Mood: 
Music: Coldplay - Lost?"God exists, interpretations vary."
If God exists, I wonder if the life I lead is one that would cause me to be in his favor. Now, there's a good chance your response might be a resounding "no" since, after all, I won't even acknowledge his existence, but I'd like to think that there's a chance that leading a (relatively) virtuous life is worth at least some cachet with the man upstairs -- you know, should he even actually be there.
I've been having a series of interesting conversations with my co-workers over the passed couple of weeks about how the decisions I make, and thus the actions I take, are not governed by the
Golden Rule. How wanting or not wanting something to happen to me has no affect on what I might want or not want to happen. It comes off sounding a little evil, I know, and my stance here has proven to be quite controversial, but hear me out. Basically, what it boils down to is that I think that operating under the premise of fear is wrong. If the reason you do not murder is because you yourself would not want to be murdered, there is something wrong there. The reason not to do murder, or, if we were to widen focus, the reason not to do evil, should be innate. If you believe something to be wrong in the moral sense, then it
is wrong, and you should act as such. People seem to be with me up to that point, but then I present them the inverse of that statement, and juxtapose it against religion, and for some reason it becomes so much tougher a sell.
Which is to say, if you believe something to be right, even if others might disagree, even if a great majority might disagree, I feel that you should still act as such. I am my own moral compass. Not the law, not religion, not
fear. You guys know about the
Milgram Experiment, right? Where the scientists had an actor pretend to be electrocuted by some test subjects in ever increasing voltages and the subjects just kept doing it, even unto "lethal" voltage levels, thinking the
whole time it was real, so long as they were assured that they wouldn't be held responsible? That's the kind of thing that happens when you place your moral compass in the hands of someone or something else. When right and wrong is something someone tells you, not something that comes from within. That's why, when I think about how widespread religion is, I'm not comforted, as I suspect many of you are, but terrified. Terrified that so many people have given up their instincts and traded them in for laws and rules and codes written by men thousands of years ago, in the name of a God that no one will ever be able to prove exists. And these people will kill for this belief! Kill! Something almost universally forbidden in religion.
That's scary. Not religion.
Religion is just a chain-letter. Not Hell, or purgatory, or any of the other punishments these hacks cooked up which I supposedly have coming my way for not being a believer, but
people.
Because that's what
I believe in, that's what
I know, is people. People in all their infinite stupidity.
Comments (6)
"I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me"- John Lennon
Completely agree with you. Life shouldn't be about living it how someone else says. Then you're not really living your own life, are ya? I always said to anyone who ever asked advice... "Do what makes you happy and do what you think is best." We all know what is best for us whether we want to admit it or not and throwing that trust and well being into "someone" elses hands is rediculious.
People should believe in the power of other people and just put faith and trust in each other and in their selves and hope that it works. Life is not certain and nothing is for sure. Why act as though it is?
religion is a chain letter...fascinating. i like that analogy. and it makes total sense. i agree with the fear thing, too. if there's no fear involved, you'd just be as much of an asshole as the next person.
So, how do you determine what your moral compass is? Assuming that what you believe in dictates there to be a right and a wrong, how do you determine what is right and what is wrong?
@kimlxf - i decide what is right and wrong just as i make any other decision. i take the sum of my experiences/knowledge up until that point, combine them with what i instinctively feel to be true, and come to a conclusion.
As far as I can tell, there's nothing philosophically unsound with setting the Golden Rule as your first principle (or one of your first principles). It applies in all sorts of situations where retribution isn't involved; most people don't stop themselves from littering because they're scared that a bunch of other people will come to their house and throw shit on their lawn, for example.
Actually, if you think of the Golden Rule only in terms of fear/retribution, it's really more of an assumption about how life works in general rather than any guiding principle ("people will do to you as you do to them" vs. "you shouldn't do what you wouldn't want done to you").
None of which is to say that you actually should adopt it as your position, just that it's not a flawed one.
@icewolf34 - i don't take issue with the philosophy of the golden rule, per se, so much as i do with how people explain and practice it. your example of littering for instance, when asked why one shouldn't litter i'd fully expect the answer to be something along the lines of "well, you wouldn't like it if someone threw a bunch of trash in your front lawn, would you?" in fact, i've heard commercials saying as much.
i think, in essense, that the golden rule can/should be rephrased from something like "treat others as you wish to be treated" (which is how it's most commonly summarized, and does operate under the act of retribution) to "be the change you wish to see in the world" (which carries no such negative connotations).
thanks for taking the time to think through and comment, ben.