Some people seem to think we need so called objective moral values.
I wonder where they get that idea? I also wonder where they would get those so called objective values?
I think moral values will always be relative to human understanding. Our best chances lie in good education and trying to better the general living conditions. Rich people don't fight as much. Not themselves anyway.
The Golden Rule seems to be a good point to start: "Treat others like you would want to be treated yourself."
Or one of the variations. Or even Weston's Iron Corollary: "Try not to be too much of a dick."
Add some logic and humanistic values and you're on your way.
Christians seem to think that the Bible is the source of moral values. I sure hope not, what with all the slavery, smiting of innocent children, human sacrifices and other disgusting, horrible stuff the insecure tribal desert deity of that book seems to insist upon.
What a weird idea to try to get your moral values from barbarians out of the Bronze Age. Oh, christians will tell you, that was the Old Testament. The objective, eternal moral values were revised in the New Testament. The Bible 2.0. The eternal, objective moral values in that part are totally different from the objective, eternal values in that other part. They are also somewhat more humane. Which seems logical, as humanity had progressed some three thousand years between the writing of the two.
But in that addendum to the immutable moral values, the spokesperson seems to say that all the laws and regulations of the Old Testament are still very valid. And even the New Testament is some two thousand years old by now. Isn't it time for a new version? The Bible 3.0? The Latest Testament?
Or are we such a sorry lot that we haven't learned anything in those two millennia?
Actually, the so called objective moral values are nothing of the kind. They are just a reflection of how a sourpuss, aggressive dictator with stomach ulcers would try to keep a backward, primitive and violent tribe in check.
The rules are furthermore confusing, often downright ridiculous, cruel and absurd. They tend to be self-contradictory as well.
Actually, the Bible is a gigantic moral salad bar and not only the more than 33,800 christian sects, but practically all christians, just fill their plate with the bits they find most tasty.
Let's face it: as a source of moral values the Bible stinks.
And do you really need it?
If I have two sandwiches and across the table sits someone who hasn't eaten in three days and has no sandwich, is it really that hard to figure out what I should do?
Does it really matter that maybe he was too lazy, too stupid or just too unlucky to get his own sandwich?
I will give him one of my two sandwiches.
It will prevent unnecessary aggression. It will prevent him trying to mug me to steal my sandwiches. He will probably see that two people, two sandwiches, each a sandwich, is a fair solution to his own problems.
But actually, that's not even it.
I just won't be able to enjoy my sandwich with someone sitting at the other side of the table, looking on with saliva running out of his mouth and stomach aches from being hungry.
And even that is not it.
It just is the right thing to do. Somebody is hungry. I have the means to do something about it. So I do it.
That isn't difficult, is it?
I don't need some ancient collection of reprehensible desert stories to tell me that. I don't need some savage, bloodthirsty dictator with a penchant for torture to scare me into doing that. And it doesn't exactly make you respectable in my eyes if you do.
Yes, I might like to keep my second sandwich for myself.
I doubt however that I will go hungry.
I'll feast on the look in his eyes.