Eighteen oft forgotten pleas from world religions

Looking at moral traditions with at least vague universalist features, there are many surprisingly strong moral claims that are held in near consensus. The traditions I have in mind are Buddhism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam, the universalising parts of Hinduism, Stoicism, Daoism as well as what we might call a diffuse tradition of unaffiliated practical moralists mostly descended from these religions and philosophies. My topic is a subset of what they hold in common, the subset which is most easily forgotten in practice.

It is not an exaggeration to say the ideas we will be considering are anti-memetic in the context of daily life (even as they are massively memetic as purely theoretical ideas). That is, they are structurally difficult to remember. Everyone knows the words; everyone knows that they’re supposed to be at the core of each tradition. Nevertheless, they’re always first forgotten in practice, even while readily quoted and professed. If these principles were purely forgotten in practice, anti-memetic might not be the right word, just hard to follow. However, they are conspicuously also forgotten in practical moral discourse and judgments. As many, many people have wondered: how much ink has been spilt on homosexuality, adultery and copies of the ten commandments in schools, and how little on the rate of charitable donations, volunteering, or how many people would show up for a suicidal friend? The pattern is the ideas show up in theory, are present but much, much diminished in practical moral writing, and tend to vanish in social enforcement and day to day life.

I would postulate five reasons why memory fails when it comes to these principles:

A) Many of the principles we will be considering are hard to formulate in sharp lines, and especially sharp lines that can be enforced by others. “No drinking” or “No adultery” are, some edge cases excepted, pretty easily defined, and at least relatively easily enforced. But who shall levy a fine for insufficient love? On what scale is it to be measured? That’s the kinder reading of why we forget these rules. The less kind readings include:

B) It’s difficult to accumulate status by following these rules. An even less kind interpretation:

C) It can be difficult to weaponize these principles against others in the context of status games, at least relative to other kinds of accusations of moral failure- such as accusations of sexual immorality (1):

D) These warnings often tell against the favoured sins of the powerful. Thus, integration into a power-order tends to suppress them and:

E) Many of these principles be taken arbitrarily far. For many reasons people want ethics to be a box they can tick, a discrete list of requirements. When something goes beyond this, we tend to ignore it or pay lip service.

What follows is no “concordance of the religions”. The different traditions on the list vary in many ways. Judaism is particularist in ways the others aren’t. Islam has a practical flavour. It was created in the context of governing a state- that perhaps makes it somewhat more martial and comfortable with the practical administration of legal codes (2) than the others. Daoism is universalist, but it is not exactly a moralising religion like the others. However, while it is suspicious of morality (“heaven and earth are not humane) it may have been less suspicious if “morality” in its intellectual context wasn’t defined by Confucianism. When Laozi rejects the humaneness of heaven and earth, he may simply be rejecting the idea that Heaven is a Confucian and asserting Heaven is neither particularist nor a respecter of tradition. A loose analogy (somewhat unfair to Confucianism); think about the difference between what a humanitarian means by morality, and what a fainting Victorian means by morality. Perhaps it’s the latter that the Daodejing is rejecting. Thus, it may be that reactance drove Daoism away from being a universalist ethic religion in the strictest sense.

I am fully cognizant 1. of the dangers of putting different religious traditions into a superficial correspondence. 2. That “all religions are saying the same thing!” is a classic trap for midwits (at best). 3. That any study of many traditions across many axes will inevitably make mistakes. 4. That not all these religions and philosophies would agree with all points exactly as worded. 5. That every religion and philosophy quoted is full of internal divergences. 6. That my phrasing and selection is shaped by my own and contextual concerns as all such curations must be. 7. That the selection nakedly selects my own moral preferences and, worse, needs. 8. That I have been selective in what religions and philosophies I have included due to limits of time and space. Jainism, Sikhism, Zoroastrianism, the Yoruba religious tradition, modern philosophic Humanism like that of Mill, and the Haudenosaunee Great Law of Peace, each hold many of these points (perhaps in some cases, all). Mohism was part of an earlier draft. Most damningly of all: 9. Although these points are genuinely overlapping between the religions and philosophies, the canny reader will reconstruct that Christianity was clearly my central prototype, despite my own atheism. I also note, again, that Daoism is perhaps a more partial fit than the others, and that Confucianism and Mohism would have been a fit for some points but pull away hard from others. This is comparative religion with an axe to grind, you have been warned.

