The Universality Of Morality

The Golden Rule:

The most elementary rule of thumb for living (what most would consider to be) an ethical life is marvelously straight-forward: Refrain from doing to others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you (or, more generally: Treat others the way you’d have them treat you).  This protocol has two aspects: empathy and consistency.  Thus it accomplishes two important things.

• In any given situation, it obliges one to put oneself in another’s shoes.  This is a repudiation of narcissism.
• It obliges one to check whether or not one is being consistent in the justification one is using for one’s actions.  (If it’s bad when others do it, then it must be bad when I do it.)  This is a repudiation of hypocrisy.

Above all, the axiom urges us to recognize that we are all fellow humans; and so should always be treated as such.

The widespread existence of this thinking speaks volumes.  We are, after all, defined by our highest aspirations.  It is safe to say that our moral character is a function of our ultimate ends.  YET…insofar as one is driven by a pursuit of spoils in an after-death “life”, one can not be said to be tapping into the better angels of one’s nature. Cupidity (securing admission into Paradise for oneself) couldn’t possibly play a role in probity, as morality is not about instrumentality; and moral principles are not self-serving.

The so-called “Golden Rule” was originally formulated by Confucius in the 6th century B.C.  The problem with his formulation is that it was instrumental in nature: It was about maintaining civic order; and was seen as a matter of ETIQUETTE. (Propriety is not probity.)

Around the same time, Siddhartha Gautama of Lumpini (the “Buddha”) preached a similar maxim, per the opening verse of “Dhammapada” chapter 10: “Consider others as you would yourself” (alternately rendered: “Pain not others with that which would pain yourself”).  This was a more laudable encapsulation, as it was CATEGORICAL, and couched in terms of universal empathy for one’s fellow man.

The Buddha also taught that one should never–under any circumstances–persecute another person; as one should have compassion for all people, irrespective of social status.  A Jewish carpenter from the Galilee would echo this teaching five centuries later.  (It’s a shame that few who claim to follow JoN’s teachings actually heed this admonition.)

In the Abrahamic tradition, the Golden Rule has made intermittent appearances.  In the Torah, we find a crude version of the tenet in Exodus 22:21 and Deuteronomy 10:19; though–as we saw earlier–it is buried deep within a salmagundi of morally-dubious exhortations.

Unfortunately, the commonly-cited Leviticus 19:18 applies exclusively to Israelites with ONE ANOTHER; not to outsiders.  It reads, “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against / amongst YOUR PEOPLE; but you shall love your neighbor [fellow Hebrews] as yourself; I am the lord your god.”  Who’s god?  YOUR god (i.e. the Hebrew deity, who should be recognized above all other gods).

In other words: Favor the in-group.

What this oft-touted passage clearly does NOT say is: “Love all mankind; irrespective of tribal affiliation.”  This adjuration was a recipe for tribalism; as it prescribes comity with one’s fellow tribesman, leaving the way entirely open for enmity toward outsiders.  Such a strictly circumscribed scope of empathy privileges the anointed tribe whilst holding everyone else in abeyance.

Recall that (per Deuteronomy 23:2) any progeny of denizens of Beth Israel that were of impure / foreign blood (“mamzers”) were not included in the “congregation of Yahweh”…for up to TEN generations.  So the sphere of empathy was explicitly a function of ethnicity (as well as fealty); and had nothing to do with shared humanity (which, by definition, would have extended to–well–all humanity). Taken in context, Leviticus 19:18 is not as peachy as it might seem at first blush.

Similarly, just a few verses earlier, verse 13 admonishes one not to defraud one’s neighbor (qua fellow Hebrew); rather than stating that one should not defraud ANYONE.  Felicitously, verses 33-34 amends verse 2 by stating, “When foreigners reside among you in your land, do not mistreat them.  The foreigners [as opposed to neighbors] residing amongst you should be treated as native-born.  Love them as yourself, for you were once foreigners in Egypt” (in keeping with Exodus 22:21 and Deuteronomy 10:19).

In terms of global human solidarity, two other passages in the Torah are worth noting.

