"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 the…
"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.
"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.