Why to keep the Sabbath (morality, Old Testament, Hebrew, morals)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, Orthodox Judaism was irrelevant to Rome's rise and fall. Rome had its own religion, which it respected when it rose, and which it lost respect for when it fell. All good religions provide moral guidance and moral exercises for the people.
I made the mistake of assuming that you believed that only your faith provides effective moral exercises. In that sense, I underestimated you. But I hope you did not take that personally; exclusivism happens so much around here that one comes to expect it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fschmidt
In modern society, one can live a fully immoral life without any major repercussions.
What constitutes "fully immoral" for your purposes? I can't murder, rape, not pay my taxes, discriminate against minorities, or drive more than 10 mph over the speed limit without major repercussions. It seems like I'd have to commit at least those sins to be "fully immoral". You seem to be suggesting that if strictures and discipline comes from society rather than religion that it's not legitimate. It sounds like a variation on the tired assertion of religions everywhere that no morality is legitimate if it is not externally given from on high, as mediated by your religious group of choice.
I regard morality as an continuously emergent societal consensus about what behaviors and social contracts will sustainably protect the viability of the society in question. This speaks to your point that immoral societies inevitably decline. It's my view that religions simply hijack something that's already in place, tack on a few superfluous requirements and call it their own -- all the while claiming that society borrows from THEM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fschmidt
You are confusing morality with ethics. Morality is based on behavior patterns.
I will grant you that habitualizing desired but perhaps non-intuitive behaviors is a good strategy, but I am not so much confusing morality and ethics as admitting that they are closely interrelated. Call morality "habitual ethical behaviors" if you wish. My point remains valid: there are plenty of ethical decisions and personal disciplines to develop in order to sustain them, and I don't see how a one-size-fits-all Sabbath ritual has so much universal value that society ought to adopt it -- particularly when current trends are such that it's increasingly impractical to have all of society grind to a near-halt in the same time frame every week for it.
I made the mistake of assuming that you believed that only your faith provides effective moral exercises. In that sense, I underestimated you. But I hope you did not take that personally; exclusivism happens so much around here that one comes to expect it.
I think Jews are famous for saying that all religions have a share in Olam Haba (the world to come), no matter what form of morality they practice. (The same does not apply to us Jews - we hold ourselves to a very specific and highly involved method of morality actions that we must perform to get olam haba).
In simplest terms, non-Jews simply need to keep the 7 Noahide Laws (of which Shabbos is not one of those), while we Jews need to keep all 613 mitzvos in the Torah - and then we're all good.
I regard morality as an continuously emergent societal consensus about what behaviors and social contracts will sustainably protect the viability of the society in question. This speaks to your point that immoral societies inevitably decline. It's my view that religions simply hijack something that's already in place, tack on a few superfluous requirements and call it their own -- all the while claiming that society borrows from THEM.
I disagree with your comments about religion versus society, but I am not going to debate the point because it isn't relevant to this thread. Morality is behavior and social contracts that ACTUALLY sustainably protect the viability of the society in question, not what societal consensus may mistakenly believe does this. This means that one cannot be certain whether modern norms are moral because we won't know how they affect society until at least 100 years later. My conclusion that modern norms aren't moral are based on the fact that they are very similar to societal norms of previous declining cultures.
Quote:
What constitutes "fully immoral" for your purposes? I can't murder, rape, not pay my taxes, discriminate against minorities, or drive more than 10 mph over the speed limit without major repercussions. It seems like I'd have to commit at least those sins to be "fully immoral". You seem to be suggesting that if strictures and discipline comes from society rather than religion that it's not legitimate. It sounds like a variation on the tired assertion of religions everywhere that no morality is legitimate if it is not externally given from on high, as mediated by your religious group of choice.
Fully immoral is purely selfish behavior that is harmful to society. For example, your typical Wall Street banker is fully immoral. Discipline from society can help morality but it isn't enough. People can always find ways around laws, so a society with good laws but bad individual morals will fail. People must be taught to be moral, ideally from childhood.
Quote:
I will grant you that habitualizing desired but perhaps non-intuitive behaviors is a good strategy, but I am not so much confusing morality and ethics as admitting that they are closely interrelated. Call morality "habitual ethical behaviors" if you wish. My point remains valid: there are plenty of ethical decisions and personal disciplines to develop in order to sustain them, and I don't see how a one-size-fits-all Sabbath ritual has so much universal value that society ought to adopt it -- particularly when current trends are such that it's increasingly impractical to have all of society grind to a near-halt in the same time frame every week for it.
The Sabbath is a good illustration of the difference between morality and ethics. There is nothing ethical about the Sabbath. But it supports morality for various reasons including that it is an exercise in self-discipline. Ethics about knowing what is right. The Sabbath is about the capacity to align thought with action. And morality is doing what is right, whether or not one understands why it is right. If you can think of a better moral exercise than the Sabbath, I would like to know about it. I think the Sabbath is ideal for several reasons. One reason is that it is part of Judaism and Christianity, so Jews and Christians, who form a large part of society, have traditional reasons to follow it. Another is the remarkable historical correlation between Sabbath-keeping and moral behavior.
Fully immoral is purely selfish behavior that is harmful to society. For example, your typical Wall Street banker is fully immoral. Discipline from society can help morality but it isn't enough. People can always find ways around laws, so a society with good laws but bad individual morals will fail. People must be taught to be moral, ideally from childhood.
Wait, didn't you just brag about how learning how to lie while conducting your business was a good thing? So when a nameless Wall Street banker does it - immoral, but when you do it it is ok?
Wait, didn't you just brag about how learning how to lie while conducting your business was a good thing? So when a nameless Wall Street banker does it - immoral, but when you do it it is ok?
The difference is that they consider themselves part of modern society, yet they wouldn't hesitate to screw over anyone in their society. I hate modern society, I don't consider myself part of it, in fact I consider myself at war with modern society. I would never harm anyone who I considered to be part of my society.
The difference is that they consider themselves part of modern society, yet they wouldn't hesitate to screw over anyone in their society. I hate modern society, I don't consider myself part of it, in fact I consider myself at war with modern society. I would never harm anyone who I considered to be part of my society.
Or they just have to consider themselves "above" the masses whose financial stability they are playing with and suddenly they are no longer immoral by your measure. Maybe they are fighting against everyone who is not a Wall Street power player because they are not part of the tribe. Evidently, all it takes in your view to define morality is internal motivation, and not the act itself? And beyond that, why is acting dishonestly and dishonorably to those you consider opponents moral at all?
I hate modern society, I don't consider myself part of it, in fact I consider myself at war with modern society. I would never harm anyone who I considered to be part of my society.
It seems like I've heard rhetoric like this from Islamists: I hate infidel society, in fact I am at war with it. But I'd never harm anyone who I considered to be part of MY society (he said as he strapped his suicide bombs on).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
