Ten (10) commandments

Hey that is very creative! I have only just begun to think about further comments but i do think this is very creative and even if it proves impossible to find a set that pleases everyone the exercise should be very worthwhile!

I suppose one issue to cross is whether it makes sense to talk about "commandments" vs "advice" or "good ideas."

I could see someone arguing that ultimately there is only the natural test of pleasure and pain, but even then we do are not always to follow the one or the other without reference to ultimate results. So it's hard to translate many of the doctrines into specific dos and donts without always hedging that context is in the end going to control at least in most cases.

So perhaps there is a framing issue that requires preliminary explanation.

Again at this point just thinking out loud.

If we were looking for ten "good ideas" then it would be pretty easy to go through the PDs and generalize them into 10 sections. And certainly there are at least ten ways to generalize many of the comments Epicurus made on aspects of life.

But it looks like you are going through the biblical list and looking for rough equivalents and that raises the conceptual issues of the major differences of approach to life.

This a very good project. Brings up Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development, and I think I posted about this before (but don't remember for sure), Kohlberg's Theory of Moral Development.

Quote

Kohlberg identified three distinct levels of moral reasoning: preconventional, conventional, and postconventional. Each level has two sub-stages.

People can only pass through these levels in the order listed. Each new stage replaces the reasoning typical of the earlier stage. Not everyone achieves all the stages. The 3 levels of moral reasoning include:

Level 1 - Preconventional morality

Preconventional morality is the first stage of moral development, and lasts until approximately age 9. At the preconventional level children don’t have a personal code of morality, and instead moral decisions are shaped by the standards of adults and the consequences of following or breaking their rules.

For example, if an action leads to punishment is must be bad, and if it leads to a reward is must be good.

Authority is outside the individual and children often make moral decisions based on the physical consequences of actions.

• Stage 1. Obedience and Punishment Orientation. The child/individual is good in order to avoid being punished. If a person is punished, they must have done wrong.

• Stage 2. Individualism and Exchange. At this stage, children recognize that there is not just one right view that is handed down by the authorities. Different individuals have different viewpoints.

Level 2 - Conventional morality

Conventional morality is the second stage of moral development, and is characterized by an acceptance of social rules concerning right and wrong. At the conventional level (most adolescents and adults), we begin to internalize the moral standards of valued adult role models.

Authority is internalized but not questioned, and reasoning is based on the norms of the group to which the person belongs.

A social system that stresses the responsibilities of relationships as well as social order is seen as desirable and must, therefore, influence our view of what is right and wrong.

• Stage 3. Good Interpersonal Relationships. The child/individual is good in order to be seen as being a good person by others. Therefore, answers relate to the approval of others.

• Stage 4. Maintaining the Social Order. The child/individual becomes aware of the wider rules of society, so judgments concern obeying the rules in order to uphold the law and to avoid guilt.

Level 3 - Postconventional morality

Postconventional morality is the third stage of moral development, and is characterized by an individuals’ understanding of universal ethical principles. These are abstract and ill-defined, but might include: the preservation of life at all costs, and the importance of human dignity.

Individual judgment is based on self-chosen principles, and moral reasoning is based on individual rights and justice. According to Kohlberg this level of moral reasoning is as far as most people get.

Only 10-15% are capable of the kind of abstract thinking necessary for stage 5 or 6 (post-conventional morality). That is to say, most people take their moral views from those around them and only a minority think through ethical principles for themselves.

• Stage 5. Social Contract and Individual Rights. The child/individual becomes aware that while rules/laws might exist for the good of the greatest number, there are times when they will work against the interest of particular individuals.

The issues are not always clear-cut. For example, in Heinz’s dilemma, the protection of life is more important than breaking the law against stealing.

• Stage 6. Universal Principles. People at this stage have developed their own set of moral guidelines which may or may not fit the law. The principles apply to everyone.

E.g., human rights, justice, and equality. The person will be prepared to act to defend these principles even if it means going against the rest of society in the process and having to pay the consequences of disapproval and or imprisonment. Kohlberg doubted few people reached this stage.

https://www.simplypsychology.org/kohlberg.html

Display More

Understanding the morals of the Christian Ten Commandments would depend on the age of an individual -- a child would view the 10 Commandments with Level 1, Stage 1 and an adult would view them within Level 2 thinking.

Now I look over this and seems that Epicurean ethics would be at Level 3, Stage 5 -- so this is able to look at exceptions depending on unique circumstances.

May not be helpful, but always worth a watch. He addresses Cassiu's question of 'framing'.

