The Monolaw Challenge

Monolaw Challenge

Mor'al\, a. [F., fr. It. moralis, fr. mos, moris, manner, custom, habit, way of life, conduct.] 1. Relating to duty or obligation; pertaining to those intentions and actions of which right and wrong, virtue and vice, are predicated, or to the rules by which such intentions and actions ought to be directed; relating to the practice, manners, or conduct of men AS SOCIAL BEINGS IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER, as respects right and wrong, so far as they are properly subject to rules.


Most here know that I have asserted my conclusion that the Monolaw is all that is sufficient to define/delineate what is morality. Behavior by an entity that violates the Monolaw can be regarded as immoral (not moral), and conversely behavior that complies with the Monolaw can be regarded as moral (not immoral).

Here are a few historic pronouncements of the Monolaw.

Deal with others as thou wouldst thyself be dealt by. Do nothing to thy neighbor which thou wouldst not have him to thee hereafter.
Mahabharata (c. 800 BC)

That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.
Dadistan-I dinik, Zend-Avesta (c. 700 BC)

Whatsoever thou wouldst that men should not do to thee, do not that to them. This is the whole law. The rest is only explanation.
Hillel Ha-Babli (c. 200 BC

This is my take on morality. When I am faced with a question that requires being tested for morality, I apply the Monolaw.

I am not satisfied to merely depend on my own evaluation as to the validity of this position based on my reflections to date. I believe that true wisdom is reflected in the continue examination of one's philosophies. Towards this end, I issue an outstanding challenge to the Monolaw.

The challenge is to suggest the real world scenario in which the Monolaw fails to adequately serve as the definition of morality. This means come up with a case, in which it would be commonly accepted that something is either not immoral and the Monolaw identifies it as immoral, or something is immoral and the Monolaw identifies it as not immoral. In all fairness to the Monolaw, the challenge must supply a replacement rule that succeeds where the Monolaw fails, without failing where the Monolaw is sound.

The objective of the case presented is to assist me in my efforts to properly understand morality, so to the extent that the case does or does not advance this goal, so shall the challenge ultimately be judged.



CAVEATS

The person in question, i.e., the one who's behavior is under consideration, must not be what would widely be regarded as a psychological aberrant. Obviously a deranged maniac, who thinks everyone he comes upon is a demon, is not going to apply The Monolaw successfully. What should be equally obvious, but maybe overlooked, is the fact that such a person is not going to apply any moral rule successfully. This goes for sadist, masochists, psychotics, and psychopaths. To best help me judge The Monolaw lets keep our case subjects to the 95 percentile of the human populous.

THE MONOLAW Various Pronouncements

Behave regarding others, as you would have others behave towards you.


(Various Pronouncements)

Deal with others as thou wouldst thyself be dealt by. Do nothing to thy neighbor which thou wouldst not have him to thee hereafter.
Mahabharata (c. 800 BC)

That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self.
Dadistan-I dinik, Zend-Avesta (c. 700 BC)

Do not that to thy neighbor that thou wouldst not suffer from him.
Pittacus of Mytilene (650-570 BC)

Hurt not others with that which pains yourself.
Undana Varga (c. 500 BC)

Is not reciprocity such a word? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others.

Tuan-mu Tzv said, "What I do not wish others to do unto me I also wish not to do unto others." Do not unto others what you would not they should do unto you.
Confucius (551-479 BC)

We should behave to our friends as we would wish our friends to behave to us.
Aristotle (384-322 BC)

Ponder well the maxim: Never do to other persons what would pain thyself.
Panchatantra (c. 200 BC)

Whatsoever thou wouldst that men should not do to thee, do not that to them. This is the whole law. The rest is only explanation.
Hillel Ha-Babli (c. 200 BC)

As ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
Jesus (Luke 6:31)

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Jesus (Matthew 7:12)

Say not, if people are good to us, we will do good to them, and if people oppress us we will oppress them: but resolve that if people do good to you, you will do good to them, and if they oppress you, oppress them not again.
Mohammed (7th Century A.D.)

Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law.
Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)


As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master.
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)


An it harm none, do what ye will.
Wiccan Rede



No one has the right to expect one set of rules for their self and a different set of rules for everyone else.

SRS

It is either illogical or arrogant to expect from others behavior different than that of your own. (What Spock of Vulcan would say.)

As you don't want to have others unnecessarily burden you, don't be an unnecessary burden to others. But as you would be thankful for aid in a time of need, do not avoid aiding others in their time of need.
SRS

Morality can be known

How can morality be defined? This is one of the ageless questions, asked by man. It is a question that has been answered from almost the moment it was asked. The problem is that the simple answer to this quandary for the most part goes ignored. This club is dedicated to ending that ignorance. Morality is following the Monolaw. AND THE MONOLAW IS THIS: Behave regarding others, as you would have others behave towards you.