Genesis 9:6 states: “Whoever sheds the blood of the people, by the people shall their blood be shed; for in the image of god has god made people.” {44}  This can be taken in one of two ways: As an admonition against shedding the blood of fellow humans (since the transgression will redound to the perpetrator) …OR… as an enjoinder to kill those who kill (per the eye-for-an-eye protocol stipulated in Exodus 21:24).  Those of good will opt for the former (rather charitable) interpretation.  Others are at liberty to opt for the latter interpretation.

Even worse, it could easily be read as an admonition that is only against harming fellow Hebrews…leaving the way open for killing anyone else.

Deuteronomy 24:14 states: “Do not exploit poor workers, whether they are fellow Israelites or immigrants who live in your land or your cities.”  This is clearly an enjoinder for trans-tribal equity–in keeping with the adjuration of beneficence toward the stranger found in the aforementioned passages.  Felicitously, this countermands the exhortations to divisive tribalism (read: ethno-centricity) found elsewhere in the Torah.

In the meantime, the Torah is riddled with enumerations of people Yahweh despises–including men with damaged genitalia (Deuteronomy 23:1) and prostitutes (Deuteronomy 23:18); not to mention all non-Hebrews.

The most renown articulation of the Golden Rule the Abrahamic orbit came from the Judaic commentator, Hillel the Elder in the late 1st century B.C.  (Interestingly, both Confucius AND Hillel put forth this maxim when they were asked to encapsulate in a singular statement the essence of their teachings.)

For many, the “Golden Rule” has been erroneously associated with Christianity.  Indeed, one might argue that the most important thing JoN taught was the Golden Rule–as attested in Mark 12:31, Matthew 7:12, and Luke 6:31.  In addition, the parable of the “Good Samaritan” (Luke 10:25-37) enjoined trans-tribal empathy.  And, of course, the reprise of “love thy neighbor” (from Leviticus 19:18) in Matthew 22:39 was a nice touch.  And so it went: The Golden Rule made a fleeting appearance in the Gospels…before being summarily ignored by the vast majority of Christians thereafter.

As it turns out, this rule-of-thumb was not a unique insight at the time.  ALSO during the 1st century, Roman thinkers propounded the same principle–most notably: Epictetus of Phrygia (in his “Enchiridion”).  And around the time of JoN’s ministry, the Roman (Stoic) philosopher, Lucius Annaeus Seneca of Cordoba (a.k.a. “Seneca the Younger”) had already stated: “Treat your inferiors the way you would want to be treated by your betters.”  (In other words: You shall be judged by how you treat ‘the least of these’.)

As it came to pass, the most sophisticated version of the Golden Rule came in the 18th century.  Immanuel Kant’s “Categorical Imperative” took it a step further, focusing on the underlying principles on which actions are based rather than on the actions themselves.  The moral imperative (born of what Kant dubbed “duty”) has two facets:

• Never use another human being as a means ONLY; but act only in a way that treats other humans ALSO as ends-in-themselves (that is: as beings with inherent value). Thus, one is to see all mankind as a “kingdom of ends”.
• Act only in ways that one would be willing to universal the maxim on which the action-in-question is based.

It is from the Categorical Imperative that ALL ethics flows.

A century later, Karl Marx offered a new perspective on human solidarity.  More than being merely an advocate for the working class (namely: those who were being exploited), Marx was a humanist.  He championed what he called “gattungswesen”, which is typically translated as “species-being”.  The concept captures the essence of human-ness that all humans share.  According to Marx, THAT is what must serve as the basis for all moral assessment.

Marx advocated for the sovereignty of every individual over his own life.  In his famous manifesto, he was clear that the free development of each person is paramount; and is thereby precondition for the free development of the whole. (Only universal suffrage / enfranchisement makes a truly free society.) According to this eminently humanistic perspective, “species-being” is paramount–both for the individual and for the commonweal.

“Species-being” is corrupted by two things: parochialism and material acquisitiveness (in psychological terms: tribalistic impulses and cupidity)…both of which are born of avarice (whether collective or individual).  When it came to economics (spec. the depredations of capitalism), the latter was salient; when it came to religion (and ethno-centricity), the former was salient.  So it is the former on which we’ll focus presently.