I debated whether to weigh in here, but, in the end, I'll err on the side of friendly, respectful, frank speech. I hope this is conveyed and received with that framing. And, I'm fully aware, you'll do what you feel you need to do in your situation.

I would agree that the Ten Commandments is ubiquitous in Western culture. Everyone will inevitably hear about it, probably sooner than later. Plus, kids will have questions. Boy howdy, do they have questions sometimes!

That said, the idea of feeling that one is constrained to come up with 10 "good ideas" to compete with this outdated list of 10 divine commands is fraught with potential frustration. That said, the Wikipedia article on alternatives does show it's a common exercise:

Alternatives to the Ten Commandments - Wikipedia

although even those lists range from 3 to 11 but simply go through the exercise to demonstrate the outdated-nesd of the traditional list (actually at least 2 slightly different lists in the Bible... Evidently "God" couldn't make up "His" mind!).

My suggestion, if/when the question arises, is to use it as an opportunity to talk about...

"Some/all religions try to give instructions to people on how to live together. In Christianity and Judaism, their book gives them 10 instructions they are supposed to follow. Buddhists have 4 important things to say then give 8 ways to get there then have 5 important things to say on how to act (Buddhists really like lists!!). Lists are a way to make it easy to remember things. Some things on all these lists are basically good ideas for everyone. Others keep people in line and punish them for goofy things that don't exist. The 10 Commandments include things that make "God" jealous and mad. That's just silly! How could the "Master of the Universe" care about little things like that!? All of the lists mostly say something like we shouldn't hurt people and people shouldn't hurt us. That's a good idea, isn't it? But what would be in your list? Let's talk about what kind of list of good ideas you'd come up with? Would you like to think about that together?"

Raising kids is hard!! No argument there! But trying to pound an Epicurean peg into a Judeo-Christian hole seems fraught with frustration and pitfalls. Plus, I think it doesn't do religion or Epicureanism any favors. Get rid of the oppressive religion. Don't play on its field. Set sail in your own little boat, free of indoctrination!

(1) As to Joshua's Hitchens video, that reminds me that there is also a George Carlin video that takes on a similar project that despite its much spicier language is probably significantly more consistent even than Hitchens' video with a mature Epicurean approach

(2) Don's post and several of the other comments (and listening to Hitchens in the background) reminds me as I wake up today too reminds me that I definitely don't think that Epicurus would accept the ten commandments as a positive or even a neutral social construct. The entire thing is built on accepting a supernatural order of things (and all sorts of other negative presumptions) is which probably the number one source of evil in the world. So in discussing them with even a child I would think it would be very basic to plant the Epicurean seeds that would eventually show how damaging this construct has been in history. Of course what you've suggested in the beginning is a replacement set, so obviously you're looking for something positive as a replacement for a negative thing, but I would think that one of the most basic aspects of any childhood education approach would be not only to set them on the right path but warn them about the hazards they will encounter, so that plays into the project as well.

Quote from camotero

Trying to bridge a gap between EP and modern organized religion.

The chasm between organized religion/superstition and Epicurean philosophy is wide, deep, and filled with alligators. In some ways, it's best to turn away from the gap and beat a path in the opposite direction. As Lucretius says, religion is prone to many evils. Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum!!

I'm slowly trying to emulate Epicurus in his observance of the rites and holidays. Taking joy in family gatherings. Appreciating the art and celebrating with an internal realignment of what it all means.

But the opinion of the crowds is false piety and I have no desire to go down that road again (at least at the time of this writing. Humans can be fickle creatures). Being concerned by their rules, their traditions, their playing field is not required. As George Carlin says in that video, there's 10 because 10 sounds official. That, in itself, to me is a reason to come up with a different number.

Does this seem like a ping pong game? It's a terrible idea to try to "translate" the ten commandments but at the same time it's a great exercise!

I do think both perspectives are true and this highlights how central "context" is to the Epicurean worldview. You've picked a particular context and within that context we can work toward something that's helpful, but at the same time we have to realize that out of its context it could actually be harmful.

I really do think this is why the PDs read as they do. They are sort of "principles" that don't necessarily lead TO a particular direction for a particular life, but they lead AWAY from major pitfalls that are pitfalls for everyone.

I didn't finish listening to the Hitchens talk but I think from past observation that he is subject to a major danger that people have to take an approach that is something like "I too believe that there are absolute rules for being a good person - but those guys got the rules wrong and I can give you the correct list."

