In your comments on the first 3 commandments, you claim a conflict between them & the US constitution. I disagree - they come from entirely different spheres & serve quite different purposes. There is no need for them to align & it shouldn't be expected.
To compete as a meme, any religion is likely to have strictures similar to the first 3 commandments. Conversely a liberal democracy maintains a separation of state & religion & should be much more tolerant of other beliefs. It would damage the state to align the constitution with the strictures of any particualar religion. And it would not be in a religion's self-interest(!) to allow the tolerance of competing views that works for a liberal democracy.
This comment "But “commanding” honor—much less love—doesn’t ring true to me as a parent, since such sentiments usually come naturally anyway. Plus, commanding honor is an oxymoron, made all the worse by the hint of a reward for so doing" is the one that might ring true to most Americans, but in reality is probably one of our greatest weaknesses.
Who would waste their lives snorting coke and doing fentanyl if they were terrified of their parents? Quite few. It's the cultural lack of a command to bow to parental authority that has empowered the culturally destructive ass clownery of the past 55 years. We won't survive it.
It's great if love is freely given, but for the health of society, it's better to be feared if one cannot be freely loved. asian and African cultures seem to understand this better than westerners. I think this is one of the things Tocqueville was wrong about.
All in all, I would recommend Schermer consult with Hebrew scholars about broader meanings of these words than he is assuming through the English translations.
I like the attempt to approach it rationally, and I love that he has the right to do so.
Also, "jealousy" is a difficult word to translate between languages, even French and Italian you have different connotations, it historically was just applying to eros in French. Like all emotions, jealousy is neither good nor bad, it is what you do with it
You might not care, but some Jews hate to see the name of God written out. Christians have been chided for being insensitive in this matter, just so you know.
Michael, this is an excellent essay. We’ve made a lot of moral progress since the Ten Commandments was promulgated.
“The last part of this commandment—visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me—violates the most fundamental principle of Western jurisprudence developed over centuries of legal precedence that one can be only be guilty of one’s own sins and not the sins of one’s parents, grandparents, great grandparents, or anyone else for that matter.”
GW: According to the Adam and Eve story, God punished all human descendants for the sins of Adam and Eve. Does God consider the descendants guilty before they ever do anything wrong? The author of Genesis thinks so.
“IV. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”
GW: A recent decision by the SCOTUS forces employers to honor an employee’s religious belief to not work on Sunday because he is a Christian.
“VI. Thou shalt not kill.”
GW: Here is a reasonable substitute:
“Any person X should not kill another person Y, unless
1. Defense: X must kill Y because this killing is necessary for X to prevent death or serious harm to X or to person Z who is endangered by Y.
2. Collateral Damage or Hostage Situation: X must kill Z who is an innocent bystander because this killing is necessary for X to prevent death or serious harm to at least two innocent persons endangered by Y, and Z happens to be “in the way.”
3. Mercy Killing: X is authorized to kill Y by either Y or Y’s medical surrogate, given prior written informed consent, because
a. Y has been in a coma or similar brain state for more than a year and the probability of recovery is very low which has been determined by Y’s unresponsiveness, Y’s lack of covert consciousness, and examination and agreement by at least two neurologists.
b. Y is very probably going to die within three months anyway.
c. Y has intractable suffering which has lasted more than six months and the probability of reversing it is very low.
d. Y exceeds the age of 90.
4. Rare Justice: X must kill Y because Y has killed or done serious harm to Z and the usual ethical procedures of arrest, indictment, trial, conviction, and incarceration are impossible or very impractical in this particular case.
“Coming from a deity who impregnated somebody else’s fiancé, that’s a bit rich.”
GW: I think the deity raped the woman. I wrote an essay supporting this hypothesis and it was rejected for publication (not by Skeptic).
“VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
GW: This is a correct moral rule if the couple has contracted to be monogamous. Adultery has become too common and excused in our society. The failure to enforce the rule against adultery harms women more than men.
“IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
GW: This rule needs to be qualified, as follows:
“Any person X should not lie to any other person Y, except when it is necessary to protect X or a third party Z from serious injury or death.”
"we've made a lot of moral progress since the 10 commandments"... No, we haaaave nooot. I mean, maybe we did in the past, but we've lost it all and are way behind where they stood.
Your claim is false. I'll just give just two examples. In the US and Europe, gay marriage was considered to be immoral, and now it is not. In the US and Europe, slavery was considered to be moral, and not it is not. There are still some people in these geographical areas who oppose gay marriage or practice slavery, but they are the exception, not the rule.
One win for gay marriage, yay, but we are taking L's on increasing homicides, drug use, child abuse and neglect, divorce, infidelity, corruption, neglect of elderly, euthanasia without consent, treatment of the mentally ill, empowerment and protection of women, civic responsibility, financial stewardship and proper ethical formation of children. We also have worsening manners. Israelites would have been appalled by the modern US and Europe and would have been utterly justified in their contempt.
I think you are missing some important points. First, since the times of the Ten Commandments' societies we have made moral progress in revising moral theory and moral rules. Secondly, overall humankind has made great progress in behaving more ethically. Yes, there are ups and downs, and right now we are in a slump, but overall the trend has been upward. For evidence of progress. read these books:
The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, by Steven Pinker
Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, also by Pinker
The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People, by Michael Shermer
Gay marriage is a regressive idea, not a progressive one. The progressive idea would be to get the government out of people's bedrooms and stop having any such thing as a registered relationship. Gay marriage is just as reactionary as straight marriage.
Personal relationships should not be any of the government's business.
Slavery had it's good points. One, unfortunately restricted to the sons of the rich, was the custom of giving 14 year old boys their very own slave girl as a birthday present. This was a wonderful custom that helped the boy develop the proper atitude to carry into future relationships.
Today, in the modern world, it should be revived with government subsidies so every boy, not only those from rich families, could own his very own slave girl.
This would prevent a lot of social and psychological problems in the future.
GT: Gay marriage is a regressive idea, not a progressive one.
GW: I think you misunderstood me. Allowing gay marriage is a progressive idea, especially when it had been previously banned.
GT: The progressive idea would be to get the government out of people's bedrooms and stop having any such thing as a registered relationship.
GW: Registered? That is an odd adjective to apply to a relationship. Gay relationships or marriages became LEGAL, and that was moral progress.
GT: Gay marriage is just as reactionary as straight marriage.
GW: Nonsense.
GT: Personal relationships should not be any of the government's business.
GW: I disagree. It should be the government’s business to prevent adults from having sex with children!
GT: Slavery had it's good points.
GW: You sound like Ron DeSactimonious. Slavery was good for the master, but not for the slave. It was an immoral practice, still is.
GT: One, unfortunately restricted to the sons of the rich, was the custom of giving 14 year old boys their very own slave girl as a birthday present. This was a wonderful custom that helped the boy develop the proper atitude to carry into future relationships.
GW: Wonderful? That was an immoral practice.
GT: Today, in the modern world, it should be revived with government subsidies so every boy, not only those from rich families, could own his very own slave girl. This would prevent a lot of social and psychological problems in the future.
GW: Either you are kidding or you are bonkers or you are immoral. Which is it?
Gay marriage is not progressive. The progressive position is that personal relationships are private and there should be no need to register them with a government entity. The progressive position on gay marrige is the same as that on normal marriage: A relationship is legal if there is no law against it. Gay relationships were not illegal. Sex between consenting adults was already legal. The gay marriage movement was about granting it the status of normal marriage, not about making it legal.
Preventing adults from having sex with ''children'' is a red herring, not a real issue. It has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. But while we are on the subject, since you brought it up, anyone past puberty is sexually an adult by the laws of nature, and no human legislature can change that. A teen-aged prostitute is an adult. A government deciding to call her a ''child'' does not make it so. People like Roman Polanski are victims of neo-Christian moralism. Adults sexually attracted to actual children, those not yet having reached puberty, are vanishingly rare, but the statistics are inflated by the neo-Christian custom of calling anyone under 18 a ''child'', which is not factually correct.