Divvying mankind into disparate factions (groups that are often DESIGNED to be mutually antagonistic) is inimical to human solidarity.  Marx was clear that his aim was to dissolve not just religionism, but the form of tribalism that is every bit as divisive: nationalism (esp. ethno-nationalism; as ethno-centricity was the most flagrant contravention of “species-being”).  His thinking was that such dissolution would enable us to fashion ourselves as members of a global community–in the vain of Diogenes and Thomas Paine: self-proclaimed citizens of the world.

For Marx, transcending our tribalistic impulses was the precondition for “species being” (read: humanism); and thus for civil society.  For he recognized that tribalism led to the Balkanization of mankind; so he sought to flesh out the terms by which our innate tribalistic bent could be overcome.  His answer was to emphasize our shared humanity; which meant thinking about–and treating–mankind as a unified tribe.  William Godwin had intimated as much when he stated: “Men may one day feel that they are partakers of a common nature, and that true freedom and perfect equity, like food and air, are pregnant with benefit to every constitution” (vol. 1 of his “Enquiry Concerning Political Justice” c. 1793). As the Ancient Greeks would have put it: “agape” knows no particular tribe.  And no particular tribe has a monopoly on righteousness.  Such things transcend social constructs–be it tribal or institutional affiliation…or any kind of demographic demarcation.

In his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul says that “LOVE” believes all things, hopes all things” (13:7).  This is NOT the “agape” of the Ancient Greeks; it is devotion to the Abrahamic deity; and a recipe for unbridled heteronomy.  It is the kind of “love” (fealty to the godhead; unwavering compliance / conformity) that exhorts one to be injudiciously dogmatic; even delusional.  Hence, the Pauline message is not that LOVE conquers all; it’s that PIETY conquers all.  (Needless to say, when piety is prized over love, it rarely ends well.)

So what IMPEDES us from espousing the Golden Rule?  As it turns out: religiosity.  How so?  The symbiosis between religionism and tribalism. For this point, we can turn to Marx’s seminal essay, “On The Jewish Question”: a statement AGAINST anti-Semitism and FOR humanism (esp. the separation of church and state).  What makes this prognosis unique is that it proposes that the best way to undermine anti-Semitism is for Jews to stop singling themselves out as a special group (spec. as a tribe that has been given the “inside track” on divine ordinance). This essay is pivotal to the present thesis, so I will be quoting it at length.

More than anything else, “On The Jewish Question” was a clarion call to eschew tribalism in all of its derisory forms: racial, national, religious, etc.  Written during the autumn of 1843 when Marx was only 25 years old, the essay outlines a new way of thinking about all humans, irrespective of who they might happen to be.  Hence his exhortation of everyone–irrespective of identity–to “live in a universal human condition” with one another. In this scheme, our shared humanity trumps all other concerns.

Thus Marx proposed that “species-being” is not only the primary means by which universal emancipation might be effected; it is the ultimate basis for global human solidarity.  The brotherhood of mankind, he pointed out, is THE ONLY legitimate tribe (effectively the omni-tribe).

Meanwhile, a tribalistic mindset–especially religiously-instantiated–is guaranteed to preclude a humanist perspective.  (Parochialism and cosmopolitanism are fundamentally incompatible.) The father of modern tribalism (read: ethno-centric hyper-nationalism) was Johann Herder, who was adamantly against humanism–which is to say that he was diametrically opposed to cosmopolitanism. Herder refused to recognize the universality of morality–as explicated by the likes of Spinoza, Kant, Paine, Marx, Rawls, et. al.  This new tribalism was adopted by Johann Gottlieb Fichte, then Heinrich von Treitschke…which laid the groundwork for the (proto-fascistic) Teutonic cults (“Germanenorden”) and other Völkisch movements in Germany; and continued on through the asseverations of Prussian jurist, Carl Schmitt during the Third Reich. Pitting the in-group against the out-group is the basis of ALL tribalism–a Manichean way of seeing the world that I discuss in my essay, “Nemesis”.

