Is there an ethic center with almost universal acceptance?.

[Thats my opinion]

Every major religious perspective and a variety of non-religious philosophic traditions, have at their ethical centers something very similar to what Christians call “the golden rule.” “Do to others what you would have others do to you”
This maxim lies at the heart of Christian faith. Some other examples:
• Brahmanism –“Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.”
• Buddhism—“Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.”
• Confucianism—“Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you.”
• Hinduism—“Do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you.”
• Islam—“None of you truly believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”
• Judaism—“Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.”
• Sikhism—“No one is my enemy, none a stranger, and everyone is my friend.”
• Sufism—“The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others.”
• Plato—“May I do to others as I would that they should do to me,”
Kant—“Act as if the maxim of thy actions were to become by they will a universal law of nature.”

A similar list might be generated with other principle ethical imperatives which run throughout both religious and secular history: Peace, justice, the care of the left-out, hospitality to the stranger, universal respect, compassion for the poor, widows and orphans, violence used as a last resort, if at all—and more.

I would be interesting in hearing of similar examples from other non-religious traditions.
Ayn Rand’s “Objectivism” is probably at the opposite ethical extreme.
If we are to take values seriously, we must struggle with the question of what makes for human good, in both personal and societal manifestations. Somehow our noblest political motivations ought at least to be in touch with these ethical presuppositions.

[Kennah]

1. K&R!

Randianism preaches, "If you can get away with it, then it is good."

[saras]

2. This isn't universal acceptance AT ALL. It's a collection of religious elites.

If you want ethics with "universal" acceptance, then you need to look at the majority of the people, not the elites.

[Thats my opinion]

4. Oh?

Since most people do not believe in evolution or quantum mechanics, does that imply that neither have a right to call themselves at the heart of the modern scientific tradition? I don't recall Jesus taking a democratic vote on whether we should love our enemies.

[darkstar3]

6. "Most people don't believe in evolution"?

That may be very close to true in the USA, where ass-backwards is the rule, but we actually rank pretty damn low on the scale of countries wrt that measure.

http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2006/08/14/science/sciencespecial2/20050815_EVO_GRAPHIC.html

[dmallind]

10. It's not very close to true - it is embarrassingly, unquestionably, completely true

Your own cite proves that. Not sure what your point is here.

[darkstar3]

12. That graph

shows that just barely over 50% of people in the US believe that evolution is fact. Meanwhile, we're at the bottom of that list of countries wrt acceptance of evolution. My point is that "most people", when you incorporate the world and not the 4% of the global population that lives in the USA, actually DO accept evolution.

[dmallind]

13. That graph also includes "god-guided" change in species AND "not sures"

That's not evolution as even a 7th grade scientific literacy would understand it.

[darkstar3]

14. Now there's a disgusting loophole in the question shown at the top.

I still maintain that acceptance of evolution, and not some wishy-washy-ID-crap, worldwide is greater than 50%.

BTW: This is the graph I was looking for originally, which I do not think allows for the ID BS.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/bigphotos/21329204.html

[dmallind]

15. Try the raw data - 14% only fully accept evolution

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2006/08/08/313.5788.765.DC1/Miller.SOM.pdf

[darkstar3]

17. Page 9.

"Human beings were created by God as whole persons and did not evolve from earlier forms of life."
36% of respondents answered false.

"Human beings, as we know them today, developed from earlier species of animals."
40% of respondents answered true.

Assuming full overlap between that 36% and that 40%, that means that 36% accept scientific evolution. I can't find the 14% figure that you suggest here anywhere in the document you've linked. Furthermore, this data is interesting because it shows that, while 62% of respondents will state flatly that God created man in his current form, only 39% of respondents will actively deny that evolution took place. This shows that the phrasing of the question is just as important as the question itself. If you frame it religiously, you'll get a higher response in favor of religious backed answers, which may show conditioning at work.

And again, piss all you want on the ass-backwards nature of scientific acceptance in the US, evolution is accepted as fact by a world-wide majority.

[dmallind]

22. fig s1 pg 10. And I said fuck all about the world. The US is the problem0. nt

[Jim__]

16. It's the same chart. Check the source. - n/t

[darkstar3]

18. Except the data doesn't match.

One says 50% of Americans accept evolution, the other says 40%. That may be a problem with graphic portrayal, but the second chart is certainly clearer.

[NMMNG]

3. It's called the Ethic of Reciprocity

As you noted, it's universal and transcends religion. So whenever a Christian asks an atheist or other non-Christian how they can possibly be moral without Jesus, the Ethic of Reciprocity is a concise, simple answer. (It's also more polite than "don't be a douchebag") What I find most amusing (and frustrating) is that so many Christians think it's exclusive to their faith. Then again, they think morality and lots of other things are exclusive to Christianity so...

[Thats my opinion]

5. Right on

And they have missed what is at the core of all spirituality (not to be confused with spiritualism) No religion or secular point of view has an exclusive claim on ethical absolutes. That is what this post is all about.

