Posted by Jason on: 09.22.2008 /
Eight weeks ago I wrote about false assumptions and how Christians suffered in the past because of them just as atheists suffer today. Atheism doesn’t have a philosophy or principles to counter these false assumptions any more than it has a philosophy or principles to deserve them. Secular humanism does put forward a set of positive traits and promotes a world view. These are:
Ethics - A search for viable individual, social and political principles of ethical conduct, judging them on their ability to enhance human well-being and individual responsibility.
Ethics is a major branch of philosophy. I simply cannot do it credit in a brief summary and so must assume that everyone has some basic idea of what is ethical and what is not. Secular ethics are one particular branch of the larger philosophy. In short the idea of secular ethics is based on a commonality of human experience. Humans, being social animals with the same basic physical and mental processes, have similar needs and desires.
There is a commonality of ethics throughout human religion but it is clearly not bound to religion. Secular ethics are obviously not drawn from religion but are drawn from the common idea that religions enjoy. In fact the Dalai Lama said, when discussing human values like affection and compassion “We need these human values. I call these secular ethics, secular beliefs. There’s no relationship with any particular religion. Even without religion, even as nonbelievers, we have the capacity to promote these things.”
Yet some theists like to maintain that belief in gods, whether theirs or another, is a requirement for ethics and for good, moral behaviour. They claim that without heaven as a reward or hell as a punishment there can be no control on the negative actions of people. I have only one thing to say beyond the utter refutation of this: If you need to believe in God to stop you raping, murdering and stealing then I am glad that you have that belief. I do not need it because I, like most people, can act morally without regard to religion.
Beyond this basic idea that humans decide for ourselves what is ethical behaviour those who self define as secular humanists also seek to discover what actions can improve life both for themselves, for society and, by extension, the world. This could be a material improvement through sharing resources, new technology or medicine or an idea. I know it is a bit of a stereotype but we embrace the idea of science being used to make things better for ourselves. For example without agricultural techniques and machines we’d only be able to feed 1% of the current world’s population.
We also follow the very simply idea that what is good feels good to do. Helping others feels good, seeing people benefit from your aid gives us a warm glow of happiness. Doing harm to others or causing suffering feels bad so we seek to avoid it. It is a rare individual who does not have these feelings. Moreover we encourage or reinforce good behaviour in our children and peers and discourage bad behaviour if for no other reason than we want to mix with others who we can trust to help us if we ever need it.
Comment by: Joe
1I don’t accept your last paragraph. For some, causing pain to others feels ‘good’, therefore internal feelings are not a good objective measure for ethics.
The difference between a deist and a non-deist ethical code is that the deist believes that he will be held accountable for his actions in this life, whereas the atheist believes he is only really accountable to himself. It is obviously possible for a non-deist to have a strong ethical code and be internally consistent, but as humans aren’t exactly.. reliable.. that doesn’t exactly bode well.
Once a situation becomes uncomfortable, someone who has created his own ethics feels perfectly free to change them. If you believe there are eternal ethics, that is much more difficult (although obviously not impossible as we have seen throughout history).
Regarding Satanism, I think you’ll find that our friend Crowley decided that human freedom demanded breaking the laws that everyone else accepted as moral. I’m not sure if that went as far as murder, and I’m not sure I want to know.
Comment by: Jason
2Joe said:
I maintain that this is rare. The number of people who are willing to inflict harm on others can be roughly correlated to the number of crimes against people. In the UK something like half a percent of people commit crimes against 245 of the population. A fair indicator that anti social behaviour exists in a minority.
That said I must concede that emotions alone are not a good indicator of good ethics. Only that good actions are positively reinforced and make us feel good and bad actions are treated negatively and make us feel bad.
You say that a deist believes that she will be held accountable for actions in this life in the next one. A fair point but many religions also allow for forgiveness in the next life through prayer rather than action. The only way to atone for a mistake or negative action for an atheist is to perform a positive action that recompenses or reverses the other action. Prayer simply has no benefit. Far from being only accountable to ourselves we account for our actions in the greater good rather than deferring them for a divine judge. Does that make sense?
I agree. That is why we no longer view homosexuals as evil, people with more melanin pigment to be inferior to those with less, or testes to be a deciding factor in equal pay. When something doesn’t work we are free to change it. Setting moral laws in stone fails to account for changing circumstances, variety or differing view points. It’s fine to have a starting point like “avoid killing”, “don’t take from others” and “respect people as you’d expect respect” but these must be viewed as a very simplistic ethical view.