Returning to Marx: Insofar as we succumb to a (religion-based and/or ethnicity-based) tribal mindset, “the equality of all citizens is restricted in actual life…[a life that] is still dominated and fragmented by religious privileges.”  By espousing a Reactionary mindset (whereby stature is accorded based on tribal identity), Marx observed, society ends up being divided into a privileged in-group (which accords to itself exclusive entitlements) and, well, everyone else.

Why does tribalism undermine “species-being”? Marx’s answer: “Because the lack of liberty in actual life influences law in its turn, and obliges it to sanction the division of citizens, who are by nature free, into oppressors and oppressed.”  Only by partaking in “species being” can we all–as fellow human beings–get past our latent tribal divisions; and preclude this inequitable eventuality.

But to do THAT, we must rid ourselves of consecrated dogmatic systems, which only serve to entrench the factions of mankind. {28} It is necessary, then, “to abolish all religious privilege, including the monopoly of a privileged church.  If, thereafter, some or many or even the overwhelming majority felt obliged to fulfill their religious duties, such practices should be left to them as an absolutely private matter.”  No better articulation of the separation of church and state has ever been stated: “On your own time; on your own dime.”

One’s Faith is one’s own (personal) affair: a decision to be made at each person’s discretion.  Freedom OF (one’s own) religion entails freedom FROM (others’) religion.  Such symmetry of prerogative is the only way to effect freedom of conscience for EVERYONE: one person’s religious observance in no way places any burden on the next person.

To illustrate the practical application of this insight, imagine applying it to the Israel-Palestinian conflict of the Post-War Era (a conflict OVER land BASED ON religion, whereby the antagonists are defined according to ethnicity): “Man emancipates himself politically from religion by expelling it from the sphere of public law.  Religion is no longer the spirit of the state.”  The only truly democratic government is a secular government: one that does not pick favorites. (For more on Marx’s view on government, see Appendix 4 of my essay on “The Long History Of Legal Codes”.)

The key, then, is to relegate religion to the (delimited) domain of personal rules (that is: rules one makes for oneself, at one’s own discretion).  Religious freedom is paramount. “The privilege of faith is a universal right of man.”  Marx may have just as well said that Faith is an individual prerogative; as the freedom of conscience (sovereignty over one’s own mind, and thus over one’s own life) is integral to a free society.

By adopting this cosmopolitan worldview (which, to reiterate, entails secular / democratic society), we find ourselves in a salutary state of affairs.  Marx imagines a situation “in which man behaves, albeit in a specific and limited way, and in a particular sphere, as a species-being: in communion with other [humans qua humans].”

This requires the repudiation of tribalism.  For, insofar as one defines oneself according to (and thus bases one’s thinking / actions on) one’s affiliation with this or that tribe, one “is separated from the community, from himself, and from other men.”  Religion is the CODIFIED expression of this separation from the larger community of men.  In other words: religion is not “the essence of community, but the essence of differentiation.”

At the end of the day, religiosity is “only the abstract avowal of individual folly.”  It is predicated on “private whim or caprice” (stemming from what might be called “epistemic narcissism”).  Put bluntly: “The existence of religion is the existence of a defect.” That defect exists not just in the individual, but in society-in-general.

The key, then, is to rebuke regimes that define themselves according to this or that religious (or ethno-centric) agenda.  “The state which is still theological, which still professes officially the Christian [or any] creed…has not yet succeeded in expressing in a human and secular form, in its political reality, the HUMAN basis” for civic life.  Marx made clear that the only basis of civil society is a human basis, not a religious one.  For only then is EVERYONE genuinely free.

Marx elaborated on this point thus: “The question of the relation between political emancipation and [the repudiation of] religiosity becomes for us a question of the relation between political emancipation and human emancipation.”

When surveying geo-politics, Marx noted that there is an indication of how we can know this.  The correlation is illustrated by the fact that “we criticize the religious failing of the political State by criticizing the political state in its secular form, disregarding its religious failings.  We express in human terms the contradiction between the State and a particular religion (for example, Judaism) by showing the contradiction between the State and particular secular elements, between the State and religion-in-general, and between the State and its general presuppositions.”

