Without a higher power, and God is a higher power, the Meta-Golden Rule could not function.

if at some point you have power over EVERYTHING, then what decides whether what you do is just or not, except yourself?

The Meta-Golden Rule says that justice is composed of a step amongst a hierarchy of power and strength. Justice is treating people weaker than you are, by what they deserve, and justice is those with power treating those without as much power as those weaker individuals treated people even weaker than they.

Thus if Palestinians say Jews have sinned against them with bombs and technological prowess, then what have the Palestinians done to those weaker than they, the women and children of Israel and Palestine, that makes them deserve being treated better by the Israeli air force? The Israeli Air Force should find the largest concentration HIzbollah and Hamas paraders and bomb them with napalm, white phosphorous that burns through their bones, and huge scatter mines. That’s what Palestinians have done to Jews, when the situation was reversed. When Palestinians had more power than Jews.

If there is no God, no higher power, then at some point you can say that you can further justice by becoming the most powerful being in the universe. Because then you will be able to define justice, since you won’t have to fear or consider the consequences of what those more powerful than you will do to you.

That, obviously being wrong, must also mean God exists. Cause if he doesn’t exist, if no higher power exists, if human beings can become that higher power, then ethics does not exist either.

That looks like a very readable translation of Aristotle…could you be kind enough to post the specifics on the source? I’d appreciate it….!

Now I will state that I am way over my head here, but here’s my problem with defining a moral or ethical system without recognizing a Supreme moral arbiter.

From the doctrine of nature and properties of virtues it is abundantly clear how important a role they play in man’s true and real perfection. In the economy of Divine Providence all creatures by the exercise of their proper activity must tend to that end destined for them by the wisdom of an infinite intelligence. But as Divine Wisdom governs creatures conformably to their nature, man must tend to his destined end, not by blind instance, but by the exercise of reason and free will. But as these faculties, as well as the faculties subject to them, may be exercised for the faculties subject to them, may be exercised for good or evil, the proper functions of the virtues is to dispose these various psychical activities to acts conductive to man’s true ultimate end, just as the part which vice plays in man’s rational life is to make him swerve from his final destiny. If, then, the excellence of a thing is to be measured by the end for which it is destined, without doubt among man’s highest principles of action which play so important a part in his rational, spiritual, supernatural life, and which in the truest sense of the word are justly called virtues.

At the core, I believe, is whether man is distinct from other animals. We cringe when the weak or aging are culled from packs in the animal kingdom, but recognize they are acting “conformably to their nature.”

But we act with free will and sometimes reason for ends that are good or evil. But if we are merely animals with more developed brains, why should we concern ourselves with abstract principals such as good or evil?

These evils, however, are due to a very different cause—the wickedness of human nature.

Aristotle recognized a fundamental flaw in human character, but I’m sure those engaging in those acts he deemed “evil” would have disagreed. They were merely acting in their self interest. If Aristotle had only reason to convince those committing evil of their evilness, he would have certainly failed. His appeal must be to another “reasonable” group to force conformity. Both groups claim virtue. In the end, power, whether applied ruthlessly or not, is the only path to conformity.

Was Aristotle appealing to an innate sense of virtue? Where did this innate sense come from? I would say God.

I did misstate my assertion that I would have to love Atkins to overcome my hate—to prevent bitterness. Forgiveness is an act of love. But I do not think one can be forgiven without an ackowledgement of the wrong committed. This ‘repentance’ by the aggressor and forgiveness by the victim (or victims family) is a form of personal justice. (This does not absolve society from its obligation for justice.) In this case, Atkins has shown no remorse, making it even harder to forgive her (which I don’t think is possible since forgiveness is a mutual act), so at best I must overlook the offense. Here’s where societies obligation is at it’s greatest- to prevent the loss of the sense of justice.
I think we are seeing a crumbling society due to our perverted sense justice.

So good job to BrianE for making use of it in his own work.

Since what I spoke of came partially from Aristotle, I’ll let him carry the torch further.

