SammyB Wrote:I am asking only how do you logically justify holding a moral position like 'treat others as you would have them treat you' without a belief in God?

"Behave this way or a big man in the sky with a big stick will beat you down (or separate you from his presence for eternity, which is apparently a bad thing)" sounds more like a practical judgement than a moral one.

~J

I don't want to get wickedly sidetracked, as tempting as this is but I will comment on Jarvik's comment on the service industry. I agree that it is, after all, the service industry. Service industry employees (ie poor college kids like myself) are paid specifically for that purpose. We are paid to serve people with a smile (though the smile part really only has any bearing in a capitalist system).

However, I'm not so sure that society (and by "society" I mean the US because the service industry in Japan seems to be better than in the US) can handle this sort of mentality. The people being served suddenly think that this *does* mean that people working in the service industry are a lower form of life.

Really? Puh-lease. Don't tell me *you* don't sit at work on your fat butt all day checking your email every 2 minutes. Don't make me pull the education card on you. I go to school full time, learn a language in my spare time, then come to work and try to serve you with a smile only to hear you complain how you had to wait in line with 50 other people for your tacos?

Dude. Just because you're impatient and can threaten me by saying how you're going to a different restaurant STILL DOESN'T MEAN that the world revolves around you. (<----this is probably very, very biased since I *am* a disgruntled service industry worker, but...then again, your opinion probably is too since your a customer of the service industry )

Especially when it comes to food, people suddenly became like ravenous wolves/pigs at worst and 1st graders at best. 9 times out of 10, children have better manners than adults. I think it's a pretty well established fact that people actually de-evolve in several ways the second they go through the drive-through.

So, I really believe that this mentality that service industry employees are only meant to serve with a smile (which they are) is turning people into a bunch of selfish, incredibly ignorant animals.

igordesu Wrote:Really? Puh-lease. Don't tell me *you* don't sit at work on your fat butt all day checking your email every 2 minutes.

What human has this job, and where can I get it?

woodwojr Wrote:

adutrifoy Wrote:Please do, because I fail to understand.

Because it's an ideal stated as a fact, rather than as an ideal. It's a kind of backwards is-ought fallacy.

I didn't say ideal, but moral principle, which is not the same.

"People are equal!" is a loose, general moral principle written as a slogan to give it more strength. It looks to me like a figure of style, rather than a fallacy, because it is quite clear that the reader is not supposed to take it literally.

kazelee Wrote:

igordesu Wrote:Really? Puh-lease. Don't tell me *you* don't sit at work on your fat butt all day checking your email every 2 minutes.

What human has this job, and where can I get it?

Any stereotypical office job. And area managers for fast food chains.

Morality is actually quite simple. Just follow the example of a loving mother for her only child. Everyone you meet, bring your awareness into being the other and act accordingly. Anticipate what is not spoken yet intuitively understood in the same way a baby's cries are. We are all equal in that we wish to be happy and avoid suffering. We don't all have the same skills for achieving this state and often act in a way that leads us further from our wish. From the lowliest insect to the highest sentient being you can imagine, we are all the same.

I will not breastfeed you.

~J

It's OK, I don't do dairy anyways

It's amazing how far off topic you people you have brought this. I specifically said in my post that it has nothing to do with the value of a human being. It is about roles in society. Roles that change when you take off your work uniform.

Cashiers/店員 not willing to accept a lower role than their customers is why service is (in general) so shitty in the west. When I buy a somewhat expensive item at a store and the person who was helping me carries it to the door and then bows deeply as I leave and keeps bowing until I'm out of sight, I get a warm fuzzy feeling and it makes me want to shop there again. In other words, it's good for business too. The 店員 do it because they know their role in the transaction, not because the boss will harp on them if they don't, or because they get a commission.

To the person who brought up doctors, of course they aren't lower, it's not the service industry. Respect is given to roles that require a lot of education/knowledge/expertise. That's why they are referred to 先生 (It doesn't mean doctor, nor teacher). At the same time you are not a customer, you are a patient. YOU are in the inferior position this time.

note: I worked as a コンビニ cashier for way more time than I'd like to think about, so it's not like I'm biased against them or something.