As for Crowley you must admit that the man had a very complex view. I’m no expert as I’m clearly not 14 anymore but I believe he advocated not obeying a law that you disagreed with rather than deliberately breaking a law for the sake of it. “Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law” springs to mind. If a law happens to coincide with your desires then there is no requirement to break it as you would be going against your nature. There is something to be said for developing your own ethical framework and damn what anyone else says and damn the laws that restrict you. Mohandas Gandhi promoted peaceful civil disobedience in the face of unjust laws. Break the laws that you cannot abide so that the laws are changed.
Comment by: joe
3Ah-ha, I thought we might get back to Gandhiji. Well, I might come back to that later.
Regarding your other points:
I would regard myself as a reasonable student of human nature. I’ve worked in various place (including prison), and have known a variety of people. I would not regard the tendency of people to inflict pain on others or themselves as a minority. Quite the reverse. Indeed, most people are very willing to benefit from the pain of others, even if they are aware of it.
I’d agree that many deists abuse their own moral codes by appealing to an invisible god for support of their disgusting behaviour. But that doesn’t change the fact that they have a code, something that the non-deist cannot have other than for themselves - hence one person’s code might well be entirely different to another.
Regarding the change in ethics, I was referring to personal, rather than corporate. I might have an ethic that disagrees with stealing, but if the opportunity comes up I might not hesitate to decide that this occasion warrants it. Of course, the deist might easily do the same - but at least an outside observer could point out the inconsistency.
Doing what you damn well please is not really a defendable ethical framework. And certainly not what Gandhi followed. I need to get the washing in before it starts raining…
Comment by: Jason
4Do you ever get to shock people by telling them that you’ve spent time in prison? One of my non-wife’s friends is a prison warden who uses this gag all the time.
You said
which is a good point except that I believe that it is the construction of this personal ethical framework that makes it stronger than one that is imposed by a religious text or preacher. Rather than prescribe a list of things that you cannot do we construct a set of things that it is right to do. We are self enabled to do good rather than restricted to avoid bad.
Yes, that does mean that the code will differ from person to person but we, society in the great and small, will support the general actions that we like and promote them while frowning on those that we dislike. Morals will tend to conform to a central set with some variations rather than having extremes of what people consider to be right and wrong.
Consider the option to steal. A Christian might be told that “Thou stalt not steal” and firmly believe in it. A secular humanist with a well developed ethical framework might consider stealing bad not just because of the risk of being caught and punished immediately or later but because the livelihood of the victim might be hurt. There are repercussions to theft that might well lead to greater harm than the immediate satisfaction of gaining something by theft.
That doesn’t mean that I’d not steal bread for my family if we were starving. I could justify that short term benefit over long term harm and seek to make amends when I regained the resources to feed my family again. Perhaps by donating to a charity for the hungry and poor. I’m uncertain if a deist could justify it in the same way or take the actions in some future. Perhaps prayer and divine forgiveness would suffice. I don’t know.
On Gandhi, doing what you please isn’t what he did. Doing what is right even when it is against the law is what he did and he did it peacefully. Ignoring an unjust law means putting your own ethical considerations above those of the laws of society. Frankly the laws should reflect the needs of society so I don’t see a problem with this.
Comment by: Mike O
5The way you said that, it sounds like the Christian *only* refrains from stealing because they were told not to, but the secular humanist wouldn’t steal because of their compassion for the potential victim. It’s not an either-or situation. The Christian would not steal because it would hurt the other person *AND* because we believe “thou shalt not steal.”
I can. We are often faced with choices, none of which are good. I, too, would steal for my family, not because I think stealing is OK, but because it’s worse to not put your family first. Plus, we religious folk do have forgiveness available :)
Comment by: Mike O
6Deitrich Bonnhoeffer was hanged in 1945 for his part in a plot to assassinate Adolph Hitler. A Lutheran Pastor and pacifist, when asked how he could justify assassination, is reported to have said,
How’s that for an ethical dilemma?
Comment by: Jason
7Thanks Mike, it does seem as if I’m presenting a false dichotomy of obedience through fear OR obedience through desire. Of course, both apply to a Christian or to an atheist. The key difference I think is the judgment in an afterlife. Obviously atheists reject the very idea and so need not fear it where a Christian must at least take it into consideration.