* The young have exalted notions, because they have not been humbled by life or learned its necessary limitations; moreover, their hopeful disposition makes them think themselves equal to great things—and that means having exalted notions. They would always rather do noble deeds than useful ones: Their lives are regulated more by moral feeling than by reasoning…. All their mistakes are in the direction of doing things excessively and vehemently. They overdo everything; they love too much, hate too much, and the same with everything else. (II.1389a31)

In our society, with the focus on eternal youth and on how much wiser the “children” are, it is not too surprising that this kind of behavior is much more present here than it ever was in Ancient Athens.

Men … are easily induced to believe that in some wonderful manner everybody will become everybody’s friend, especially when some one is heard denouncing the evils now existing in states, suits about contracts, convictions for perjury, flatteries of rich men and the like, which are said to arise out of the possession of private property. These evils, however, are due to a very different cause—the wickedness of human nature. (II.1263b15)

Human nature has been the same ever since the dawn of humanity. And if you aren’t convinced, then realize that this piece was written many thousands of years ago, even if it was translated relatively recently.

# Any one can get angry — that is easy — or give or spend money; but to do this to the right person, to the right extent, at the right time, with the right motive, and in the right way, that is not for every one, nor is it easy.

Helen likes to say that equality is the goal. Not as easy as she makes it out to be, for the very virtue of “equality” isn’t even equally distributed amongst the population.

Last time I checked, not even God could redistribute virtues from the virtuous to the sinful that need them.

* Different men seek after happiness in different ways and by different means, and so make for themselves different modes of life and forms of government.

* Dignity does not consist in possessing honors, but in deserving them.

Equality should not mean “you have one path in life and one path to happiness and this is it”. To die with dignity is not to be provided with comforts and honors, like release from prison, from others.

* Humor is the only test of gravity, and gravity of humor; for a subject which will not bear raillery is suspicious, and a jest which will not bear serious examination is false wit.

Which supports my contention that jokes exploit an underlying perception of an unspoken truth. Most other people would say that you are spoiling things by analyzing jokes and looking deep. I say that they are superficial in matters of philosophy and life.

Suffering becomes beautiful when anyone bears great calamities with cheerfulness, not through insensibility but through greatness of mind.

Tony Snow

Wicked men obey from fear; good men, from love.

Concerning why citizens obey laws in a democratic republic as opposed to the People’s Republic of North Korea.

The corollary is also that wicked men force others to obey from fear as well.

Youth is easily deceived because it is quick to hope.

Obama.

The greatest crimes are not those committed for the sake of necessity but those committed for the sake of superfluity. One does not become a tyrant to avoid exposure to the cold.

Meaning, basic security and liberty are not the goals which promote extreme actions. The greatest crimes are committed for the “greater good”. That of equality, fraternity, utopia, or what not. Master Race and all that. Islamic Caliphate and all that.

Something that is not necessary to the human condition, that is what inspires real evil and crime.

* After these matters we ought perhaps next to discuss pleasure. For it is thought to be most intimately connected with our human nature, which is the reason why in educating the young we steer them by the rudders of pleasure and pain; it is thought, too, that to enjoy the things we ought and to hate the things we ought has the greatest bearing on virtue of character. For these things extend right through life, with a weight and power of their own in respect both to virtue and to the happy life, since men choose what is pleasant and avoid what is painful; and such things, it will be thought, we should least of all omit to discuss, especially since they admit of much dispute. (X.1172a17)

* And happiness is thought to depend on leisure; for we are busy that we may have leisure, and make war that we may live in peace. (X.1177b4)

This was the particular section of the Nicomachean Ethics, precursor to Aristotle’s Virtue Theory (an Ethical theory) that demands that virtuous men and women hate what they ought to hate and love what they ought to love. Not in excess or by whim or even by law, but according to virtue.

I do not source my ethics from the Bible or any other Revealed Truth text. Which is why it doesn’t take much attribution or textual citations for me to justify saying that you should not love a murderer of innocents.