It hasn't gone off topic at all. You asked what is "supposed" to be said in a Japanese store. It was a question of etiquette in a specific situation. Why would speaking to a store clerk be any different that in any other situation? The discussion has expanded to question why and if one would act differently to someone of higher or lower social status. The doctor is in a service industry as well. Anyone who aids others is in a service industry. We are more likely to return to a clinic where the doctor had good bed-side manners.

SammyB Wrote:

phauna Wrote:This is getting sidetracked, I think a better phrase than 'everyone is equal' or 'everyone should be treated equally' would be 'treat others as you would have them treat you'. Pretty much all bases are covered with this moral.

I agree with you... those probably for different reasons. Haha... I Think we should treat others as we would have them treat us because firstly, I believe each person was created by God and thus has an inherent value, and secondly Jesus instructed us to do so. But, I'm interested in how you can justify such a position? This is sort of picking up from our dialogue a couple of months ago...

Let me first make clear though that I am NOT saying "atheists can't be good people or do good things or have values"... we agree such a statement is ridiculous. I am asking only how do you logically justify holding a moral position like 'treat others as you would have them treat you' without a belief in God?

Perhaps you could ask Confucius, who came up with this principal long before Jesus' time. Oh, and he was an atheist, and believed self-cultivation was the path to morality. In fact the big 3 Chinese 'religions' don't follow any gods, Buddhism, Taoism and Confucianism. So I guess philosophy is useful if you want some non-god morals. Who would have thought that people could use their own minds to come up with new ideas? Amazing!

People want to avoid suffering and pain. Obviously if I inflict pain on all around me, one day some people are going to gang up on me and return the favour. Kind of like the Golden Rule in reverse. When my three year old daughter wants to sit on the cat, I usually tell her 'the cat doesn't like that', and then say 'would you like me to sit on you?', then I pretend to sit on her. She understands this completely. I wonder how a three year old who has never heard or experienced any religion understands this concept? From natural observation of the reactions of other humans to my own actions it is easy to see what people like and what they don't. From this the Golden Rule is easily formed through a bit of deductive thinking. 'Never do harm' is another good one, the doctor's rule.

If you want it in evolutionary terms, we are programmed to be nice to our relatives because our relatives contain some of our genes. Genes try to propagate themselves, humans are just the vehicles for propagation. So my daughter has half of my genes, the genes inside of me have therefore designed me to naturally want to take care of my children. If I lived in an extended family type tribe, as we once did, my genes made me follow a simple rule, people I know are related to me, so don't hurt them.

Fast forward to the modern day, we live in big cities, however my genes don't know this (yet) so they continue to use the 'don't hurt people I know' rule. So even though my friends and acquaintances are probably not related to me, my genes don't know this. Similarly, even though most people use contraception when they have sex, the urge for sex remains from a time when it was the drive for procreation. My genes don't know that when I have sex I usually won't make a baby, they just know that more sex equals more babies equals more genes.

In closing, say arigatou to konbini clerks, because they are distantly related to you and may contain some of your genes.

SammyB Wrote:I am asking only how do you logically justify holding a moral position like 'treat others as you would have them treat you' without a belief in God?

1 word: logic.

Simple logic should tell you that if everyone treats everyone nicely, everyone benefits. Others are -not- going to treat you nicely if they see you treat others like crap. So you should treat everyone nicely. (In other words, 'treat others as you would have them treat you.')

I forget the name of it, but there's a situation where you treat someone nicely, then always treat them exactly as they treated you last, unless you get stuck in a total-negative situation. At that point, you treat them nicely again.

bodhisamaya Wrote:It hasn't gone off topic at all. You asked what is "supposed" to be said in a Japanese store. It was a question of etiquette in a specific situation. Why would speaking to a store clerk be any different that in any other situation? The discussion has expanded to question why and if one would act differently to someone of higher or lower social status. The doctor is in a service industry as well. Anyone who aids others is in a service industry. We are more likely to return to a clinic where the doctor had good bed-side manners.

I never asked anything...

wccrawford Wrote:

SammyB Wrote:I am asking only how do you logically justify holding a moral position like 'treat others as you would have them treat you' without a belief in God?

1 word: logic.

... and argued throughout the ages as one or more flavors of Moral Universalism.

Very simply put, if your moral value system is scalable, that is, if it can be applied universally, and implementation is beneficial to all, then it doesn't need to be based on a belief in God. Quite logical.

Jarvik7 Wrote:I specifically said in my post that it has nothing to do with the value of a human being. It is about roles in society. Roles that change when you take off your work uniform.

