Sorry to let this slip, but I was too busy to give y'all's questions/contentions the time they deserved.
IANAP (I Am Not A Philosopher). Not even a "Stand up" philosopher.
I do not think the wholly secular person can come to accept TUHR without resorting to faith of some sort. Western Civ's values (if not practices, at times) are grounded in J-C morality
I must disagree with your conclusions.
Throughout time people of various religions have murdered, enslaved, and tortured in the name of their religion. They typically justified this by saying that is what their g-d or g-ds wanted them to do. So if TUHR are based on faith based religions, why do the actions of believers sometimes veer from TUHR?
Before I get to the meat of your question I must reiterate or clarify what I wrote before. My contention is that faith is a necessary
but not sufficient prerequisite to TUHR. But, faith in
what? Faith in the Will to Power? Nope. Faith in the sub-human character of your enemies? Nope. Faith in darwinian evolution? Nope.
Faith in Christianity or Judaism* or
derivative** faith in TUHR in and of itself.
Many other religions do not have any content that pertains to TUHR (most polytheistic religions, for example, are of the "please god don't hurt me" variety). Others have ethical content or teachings that do not or only tangentially pertain to TUHR (Bhuddism, ancient Zoroastrianism**, Taoism). Still others have beliefs that are completely antithetical to TUHR (Thuggee, Central American paganism, pagan religions of the ancient middle east, etc).
But, let us get to the meat: what about those Christians who "...have murdered, enslaved, and tortured in the name of their religion?" This can be answered in several ways.
1. I am somewhat hesitant to quote scripture in such a conversation, but I think it pertains to how Christians view such:
Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by [his] fruit.
IOW; if his fruit is murder, slavery, and torture; most Christians would be hesitant to claim him as one of their own. We can't know with certainty the state of his soul, but I'm arguing in favor of "not."
2. The NT does
not call for conversion by the sword and
does endorse the OT Ten Commandments, murder being one of the big ten.
3. From the beginning of the state church in the Roman Empire until very recently, it was state & church policy that all were to be "Christian" of the proper type (Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, etc.) in the state, regardless of one's true convictions. If you were born in Bavaria, you were a Catholic, unless you declared openly otherwise. My denomination looks with a gimlet eye on the whole state church concept as not legitamate. Oh, sure, some members of state (& former state) churches can be Christian, but a splash of water on an infant and a fancy piece of paper does not a Christian make.
4. I would mention again that faith is not sufficient. It took Western Civ over 1700 years to come up with a document that embodied TURH. The messy, often "two steps forward, one step back" contention between Greek, Roman, Christian, and Anglo-Saxon traditions was necessary to get there.
5. Last, there are those who are truly Christian but do engage in such barbarity. Christians claim to worship a perfect God, not be perfect themselves. Is it hypocracy? Yep, you betcha. A standard of perfection is impossible to maintain, given humanity's corrupt nature. That doesn't mean that one should not try and encourage others to do similarly. In a more general sense, there are folks who will do things antithetical to their beliefs. I suspect there is more than one libertarian who collects Social Security or uses Medicaid, for example. Are their beliefs any less valid, given the fact they can not attain Ayn Randian perfection?
* Judaism is an interesting case. The requirements for the ancient Hebrew state and peoples were pretty darned exclusive, IMO. Judaism as a stateless religion, although still exclusive, is much more friendly to TUHR without the need to refer tothe OT reqirements and practices for running an earthly government.
** Derivative from Western Civ generally & nondenominational J-C morality in particular.
*** Contemporary Zoroastrianism is a different case.
You could argue that TUHR are a relatively recent construct, but to me that says that the idea is based more on reason than faith. My contention is it does not require faith in a higher power to realize your highest right is your own life, and from that reason that others should be entitled to that same right and more.
Recent in practice, for sure, but not in principle.
I think the idea that "..your highest right is your own life, and from that reason..." is pretty much confined to Western Civ. From what I have read, most folks on earth throughout most of recorded history were fatalists who had no inkling of the concept of "rights." Certainly not African or Japanese peasants. They took what came to them, be it a kissing or killing.
Juat as you have deduced that "..your highest right is your own life, and from that reason..." is a TURH, the vast majority of those who live in the People's Republic of China (athiests) have come to other conclusions. If you read a bit about the PRC & the attitudes of its subjects, you come to the conclusion that democracy, liberty, and the whole idea of TUHR are not valued. (Every once in a while we hear about a pro-liberty activist getting beaten & stuffed into the laogai, but they are not representative.) What floats their boat is a xenophobic, resentful nationalism and a drive to do well, financially speaking.
