5 ms·

Some is nice, up until the gratuitous references to christian religion. Lots of asceticism and charity, which is very not social by nature. Importantly there is

Some is nice, up until the gratuitous references to christian religion. Lots of asceticism and charity, which is very not social by nature. Importantly there is almost nothing on evilness of power structures (how surprising). My personal take on it: 1. snip (cult) 2. Then, love your neighbor as yourself. 3. Do not murder. 4. snip (patriarchy) 5. Do not steal. [meh: unconditional private property is immoral quite often] 6. Do not covet. 7. Do not bear false witness. 8. Honor all people. 9. Do not do to another what you would not have done to yourself. 10. snip (cult) 11. snip (cult) 12. Do not become attached to pleasures. [meh: asceticism] 13. Love fasting. [meh: asceticism] 14. Relieve the poor. [meh: charity, what made them poor?] 15. Clothe the naked. [meh: charity] 16. Visit the sick. [meh: charity] 17. Bury the dead. [meh: charity] 18. Be a help in times of trouble. 19. Console the sorrowing. 20. Be a stranger to the world's ways. [meh: definitely not in the way intended] 21. snip (cult) 22. Do not give way to anger. 23. Do not nurse a grudge. 24. Do not entertain deceit in your heart. 25. Do not give a false peace. 26. Do not forsake charity. 27. Do not swear, for fear of perjuring yourself. 28. Utter only truth from heart and mouth. 29. Do not return evil for evil. 30. Do no wrong to anyone, and bear patiently wrongs done to yourself. 31. Love your enemies. 32. Do not curse those who curse you, but rather bless them. 33. Bear persecution for justice's sake. [meh: martyr and asceticism] 34. Be not proud. 35. Be not addicted to wine. [meh: (social) disease] 36. Be not a great eater. [meh: asceticism] 37. Be not drowsy. 38. Be not lazy. 39. Be not a grumbler. 40. Be not a detractor. 41. snip (cult) 42. snip (cult) 43. Recognize always that evil is your own doing, and to impute it to yourself. 44. snip (cult) 45. snip (cult) 46. snip (cult) 47. Keep death daily before your eyes. 48. Keep constant guard over the actions of your life. 49. snip (cult) 50. snip (cult) 51. snip (cult) 52. snip (cult) 53. Do not love much talking. 54. Speak no useless words or words that move to laughter. 55. Do not love much or boisterous laughter. 56. snip (cult) 57. snip (cult) 58. snip (cult) 59. snip (chastity) 60. snip (authority) 61. snip (cult) 62. snip (cult) 63. snip (chastity) 64. Hate no one. 65. Be not jealous, nor harbor envy. 66. Do not love quarreling. 67. Shun arrogance. 68. Respect your seniors. [meh: conservatism, authority] 69. Love your juniors. 70. snip (cult) 71. Make peace with your adversary before the sun sets. 72. snip (cult) The good parts are imho pretty simple: be honest and transparent in your actions, loving of fellow sensible beings, forgo revenge, greed and manipulation and brutality, criticize yourself and pardon others (hello Postel!). As i said above, this is a moral philosophy for individuals and doesn't say much about social structures, which is a big shortcoming imho. Eg, "recognize groups of differing interests and negotiate with honesty and utilitarianism", "refuse to represent your peers unless they insist forcefully"...

cmacleod4 6y ago
You seem to feel that charity is to be deprecated because it excuses unjust social structures. I think this is a mistake and that charity often challenges such injustices.
- lapinot 6y ago
  I do! I understand your position but i believe it's illusory. I would define charity by it's free-willingness and the fact it's done by the people of means towards the more helpless (i believe helping among your peers is self-help/solidarity and not charity). There is an inherant distance between the giver/given: the giver has profited (indirectly, as always!) from some structures, which have negatively affected the given (global north gives to global south, rich gives to poor, citizen gives to immigrant, etc). Charity may be necessary in an inegalitarian society, but as such i don't include it in my moral ideals, which themselves already mandate to eliminate such structures. On a more practical level, charity is a plaster that contributes to the acceptability of domination: far-from-home wars are acceptable because we have NGOs, but the reason we are implicated far-from-home is because we have strategical interests there. Humanitarians orgs object to the means of domination, but they don't object the actual relationship. Another thing is that the individual and free-willing decision means that you will resort to unconsious decision making to apply it or not, since you won't be able individually to always apply it. Think about it: which kind of beggars do you actually (not) give to? mothers with children? drunk? young? proactives/prostrated? And as groups: towards which ones does the public opinion orient NGOs? There are always some patterns, it's always brutal and it always transpires the exact biases we are otherwise trying to fight. EDIT: For a bit more legibility i should've added that the concept that replaces charity for me is solidarity. And given that moral guidelines as above are never fully applicable, in a situation of charity i try to act with solidarity in mind. In solidarity the difference in power inside some imperfect structure may still be present, but it is not the core. In fact you give not because the recipient has less means, but because you are peers in some other sense. Solidarity could also flow in the opposite direction since it's more than just a transaction.
  - cmacleod4 6y ago

cmacleod4 6y ago

You seem to feel that charity is to be deprecated because it excuses unjust social structures. I think this is a mistake and that charity often challenges such injustices.

lapinot 6y ago
I do! I understand your position but i believe it's illusory. I would define charity by it's free-willingness and the fact it's done by the people of means towards the more helpless (i believe helping among your peers is self-help/solidarity and not charity). There is an inherant distance between the giver/given: the giver has profited (indirectly, as always!) from some structures, which have negatively affected the given (global north gives to global south, rich gives to poor, citizen gives to immigrant, etc). Charity may be necessary in an inegalitarian society, but as such i don't include it in my moral ideals, which themselves already mandate to eliminate such structures. On a more practical level, charity is a plaster that contributes to the acceptability of domination: far-from-home wars are acceptable because we have NGOs, but the reason we are implicated far-from-home is because we have strategical interests there. Humanitarians orgs object to the means of domination, but they don't object the actual relationship. Another thing is that the individual and free-willing decision means that you will resort to unconsious decision making to apply it or not, since you won't be able individually to always apply it. Think about it: which kind of beggars do you actually (not) give to? mothers with children? drunk? young? proactives/prostrated? And as groups: towards which ones does the public opinion orient NGOs? There are always some patterns, it's always brutal and it always transpires the exact biases we are otherwise trying to fight. EDIT: For a bit more legibility i should've added that the concept that replaces charity for me is solidarity. And given that moral guidelines as above are never fully applicable, in a situation of charity i try to act with solidarity in mind. In solidarity the difference in power inside some imperfect structure may still be present, but it is not the core. In fact you give not because the recipient has less means, but because you are peers in some other sense. Solidarity could also flow in the opposite direction since it's more than just a transaction.
- cmacleod4 6y ago