Eighteen forgotten pleas (3)

1. Love is the foundation of everything worthwhile. (4)

2. There are always various excuses for the moral usefulness of hate, they are always or almost always wrong.

3. Rules have uses but can never substitute for the love of others and the good.

4. You should be less demanding of others than yourself.

5. But you do not have the right to be cruel to yourself.

6. Beware moral grandstanding. All grandstanding really, but especially moral.

7. We have always made many excuses for thinking certain kinds of people don’t matter. They’re all wrong.

8. Anger is profoundly dangerous. What we would now think of as disgust and contempt directed towards persons is even more dangerous.

9. Being good is meant to help, if it’s not helping, you’re probably doing it wrong.

10. Beware self-deception

11. Beware wealth and especially the love of wealth

12. Beware every excuse for making things about yourself

13. We drastically underestimate the frequency, harm and moral severity of many kinds of wrongful speech

14. Everyone, every single person, matters. (5)

15. Do not glory in the pain or destruction of the wrongdoer

16. Forgive.

17. The young, the old, the sick, the imprisoned, the poor, the orphan, the widow, the stranger in a strange land, in two words, the vulnerable, all have special claim to your affection, time, resources and courage.

18. Do not seek to gain status by being good.

Postscript

As you can likely tell, I agree with all these points. I think we should take them up. I think the failure of even rightly motivated people to pay attention to them is a cause of much suffering today. Even while we have made many moral advances, these points are systematically neglected. This is especially true now that they no longer have a strong champion in religion, for all the many flaws of religion, and the heartaches it has caused.

That doesn’t mean these principles are sufficient. For example, the great religions were perhaps more critical than the world-of-their-time of slavery. They restricted slavery in many ways, and one can detect within them more than a twinge of unease about the subject. Nevertheless, not one of the traditions discussed condemned slavery in all cases in a canonical source up until the church father St Gregory of Nyssa in the 300’s (if one even counts him as canonical).

Even today, the interpretation of these principles is far from perfect. For example, I endorse the spirit of the Jewish prohibition on Lashon Hara -evil speech- but in practice the letter is too strict. This has led to some tragic cases.

Another important caveat- strong statements about forgiveness are right but must be paired with a practical commitment to managing wrongdoing. Still, “bending the stick” towards forgiveness in every domain from criminal justice to our social lives is, I think just, kind and purdent.

And yet, all caveats aside, I have found that the principles underlying the list- love, attention to the other, anti-legalism- are among the best for conferring meaning on a life.

The moral case for these principles has been made many time. Let me briefly sketch the prudential case. Not to forgive, is as the buddha said, like clutching a hot coal or drinking poison and hoping it will hurt the other person. Living by strict rules rather than their spirit is like trying to climb a mountain with a backpack full of lead ingots- go spend some time with a person afflicted by moralistic OCD if you want to see the logical extreme (I would know). Only caring, or only thinking, about yourself, induces anxiety in the same way as being on a stormy sea atop a small raft. Death or incapacity can befall you at any time, and if you care only for yourself, you have no consolation that the world will go on without you and no projects to postdate your death- thus you will indeed be alone in the most fragile vessel imaginable. Hating others, excluding classes of people, not caring about the vulnerable, shrinks your moral universe and insults the very same clay you are made of. Being a boaster makes it harder to see the beauty in the world and other people around you. What these principles, rightly interpreted offer in a prudential sense is joy and security.

Any revival could only ever be partial for the reason I outlined- the anti-memetic property. However, even within these limitations, these principles have done wonderful things and they could do so again. I don’t know what a revival of these ideas in a secular world looks like, but I would be excited to find out.

Footnotes

(1)- A big part of A, B and C is third party unverifiability.

(2)- Judaism is an interesting contrast case re: legal codes. Yes, it has them, but when it comes to enforcing the severe criminal codes, it gets very squeamish. “It is a bloody Sanhedrin that executes one man in seventy years”. It may even be that no Sanhedrin in a lineage that gave rise to modern Judaism ever executed anybody.

(3) Some of these will overlap. Like many of the religious texts I quote, I’m more focused on trying to convey the points then avoid overlapping bits of logical space.

