Common decency

[jwocky]

@Lydiot: We should be both deeply worried now ... because I have to agree with all your points!

However, I want to add here another thought. We talk about "laws" as something that was made by a constitutional entity, in the US for example the US Congress. However, if you go back in history and see things more as a development, a dynamics of human social evolution, "laws" were made by all kinds of people. Kings, rebels, priests (a lot of them), and any thinkable combination of those (as in priest-kings for example). Later, kind of committees, often ordered by social castes, came into the game, nobility and commoners, national conventions ... in other words, the bigger societies grew, the more people became involved, but, and I claim that is true up till today, none of those law-giving bodies, ever fully represented the population in all factors. For example, in US Congress, lawyers are definitively over-represented while I don't see any jobless people there. Which would be hardly possible because to sit in the Congress is already a job and a well-paid one.
So, over history, those law-giving entities, they are a pretty colourful picture, and a very diverse one. But as far as I can see, they all have something in common: They all followed mostly the basic parameters set up by the dominant religions of their cultures. They maybe didn't say explicitly the conformed withreligion because it is sometimes politically inopportune to say it, but it's a fact. The laws against homicides in Western Cultures all followed the "Thou shall not kill" of the Bible. The laws against property crimes in our cultures, they all followed the "thou shall not steal".
Now, the interesting thing is, the old testament has no such provisions. Nor has the Talmud as far as I know. Older religious books and narratives, for example Gilgamesch, lack them entirely. On the other hand, we have with the Codex Hammurabi a much earlier work that is a clearly established law collection. For comparison, the Talmud is from about 600-1000 B.C. (depending on which of the older sources you look), Hammurabi is dated to about 1754 BC. Hammurabi, in the preface of his law collection, refers to the usual deities who called on him to do this work, clearly stating, he was authorized by the Gods to do so ... not because he was the king!
So, here is what I think, and I really want to make clear at this point, this is just a theory: Laws in their codified form developed out of religions because any religion necessarily establishes a context of behaviour and thus laws. We can at least for three religios be clear about that: All laws of the Western world include the ten commandments, shariah law includes definitively the laws of the Quaran and we just had Hammurabi.
The point here is, that, by the enormous power of fear of higher entities, organized religions were able to establish laws and press that people would actually follow them, when governments couldn't because the power of governments is obviously limit to the mundane world and therefore needs force and resources to be uphold. While the power of religion is, or was at those times at least, abstract. No policeman needed to come to the perpetrator, the perpetrator was already threatened with eternal doom.
This, if true, would make one point clear. People didn't behave out of "common decency". They didn't sit together and discussed "common decency" into laws. The start point was, that they behaved because the consequences for not behaving were severe. People talk a lot about ethics and decency and such things, but especially when gathered in bigger numbers, they don't act like it and that is when power and force become relevant.

[IAHM-COL]

@Lydiot: We should be both deeply worried now ... because I have to agree with all your points!

I'm concernd now.....

[Lydiot]

what i do not find very productive is to have such discussions on every street corner, without any intention to work it out into law. Everybody can of course discuss as they like, but i am not in for discussions that by the very nature of the material can not lead anywhere at that point in time.

Kind regards, Vincent

Can you give examples then of discussions and topics that qualify?

[Lydiot]

@Lydiot: We should be both deeply worried now ... because I have to agree with all your points!

