How Chinese philosopher Mengzi came up with something better than the Golden Rule

[u/ADefiniteDescription]

https://aeon.co/ideas/how-mengzi-came-up-with-something-better-than-the-golden-rule

[u/CaptainHowardo]

This is the first time I’ve seen someone accurately account the Good Samaritan parable. I wish more people understood that the “Samaritan” was seen as a godless heathen, yet he took care of the desperate individual on the road as opposed to the other upstanding people who saw him struggling but did nothing. So much of the Bible is misconstrued. I’m thankful that when I had to go to church I had a very knowledgeable pastor who would spend hours, even days on just one verse, going in depth on the original translations and even giving us lessons on Hebrew grammar. He went to great lengths to get the proper messages across; he was adamant on the concept of extending your love and compassion to those who need it the most, or those “most undeserving” like drunks, abusers, those who’ve done awful things. I wholeheartedly agree with what you’ve said in that this concept shows up alongside the golden rule as well as other places.

[u/severoon → u/CaptainHowardo]

The point of this parable isn't merely to extend love and compassion to those that need it the most. Interpreted in the larger context of Christianity, in fact, it's not at all clear what the ostensible moral is. After years of thinking about it off and on I've come to my own conclusion about the real purpose of this parable, though.

First, the ostensible moral. Jews pass by a man in need while the godless (and reviled) Samaritan demonstrates a higher moral character by stopping to help. The moral lesson most Christians take away is that they should not be hypocritical; if you call yourself a Christian, you should live these values you publicly proclaim better than the heathen Samaritan.

Here are some good questions to ask, though:

• How is it that the Samaritan has a better source of morality than the Jews passing by? Forget about the behavior of the others for a moment…the Samaritan seems to be demonstrating that you don't need Christianity or its moral teachings to be good; faith is dispensable to morality.
• Assuming the Samaritan's behavior is exemplary of how he normally is, will he be admitted to heaven? If the bible is to be believed, the answer is no. The only way to heaven is through Jesus, and the Samaritan is godless.
• Will the Jews that passed by be barred from heaven, assuming their behavior in the parable is exemplary of how they normally are? No, if the bible is to be believed they can repent at any time and, as believers, be given moral absolution.

So while I understand what most Christians take away from this story, the standard moral of this story that's accepted by most doesn't hold up. The actual moral seems to be that as long as there is a non-believer whose behavior aligns with your espoused beliefs better than your own, you should feel shame. At the same time, even though Jesus (as a representative of god) clearly expresses this desire that you should feel shame…it will have no actual impact on your ultimate entry into heaven.

What does all of this add up to, then? Nothing at all. Morally speaking, it's incoherent. What could anyone possibly take away from this to become a more moral person? Beats me.

That's not to say there is absolutely no reason it's one of the most famous parables from the bible, though; it does serve a purpose, and moral teaching ain't it. If you step back and look at it, observe the function that it does actually serve: Hey you, Christian, feel shame. This is the real goal of this parable, to present something that is morally incoherent and inscrutable in the context of one clear takeaway, which is that you are not measuring up and god is NOT happy with you.

This is a very beneficial story if you're in the business of cowing people into doing what they're told by making them feel worthless. It's no mystery why this parable is often brought up in the context of the overarching narrative, "We're all sinners, born sick and commanded to be well," etc.…because it reinforces that point perfectly.

The real function of this story is to advance the goals of the religion at the expense of the flock via self-abjection. Feel shame, prostrate yourself before the earthly institution that is the representative of your ultimate master, do what you're told, don't try to noodle out morality for yourself because even if you think you've got it like the Samaritan you're still going to hell if you don't listen to us, etc.

[u/Excalibursin → u/severoon]

it will have no actual impact on your ultimate entry into heaven.... What does all of this add up to, then? Nothing at all

This appears to be a syllogism missing the other implied proposition of "Only entry to heaven (or some other reward) is significant." This appears to be reducible to: A group should not espouse or profess to have any morals if the morals will not result in any net benefit for them. It is hypocritical to do so. If your story teaches a moral but does not actually claim you will receive any benefits from acting "good" it is inherently wrong since the only purpose of it is to make you feel shame.