(4)- “But what about the state”, says the realist “isn’t that a moral enterprise not founded on love”. “Exactly, what about the state?” replies the earnestly religious “An unmitigated disaster if there ever was one”. “Okay, what’s the alternative?” says the realist. Here, typically, the religious person has no answer, except a hope that one day love will hold the keys to the kingdom. But that hope, even if vague, is not inert.

(5)-This one is not surprising, since my class is universalist religions.

Sources

1: Avot 1:2; Sifra, Kedoshim on Leviticus 19:18; 1 Corinthians 13:1–3; Sahih al-Bukhari 13; Sahih Muslim 45; Itivuttaka 27; Bhagavad Gita 12:13–14; Meditations 7.31; Hierocles, fragments in Stobaeus, Anthology 4.84.20–23; Daodejing 67

2: Leviticus 19:17–18; Exodus 23:4–5; Matthew 5:43–48; Romans 12:19–21; Quran 41:34; Quran 5:8; Dhammapada 1, verses 3–5; Bhagavad Gita 12:13; De Ira 1.12; Meditations 6.6; Daodejing 63; Daodejing 68

3: Shabbat 31a; Makkot 24a; Sifra, Kedoshim on Leviticus 19:18; Micah 6:8; Matthew 22:36–40; Matthew 23:23–24; 1 Corinthians 13:1–3; Mark 2:27; Sahih al-Bukhari 1; Quran 2:177; Quran 22:37; Majjhima Nikaya 22; Anguttara Nikaya 3.65; Bhagavad Gita 2:42–46; Bhagavad Gita 4:33; Bhagavad Gita 17:11–13; Epistulae Morales 94–95; Daodejing 38

4: Avot 1:6; Avot 2:4; Matthew 7:1–5; Quran 49:12; Sahih Muslim 2699; Dhammapada 50; Dhammapada 252–253; Kabir Granthavali, sakhi beginning “Bura jo dekhan main chala…”; Meditations 10.30; Zhuangzi, “Man in the World” (especially the recomendation to perfect yourself before trying to correct the wrongdoer).

5: Taanit 11a; Bava Kamma 90b; Colossians 2:23; 1 Corinthians 6:19–20; Sahih al-Bukhari 1975; Quran 2:185; Samyutta Nikaya 56.11; Bhagavad Gita 17:5–6; Bhagavad Gita 6:16–17; Epistulae Morales 5; Meditations 5.9; Zhuangzi, “Ingrained ideas” (the first defective way of life represents asceticism).

6: Bava Batra 9b; Proverbs 21:14; Matthew 6:1–6; Matthew 6:16–18; Quran 107:4–6; Quran 2:264; Dhammapada 73–74; Vinaya Pacittiya 8; Bhagavad Gita 17:18; Enchiridion 46; Meditations 5.6; Daodejing 22; Daodejing 77

7: Leviticus 19:33–34; Bava Metzia 59b; Luke 10:25–37; Matthew 25:31–46; Qur’an 49:13; Qur’an 5:8; Musnad Ahmad 22978/23489; Sutta Nipata 1.7; Majjhima Nikaya 93; Bhagavad Gita 5:18 (but see: 18:41–48); Bhagavad Gita 9:32 (with clear limitations in the text); Epistulae Morales 47; Discourses 1.9; Daodejing 49; Zhuangzi, “The Seal of Virtue Complete”

8: Shabbat 105b; Nedarim 22a; Matthew 5:22; James 1:20; Sahih al-Bukhari 6116; Sahih Muslim 2564; Dhammapada 221–223; Majjhima Nikaya 21; Bhagavad Gita 2:62–63; Bhagavad Gita 16:21; De Ira 1.1–12; Meditations 11.18; Daodejing 63; Daodejing 68

9: Deuteronomy 6:24; Proverbs 3:17; Yoma 85b; Mishneh Torah, Sabbath 2:3; Mark 2:27; Matthew 9:13; Sahih al-Bukhari 39; Samyutta Nikaya 47.19; Anguttara Nikaya 4.95; Bhagavad Gita 3:20; Bhagavad Gita 2:50; De Vita Beata 3–4; Daodejing 8; Daodejing 81

10: Jeremiah 17:9; Psalm 19:13; 1 John 1:8; Galatians 6:3; Qur’an 31:33 / 35:5; Ihya Ulum al-Din, Book 30; Majjhima Nikaya 15; Anguttara Nikaya 10.51; Bhagavad Gita 3:6; Bhagavad Gita 18:32; De Ira 3.36; Epistulae Morales 28.9–10; Daodejing 33; Daodejing 71