As for having the government give every teen-aged boy a slave girl, I admit that is a socialist idea, but I see no reason to discard it on that grounds. Why are you opposed to it? Most boys would appreciate it.
GT: Gay marriage is not progressive. The progressive position is that personal relationships are private and there should be no need to register them with a government entity. The progressive position on gay marrige is the same as that on normal marriage: A relationship is legal if there is no law against it. Gay relationships were not illegal. Sex between consenting adults was already legal. The gay marriage movement was about granting it the status of normal marriage, not about making it legal.
GW: I already refuted this position of yours. No need to repeat myself.
GT: Preventing adults from having sex with ''children'' is a red herring, not a real issue. It has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
GW: No, it is not a red herring and it is a reply to your claim that the government should stay out of the bedroom. The government should prohibit and regulate some behavior in the bedroom. So you are mistaken.
GT: But while we are on the subject, since you brought it up, anyone past puberty is sexually an adult by the laws of nature, and no human legislature can change that.
GW: False. Nature doesn’t decide the laws of society. People do.
GT: A teen-aged prostitute is an adult.
GW: Only if the teenager is 18 or 19.
GT: A government deciding to call her a ''child'' does not make it so.
GW: It does make it so. You calling her an adult doesn’t make it so.
GT: People like Roman Polanski are victims of neo-Christian moralism.
GW: People like Roman Polanski engaged in immoral and illegal behavior.
GT: Adults sexually attracted to actual children, those not yet having reached puberty, are vanishingly rare, but the statistics are inflated by the neo-Christian custom of calling anyone under 18 a ''child'', which is not factually correct.
GW: A person under 18 is a child. This is a fact, whether you like it or not.
GT: As for having the government give every teen-aged boy a slave girl, I admit that is a socialist idea, but I see no reason to discard it on that grounds. Why are you opposed to it? Most boys would appreciate it.
GW: Slavery is always wrong. Your moral code is wrong in several ways and needs to be replaced. You need some moral progress.
I like what I've heard from Dennis Prager interpreting the Decalogue. It had occurred to me, but I later heard Prager interpret how the Decalogue reduces to different kinds of stealing. Prager also interpreted the Hebrew for 'covet' as wanting not just things comparable to what one's neighbor has, but the neighbor's belongings. That is a desire to steal, which conception seems the inception of stealing.
Article 7, the one against stealing, needs some work. There are plenty of situations in which stealing is rational and should be allowed. Stealing food if there is no legal way to get it, for example. Stealing property used for immoral purposes, such as environmentalists sabotaging equipment used to destroy forests or kill wildlife. A prisoner stealing things needed to escape is another example.
A blanket prohibition against stealing makes no more sense than one against killing.
Instead of citing the U.S. Constitution, it would be better to refer to the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, which in theory, at least, appliies to all humans anywhere, not just in the legal system of one country.
Hitchins remark on cell phones is spot on!
I would add one important one: ''Do not automatically assume your children must follow your religion. They have the right to decide for themselves what religion, if any, they wish to belong to. You do not own them and do not have the right to bring them up in the religion of your choice. Parents have an obligation to respect the rights of their children, including the right to choose their own path.''
This is a good discussion of the Ten Commandments. Also, we don't have asses (aside from politicians and celebrities) or polytheism but we have possessions (keeping up with the joneses) and we have many pseudo-religious ideologies so if you follow the Ten Commandments you should think about how they should be applied today.
I always felt that Matt 6:24 should be connected to the Ten Commandments - especially when they are slapped on courthouses & schools.
In your comments on the first 3 commandments, you claim a conflict between them & the US constitution. I disagree - they come from entirely different spheres & serve quite different purposes. There is no need for them to align & it shouldn't be expected.
