Easy to say that retrospectively, but drawing a line in the sand like that while achieving consensus with those around you in a time when these types of conversations didn’t exist is a pipe dream.
If you are talking about modern day society, the problem is the same, morality is subjective, so impossible to define it in and of itself. You could take the evolutionary route, and say that which is good for the group, being careful not to walk the path to socialism, but defining good in terms of evolution doesn’t scale well to more complex ethical problems. You could argue that which has had a historically positive impact, but history is written by the winners and when viewed through the lens of various cultures and beliefs draws different conclusions. Subjectivity lacks a baseline.
a line needed to be drawn, saying god drew the line solved a lot of problems, it was then tweaked over human history living in different forms, in different cultures throughout human history.
Like I said not bad to use texts that were largely developed to promote well being in society. But then again there are religious texts i don’t agree with, so i’m not saying it’s all good, but don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater
“That God does not exist, I cannot deny, That my whole being cries out for God I cannot forget”
Whether god exists or not, I suspect we will miss him when he is gone.
In my 20’s I was all “god is dead”
then i saw a world without god and realised people weren’t going to do any better starting over. We can’t get politicians to stop filing their pockets with the legal system, now we are going to get politicians and corporations to define good for us, because that’s how it works, the powerful will define the new ethical world. This type of argument is completely idealistic …
Quote:
Throughout recorded time, and probably since the end of the Neolithic Age, there have been three kinds of people in the world, the High, the Middle, and the Low. They have been subdivided in many ways, they have borne countless different names, and their relative numbers, as well as their attitude toward one another, have varied from to age to age; but the essential structure of society has never altered. Even after enormous upheavals and seemingly irrevocable changes, the same pattern has always reasserted itself, just as a gyroscope will always return to equilibrium, however far it is pushed one way or the other.
The aims of these three groups are entirely irreconcilable. The aim of the High is to remain where they are. The aim of the Middle is to change places with the High. The aim of the Low, when they have an aim – for it is an abiding characteristic of the Low that they are too much crushed by drudgery to be more than intermittently conscious of anything outside their daily lives – is to abolish all distinctions and create a society in which all men shall be equal. Thus throughout history a struggle which is the same in its main outlines recurs over and over again. For long periods the High seem to be securely in power, but sooner or later there always comes a moment when they lose either their belief in themselves, or their capacity to govern efficiently or both. They are then overthrown by the Middle, who enlist the Low on their side by pretending to them that they are fighting for liberty and justice. As soon as they have reached their objective, the Middle thrust the Low back into their old position of servitude, and themselves become the High. Presently a new Middle group splits off from one of the other groups, or from both of them, and the struggle begins over again. Of the three groups, only the Low are never even temporarily successful in achieving their aims. It would be an exaggeration to say that throughout history there has been no progress of a material kind. Even today, in a period of decline, the average human being is physically better off than he was a few centuries ago. But no advance in wealth, no softening of manners, no reform or revolution has ever brought human equality a millimeter nearer. From the point of view of the Low, no historic change has ever meant much more than a change in the name of their masters. - 1984
Edit: sorry that is a ridiculous post, will keep it shorter next time.