Thus: “The political emancipation of…the religious man in general is the emancipation of the state from…religion in general.”  In being unconcerned with favoring this or that group of people along ethnic lines, or with upholding this or that sacred doctrine, “the state emancipates itself from religion” and thus from tribalism.  For, in that case, the demos is no longer fragmented; with each faction promoting its own, narrow ideological agenda. Civic-mindedness knows no died-in-the-wool factions.

Marx recognized that religiosity is predicated on tribal demarcation: in-group vs. out-group.  After all, tribalism is inseparable from the alterity it fosters.  But without TRIBES, there can be no more Exceptionalism.  “There is no longer any religion when there is no longer a privileged religion.  Take away from religion its power to excommunicate, and it will no longer exist.”  Without tribalism, religionism evaporates. After all, a religion’s very existence is predicated on an in-group and an out-group.

And so it goes with ANY form of tribal demarcation: If there is no alterity, then there can be no tribalism.  ONE omni-tribe means NO tribes; as there are no more insiders vis a vis outsiders.  No longer can any given group arrogate to itself special privileges. We’re all just fellow humans.

When one religious / ethnic group can no longer dominate / oppress / marginalize others (based on religious / ethnic difference), then contentious identities are no longer operative. “How is a religious opposition resolved?” Marx asks.  The answer is astonishingly simple: “By making it impossible.  And how is religious opposition made impossible?  By abolishing religion.”  At the end of the day: Religiosity can no longer serve to privilege one group over another; or to pit one group against another. {29}

This eminently humanist way of thinking is a matter of what Immanuel Kant referred to as “maturity”.  Marx noted that rising above religionism / tribalism was, indeed, a matter of maturation: “As soon as Jew and Christian come to see in their respective religions nothing more than stages in the development of the human mind…they will no longer find themselves in religious opposition.”  Rather, they will find themselves “in a purely critical, scientific, and human relationship.”  A scientific way of thinking, not a dogmatic one, “will then constitute their unity.”  After all, science is universal; whereas dogmas are partisan.

Marx compared this maturation to “snake skins which have been cast off by history, and man as the snake who clothed himself in them.”  (A more palatable metaphor may be a molting caterpillar shedding its cocoon to become a butterfly.)

There is a catch to this process of social-psychological evolution: “Scientific oppositions are resolved by science itself.”  By contrast, religious disputation cannot be resolved by religion.  Indeed, the vexations of tribalism cannot be ameliorated by recourse to tribalism; as one cannot address problematic thinking by recourse to the source of that problematic thinking.

Meanwhile, the beauty of science is that disagreements are addressed by MORE SCIENCE.

So we must approach problems in a meta-religious (i.e. SECULAR) way if we are ever to resolve our petty, tribal disputes once and for all.  In embracing species-being, people “will transcend their religious narrowness.”  This will happen “once they have overcome their secular limitations.  We do not turn secular questions into theological questions; we turn theological questions into secular ones.  History has for long enough been resolved into superstition; but we now resolve superstition into history.”

It’s worth recalling that, more than anything else, Marx was against systems of domination / oppression / exploitation.  As is well known, he diagnosed the problem in primarily economic terms.  (The problem was primarily what he referred to as “capitalism”; esp. rent-seekers.)  But ALL hierarchal / authoritarian institutions were to blame; especially those that engendered a tribalistic mindset.  This latter insight echoed Thomas Paine’s observation that “all national institutions of churches–whether Jewish, Christian, or Ottoman [Islamic]–appear to me as none other than human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and to monopolize power and profit.”  Paine also identified the link between theocracy and illiberal government: “Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the [predominant] feature of all religions established by law.”

Marx emphasized that the ultimate goal for the tried-and-true humanist is “universal human emancipation.”  It must be noted that Marx singles out no particular religion here—though the issue that prompts the essay is Jewish parochialism (as he noticed his fellow Jews deliberately singling themselves out; then wondering why they were being singled out). He made this explicit:  “Criticism here is criticism of theology [per se]; a double-edged criticism of Christian and of Jewish theology.” (I further explore Marx’s discussion of Jewish identity below.)