To compete as a meme, any religion is likely to have strictures similar to the first 3 commandments. Conversely a liberal democracy maintains a separation of state & religion & should be much more tolerant of other beliefs. It would damage the state to align the constitution with the strictures of any particualar religion. And it would not be in a religion's self-interest(!) to allow the tolerance of competing views that works for a liberal democracy.
Overall though I agree with your thesis.
I love that Hitchens recitation of his version, and re-watch it often on youtube.
This comment "But “commanding” honor—much less love—doesn’t ring true to me as a parent, since such sentiments usually come naturally anyway. Plus, commanding honor is an oxymoron, made all the worse by the hint of a reward for so doing" is the one that might ring true to most Americans, but in reality is probably one of our greatest weaknesses.
Who would waste their lives snorting coke and doing fentanyl if they were terrified of their parents? Quite few. It's the cultural lack of a command to bow to parental authority that has empowered the culturally destructive ass clownery of the past 55 years. We won't survive it.
It's great if love is freely given, but for the health of society, it's better to be feared if one cannot be freely loved. asian and African cultures seem to understand this better than westerners. I think this is one of the things Tocqueville was wrong about.
All in all, I would recommend Schermer consult with Hebrew scholars about broader meanings of these words than he is assuming through the English translations.
I like the attempt to approach it rationally, and I love that he has the right to do so.
Also, "jealousy" is a difficult word to translate between languages, even French and Italian you have different connotations, it historically was just applying to eros in French. Like all emotions, jealousy is neither good nor bad, it is what you do with it
You might not care, but some Jews hate to see the name of God written out. Christians have been chided for being insensitive in this matter, just so you know.
Michael, this is an excellent essay. We’ve made a lot of moral progress since the Ten Commandments was promulgated.
“The last part of this commandment—visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me—violates the most fundamental principle of Western jurisprudence developed over centuries of legal precedence that one can be only be guilty of one’s own sins and not the sins of one’s parents, grandparents, great grandparents, or anyone else for that matter.”
GW: According to the Adam and Eve story, God punished all human descendants for the sins of Adam and Eve. Does God consider the descendants guilty before they ever do anything wrong? The author of Genesis thinks so.
“IV. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.”
GW: A recent decision by the SCOTUS forces employers to honor an employee’s religious belief to not work on Sunday because he is a Christian.
“VI. Thou shalt not kill.”
GW: Here is a reasonable substitute:
“Any person X should not kill another person Y, unless
1. Defense: X must kill Y because this killing is necessary for X to prevent death or serious harm to X or to person Z who is endangered by Y.
2. Collateral Damage or Hostage Situation: X must kill Z who is an innocent bystander because this killing is necessary for X to prevent death or serious harm to at least two innocent persons endangered by Y, and Z happens to be “in the way.”
3. Mercy Killing: X is authorized to kill Y by either Y or Y’s medical surrogate, given prior written informed consent, because
a. Y has been in a coma or similar brain state for more than a year and the probability of recovery is very low which has been determined by Y’s unresponsiveness, Y’s lack of covert consciousness, and examination and agreement by at least two neurologists.
b. Y is very probably going to die within three months anyway.
c. Y has intractable suffering which has lasted more than six months and the probability of reversing it is very low.
d. Y exceeds the age of 90.
4. Rare Justice: X must kill Y because Y has killed or done serious harm to Z and the usual ethical procedures of arrest, indictment, trial, conviction, and incarceration are impossible or very impractical in this particular case.
“Coming from a deity who impregnated somebody else’s fiancé, that’s a bit rich.”
GW: I think the deity raped the woman. I wrote an essay supporting this hypothesis and it was rejected for publication (not by Skeptic).
“VII. Thou shalt not commit adultery.”
GW: This is a correct moral rule if the couple has contracted to be monogamous. Adultery has become too common and excused in our society. The failure to enforce the rule against adultery harms women more than men.
“IX. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”
GW: This rule needs to be qualified, as follows:
“Any person X should not lie to any other person Y, except when it is necessary to protect X or a third party Z from serious injury or death.”