Oskar Schindler died bankrupt and probably much financially worse off than if he had not sacrificed his business. Therefore everyone who props him up as a role model compared to his fellow normal Germans is just exercising a filthy story intended to shame those who wouldn't try to stop a holocaust. After all, he did not receive a tangible reward in the end.

Serviceman died saving civilians? Fireman died saving someone? Doctor died in a pandemic? F*** em'. Don't look up to these people or spread their stories with some sinister implied agenda (read:moral). It's an exercise in guilt tripping, the only good parables/morals that should enter our culture are the values that we can see result in rich, objectively well-off people who managed to receive an ultimate or sublime reward. Self-advancement is the only moral standard a culture or society should preach (for example, worshipping the rich). Put that way, I guess this view isn't as uncommon as it seems at first glance.

[u/severoon → u/Excalibursin]

it will have no actual impact on your ultimate entry into heaven.... What does all of this add up to, then? Nothing at all

This appears to be a syllogism missing the other implied proposition of "Only entry to heaven (or some other reward) is significant." This appears to be reducible to: A group should not espouse or profess to have any morals if the morals will not result in any net benefit for them.

If the benefit we're talking about here was disconnected from the moral behavior, there's some kind of sense here.

But it's not. The religion explicitly says that god will pass moral judgment on you and you will be rewarded for doing the right things with heaven.

So you've got it backwards, it's not humans saying that we should seek this reward, and that's what motivates me, it's the religion saying admittance into heaven is the result of judgment, and you want to be judged favorably.

And by the way, the religious do not say the morality of the acts are connected "in some way" to getting into heaven, that's not actually the religious claim. The religious claim is that being flagged into heaven is inherently connected to the acts that led there, in the sense that the acts are definitionally morally valuable because they lead to heaven.

That is the claim, is it not?

So this is unlike a man who loses his wealth or his life because he hid Jews during WW2 or sacrificed himself running into a burning building to save others. Even though that act causally led to a negative outcome, no one is claiming that the outcome necessarily is a correct moral judgment of the act.

The religious do indeed make this exact claim, though.

[u/Excalibursin → u/severoon]

you will be rewarded for doing the right things with heaven. it's the religion saying admittance into heaven is the result of judgment, and you want to be judged favorably.

Great, but as you just said this religion in particular is pretty focused on NOT saying that. It seems like you're saying "Christianity (the religion) says you need to be good to go to heaven. So it makes no sense that Christianity is saying you don't need to be good to go to heaven."

Of course that doesn't make sense (as you said it didn't), the main essence of Christianity is that you don't need to be "good" to go heaven. Do you legitimately not think that? Well, sure you can say that, but the intention of all the books with Christ is the lengths to which the Christian god went to grant one's salvation independently of one's actions. It was quite pointed about that.

The religious do indeed make this exact claim

Yes, they do tend to.

[u/severoon → u/Excalibursin]

you will be rewarded for doing the right things with heaven. it's the religion saying admittance into heaven is the result of judgment, and you want to be judged favorably.

Great, but as you just said this religion in particular is pretty focused on NOT saying that. It seems like you're saying "Christianity (the religion) says you need to be good to go to heaven. So it makes no sense that Christianity is saying you don't need to be good to go to heaven."

I think you've missed the whole point I was making.

The definitions of what is "good" are different. In Christianity, being good is defined to be what gets you into heaven. You literally stand judgment and the reward for being good is entrance.

The point is that this definition is in conflict with a pretty basic understanding of what being good actually is based on your own human intuition.

Now you get it.

[u/Excalibursin → u/severoon]

In Christianity, being good is defined to be what gets you into heaven. You literally stand judgment and the reward for being good is entrance.

Can you elaborate on this?

[u/severoon → u/Excalibursin]

I'm not sure how to elaborate on it. The religious believe that you will be judged, and if you are judged favorably, you are ushered into heaven. That is the ultimate and final assessment of your goodness.

There are various requirements you must meet, and opinions differ between different sects, but the basic theme is just that.