I would disagree that love and hate are at the end of some emotional continuum. But to not love someone is not to hate them.
I think Helen is right that un-love is indifference, but the reality is that indifference requires action– to not care, and so does love require action. In fact, love is only proven through action.

The Bible tells us of many things that God hates.

Proverbs chapter 6 gives us 7 things that God hates:
haughty eyes (false pride)
a lying tongue
hands that kill the innocent
a heart that plots evil
feet that race to do wrong
a false witness that pours out lies
a person who sows discord among brothers

Later in Proverbs it says he hates cheating, those that don’t keep their word, and hates the sacrifice of the wicked (hypocrisy). There are more, but you get the idea.

I think everyone that reads this, including those that don’t believe that God exists, would agree these are good things to hate.

So we can hate these things and I don’t think our lives will suffer for it, in fact, our lives suffer when we don’t despise these things.

Taking this literally, I should hate Sharon Atkins– since there is no doubt that she took innocent life. But I don’t hate her, though I certainly do hate murder.

Which is where Y’s observation fills in a blank. If I had known Sharon Tate or the others that were murdered– if I had loved them, then I would most certainly have hated Sharon Atikins. I would have wanted her to repent, of course, just before they flipped the switch. (Now we regularly see examples of families forgiving those that have murdered loved ones, and I would like to think I would come to that position, but who knows until faced with that decision).
So my natural inclination would be to hate her, because of what she had done to someone I loved. Now I would have to work to prevent that emotional hate from turning into bitterness– which is very destructive. But hating a murderer (as a principal) is important to insure justice.
So I need to love her (forgive her)– which will counteract my emotional hate. But the kind of love here is not emotional; in fact, it would take a very large act of my will to do that. I maintain, and I think the bible backs me up, that “love is not a feeling, it’s an act of the will”. So how do I act out love?

A famous passage in the New Testament sets the standards– I Corinthians 13.
Love is:
patient
kind
not jealous or boastful
proud or rude
does not demand its own way (selfish)
not irritable
keeps no record of being wronged
never glad about injustice
always faithful
always hopeful
and endures through every hardship.

Oh, and another passage says we should do good to those that spitefully use us, and love our enemies and pray for them. How could anyone possibly love another person if these are the standards? A Christian would say only with God’s help, but that’s another topic.

How should I react to supporters of Atkins asking her to be released, only months before she will probably die anyway?

If I say no to the request am I being unkind? We agree that we should hate hands that take innocent life. At least I think we agree. But the bible also says that love is never glad about injustice. So who should I demonstrate this love to, Susan Atkins or the family of Sharon Tate?
As much as I might think myself compassionate and a really kind person, it appears that I wouldn’t– because that very act of “kindness” would be causing injustice. So to love the Tate family, I must resist my own need to feel compassionate. In fact, I have an obligation to.

I am and have been responding to helen’s comments. Do not assume I am continuing to refer to your comments when you have made no reply to my own comment about yours.

I’m not talking about things for the good of your soul

What else, pray tell, do you think is this obvious? Look at comment 4 on this thread for the genesis story. If you want to have an argument with helen about how you didn’t mean the soul, then go right ahead, but it has nothing to do with me.

I’m telling you, from experience, that you will suffer personally if you hold on to this sort of anger.

There is no “anger” that exists because of a stranger’s actions that had no direct effect on my own life. What you see as a reaction, which you label superficially as “anger” is called justified intolerance of injustice and evil.

Maybe if you had a person grudge with someone, you may be warranted to counsel them to calm down or let it go. But no virtuous man or woman would ever want to let go of the egalitarian distaste, disgust, and disapproval that exists whenever injustice is seen to exist.

There is an insane leftist bent on emotional catharsis as providing both punishment and redemption instead of the true punishment of repaying a debt to society in a jail cell.

This is from Wolf Howling.
I think I detect this in the attitude of some here.