In the example of stealing to feed your starving family that I used earlier you, I think it fair to say, assume a divine being that understands your needs and forgives the indiscretion of theft. Not all interpretations are so flexible. Some assume a being of absolutes who says that you and your family should die of starvation rather than steal food to live. Mercifully such interpretations are truly rare in the 21st century.
I like your example but I don’t see it as a dilemma. Would killing him be the action that promotes the most happiness and least harm or would killing him allow for a replacement who was strategically stronger to success him. Would killing Hitler in 1944 prolong the war and ultimately cause more harm?
Are you familiar with the various rumours that Churchill’s government discouraged the assassination of Hitler in the latter part of the war for this very reason. Hitler had reached the point where his sanity was in doubt and he was ordering non-existent troops to attack. The confusion gave the allies a tactical advantage that a more capable military leader would have negated.
It’s obviously easier to look back on history and see possible outcomes than it is to sort out possible future events based on our current actions. Our well meaning actions may have disastrous consequences that we failed to foresee. Not that this should stop us from acting but we should try to consider things that could go wrong.
Part of Buddhist philosophy would be to allow the car to hit the bystanders and then to offer help. Who are they, the argument goes, to decide who lives and who dies? Perhaps wresting the wheel from the driver might cause a bus to crash. It is better to allow the chips to fall where karma allows and then make the best of the results.
There are merits to the Buddhist idea just as there are merits to the Star Trek idea of the Prime Directive of non-interference. Personally I’d interfere. The road to hell might be paved with good intentions but no-one could doubt my motives.
Oh and I call Godwin’s Law
Comment by: Seren
8Jason:
Sorry to butt in on your (very interesting) conversation, but i’m not sure you’re representing Buddhism accurately. There is a story about the captain of a ship, Compassionate Heart, who is on board when Angry Spearman comes on board and threatens to kill all 500 passengers. Compassionate Heart realises the suffering that will be caused not just to the passengers, but also to Angry Spearman (sewing the seeds of his own intense suffering aka karma), Compassionate Heart kills Angry Spearman.
Comment by: Jason
9Seren, that’s very interesting and not my understanding of Buddhist philosophy. As a non-Buddhist that’s hardly surprising.
Compassionate Heart and Angry Spearman is a parable. I can see how the Four Noble Truths could be used to justify killing but I can also see how it could justify the sacrifice of the 500. Perhaps those deaths might inspire Angry Spearman to change his path rather than suffer from his bad karma accumulated so far. Perhaps, inspired by the sacrifice, Angry Spearman might be moved to follow the eightfold path and change his wrong conduct and wrong thought to right effort.
Besides which doesn’t killing go directly against one of the five precepts of Buddhism. By killing Angry Spearman isn’t Compassionate Heart showing the 500 passengers that it is acceptable to kill. How is his karma and the karma of the 500 changed by his act. His path to Nirvana must be diverted by killing and has the added possibility of inspiring bad karma in the witnesses which diverts them from the path.
Who is Compassionate Heart to take the life of Angry Spearman? What gives him the right? Isn’t he simply inviting Angry Spearman’s brother or son to seek revenge. In isolation the parable might seem a reasonable justification for killing but I think we can quickly see how it can be seen differently.
Comment by: Seren
10Thanks for your reply, Jason. I’ll just clear up, I’m not a Buddhist, and it’s unlikely I will ever become one. However, as a lay-ethicist (which i hope describes everyone!) i find Buddhist teachings more helpful than any other old tradition. For me it lacks what feminist critique brings to the ethics table. But the practices that help one remain more present to each moment are invaluable to me in making the world a better place.
What you’ve said is completely accurate. There is no guide book to everything you will encounter in your life, and the Buddhist teaching I have received doesn’t claim to provide this. One of my faviourite teachers calls training “practice in the unexpected.” So I don’t think the point of the parable is, when you find yourself on a boat with 500 passengers and an angry spearman, kill the angry spearman. I think the point is, we have valuable standards, like harming none, but life isn’t always that straighforward.
I think your critique of Compassionate Heart’s actions is completely legitimate. In the end, we do have to make decisions without knowing every possible outcome.
Comment by: Jason
11One of the things I like when I read the Dalai Lama and he answers difficult moral questions is that he is quite happy to say that he doesn’t know the answer. He admits that the situation is difficult and that sometimes you only had bad choices available to you.