[dmallind]

11. Ok but trying to tie this even non-exclusively to religion

..is like trying to connect it to blonds and non-blonds. Sure it does apply to both, but the distinction is entirely meaningless. Religion and hair color are equally useful as categories of humanity to whom this relates.

[pokerfan]

7. always liked this poster...

[Thats my opinion]

8. Thanks. I hadn't seen this one nt

[rrneck]

9. If the Ethic of Reciprocity

transcends religion, why is Religion necessary?

[Iggo]

20. It isn't.

[laconicsax]

23. DING! DING! DING! We have a winner!

That's the question that has yet to be answered.

[digonswine]

19. This seems to say that--

all people, regardless of religious affiliation, feel the same way about this topic. This just goes to show that religion and ethics are not intertwined to any degree. WE ALL AGREE-don't fuck others because I may, in turn, be fucked myself. This is not even a decent way of thinking of things. I am not to screw over other, because the same could happen to me? Selfishness-pure and simple. How about-"I will not do to others things that are wrong because hurting others causes them pain or trauma?" I don't need some accepted truism to make me do good. I do not NOT screw people over because I fear the same done to me. That is disgusting.

[digonswine]

21. You might not hear the non-religious examples-

tons of people actually live their lives this way. They believe nothing-god-wise. To think there would be an atheist list of comparative quotes is beyond ridicule. The reason that you cannot find it, is that the reason the nonbelievers choose to do good is not professed and is not trumpeted and is not preached as doctrine. We don't need this B.S. I don't need to love my neighbor as myself--I just feel like a hypocritical dick if I do things that contradict my idea of how I should treat others. "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you?" If this is all you got--you got nothing. This is selfish and intellectually offensive.

[LeftishBrit]

24. Yes, secular humanists hold to this principle too

http://www.thinkhumanism.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=59&Itemid=69


'Humanists try to embrace the moral principle known as the ‘Golden Rule’, otherwise known as the ethic of reciprocity, which means we believe that people should aim to treat each other as they would like to be treated themselves – with tolerance, consideration and compassion.

Humanists like the Golden Rule because of its universality, because it is derived from human feelings and experience and because it requires people to think about others and try to imagine how they might think and feel. It is a simple and clear default position for moral decision-making.

Sometimes people argue that the Golden Rule is imperfect because it makes the assumption that everyone has the same tastes and opinions and wants to be treated the same in every situation. But the Golden Rule is a general moral principle, not a hard and fast rule to be applied to every detail of life. Treating other people as we would wish to be treated ourselves does not mean making the assumption that others feel exactly as we do about everything. The treatment we all want is recognition that we are individuals, each with our own opinions and feelings and for these opinions and feelings to be afforded respect and consideration. The Golden Rule is not an injunction to impose one’s will on someone else!

Trying to live according to the Golden Rule means trying to empathise with other people, including those who may be very different from us. Empathy is at the root of kindness, compassion, understanding and respect – qualities that we all appreciate being shown, whoever we are, whatever we think and wherever we come from. And although it isn’t possible to know what it really feels like to be a different person or live in different circumstances and have different life experiences, it isn’t difficult for most of us to imagine what would cause us suffering and to try to avoid causing suffering to others. For this reason many people find the Golden Rule’s corollary – “do not treat people in a way you would not wish to be treated yourself” – more pragmatic.'

[skepticscott]

25. So what is the basis for your previous statement

"None of us would want to live in a society without some sort of an ethical sensitivity based on solid religious faith"?

If, as you claim, the most important principle of Christianity and all of the other major religions can be just as readily arrived at by non-religious means, why is religion vital or even necessary? What core ethical principles are discoverable ONLY through religion?

[trotsky]

26. I would love to see an answer for that.

I doubt we ever will, though.

[skepticscott]

27. A similar question was posed on a previous thread

and dodged, as usual. No doubt this one will be dismissed as a "personal attack" by a "hater of religion" and never given the answer it deserves, either.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[darkstar3]

29. A tone argument combined with a (false) persecution claimed designed to avoid answering the question

[cleanhippie]

30. So, IOW, you choose to dodge the question. AGAIN!

[laconicsax]

31. Ah, I see... The final answer is a refusal to answer.

Your insult stands.

[skepticscott]

32. Here's the question again

What core ethical principles (if any) are discoverable ONLY through religion?

This goes to the heart of what you've posted here, and its significance. It is a simple, straightforward question. It doesn't call you nasty names or question your parentage.

If you can't answer it, just say so, for Sagan's sake. But please don't weary our ears with your usual dodges and expect them to fly. Rational people see the many flaws and contradictions in your statements, whether you admit that to yourself or not. You're free to scamper away and say nothing, but those flaws and contradictions will stand exposed.

And please don't pretend that you "dealt with" anything "once and for all". No one here is going away, and you won't find yourself getting a free pass just because you choose to ignore legitimate criticisms of what you post.

[skepticscott]

33. You still haven't answered

If, as you claim, the most important principle of Christianity and all of the other major religions can be just as readily arrived at by non-religious means, why is religion vital or even necessary? What core ethical principles are discoverable ONLY through religion?