Cashiers/店員 not willing to accept a lower role than their customers is why service is (in general) so shitty in the west. When I buy a somewhat expensive item at a store and the person who was helping me carries it to the door and then bows deeply as I leave and keeps bowing until I'm out of sight, I get a warm fuzzy feeling and it makes me want to shop there again. In other words, it's good for business too. [...]

To the person who brought up doctors, of course they aren't lower, it's not the service industry. Respect is given to roles that require a lot of education/knowledge/expertise. That's why they are referred to 先生 (It doesn't mean doctor, nor teacher). At the same time you are not a customer, you are a patient. YOU are in the inferior position this time.

I hear what you're saying about it being societal roles, and I'm usually with you on stuff, but have you really thought this one through?

Accountants and lawyers in Japan are also called Sensei, but it's not uncommon to see them bowing to their clients at the elevator. Professions are service businesses - clients are customers. (Patients, unfortunately, are often customers too.) So who's lower?

After a Doctor takes off her uniform, she is still called "Dr." and afforded respect. Yet a garage attendant needs to take off his uniform in order to be treated with more respect? So respected jobs are identities, but low jobs are just roles?

Education and expertise: How about the waiter with the PhD? The master carpenter with plenty of expertise? The well-read gardener?

The "warm fuzzies": reminds me of a new banker in Roppongi who believes the lapdancer who tells him, "It's different with you. This isn't work. I'm really enjoying this. I really like you." ;-) When I buy nice clothes, I'd prefer not paying extra for the fantasy that I'm important.

Hierarchical social roles may be a reality, but surely we don't need to justify or encourage the idea. Customer satisfaction does not depend on it.

Jarvik7 Wrote:

bodhisamaya Wrote:It hasn't gone off topic at all. You asked what is "supposed" to be said in a Japanese store. It was a question of etiquette in a specific situation. Why would speaking to a store clerk be any different that in any other situation? The discussion has expanded to question why and if one would act differently to someone of higher or lower social status. The doctor is in a service industry as well. Anyone who aids others is in a service industry. We are more likely to return to a clinic where the doctor had good bed-side manners.

I never asked anything...

That was me!

Thora Wrote:The "warm fuzzies": reminds me of a new banker in Roppongi who believes the lapdancer who tells him, "It's different with you. This isn't work. I'm really enjoying this. I really like you." ;-) When I buy nice clothes, I'd prefer not paying extra for the fantasy that I'm important.

*thinks back to Saturday night*

What.. you mean s-s-she... lied... That whore!

woodwojr Wrote:

SammyB Wrote:I am asking only how do you logically justify holding a moral position like 'treat others as you would have them treat you' without a belief in God?

"Behave this way or a big man in the sky with a big stick will beat you down (or separate you from his presence for eternity, which is apparently a bad thing)" sounds more like a practical judgement than a moral one.

~J

Oh, please....!
"Do this or a big man in the sky with a big stick will beat you down" is the oldest line I can think of and I can't believe that people still throw it around! It is a distortion of the message of the Gospel and only serves to show how deep a persons ignorance is!

As an Evangelical Christian I feel compelled to straighten this out simply because this is the kind of misconception I often hear. Can't speak for any other faith though.

The whole idea is that because God has loved us first, and we have had the chance to experience His love in our lives, we have the ability to love God and others too.
Someone wrote about people having partially the same genes so we want to treat them well! The idea isn't far from this, but here all the people of the world are related as God's creation.
(If faith is based on fear, it is superficial and probably wont last)

I don't want to take this even more sidetracked to a theological debate (agree or don't, I don't really care!) but I think this principle applies even if you don't believe in God. Someone else might have said something along the same lines before..

People who have been treated with love, respect, decency, etc. are able to treat others the same way, but if, say, no-one has ever shown any respect to a person, how could he ever show respect to anyone else and would he even know what that is?

So the old guideline "do to others what you want them to do to you" works the other way too; "you do to others what they have done to you".

kazelee Wrote:*thinks back to Saturday night*

What.. you mean s-s-she... lied... That whore!

You'll get over it! :|

alantin Wrote:Oh, please....!
"Do this or a big man in the sky with a big stick will beat you down" is the oldest line I can think of and I can't believe that people still throw it around! It is a distortion of the message of the Gospel and only serves to show how deep a persons ignorance is!