The Epicurus approach is more like "You've got to understand that there is NO single list of rules that apply to everyone at all times and all places to tell them affirmatively what to do in every circumstance. But I can tell you how the universe works (the physics) and how to use your head (the canonics) and then I can also tell you the major pitfalls that everyone confronts and how to avoid them. Then after that you're as equipped as anyone can be to use your life in your context to pursue the general goal that everything else points to."

"As to Joshua's Hitchens video, that reminds me that there is also a George Carlin video that takes on a similar project that despite its much spicier language is probably significantly more consistent even than Hitchens' video with a mature Epicurean approach."

This comment reminds me that I wanted to say that some of us have observed some concern at a mention of Epicurus likened to a "court jester" of the ancient world. Those words convey implications that I don't think are accurate or flattering.

But as for George Carlin --- I would not be quite so concerned if someone decided to smile and draw some comparisons between Epicurus and George Carlin. I am no expert on Carlin but he's always struck me as someone who is an expert at using humor in a deadly serious way.

Quote from camotero

Well, the motivation behind this is teaching a kid (who's not going to be raised in a religious context, but lives in a religious immediate-society, and that is expected to hear about the commandments sooner or later)

Also, you want to teach the virtues as a tool that leads to a happy life.

It will really depend on the age of the child. And also I think the main issues are about teaching not to steal or lie -- and how to teach choices and avoidances that will lead to a happy life and good relationships with people. Once a child has an understanding of others and self, then gradually increasing the complexity of the why to not steal or lie.

About stealing, there is a very good phrasing that Buddhists use in their precepts: To not take what is not given.

Also in addition to not lying, they add in to not spread gossip, and so there is the understanding that doing certain things tend to cause problems in the future (so to do them is to cause yourself trouble, in addition to the harm it causes others and the loss of trust that will result).

So the 10 commandments don't adequately teach these nuances.

But if you think of ways that people cause harm, then you get:

1) to refrain from killing or injuring

2) to refrain from lying or spreading gossip

3) to refrain from taking what is not given

Then add in both of these:

The Golden Rule: Treat others the way you would want to be treated

The Platinum Rule: Treat others as they would want you to treat them

It strikes me that there are several passages in Diogenes Laertius beginning with words like "the wise man will....", or "the wise man will not..."

Where does that kind of framing fit in here?

Quote from Joshua

It strikes me that there are several passages in Diogenes Laertius beginning with words like "the wise man will....", or "the wise man will not..."

Where does that kind of framing fit in here?

Quote from Cassius

Does this seem like a ping pong game? It's a terrible idea to try to "translate" the ten commandments but at the same time it's a great exercise!

I do think both perspectives are true and this highlights how central "context" is to the Epicurean worldview. You've picked a particular context and within that context we can work toward something that's helpful, but at the same time we have to realize that out of its context it could actually be harmful.

I really do think this is why the PDs read as they do. They are sort of "principles" that don't necessarily lead TO a particular direction for a particular life, but they lead AWAY from major pitfalls that are pitfalls for everyone.

As much as I like the initiative of this thread, and the list is well-put together. I think it runs into the same issue of the Tetrapharmakos. The ten commandments are backed up by numerous stories, contextual lessons, and the entire framing of the bible itself. The same can be said about the four part cure to the numerous Epicurea fragments, contextual readings of the PD's, and the entire framing of the philosophy itself. See the similarities?

In fact, the commandments seem to be more of a self-didactic reminder. Teaching brunt simplicity reinforces uncritical acceptance.

Quote from Kalosyni

The Golden Rule: Treat others the way you would want to be treated

The Platinum Rule: Treat others as they would want you to treat them

These always remind me of the conversation between the masochist and the sadist, to wit (pun intended) –

Masochist: “Beat me, torture, make me feel pain!”

Sadist: “No.”

+++++++++++

On a more serious note, I always liked this quote from the Catholic theologian Urs Von Balthsar, as a caution against willy-nilly applying simple rules:

“When it comes to shaping one’s personal behavior, all the rules of morality, as precise as they may be, remain abstract in the face of the infinite complexity of the concrete.”

—Hans Urs von Balthasar, “Presence and Thought: An Essay on the Religious Philosophy of Gregory of Nyssa” (from the Foreword).

++++++++++++

I will add that there is another version of the Golden Rule, attributed to Rabbi Hillel: “What you do not like done to yourself, don’t do to other.” (The same Balthasarian caution applies.)

Quote from Pacatus

“When it comes to shaping one’s personal behavior, all the rules of morality, as precise as they may be, remain abstract in the face of the infinite complexity of the concrete.”

i think that's dead on right.