Another thing I like is his willingness to admit that he can be wrong. He’s human and makes mistakes but tries to minimize their occurrence and fix them as best he can without making things worse.
These two things are conspicuously absent from many of today’s leaders, both religious and secular. Change your mind mid course and you’re accused of flip flopping or not having the courage of your conviction. Make an unpopular choice and no-one credits you for your bravery so leaders hide and take no action to offset disaster.
When we do get a leader who is capable, who listens and isn’t afraid to change course and make hard choices we elevate them to such high status that any mistakes seem to be huge disappointments to us. That is perhaps a point about our western culture that isn’t shared as much by the East.
Comment by: Mike O
12I like this idea that there’s not always the same right answer. That makes a lot of sense to me. But it seems like a lot of times when the Bible supposedly “contradicts itself,” it’s really showing the same thing … there’s more than one right answer a lot of time. Sometimes judge. Sometimes don’t. You know, stuff like that.
Comment by: Jason
13Basically take the bits that work and ignore the rest then? Works for me.
Did you know that Koranical scholars use a system of dating the writings in the Koran to abrogate contradictions? Whatever is later is the teaching that takes precedence. It’s a shame all the peaceful stuff is at the beginning and the violence and expansionism at the end.
Do the seeming contradictions between the violence of the Old Testament and the New Testament teachings of peace and love form another case for abrogation? Is the teaching of “an eye for an eye” replaced by “turn the other cheek”? Do both still stand and the reader is left to make up their own mind about where to use them? If it is the latter then how is it different from deciding for yourself how to act?
Comment by: danielg
14>> Yet some theists like to maintain that belief in gods, whether theirs or another, is a requirement for ethics and for good, moral behavior. They claim that without heaven as a reward or hell as a punishment there can be no control on the negative actions of people.
I think this is a bit of a straw man. The reasons God is necessary for morals, from a xian philosophy point of view, are:
- we need an external source or reference
- we tend to be easily self-deceived
- while many larger ethical items seem clear, like not raping and murdering, this simplistic assumption of common principles breaks down when you start to consider things like justice (capital punishment?), the rights of the unborn, of prisoners, etc.
- the results of many actions may seem innocuous to us, but turn out to have far reaching, unseen consequences. Revealed truths help identify actions that are not immediately apparent as wrong.
- most materialists end up concluding that morals and ethics, since they can not be strictly empirically determined, are entirely subjective. Philosophically, this would be logical, but in the real world, we can not live as if morals and ethics are subjective. Assuming God and finding the revealed declarations of morality there provide an OBJECTIVE source that human empiricism can not.
Regarding heaven and hell, xian doctrine does not use these arguments to help ‘control’ people. Rather, such warnings are used to motivate and awaken people to the real dangers of a life without God.
Control is an external thing, while xianity is about internal change.
When people realize that their current life is leading to destruction, they change it, not with the ongoing fear of punishment, but with the real desire to do good after being awakened from their stupor.
Xianity demands God for ethics and morality because we believe that the human soul must, more than adopt intellectual principles, be in communion with the Holy God, who can not only change them into moral and ethical people, but enlighten them as to what is good.
This is especially important in moral gray areas, since a mature xian ethic involves acknowledgment that some, but not all moral and ethical truths are black and white. This is what Romans 14 is all about (see Navigating Moral Gray Areas).
Comment by: Mike O
15Not sure how you got there from what I wrote. I’m not talking about differences between OT and NT, or picking and choosing. I’m talking about sometimes different situations call for different responses. Like our example we’ve been using - you can’t say “it’s always right to kill the bad guy” or “it’s never right to kill the bad guy” Sometimes you just need to try to figure out what’s the right thing to do, and do that.
Tying that into what danielg said, I agree that it’s not about being forced to act a certain way by an external power, it’s about working within a frame of reference to keep ourselves from becoming self-deceived. I pretty much agree with what he said.
Comment by: Jason
16Daniel, let’s look at your reasoning:
Why cannot this external source be society at large, a philosophy or a set of tenets?
If we are easily deceived by our own opinions then belief in God is simply one more opinion that we can be deceived by.
I would argue that humanity creates rules based on good secular reasoning. The bible has some actions that we would consider barbaric in a modern society. We don’t execute prisoners of war, we don’t maim or kill those guilty of minor crimes or even major ones, we don’t enslave others, we don’t treat women as property.