11: Ecclesiastes 5:10; Avot 2:7; Matthew 19:23–24; Matthew 6:24; Quran 102:1–2; Quran 9:34–35; Dhammapada 355; Katha Upanishad 1.1.27; Bhagavad Gita 16:13–15; Epistulae Morales 2; 18; 87; Enchiridion 44; Daodejing 9; Daodejing 44; Daodejing 46; Daodejing 81

12: Avot 2:8; Micah 6:8; Philippians 2:3–4; Luke 14:7–11; Quran 31:18; Sahih Muslim 91; Samyutta Nikaya 22.89; Dhammapada 74; Bhagavad Gita 3:27; Bhagavad Gita 2:47; Enchiridion 48; Meditations 4.19; Daodejing 7; Daodejing 22; Daodejing 66; Daodejing 67

13: Arakhin 15b; Proverbs 18:21; James 3:1–12; Matthew 12:36–37; Jami at-Tirmidhi 2616; Quran 49:11–12; Samyutta Nikaya 45.8; Dhammapada 133; Bhagavad Gita 17:15; Enchiridion 33; Lives of Eminent Philosophers 7.23; Daodejing 81; Zhuangzi, “The Human World”

14: Mishnah Sanhedrin 4:5; Avot 3:14; Matthew 25:40; Luke 15:3–7; Quran 5:32; Quran 17:70; Sutta Nipata 1.8; Udana 5.1; Isha Upanishad 6; Bhagavad Gita 6:29–30; Discourses 1.13; Meditations 4.4

15. Berakhot 10a ; Mishnah Sanhedrin 6:5; Proverbs 24:17–18; Avot 4:19; Job 31:29–30; Ezekiel 18:23 / 33:11; Megillah 10b / Sanhedrin 39b; Luke 9:51–56; Jude 9; Sahih al-Bukhari 3231; Śāntideva, Bodhicaryāvatāra 6.87–89; Dhammapada 201; Nāgārjuna, Ratnāvalī 4.31–37; Yoga Sutras 1.33; Bhagavad Gita 6:9; Rāmāyaṇa, Yuddha Kāṇḍa 6.111.102; Epictetus, Discourses 1.18; De Ira 1.15–16; Meditations 6.6; Daodejing 74; Daodejing 62; Zhuangzi, “The Seal of Virtue Complete” (the described mutilations are judicial)

16. Genesis 50:15–21; Mishneh Torah, Teshuvah 2:10; Megillah 28a; Micah 7:18–19; Matthew 18:21–35; Matthew 6:14–15; Mark 11:25; Ephesians 4:32; Colossians 3:13; Luke 23:34; Sahih al-Bukhari 3477; Quran 24:22; Quran 42:40–43; Quran 3:134; Quran 12:92; Vinaya, Mahavagga X.2; Anguttara Nikaya 2.21; Digha Nikaya 2; Mahabharata, Vana Parva 27–29; Bhagavad Gita 16:3; Enchiridion 42; Meditations 7.22 (strictly speaking Stoics aren’t supposed to forgive, but avoid harshness of feeling or punishment to begin with); Daodejing 79

17. Exodus 22:21–24; Deuteronomy 10:18–19; Isaiah 1:17; Job 29:12–16; Sotah 14a; Gittin 61a; Matthew 25:34–40; Luke 14:12–14; James 1:27; Galatians 2:10; Quran 93:9–10; Quran 90:12–16; Quran 107:1–3; Sahih al-Bukhari 5304; Sahih al-Bukhari 5353; Vinaya, Mahavagga VIII.26; Digha Nikaya 26; Taittiriya Upanishad 1.11; Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 5.2; Bhagavad Gita 17:20; Musonius Rufus, Lecture 15; Daodejing 27; Daodejing 77

18. Avot 1:3; Pesachim 50b; Matthew 6:2; Musnad Ahmad 23630; Ihya Ulum al-Din, Book 28; Samyutta Nikaya 17.1–5; Vinaya Parajika 4; Bhagavad Gita 17:21; Bhagavad Gita 2:47; Meditations 12.4; Daodejing 22; Daodejing 66