Problems arise, Marx observed, when one’s restricted tribal nature trumps one’s sense of humanity.  Marx lamented that so many people failed to emancipate themselves from their tribal identity.  He was careful to make clear that one adopts a tribal identity AT THE EXPENSE OF “species-being”.  As a consequence, the superficial / accidental becomes the essential, and–regrettably–triumphs.  As long as a man remains religiously-defined, “the limited nature which makes him a [insert any religion-based identity here] prevails over the human nature which should associate him, as a person, with [all] other people; and it will isolate him from everyone who is not a Jew [or Christian or Muslim, etc.]”

In the end, it is through tribalism that we see four grievous things occur:

• “society is separated completely from the life of the state”
• “all the species-bonds of man are severed”
• “egoism and selfish need are established in their place”
• “the human world dissolves into a world of atomized, antagonistic parties”  

Tribalism (esp. as religionism) is the primary culprit in this scenario.  Part of the solution, then, is Gentiles without Christianity, Jews with out Judaism, Moors / Arabs / Turks without Islam, etc.  Only then, Marx held, can ALL ethnicities live as brothers–seeing and treating each other, first and foremost, as fellow humans.

The embrace of our common humanity was cast in terms of what Marx dubbed consciously-directed “life activity”.  Man is a species-being insofar as he is able to define himself (his own existence) by what he chooses to do (by his “life activity”).  Consciously directed life activity is what distinguishes humans from lower animals.  Insofar as man is deprived of this prerogative, he is deprived of his humanity.  In other words, insofar as man is deprived of sovereignty over his own mind / life, he is no longer being treated as a species-being but merely as an animal. THAT is what all societal dysfunction is based upon.

One group being dehumanized (treated as a mere animal) by another for the latter’s gain is, after all, what characterizes unbridled capitalism.  Marx even obliquely expresses Kant’s Categorical Imperative: A species-being is “a being that treats the [entire] species [all fellow humans] as its own essential being” (ref. the Marx-Engles Reader; p. 76). A society predicated upon species-being s a Kantian “Kingdom of Ends”.

Like Kant, Marx’s conception of the categorical imperative involved individual prerogative (sovereignty over one’s own person).  “Man is a species-being…because he treats himself as the actual, living species; because he treats himself as a universal, and therefore as a free being” (ibid.; p. 75).  “Free, conscious activity is man’s species character” (ibid.; p. 76).  Civic-mindedness involves freedom, not subordination, just as Kantian “duty” involves autonomy, not subordination.  To recapitulate: The ultimate aim for Marx was universal human emancipation.

The conclusion here should be quite clear: The only in-group that should exist is humanity itself; which means that there is no out-group.  This is analogous to saying–in the Judaic idiom–that the entire planet should be “Beth Israel” (if by “Israel” it is meant those who are in god’s good graces).  In the Christian idiom: We are ALL part of the Body of Christ.  In the most general Abrahamic terms: We are all god’s children.  In Islamic terms, the Ummah [relevant community] is the entire world; and thus synonymous with “nas” [mankind].

Consideration of one’s fellow man must be done irrespective of nationality or ethnicity or any other demographic demarcation.  Transcending all the gratuitous divisions we have erected for ourselves requires that we admit that they are spurious.

In modern geo-politics, this meta-principle (the ultimate standard by which we might vet any given principle) has been most explicitly translated into policy positions taken by Noam Chomsky.  According to Chomsky’s approach, all people must conduct domestic and international affairs along the following lines:

• Never afford oneself (or one’s own nation) the categorical right to do something that one would not also afford everyone else; and afford them for the same basic reasons.
• Never impose categorical strictures on anyone that one is not also willing to impose on oneself (or one’s own nation); and impose for the same basic reasons.

Why?  Because all humans qua humans MATTER.  This is why any system of domination / oppression / exploitation is unjust.

All of Chomsky’s positions can be boiled down to this two-fold approach: the universal application of principles and the recognition that all humans must be treated as though they matter (as much as any other humans).

