But that's not enough to be emotionally sustaining. "Don't be cruel" just doesn't have the resonance of (for example) "Glory be to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit".
After a lifetime (well, from age 15 or so to my current age of 66) as an atheist, I have reluctantly concluded that religious ritual, sustained by genuine religious b…
But that's not enough to be emotionally sustaining. "Don't be cruel" just doesn't have the resonance of (for example) "Glory be to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit".
After a lifetime (well, from age 15 or so to my current age of 66) as an atheist, I have reluctantly concluded that religious ritual, sustained by genuine religious belief in most but not necessarily all congregants, is essential to a functioning human society that can continue the ideals of liberalism in a way that most of us would find acceptable.
But I suspect that a serious crisis ("there are no atheists in foxholes") may need to arrive before we can find our way back to meaningful religious practice.
"But that's not enough to be emotionally sustaining. "Don't be cruel" just doesn't have the resonance of (for example) 'Glory be to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit'".
Perhaps another, more robust way of articulating the idea of "don't be cruel":
Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
How does a non-religious person follow this counsel? In my opinion, a possible distillation of what's stated here is: "The most important thing you can do is to not put yourself first" or something along those lines. A large-scale cultural emphasis on selflessness, which is at the heart of and is perhaps the unifying theme of virtually all religion, is the ticket to better society. Of course it's vital that all of us start with the person in the mirror, but it doesn't hurt to have a strong leader or leaders that personify this ethic.
In evolutionary terms, intense social cooperation by primeval humans required "biological morals" (altruism) for improved survival.
Darwin agrees with those statements of Jesus:
"It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes, and this would be natural selection (178-179)."
(Darwin quoted by Peter Richerson, PhD biology, UC Davis)
This is a very good point, and one I think is still applicable even at today's very large scale societies. The problem is that overall societal good, per se, does not seem to be a sufficient motivation for individual humans, if not backed up with a belief that the society is supernaturally ordained.
My point is that I think there is substantial evidence for the proposition that human psychology is such that this only works on a large scale when buttressed by belief (by a large fraction of the people) in the supernatural provenance of the principle.
I am also an atheist who believes in religion but not God.
But it might be simpler, human freedom goes to hell without human obligation. Lyons captures it so very well in his explication of conservatism herein.
It does not have to be the source of all of person's emotional sustainment (although I would argue that if you very seriously took the injunction to avoid being cruel while reducing the sum of cruelty in the world, then it would give you enough work for many lifetimes). The thought that the political order should be the sole source of a person's emotional sustenance is itself totalitarian; and, I would add, both likely to lead to cruelty and in itself idolatrous.
Shklar put it these terms: the liberalism of fear is not seeking a summum bonum, an ultimate good, it is seeking to avoid a summum malum, a very worst evil; and that evil is cruelty. It does not say do not seek your summum bolum. It merely says that you cannot be cruel as you do so.
She was not religious, and she was sceptical about whether or not this was ultimately compatible with religious faith on the grounds that the religious believer, if devout, must put the commands of God above the injunction to avoid cruelty. I am more sanguine. I see little in Christianity that requires a Christian to be cruel, and much that challenges and undermines cruelty.
TY. Had never heard-a her. I see she's written a lot. I just bought "Ordinary Vices. If I may ask: is "Judith Shklar and the liberalism of fear" another good place to look into? Or one-a her other works? TIA (Thank You in Advance).
The essay, 'The Liberalism of Fear' is a later condensation of her argument - it's here: https://philarchive.org/archive/SHKTLOv1 It's very dense, though, and I think Ordinary Vices is more important. Her style is different enough to most political philosophy to benefit from being at book length. I haven't read "Judith Shklar and the liberalism of fear", which isn't to say its bad. Her writing is so clear, though, that I see little benefit in starting with a secondary source. Of her other works, the collection of essays 'Political Thought and Political Thinking' contains a lot of gems, and 'Faces of Injustice' is particularly exceptional; but I would start with 'Ordinary Vices'.
But that's not enough to be emotionally sustaining. "Don't be cruel" just doesn't have the resonance of (for example) "Glory be to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit".