Secular reasoning allows us to consider new circumstances that were alien to the Iron Age writers of the bible. Intellectual property, copyright, divorce law, gay rights, child rights, tax law, etc. The bible is pretty silent on these issues.
You’re talking about foresight and careful planning. Can you give an example where biblical law has proven to be superior to secular law? Note that I’m not disputing that the bible has some good ideas that we freely use in a secular ethical system. I see the biblical system as a starting point and not an end point though.
I disagree. Your morals are not based on the biblical writing or you would believe that the Levitical punishments for arguing with parents, wearing clothing of two materials or collecting firewood on the Sabbath would be punishable by death. Instead you pick and choose which bits to use, which bits work, and you do this in a subjective way. Even obeying your own conscience is subjective.
I respectfully disagree. Heaven and hell are the theological versions of the carrot and the stick. Far from being a motivator and warning the concepts are big sticking points for many people who want to believe.
This sounds suspiciously like a subjective awakening and not much different from the way that a secular person would apply a midpoint correction to their actions when they become aware that their course of action is likely to produce undesirable results.
Ah, now this is a concept that I can agree with. Your belief gives you the impetus to act morally. It is an added incentive to be good and act well. That’s fine, we all have our motivators. Mine is often a desire for my children to see me act honourably even when I lose materially, I want them to know that they should act well even when no-one is watching and they could’ve gotten away with it too.
That’s fine, I might see a broader spread of greys than you might. Romans 14 offers some good advice but then so does Polonius to Laertes in Hamlet Act 1 Scene 3.
I’m not denying that the bible can offer good advice. Romans 14 is a good source of advice except for calling vegetarians weak. ;)
Comment by: danielg
17>> Why cannot this external source be society at large, a philosophy or a set of tenets?
1. Because society, or if you will, rule by democracy, sets no objective standards - they will always be in flux. When the majority feel that black people should be slaves, they are. Is that right? No.
2. Who determines which philosophy or set of tenets is correct? And how. That is the question.
We are claiming that the use of human reason alone can not arrive at useful, timeless tenets because we are self-serving and limited. Revealed truth provides the assumption of a greater intelligence, uncorrupted by self-interest, and unchanging.
You may not agree, but experiments in a-religious or anti-religious systems proves the point - most notably, communism and socialism. Both well meaning, both without reference to God and only to man’s reason, both a collosal failure.
>> If we are easily deceived by our own opinions then belief in God is simply one more opinion that we can be deceived by.
It’s hard to explain because i am not a philosopher, but when it comes to morals, you can NOT rely on reason alone, but instead, on the proclamation of moral truth as self-evident, God-given, as witnessed NOT by our intellect alone, but by the nascent conscience. The founders realized that THIS is the foundation of morality, hence:
We hold these truths to be SELF-EVIDENT (as opposed to ‘reasoned’), that all men are created equal and ENDOWED BY THEIR CREATOR with certain inalienable rights.
When I claim authority, not based on my own wisdom or stature, but based on God’s proclamation, the arguments against my reasoning and person become immaterial, and we must answer with our own conscience - am I obeying the truth or not?
This very small distinction is, in practice and in philosophy, very significant, even if I am not saying it well, and even if the faithless person can not grasp it. In fact, they probably see this as the overthrow of reason, as throwing out reason for fanatacism, and they see no way to prevent the most outlandish abuses of divine fiat.
But the point is not that we discard reason, experience, or human wisdom and tradition, but that these in and of themselves are not enough, and we need truth revealed from God to survive. I explained the secondary and regulatory relationship of reason, experience, and tradition upon using scripture as our primary authority in matters of faith and morality in The Wesleyan Quadrangle.
>> The bible has some actions that we would consider barbaric in a modern society. We don’t execute prisoners of war, we don’t maim or kill those guilty of minor crimes or even major ones, we don’t enslave others, we don’t treat women as property.
You confuse the laws given specifically to Israel with global prescriptions. in general, the xian view is that, while the moral proclamations of the OT remain intact (teh sinfulness of adultery, homosexuality, disprespect for parents), the Ot punishments are not binding because they were for Israel. In fact, there are specific NT passages, including the reactions of Jesus, which support this reasoned application.