However, I want to add here another thought. We talk about "laws" as something that was made by a constitutional entity, in the US for example the US Congress. However, if you go back in history and see things more as a development, a dynamics of human social evolution, "laws" were made by all kinds of people. Kings, rebels, priests (a lot of them), and any thinkable combination of those (as in priest-kings for example). Later, kind of committees, often ordered by social castes, came into the game, nobility and commoners, national conventions ... in other words, the bigger societies grew, the more people became involved, but, and I claim that is true up till today, none of those law-giving bodies, ever fully represented the population in all factors. For example, in US Congress, lawyers are definitively over-represented while I don't see any jobless people there. Which would be hardly possible because to sit in the Congress is already a job and a well-paid one.
So, over history, those law-giving entities, they are a pretty colourful picture, and a very diverse one. But as far as I can see, they all have something in common: They all followed mostly the basic parameters set up by the dominant religions of their cultures. They maybe didn't say explicitly the conformed withreligion because it is sometimes politically inopportune to say it, but it's a fact. The laws against homicides in Western Cultures all followed the "Thou shall not kill" of the Bible. The laws against property crimes in our cultures, they all followed the "thou shall not steal".
Now, the interesting thing is, the old testament has no such provisions. Nor has the Talmud as far as I know. Older religious books and narratives, for example Gilgamesch, lack them entirely. On the other hand, we have with the Codex Hammurabi a much earlier work that is a clearly established law collection. For comparison, the Talmud is from about 600-1000 B.C. (depending on which of the older sources you look), Hammurabi is dated to about 1754 BC. Hammurabi, in the preface of his law collection, refers to the usual deities who called on him to do this work, clearly stating, he was authorized by the Gods to do so ... not because he was the king!

I agree.

I would think that for Hammurabi and others referring to God's authorization there's probably a pretty wide range between rulers that are of faith and believe it and on the other hand rulers that are just opportunistic and use God's authority to influence people.

So, here is what I think, and I really want to make clear at this point, this is just a theory: Laws in their codified form developed out of religions because any religion necessarily establishes a context of behaviour and thus laws. We can at least for three religios be clear about that: All laws of the Western world include the ten commandments, shariah law includes definitively the laws of the Quaran and we just had Hammurabi.
The point here is, that, by the enormous power of fear of higher entities, organized religions were able to establish laws and press that people would actually follow them, when governments couldn't because the power of governments is obviously limit to the mundane world and therefore needs force and resources to be uphold. While the power of religion is, or was at those times at least, abstract. No policeman needed to come to the perpetrator, the perpetrator was already threatened with eternal doom.
This, if true, would make one point clear. People didn't behave out of "common decency". They didn't sit together and discussed "common decency" into laws. The start point was, that they behaved because the consequences for not behaving were severe. People talk a lot about ethics and decency and such things, but especially when gathered in bigger numbers, they don't act like it and that is when power and force become relevant.

I see your point. I would say however that we're so remarkably similar by and large, despite belonging to different religions for example, that I think there's also something basic in our nature that makes us gravitate towards some basic moral views, generally speaking.

[jwocky]

I just had an example of "common indecency" on the other thread ...

Vincent made this bad joke about me, the conservative, believes all liberals are pot-smoking and promote free love
Well, actually Vincent made also those bad conservatives and FOX News references not once but twice, but hey, I take it, that is liberal humor

So, next thing is, Lester jumped me for saying all liberals would be pot smoking and promoting free love ... I didn't even say that, it was Vincent.
However, neither saw Vincent the need to correct his fellow liberals misunderstanding not saw Lester the need to read careful enough. He just wanted to jump ... to make some imaginary points over reality. And that is what strikes me as pretty "indecent".

[jwocky]

I would think that for Hammurabi and others referring to God's authorization there's probably a pretty wide range between rulers that are of faith and believe it and on the other hand rulers that are just opportunistic and use God's authority to influence people.

I agree. However, while this difference would be relevant for the ruler and the judgment about him, would it also be relevant for those following him based on his claim of divine authorization?

I see your point. I would say however that we're so remarkably similar by and large, despite belonging to different religions for example, that I think there's also something basic in our nature that makes us gravitate towards some basic moral views, generally speaking.

