There have been several threads lately which I've found to be very interesting dealing with what could loosely be called "morality." This has lead me to think about how morality, law, and manners are intertwined - it seems to me that "manners" forms the base, "morals" can be derived from good manners, and then codified as law. It isn't that simple, but this gives you a rough idea.
The abstract problem I've been thinking about is this - is there some kind of base line set of manners (polite behavior) from which a system of morality and law could be derived?
For example, there is the famous "golden rule," which states, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
I don't like this as the basis for a system because it puts the entire burden of good manners on an individual, while completely ignoring the fact that context - surrounding events and conditions - change things. Somebody who adheres strictly to this rule would not be able to act in self-defense, for example, if attacked, because the rule tells one that, if you do not want to be struck, you cannot strike anyone else.
I would prefer "the golden rule" to be phrased like this: Respect others, and expect others to respect you. This seems to me to be more balanced because the responsibility for actions is put on the heads of everybody who interacts, and allows context to be taken into account when acting.
What do you think? Is there a way to begin at square one and create a civil society based on one or two simple, underlying ideas? If so, what would you suggest those ideas should be?
The abstract problem I've been thinking about is this - is there some kind of base line set of manners (polite behavior) from which a system of morality and law could be derived?
For example, there is the famous "golden rule," which states, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
I don't like this as the basis for a system because it puts the entire burden of good manners on an individual, while completely ignoring the fact that context - surrounding events and conditions - change things. Somebody who adheres strictly to this rule would not be able to act in self-defense, for example, if attacked, because the rule tells one that, if you do not want to be struck, you cannot strike anyone else.
I would prefer "the golden rule" to be phrased like this: Respect others, and expect others to respect you. This seems to me to be more balanced because the responsibility for actions is put on the heads of everybody who interacts, and allows context to be taken into account when acting.
What do you think? Is there a way to begin at square one and create a civil society based on one or two simple, underlying ideas? If so, what would you suggest those ideas should be?
Comment