"we've made a lot of moral progress since the 10 commandments"... No, we haaaave nooot. I mean, maybe we did in the past, but we've lost it all and are way behind where they stood.
Your claim is false. I'll just give just two examples. In the US and Europe, gay marriage was considered to be immoral, and now it is not. In the US and Europe, slavery was considered to be moral, and not it is not. There are still some people in these geographical areas who oppose gay marriage or practice slavery, but they are the exception, not the rule.
One win for gay marriage, yay, but we are taking L's on increasing homicides, drug use, child abuse and neglect, divorce, infidelity, corruption, neglect of elderly, euthanasia without consent, treatment of the mentally ill, empowerment and protection of women, civic responsibility, financial stewardship and proper ethical formation of children. We also have worsening manners. Israelites would have been appalled by the modern US and Europe and would have been utterly justified in their contempt.
I think you are missing some important points. First, since the times of the Ten Commandments' societies we have made moral progress in revising moral theory and moral rules. Secondly, overall humankind has made great progress in behaving more ethically. Yes, there are ups and downs, and right now we are in a slump, but overall the trend has been upward. For evidence of progress. read these books:
The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined, by Steven Pinker
Enlightenment Now: The Case for Reason, Science, Humanism, and Progress, also by Pinker
The Moral Arc: How Science Makes Us Better People, by Michael Shermer
Gay marriage is a regressive idea, not a progressive one. The progressive idea would be to get the government out of people's bedrooms and stop having any such thing as a registered relationship. Gay marriage is just as reactionary as straight marriage.
Personal relationships should not be any of the government's business.
Slavery had it's good points. One, unfortunately restricted to the sons of the rich, was the custom of giving 14 year old boys their very own slave girl as a birthday present. This was a wonderful custom that helped the boy develop the proper atitude to carry into future relationships.
Today, in the modern world, it should be revived with government subsidies so every boy, not only those from rich families, could own his very own slave girl.
This would prevent a lot of social and psychological problems in the future.
GT: Gay marriage is a regressive idea, not a progressive one.
GW: I think you misunderstood me. Allowing gay marriage is a progressive idea, especially when it had been previously banned.
GT: The progressive idea would be to get the government out of people's bedrooms and stop having any such thing as a registered relationship.
GW: Registered? That is an odd adjective to apply to a relationship. Gay relationships or marriages became LEGAL, and that was moral progress.
GT: Gay marriage is just as reactionary as straight marriage.
GW: Nonsense.
GT: Personal relationships should not be any of the government's business.
GW: I disagree. It should be the government’s business to prevent adults from having sex with children!
GT: Slavery had it's good points.
GW: You sound like Ron DeSactimonious. Slavery was good for the master, but not for the slave. It was an immoral practice, still is.
GT: One, unfortunately restricted to the sons of the rich, was the custom of giving 14 year old boys their very own slave girl as a birthday present. This was a wonderful custom that helped the boy develop the proper atitude to carry into future relationships.
GW: Wonderful? That was an immoral practice.
GT: Today, in the modern world, it should be revived with government subsidies so every boy, not only those from rich families, could own his very own slave girl. This would prevent a lot of social and psychological problems in the future.
GW: Either you are kidding or you are bonkers or you are immoral. Which is it?
Gay marriage is not progressive. The progressive position is that personal relationships are private and there should be no need to register them with a government entity. The progressive position on gay marrige is the same as that on normal marriage: A relationship is legal if there is no law against it. Gay relationships were not illegal. Sex between consenting adults was already legal. The gay marriage movement was about granting it the status of normal marriage, not about making it legal.
Preventing adults from having sex with ''children'' is a red herring, not a real issue. It has nothing to do with the topic under discussion. But while we are on the subject, since you brought it up, anyone past puberty is sexually an adult by the laws of nature, and no human legislature can change that. A teen-aged prostitute is an adult. A government deciding to call her a ''child'' does not make it so. People like Roman Polanski are victims of neo-Christian moralism. Adults sexually attracted to actual children, those not yet having reached puberty, are vanishingly rare, but the statistics are inflated by the neo-Christian custom of calling anyone under 18 a ''child'', which is not factually correct.