That would lead us back to our origins through evolution. Small hordes have to avoid homicide because it weakens the horde too much. When hordes get bigger, homicide is maybe acceptable because there are too many eaters. We can actually study those very basic changing laws on the few still existing tribal societies in the rare really remote areas left. Dr. Leakey, not the father but the son, and Dr. Lewin studied in the 70s and 80s the tribe they transliterated as !Kung (because their name for themselves has there a sound, we can't even express with letters).
The basic recognition is, they lived at that time on the edge between laws for survival and more formalized laws which were still basically connected to the older rule-set. Kind of very interesting stuff, but it's like a 400 page book, so not all the details are still in my head right now. The bottom line is, that they touched there a society for which laws were nothing ethical, nothing decent but a tribal enforced code of behavior to help the tribe to survive, not necessarily the individual.

[Lydiot]

I agree. However, while this difference would be relevant for the ruler and the judgment about him, would it also be relevant for those following him based on his claim of divine authorization?

Sure. As an atheist I'd say that he'd have the excuse that he doesn't know any better if he invokes divine authority when he rules - and truly believes he has that authority, whereas he on the other hand was arguably a worse person if he didn't believe in god yet invoked him just for opportunistic reasons. Although it's not like rulers who don't invoke god aren't opportunists anyway. So I guess I think there's a trust issue for everyone involved if he's lying, and of course a different issue for the Atheist voter.

But in addition to that I think the bigger and worse issue is whether or not religion should have anything to do with religion and legislation. I don't think it should. Sharia as well as other 'orthodox' religious laws are to a large degree just stupid and immoral and based on the views of uneducated ignorant people hundreds of years ago. "Progressivism" to me is leaving that baggage behind while retaining that which makes sense - but not because it's possibly religious in origin - but because it makes sense.

That would lead us back to our origins through evolution. Small hordes have to avoid homicide because it weakens the horde too much. When hordes get bigger, homicide is maybe acceptable because there are too many eaters. We can actually study those very basic changing laws on the few still existing tribal societies in the rare really remote areas left. Dr. Leakey, not the father but the son, and Dr. Lewin studied in the 70s and 80s the tribe they transliterated as !Kung (because their name for themselves has there a sound, we can't even express with letters).
The basic recognition is, they lived at that time on the edge between laws for survival and more formalized laws which were still basically connected to the older rule-set. Kind of very interesting stuff, but it's like a 400 page book, so not all the details are still in my head right now. The bottom line is, that they touched there a society for which laws were nothing ethical, nothing decent but a tribal enforced code of behavior to help the tribe to survive, not necessarily the individual.

Again I agree.

Perhaps what we have today is a 'luxury' relatively speaking, because we now have the time and means to discuss this on a higher intellectual "abstract" level. But it's interesting, because topics like incest are highly interesting simply because from an evolutionary standpoint it made total sense to not be attracted to your kin, since producing offspring would be dangerous to the individual and arguably to the group. But it's as if we've carried that over to an intellectual construct, despite the possibility that no blood-ties might exist between two for example adopted siblings. So we'd still be outraged and disgusted today despite such a hypothetical scenario. So it's an interesting flow between what I think you're describing as the "code of behavior to help the tribe to survive" and the maybe more recent intellectual discourse we engage in, influenced by both that tribal drive to self-preservation and things like religion....

Please let me know the name of that book btw....

[jwocky]

Sure. As an atheist I'd say that he'd have the excuse that he doesn't know any better if he invokes divine authority when he rules - and truly believes he has that authority, whereas he on the other hand was arguably a worse person if he didn't believe in god yet invoked him just for opportunistic reasons. Although it's not like rulers who don't invoke god aren't opportunists anyway. So I guess I think there's a trust issue for everyone involved if he's lying, and of course a different issue for the Atheist voter.

I guess, we have to see here the difference of times. A ruler in times of Hammurabi and still a long time later, needed some kind of divine authorization to begin with. That is the reason why almost all kings and emperors during medieval times had to be salved as rulers by the pope. Atheism was not really a question in the 800s or 900s.
I am no Atheist, even I am not member of an organized church. Religion is between me and God, so don''t expect me to convince you or try of anything in this aspect. However, just because a politician says, he believes in something, that doesn't mean, I take that as face value. Well, except Donald Trump saying he believes in money, I admit, I believe that without any second thoughts. Which is kind of the point, as funny as it sounds. The trust can only come from the comparison of what a politician says and what he does. Or well, as long as what he does is even possible. I hate those impossible campaign promises that are so easily swallowed by so many.