As with Kant, this entails that every human being is to be accorded value AS FELLOW HUMANS.  (As with foreign policy, so it goes with socio-economic policy.)  The point, then, is to maximize one’s sphere of empathy, ensuring it encompasses all mankind (or, domestically-speaking, the entire polis).

Yet another way of thinking about the Golden Rule was proposed by John Rawls in his “justice as fairness” approach.  In his magnum opus, “A Theory Of Justice”, Rawls suggested everyone conduct themselves as they would from an “original position”, whereby each person disregarded his own socio-economic status and demographic profile so as to ascertain what the everyman would want FOR ANYONE.  The question becomes: What general rule would one endorse were one to discount one’s own vested interests?  Such impartiality requires deliberating from behind a “veil of ignorance” so that one could not be swayed by self-interest: invariably a function of one’s own position in the scheme of things; which was, after all, a matter of historical accident.  (Note: This explains why “identity politics” is fundamentally flawed. Rather than disregard one’s identity, one is obliged to AMPLIFY it.)

Given this perspective, Rawls surmised that all reasonable people would converge on the same general rules.  What sorts of rules?  Those that ended up maximizing how well-off the worst-off in a society ended up being (irrespective of how much the best-off ended up flourishing).  This harkens back to Jesus’ entreaty that we are ultimately to be judged by how we treat “the least of these”.  After all, given Rawls’ “veil of ignorance”, in any given situation, one of the worst-off might be YOU.

While one wants there to be no ceiling, one wants the floor to be as high as possible (meaning: no impoverishment).  The upshot is that, from the original position, nobody would want to enter into a society where anyone was dominating / oppressing / exploiting anyone else.  For, for all one knows, one might–by accident of birth–find oneself in a marginalized group.  (“If there’s a chance that I could be a subaltern, then I don’t want there to be ANY subalterns.”)  Plus, it turns out we’d all prefer to live in a society where everyone was safe, healthy, and well-educated; as we are all inter-connected in some way, to some degree.

The need to grapple with the precedent to “do unto others as you’d have them do unto you” has been with human society since the Bronze Age.  So what have we learned–if anything–in the last few thousand years?  Does religion help?  Has it EVER helped?  Steven Weinberg put it well when he noted that “with or without religion, good people would do good things and evil people would do evil things.  But for good people to do evil things?  That takes religion.”  He had a point.  If nothing else, religion introduces a strong electro-magnet pull on any given person’s (innate) moral compass; throwing off the calibration.  Dogmatism is invariably a saboteur of Reason; as the former is predicated on heteronomy, whereas the latter is predicated on autonomy.

So the question remains: Sans religion, how can we have an objective basis for morality?  As we will see forthwith, the answer is our innate capacity to reason–which is as solid a foundation as any for determining, well, ANYTHING.  And how is this hampered by kow-towing to Messianic pretensions?  Christopher Hitchens put it bluntly when he noted that “salvation is offered at the low price of the surrender of your critical faculties.”  He might have added that not only does it fetter “arete”; it fetters “agape”. It precludes Kant’s Categorical Imperative; it precludes Marxian “species-being”; and it precludes Rawls’ “veil of ignorance”.

Religion, we might note, is far more about indoctrination than edification.  As it teaches one WHAT to think, not HOW to think. And it only serves to delimit one’s scope of empathy. As it teaches one who to care about.

In the final analysis, we find that institutionalized dogmatism only impedes our attempts to live up to the Golden Rule.  But this does not mean that we immediately should start casting stones wherever we see cultic activity afoot.  Karl Marx reminded us that in order to rectify tribalistic thinking in others, we must first correct it in ourselves.  As he put it: “We have to emancipate ourselves before we can emancipate others” from the dysfunctional–and thus debilitating–thinking of tribalism / religionism.  This brings to mind Shakespeare’s immortal line from Julius Caesar, that the fault is not in our stars, but in ourselves.

Presumably, then, one is not justified in criticizing others for their tribalistic / dogmatic proclivities until one has taken measures to liberate oneself from one’s own.  Imagine the possibilities if everyone were to do this.