The New Ten Commandments

I wish to thank for accepting my challenge. Roy is an excellent debater and it will certainly be a pleasure for me to sort out my differences with him on this subject. Forgive me if I don't touch on everything you wrote. I tried to only pick out areas where we have a substantial disagreement. Lets reflect for a moment on exactly what I claimed my "commandments" could do as they relate to the resolution. "I am claiming that in an idealized world where people always followed my list we would live in a much safer, more compassionate, and generally happier world than one in which the original ten were followed with equal assiduousness." My opponent has failed to demonstrate why he believes that we would live under a more just, compassionate, and happier society if they old Commandments were followed as opposed to mine. ====================== The basis of human well being ====================== Claims about how best to maximize human well being are essentially claims about the nature of our minds and the social structure of our societies that are constrained by natural law and statistical law. It isn't too early to say that love and compassion are generally better than hate as a method for producing happy contented humans that have lives worth living. We don't need an NSF grant to make headway on this issue; the answer is in plain view. ============== Case Pro- Rebuttals ============== 1-2.) My opponent asserts my first two commandments are vacuous. Quite frankly I find this assertion to be fantastic and by that I mean laced in fantasy. My commandments are only vacuous if you think that words like "reason" "evidence" and the "scientific method" are vacuous. The notion that Jihadists, astrologers, and Methodists have good reasons for their beliefs is indicative of a shocking level of intellectual paralysis. No one can truly claim to know that the Koran is the perfect word of the creator of the universe without making a mockery of the word "know". 3.My challenger seems to misunderstand the third commandment. I can appreciate my opponent's conservative mind but it does seem to be rather unuseful in his critique on these matters. Being generous doesn't entail giving away all of ones money to the poor despite what he may believe. Our goal for happiness in this world is not zero sum. We have to realize that helping the poor and donating to charities like UNICEF can in fact be one's greatest source of comfort and happiness. To dogmatically assert that generosity would require civilization to come to a stand still is preposterous to put it mildly. 4. I will take comfort in the fact that my opponent and I both know what the golden rule entails. Theft, murder, and rape are repulsive actions that most humans would not wish to endure. 5.) It would seem that my fifth commandment has been misunderstood. This is understandable considering that I didn't word it as well as I should have. But, lets not linger upon my fallibility as a human because I gave my explanation for it when I wrote, "I have some suspicions that the ending part of my 5th commandment will raise grief with certain people so allow me to unpack it. Murderers, rapists, and arsonists can be jailed or justifiably be killed in acts of self-defense etc. That's really all that I mean by it." 6. My opponent has pointed out a rather petty semantical shortcoming on my behalf. But since he and I both know what my intentions were this whole issue seems somewhat trivial. 7. "The commandment erroneously attributes human characteristics to other species." Hmmm… I didn't mention humans at all in that commandment. Furthermore, there is nothing vacuous about the edict to make the world a happier place. One would have to take different approaches with different species in order to accomplish this. My edict doesn't demand that we take the same approach to maximize everyone's well-being. 8. ""Try" is not a commandment. In any case, malaria carrying mosquitoes ought not be put on the same plane with the people they infect." I never suggested that mosquitoes and humans should be put on the same pedestal. And your point is what exactly? The death of a human by malaria produces far more suffering than that occasioned by swatting a mosquito, ergo we can deem swatting mosquitoes to be morally inconsequential. Nothing in my eighth commandment entails a dogmatic commitment to maximizing happiness by using similar techniques on all conscious creatures. 9. "Jihadists believe that religious law is good for everyone and that infidels must be killed in order to maximize the good in the world." They may believe this, but they are wrong, as you would agree. I use the word "try" because there are certain situations when a human should not be concerned with the well being of someone else. If someone tries to kill you then you are at liberty to kill them in order to prevent your own death etc. In doing this I avoid using the very absolutist language of the Hebrew Bible. 10. "This is a fine idea, but commandments are supposed to be moral rules rather than practical ones." My commandments are not necessarily all designed to be moral commandments. They can be whatever I say they are. This would include practical suggestions about how best to raise children. Secondly, I disagree with you that my 10th commandment isn't moral. I can think of few things more moral than teaching children about the world and encouraging them to think critically. Likewise, I can think of few things more immoral than knowingly keeping your child ignorant of science, evolution, math, history, psychology, philosophy and everything else worth knowing in this world. My opponent claims that my "list is not a net improvement over the old list." I am frankly dumbstruck by this claim. We both agree that the first 4 commandments are virtually worthless. He then claims that commandments 5-9 are generally good but I have already shown why their absolutism can be immoral and produce consequences. If I were to strictly follow the sixth commandment then I would be forced to watch my mother die of a heart attack if theft were the only way to save her etc. On top of this he seems to misunderstand the tenth commandment in the Hebrew Bible. It amounts too little more than prosecution for thoughtcrime- (in the orwellian sense). In other words you can't even think about wanting something your neighbor has. Under the tenth commandment you can be convicted and condemned merely for what you may think about. It doesn't have anything to do with getting your own stuff fairly. ======= Conclusion ======= In order to demonstrate how superior my list is at producing a happier world let me just outline a few actions and then decide whether they would be likely or possible under the two sets of commandments before us. Are these things logically possible under the different sets of commandments? Original Ten Commandments--------My Ten Commandments (Rape) YES/NO (Extreme poverty)YES/Probably Not (Jihadism) MAYBE/NO (Forcing women to wear Burqas) YES /NO (Exuberant greed) YES /Probably Not (Child abuse)YES /NO (Ponzi Schemes)YES/NO (Sadistic animal torture) YES /NO (Sadistic Human Torture) YES/NO (Racism) YES /NO (Sexism) YES /NO (Homophobia) YES /NO Need I say more? My commandments excel at reducing suffering in this world. For these reasons I strongly encourage the voters to give this motion the overwhelming endorsement that it deserves.