As for having the government give every teen-aged boy a slave girl, I admit that is a socialist idea, but I see no reason to discard it on that grounds. Why are you opposed to it? Most boys would appreciate it.
GT: Gay marriage is not progressive. The progressive position is that personal relationships are private and there should be no need to register them with a government entity. The progressive position on gay marrige is the same as that on normal marriage: A relationship is legal if there is no law against it. Gay relationships were not illegal. Sex between consenting adults was already legal. The gay marriage movement was about granting it the status of normal marriage, not about making it legal.
GW: I already refuted this position of yours. No need to repeat myself.
GT: Preventing adults from having sex with ''children'' is a red herring, not a real issue. It has nothing to do with the topic under discussion.
GW: No, it is not a red herring and it is a reply to your claim that the government should stay out of the bedroom. The government should prohibit and regulate some behavior in the bedroom. So you are mistaken.
GT: But while we are on the subject, since you brought it up, anyone past puberty is sexually an adult by the laws of nature, and no human legislature can change that.
GW: False. Nature doesn’t decide the laws of society. People do.
GT: A teen-aged prostitute is an adult.
GW: Only if the teenager is 18 or 19.
GT: A government deciding to call her a ''child'' does not make it so.
GW: It does make it so. You calling her an adult doesn’t make it so.
GT: People like Roman Polanski are victims of neo-Christian moralism.
GW: People like Roman Polanski engaged in immoral and illegal behavior.
GT: Adults sexually attracted to actual children, those not yet having reached puberty, are vanishingly rare, but the statistics are inflated by the neo-Christian custom of calling anyone under 18 a ''child'', which is not factually correct.
GW: A person under 18 is a child. This is a fact, whether you like it or not.
GT: As for having the government give every teen-aged boy a slave girl, I admit that is a socialist idea, but I see no reason to discard it on that grounds. Why are you opposed to it? Most boys would appreciate it.
GW: Slavery is always wrong. Your moral code is wrong in several ways and needs to be replaced. You need some moral progress.
I like what I've heard from Dennis Prager interpreting the Decalogue. It had occurred to me, but I later heard Prager interpret how the Decalogue reduces to different kinds of stealing. Prager also interpreted the Hebrew for 'covet' as wanting not just things comparable to what one's neighbor has, but the neighbor's belongings. That is a desire to steal, which conception seems the inception of stealing.
Not much to argue with here aside from the opening line. I dare say “There is, arguably, no better known TITLE for a set of moral precepts...”.
Article 7, the one against stealing, needs some work. There are plenty of situations in which stealing is rational and should be allowed. Stealing food if there is no legal way to get it, for example. Stealing property used for immoral purposes, such as environmentalists sabotaging equipment used to destroy forests or kill wildlife. A prisoner stealing things needed to escape is another example.
A blanket prohibition against stealing makes no more sense than one against killing.
Instead of citing the U.S. Constitution, it would be better to refer to the Universal Declaration Of Human Rights, which in theory, at least, appliies to all humans anywhere, not just in the legal system of one country.
Hitchins remark on cell phones is spot on!
I would add one important one: ''Do not automatically assume your children must follow your religion. They have the right to decide for themselves what religion, if any, they wish to belong to. You do not own them and do not have the right to bring them up in the religion of your choice. Parents have an obligation to respect the rights of their children, including the right to choose their own path.''
This is a good discussion of the Ten Commandments. Also, we don't have asses (aside from politicians and celebrities) or polytheism but we have possessions (keeping up with the joneses) and we have many pseudo-religious ideologies so if you follow the Ten Commandments you should think about how they should be applied today.
I always felt that Matt 6:24 should be connected to the Ten Commandments - especially when they are slapped on courthouses & schools.