The New Ten Commandments

I cease to be amazed when debates like this fail to culminate in a proper meeting of the minds. "Pro began the debate with the correct definition of "commandments." He said "... my list of moral edicts ..." That's right. Commandments are not interesting thoughts, points to ponder, considerations, guides to practical living, or anything other than moral edicts." Under your own guidelines the first 4 commandments of the Old Testament are not actually commandments because they have nothing to do with morality. Lets not get mired down in minutia shall we. Secondly, I gave an explanation for why my tenth commandment was indeed moral. I could have redefined my commandments as "Handy dandy fun rules for living a good life" and the resolution would have been equally as true. As I see it your critique of my commandments have fallen under three categories. 1.They don't provide directions for people on how to achieve the outcomes. 2."Reason" "evidence" and the "scientific method" are vacuous constructs. 3.The commandments leave room open for interpretation. ============ Case pro- Rebuttals ============ 1. I don't proscribe specific methods for achieving happiness because frankly I'm ignorant about what the underpinnings of human well-being actually are. This is a scientific question that is far from being settled and for me to pretend to know with certainty how to achieve a happy life would require me to be unreasonable. I can make general truisms like love is better than hate at cultivating human happiness but beyond this much work still needs to be done. Perhaps I can show why your dismissal of my views is unfair by way of an analogy. Lets say that I tell you to travel to San Diego California and I don't give you instructions on how to get there. Is this a vacuous statement on my behalf? Not really. You could take a train, bus, airplane or a car to get there. Or you could simply walk. Even if you didn't know where San Diego was you could do a little bit of research and find this out in a few minutes or hours at most. Such is the case with human flourishing. Happiness and human flourishing are like far off lands without clear directions readily available. Different paths may take you there and some of these paths may be easier than others. It is ultimately the job of science to discover what makes humans maximally happy. In the meantime we can still determine that happiness is a noble outcome even if we don't know exactly how to get there. 2. Reason is not subjective despite what my opponent may believe. The Jihadist that believes he knows the mind of God is not being reasonable and he probably hasn't made himself open to evidence. Anyone murdering an innocent person out of deference to their religion is not acting reasonably or showing compassion and thus is not following my commandments. Jihadists would be breaking almost all of my commandments in the behavior they choose to engage in. Its not a matter of what I think is reasonable or justified. Anyone that is operating on the assumption that gravity is merely an opinion is not operating reasonably. And they are likely not to have a very long life. This same line of critique would be equally valid when applied to astrologers, Christians, Scientologists, Jihadists and other irrationalists. The claim that Jesus was born of a virgin and will be returning to Earth trailing clouds of glory is not a reasonable claim to knowledge regardless of my opinions on the matter. 3. What constitutes "evidence" "reason" and the "scientific method" are not open for interpretation but other things are. Likewise, what constitutes happiness and well being are also not open to interpretation. If there were any objective fact about morality it is that murder, theft, and rape are bad strategies for creating happy people or functional societies. Jihadists that murder infidels may think they are acting out of goodness, but they are not. However, what constitutes generosity could be open to interpretation. In this context generosity could mean simply sharing your food with someone or helping someone with car troubles. As a general practice I always help everyone I meet, within reason. If someone needs my attention or has trouble with schoolwork then I usually make it a priority to help them and thus I am being generous with my time. The fact that some of my commandments are flexible is not a testament to their weakness; it's a testament to their strength. And for the record I didn't use the word charity in my 3rd commandment. ================================ My response to a critique of my 7th commandment ================================ Cows, pigs, and dogs can all feel happiness and suffer. Therefore we should take their interests into consideration when we make decisions. Obviously different animals have different qualities e.g. (the capacity to feel pain), (the capacity to feel happiness) and (the capacity to be self aware). My whole point is that we should not discriminate purely on the basis of membership in a species regardless of the qualities animals possess. We must examine the qualities that different entities possess and make decisions from there. In the same way it would be silly to talk about a mans right to have an abortion it would be meaningless to speak of an otters right to vote. Otters are incapable of understanding the importance of voting and thus saying that they should have a right to vote is meaningless. Please, don't be ridiculous. Any action that made a dog, human or other conscious creature happy while not causing other creatures to suffer would be following the basic premise of this rule. ================== Contention from my opponent =================== "Pro omits from his list the specific prohibitions of the original ten commandments: theft, murder, adultery, covetousness, perjury." All of these things are prohibited in overarching principles that can be found in my commandments. There is simply no way to square any of the behaviors you listed with my 4th 5th 7th 8th and 9th commandments. Secondly, I do not prohibit them directly in order to avoid dangerous absolutism. For instance, people generally have a preference not to have their belongings stolen. Insofar as everyone respected these preferences theft would be impossible under my 6th commandment. ==================== A challenge to my opponent ==================== You are to imagine that the year is 1840 and that you are a black lesbian living in the United States. Would you prefer that the original Ten Commandments were ascendant or would you prefer that my commandments were ascendant? ======== Conclusion ======== Everything that was good about the original Ten Commandments has been improved upon in my list. And many things that were sorely lacking from the original list have been added in mine e.g. (prohibitions against racism sexism, and speciesism). Even if everyone on Earth followed the original Ten Commandments it isn't unreasonable to conclude that many of the ailments in our world like genocide, extreme poverty, and cruelty would remain intact. Likewise, there are no direct prohibitions against rape or torture in the original list and more importantly there are no overarching principles one can appeal to that would preclude them. Under no stretch of the imagination could these things occur under my commandments. In my list of commandments I beckoned the world to a utopia of reason. Just imagine what our world would look like if everyone represented a model of Socratic rationality. Imagine how far we could get as a species if this were the case. Imagine what our conversation about ethics would be like if it were as unbound by dogmatism as science is. Imagine a world where everyone is motivated out of love, compassion and a desire to alleviate suffering. If you like what you imagine then I would strongly encourage you to vote pro. Best, Freeman