I would suggest that they (subjects of PRC) are for the most part without faith and that they have the values that have been characteristic of China since the beginning of the Middle Kingdom. When they look at reality without the lens of faith in J-C morality, they see that the individual is near worthless and the group is what matters. Also, that what furthers the interests of the groups is what is right.
And if Western Civs values are so engrained, why are they not more universal? On this very board you can find practicing Christians who believe it is moral to kill Arabs because they are of the wrong religion, and others who do not believe non-citizens in this country have rights. How did they avoid learning about the concept of TUHR if they were grounded in J-C morality?
I think others addressed this sufficiently.
Just initial thoughts in response to your post jfruser.
Morality is a tough one. Perhaps all our religion stems from a basic need to instill certain values in society. You suggest that in the absence of religion then the realisation occurs that nothing prevents the strong from abuse of the weak, and whilst that is true I return to something I made a reference to earlier - the Prisoners Dilemma.
Which makes it a subjective morality of course, and that leads us to some unpleasant conclusions and I don't like it. On the other hand I'm left thinking that the idea that there is an absolute morality is a little too convenient. Perhaps the idea of recognising that rights are inherent in all men, that all men are created with such rights is a convenient way of expressing that we all hold these truths to be self-evident and as long as we can enfore their self-evidence then they continue to exist.
There was, and is for some, a stick and a carrot to christian morality. That works whilst people believe in it. I don't but that hasn't changed my moral perspective greatly because there is a rational conclusion to be drawn that whilst that system exists then the majority of the time the outcome will be the best possible for individuals and society, but that an individuals rights are of great importance. In answer to your scenario I'll say that I believe the first series of '24' contained a similar situation, and the mere thought of violating one person in such a way (to death in this fictional instance if I recall) is abhorrent to me.
From a vaguely anthropological point of view, perhaps that is the function that religion performs, it's merely a social glue. For that to work all the glue has to do is be strong and allow for the growth and success of a society, and where that happens perhaps it actually proves nothing more than that the belief system is successful.
There aren't hard and fast conclusions, but merely the musings of the last few days. It's very interesting, but my head hurts.
Iain, what you wrote sounds something like this, "If the Christian God didn't exist, someone would have to invent him."
Plenty of societies have grown & flourished without the concept of TUHR. The Greeks* & Romans, to name but two.
* Democracy != TUHR, despite what so many profess. When 50% plus 1 can exile you on pain of death, I'm thinking that deomcracy is just another way to execise power, not necessarily a means to protect TUHR or a sign of TUHR.
He is not saying that generic religious belief leads automatically to TUHR.
I was trying to credit him with a more general assertion than Christian/Anglo-Saxon superiority. If that is the gist of his theory, it is easily disproved by other religions who believe in TUHR. In fact I believe some of the eastern religions came to that conclusion before the Christians did.
A-S genetic superiority with respect to TUHR? No. A-S cultural superiority with repsect to TUHR? Yes.
I think there is little debate outside of the anti-western left that Western Civ. was the first to implement TUHR to any great extent or that W Civ is where all the significant intellectual/moral knife-fights over TUHR occurred. Even so, there are some parts of W Civ that do TUHR better than others.
For instance, I would argue that those countries that originate from A-S culture have it all over the Gallic and Teutonic cultures WRT TUHR. The continental europeans have been, since the birth of modernity, more statist and less individualist-friendly than the A-S countries. For instance, here in the USA we gripe & carp about real and perceived encroachment by gov't on individual sovereignty at the drop of a hat, while the French just go ahead and pass the 800lb gorilla version of the PATRIOT ACT.
Getting to TUHR in practice was a messy, organic contention between several strains in Western Civ.
Eastern ReligionsI am trying to think of an E religion that had some significant TUHR content and am coming up with bupkus.
Taosim? Not in the Taoist tracts I have read. It is described as either a philosphy or a folk, polytheistic religion.
Shinto? I believe this is an animist religion.
Bhuddism? My reading of their doctrine(s), is that they have universal truths, but nothing in the way of human rights. Only "Correct Conduct" may come anywhere close, IME. I would appreciate any Bhuddism-savvy folks to comment. Oh, I would exclude the goofy westerners who seem to think that "Bhuddism=AllGoodStuffGoofyWesternersSupport."
Hinduism? Quite a varied religion, IMO. Some concept of good & evil as well as bearing responsibility for actions.
Sikh? Comes pretty close, though I am not sure if its truly universal or confined to other Sikhs. It does not predate Christianity, as its roots date to the 16th century.
Zoroastrianism? The contemporary version comes close, the ancient version, much less so. Its origins date back to the OT Hebrew tribes.