As an Evangelical Christian I feel compelled to straighten this out simply because this is the kind of misconception I often hear. Can't speak for any other faith though.

The message of the gospels, perhaps (I grant this point not because I'm sure it's true, but because it's been too long since I read them to argue and I don't feel like rereading them), but that's four books out of a rather weighty tome filled with fear.

~J

kazelee Wrote:

Thora Wrote:The "warm fuzzies": reminds me of a new banker in Roppongi who believes the lapdancer who tells him, "It's different with you. This isn't work. I'm really enjoying this. I really like you." ;-) When I buy nice clothes, I'd prefer not paying extra for the fantasy that I'm important.

*thinks back to Saturday night*

What.. you mean s-s-she... lied... That whore!

For me it was Friday night....

I share your pain.

Jarvik7 Wrote:It's amazing how far off topic you people you have brought this. I specifically said in my post that it has nothing to do with the value of a human being. It is about roles in society. Roles that change when you take off your work uniform.

Cashiers/店員 not willing to accept a lower role than their customers is why service is (in general) so shitty in the west. When I buy a somewhat expensive item at a store and the person who was helping me carries it to the door and then bows deeply as I leave and keeps bowing until I'm out of sight, I get a warm fuzzy feeling and it makes me want to shop there again. In other words, it's good for business too. The 店員 do it because they know their role in the transaction, not because the boss will harp on them if they don't, or because they get a commission.

To the person who brought up doctors, of course they aren't lower, it's not the service industry. Respect is given to roles that require a lot of education/knowledge/expertise. That's why they are referred to 先生 (It doesn't mean doctor, nor teacher). At the same time you are not a customer, you are a patient. YOU are in the inferior position this time.

note: I worked as a コンビニ cashier for way more time than I'd like to think about, so it's not like I'm biased against them or something.

actually I think it has more to do with customers. In Japan, I noticed most people are decent and reasonable when dealing with cashiers, etc. But in the US, way too many people have the mentality that "lower role" is synonymous with "lower life form." You can easily see this after working at a fast food joint for a few hours. Like I said, I don't mind serving people, but purposely walking all over me and being totally ignorant in the process is just a liiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiittle sickening after the 50th customer at lunch time.

A majority of the time, I actually think this has to deal with literacy in the US. I'm positive that 60% of the customers do not read the menu, either because they cannot or because they choose not to for whatever reason. I know this because about 60% of the customers invent items that simply aren't on the menu. Then, because they're ignorant and can't read in the first place, they get angry when I tell them politely that I can't get them what they want. It's no-win battle.

woodwojr Wrote:The message of the gospels, perhaps (I grant this point not because I'm sure it's true, but because it's been too long since I read them to argue and I don't feel like rereading them), but that's four books out of a rather weighty tome filled with fear.

~J

The Gospel because the word translated to contemporary English means "the Good News" and the synoptic gospels (note the name!) plus the Gospel according to John describe the same thing to different audiences and despite the names of the names of the books, they are not the only parts of the Bible concerning "the Good News". They are more like the last and concluding chapter of the whole story instead of stand alone works.

I know that various styles can be found in the Bible but if you maintain that the whole collection of scripture is "a rather weighty tome filled with fear" and only four books are different, how exactly do you interpret, for example, the letters of Paul or, better yet, John (the apostole of love) to be filled with fear?

The Psalms?

The Song of Songs????

alantin Wrote:

woodwojr Wrote:The message of the gospels, perhaps (I grant this point not because I'm sure it's true, but because it's been too long since I read them to argue and I don't feel like rereading them), but that's four books out of a rather weighty tome filled with fear.

I know that various styles can be found in the Bible but if you maintain that the whole collection of scripture is "a rather weighty tome filled with fear" and only four books are different, how exactly do you interpret, for example, the letters of Paul or, better yet, John (the apostole of love) to be filled with fear?

The Psalms?

The Song of Songs????

I think he's mostly talking about the Old Testament. God wasn't as forgiving back then. You don't get the same warm fuzzy feeling from the stories of Sodom and Gomorrah or the great flood, and Leviticus and Deuteronomy aren't quite as poetic as the Psalms. The book of Revelation can also give some people pause...

Four pages on what to say to a Japanese store clerk. Who da thunk it? People must love 7-11!