After a lifetime (well, from age 15 or so to my current age of 66) as an atheist, I have reluctantly concluded that religious ritual, sustained by genuine religious belief in most but not necessarily all congregants, is essential to a functioning human society that can continue the ideals of liberalism in a way that most of us would find acceptable.
But I suspect that a serious crisis ("there are no atheists in foxholes") may need to arrive before we can find our way back to meaningful religious practice.
"But that's not enough to be emotionally sustaining. "Don't be cruel" just doesn't have the resonance of (for example) 'Glory be to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit'".
Perhaps another, more robust way of articulating the idea of "don't be cruel":
Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?”
Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
How does a non-religious person follow this counsel? In my opinion, a possible distillation of what's stated here is: "The most important thing you can do is to not put yourself first" or something along those lines. A large-scale cultural emphasis on selflessness, which is at the heart of and is perhaps the unifying theme of virtually all religion, is the ticket to better society. Of course it's vital that all of us start with the person in the mirror, but it doesn't hurt to have a strong leader or leaders that personify this ethic.
In evolutionary terms, intense social cooperation by primeval humans required "biological morals" (altruism) for improved survival.
Darwin agrees with those statements of Jesus:
"It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over other men of the same tribe, yet that an increase in the number of well-endowed men and an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. A tribe including many members who, from possessing in a high degree the spirit of patriotism, fidelity, obedience, courage, and sympathy, were always ready to aid one another, and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes, and this would be natural selection (178-179)."
(Darwin quoted by Peter Richerson, PhD biology, UC Davis)
This is a very good point, and one I think is still applicable even at today's very large scale societies. The problem is that overall societal good, per se, does not seem to be a sufficient motivation for individual humans, if not backed up with a belief that the society is supernaturally ordained.
"Supernaturally ordained" meaning fear of punishment?
I think most people act based on what they feel is right. I see it all the time in the actions of everyday people.
My point is that I think there is substantial evidence for the proposition that human psychology is such that this only works on a large scale when buttressed by belief (by a large fraction of the people) in the supernatural provenance of the principle.
Gotcha. Do we have examples of this ethic existing more or less organically in a secular society and not working?
It never arisen organically, AFAIK. The German Nazi and Soviet Communist regimes tried to impose it. I think we agree that those were not so great.
I am also an atheist who believes in religion but not God.
But it might be simpler, human freedom goes to hell without human obligation. Lyons captures it so very well in his explication of conservatism herein.
It does not have to be the source of all of person's emotional sustainment (although I would argue that if you very seriously took the injunction to avoid being cruel while reducing the sum of cruelty in the world, then it would give you enough work for many lifetimes). The thought that the political order should be the sole source of a person's emotional sustenance is itself totalitarian; and, I would add, both likely to lead to cruelty and in itself idolatrous.
Shklar put it these terms: the liberalism of fear is not seeking a summum bonum, an ultimate good, it is seeking to avoid a summum malum, a very worst evil; and that evil is cruelty. It does not say do not seek your summum bolum. It merely says that you cannot be cruel as you do so.
She was not religious, and she was sceptical about whether or not this was ultimately compatible with religious faith on the grounds that the religious believer, if devout, must put the commands of God above the injunction to avoid cruelty. I am more sanguine. I see little in Christianity that requires a Christian to be cruel, and much that challenges and undermines cruelty.
TY. Had never heard-a her. I see she's written a lot. I just bought "Ordinary Vices. If I may ask: is "Judith Shklar and the liberalism of fear" another good place to look into? Or one-a her other works? TIA (Thank You in Advance).
The essay, 'The Liberalism of Fear' is a later condensation of her argument - it's here: https://philarchive.org/archive/SHKTLOv1 It's very dense, though, and I think Ordinary Vices is more important. Her style is different enough to most political philosophy to benefit from being at book length. I haven't read "Judith Shklar and the liberalism of fear", which isn't to say its bad. Her writing is so clear, though, that I see little benefit in starting with a secondary source. Of her other works, the collection of essays 'Political Thought and Political Thinking' contains a lot of gems, and 'Faces of Injustice' is particularly exceptional; but I would start with 'Ordinary Vices'.
TYTY Ma'am/Sir!