed 20 June 2012.

Not really. What I'm saying is that there is plenty of counter-argument available, in the basis for your own moral code, (just a few off the top of my non Bible-scholar head: judge not, do not cast the first stone... )
and yet you seem very certain that the lesbian is "wrong" and you are "right." What is that certainty based on, exactly?

A few things. It's based off of the line in the bible, "a man shall not lay with a man", suggesting pretty heavily that homosexuality is sinful. This is tempered with referencing my catechism, which explains that homosexual behavior is disordered, because it is not open to procreation, which is a primary purpose of a sexual relationship. I can reference my priest (although I've never talked with him on this particular topic). In this particular instance, the issue is more complicated, in part because the question isn't 'should we deny', but 'do people have the right to deny'. So I reference concepts like individual freedom and self-determination, which are in turn supported by documents upon which our country (which I personally support) are founded upon. This is tempered by concepts of least-harm, where the harm to the one party must be weighed against the harm to the other.

I take all of this data, then attempt to sort out the other side. In this case, I could find no biblical, philosophical, authoritative, least-harm, or personal evidence that suggests a person has a right to purchase things where she pleases. In this case, the issue was also opened to other people to comment on it, who failed to provide convincing evidence.

Given this process, I feel reasonably comfortable saying that the sales-woman was not acting unethically by declining the sale. I can also show my reasoning, so any other person can follow and reproduce it, if she or he wished to. And should errors be discovered in the future, the fact that my reasoning is recorded like this permits easy reconsiderations and corrections.