Regarding slavery, there are plenty of apologetic works explaining how slavery in the OT was, in general, not the chatel slavery of today (since ‘kidnapping’ was not permitted), but indentured servitude due to family debt (and in some cases, due to conquered peoples, which is a little harder to explain away as ‘not chatel,’ but it can be if you can stand the distinctions.)
The bible in no way treats women as property, and let’s not forget that both the suffrage and abolitionist movements grew directly out of and were fueled by Christianity, while NO other ideology, including secularism challenged either of these.
>> Secular reasoning allows us to consider new circumstances that were alien to the Iron Age writers of the bible. Intellectual property, copyright, divorce law, gay rights, child rights, tax law, etc. The bible is pretty silent on these issues.
You are under the assumption that human nature is somehow more advanced, and that general principles of morality do not apply across time, or that somehow our modern situations somehow can not be navigated using timeless principles elucidated before the modern age.
- Intellectual property and copyright? Can be managed similarly to regular property with some modern distinctions. This has no relevance on the ability of the bible to declare timeless moral truths and principles for human living, as well as civil government.
- Divorce law? I’d say that Jesus’ and Paul’s declarations regarding marriage and divorce are as cogent as ever. No fault divorce may have released some women from abusive marriages (which both Jesus and Paul allowed for escape from), but it also made the dissolution of families with children really easy, and our culture has paid a high price for our ignorance of biblical wisdom.
- Child rights - how has the bible undermined or ignored the rights of children?
- Tax law - actually, there are entire texts on Biblical economics
The fact that the bible doesn’t give us the nth detail on every decision we must make is a red herring - it gives TIMELESS PRINCIPLES which must be applied to various situations.
So we use reason, but the difference is that secular reasoning is based upon subjective assumptions rather than objective ones from an authoritative, revealed source.
I argue that secular reasoning leads to the atrocities of history because we are corrupted by self-interest and selfishness. This is why we have the aphorism “Ultimate power corrupts ultimately.” This does not just apply to individuals, but to mankind himself - leave him without a higher authority, and the state becomes such, and we end up with atheistic schemes like Marxism. There is nowhere else to go - the secular state that protects religion is a myth that can only be propped up by religious ideas, because eventually, secularism, wed with the logically unavoidable materialism, ends up suppressing and criminalizing religion. Every time.
>> Can you give an example where biblical law has proven to be superior to secular law? I see the biblical system as a starting point
I do too, but the secularist does NOT see it as a starting point, or foundation, but rather, relies on human REASON as the starting point, which is the mistake. For an example of human reason v. biblical, welfare and the european welfare state is an example of the seculare reasoning that contradicts biblical principles.
But you can read about various biblical world view prinicples, and compare them to what you think of as the secular model by reading these:
The Problem With the European Welfare State
Is applying a biblical worldview to public policy theocratic?
Separation of Church and State on NPR
The Five Functions of Civil Government
Presenting A Thorough, Intellectually Appealing Biblical View Of Government
The Five Spheres of Government
Comment by: danielg
18spam filter probably caught my lengthy answer. hope they publish it
Comment by: Ir (Helen)
19Hi Daniel, thanks for mentioning your comment was missing - I found it in the spam catcher.
Comment by: Jason
20No, slavery is wrong. When Lincoln freed the slaves did he go against the bible or with it? There are many examples in both the Old and New Testaments (less in the new) where slavery is assumed and supported. If the standards are in flux then I am glad that they have improved to free my fellow human being.
Sometimes we really are that bad and sometimes we prove to be excellent. Freeing the slaves is one example, suffrage for working men and later women is another. It isn’t a perfect system but when we humans really make an effort to live ethically we can make a huge difference to people’s lives.
I appreciate your viewpoint but how can you test the validity of revealed truth? Is the Torah revealed truth? The Koran? The New Testament? The Bhagravat Gita? The Tipitaka? Each group has a revealed work that expresses how best to act in life. Where they conflict we typically end up with human conflict as well.
Another experiment is democracy, another republicanism. Any form of society is an experiment. If you want a society that adheres strictly to a religious book then Sharia law is your example.
Actually I think that we can rely on reason. We cannot rely on emotion though.
Exactly. If I can do this then so can anyone. Is the Law “Thou Shalt not Kill” for the Jews to follow or for everyone to follow? I’d assume it’s for everyone but I’ve been told it is only for the Jews which is why God ordered the slaughter of thousands later in the OT.