Perhaps what we have today is a 'luxury' relatively speaking, because we now have the time and means to discuss this on a higher intellectual "abstract" level. But it's interesting, because topics like incest are highly interesting simply because from an evolutionary standpoint it made total sense to not be attracted to your kin, since producing offspring would be dangerous to the individual and arguably to the group. But it's as if we've carried that over to an intellectual construct, despite the possibility that no blood-ties might exist between two for example adopted siblings. So we'd still be outraged and disgusted today despite such a hypothetical scenario. So it's an interesting flow between what I think you're describing as the "code of behavior to help the tribe to survive" and the maybe more recent intellectual discourse we engage in, influenced by both that tribal drive to self-preservation and things like religion....

Well, sorry to say so, but your example is wrong. Marriages between not blood related relatives aren't considered incest in most cultures including most Western cultures. Which is no problem for me. Unfortunately, in some rural areas, I don't say where, laws seem to be much more lenient and the result is usually far from being abstract. I met actually two or three such specimens later in my serial killer research and those were of the type dumb as a doorknob and emotionally misdeveloped. Lets stand it there.
Now, let me throw another hot iron into this discussion, just to see whether the thinking model works on it. Abortion.

Now, there are two ways one could argue. One can say, it'snot human life till it's born, you can kill it if it is inconvenient.

Or you can say, it is human life from the moment of conception

However, both are actually the extreme positions. In most Western countries, laws have found the one or the other compromise in the form, after x weeks. Of course those compromises make always everybody happy, but in general, they work.
In the US, we can't go over this bridge because the fronts are quite hardened. The religious side can'tmove, not so much because it is actually written in the Bible but because leaders would any form of compromise feel as a loss of face that endangers their leadership. And on the other side, it's the very same thing.
This indicates to me, none of the leaders involved in any of this even thinks about babies or embryos, all think about how to get votes from their base. Which kind of puts the religous people and the Atheist people in the same boat.

[Lydiot]

When it comes to incest I meant specifically between brother/sister. I think most people in the west, and certainly elsewhere as well, frown upon it. It's just seen as "weird" or however you want to define it. I'm talking about legislation, but rather our feelings about it.

As for abortion I actually don't agree with you. But let me start with a fundamental view (or fact, as far as I can see); the very fundamental difference between Atheism and a religious belief is that the latter actually has prescriptions attached to it whereas the former is just the lack of that belief and prescriptions. In other words there is no Atheist scripture, no fundamental beliefs that tell people to do anything, nothing like that. It's just the lack of accepting theism. So an Atheist that wants to allow abortion won't do so because Atheism says so. Atheism says nothing. The Atheist may on the other hand do it partially because he/she lacks a religious view that would make abortion immoral. But accepting that is also accepting that there are people of faith, including leaders, that do think about "babies or embryos" when they make policy or try to influence people. Whether or not they make up 1% or 50% I have no idea, but I don't think we can ignore that those people exist (and I would actually maintain that there are quite a few of them).

I agree with the rest of what you wrote.

[KL-666]

Hello Lydiot,

Atheists may not have a scripture, but they as well often claim high morality. No idea where they get it from. Maybe reason.

You asked about some example for nonsense discussions. Well there are many, and abortion does very well. I would gladly discuss the *subject* abortion. But people on both sides often claim to be on high moral grounds. So the discussion ends into not being about the subject, but about the discussants themselves in the form of "My common decency is better than yours". Therefore i pleaded in the OP to try to stay away from claiming high moral grounds for yourself. Then the chances are better that the discussion stays on the subject.

For abortion there is an often forgotten extra option. Post natal abortion. If you can prove that newly borns have insignificant conscience consciousness, then there may be a case for that.

Kind regards, Vincent