Saint Guinefort
Verified User
The golden rule is a universal binding moral imperative that goes beyond helping your grandmother, your siblings, your fellow tribal peers. Helping your family and peers are just natural impulses, which is the very lowest ethical bar to clear. Its not even really noteworthy.
And it isn't possible that it started out more "locally"? Humans started off as small family-clan type units so OBVIOUSLY all the "moral precepts" would have started out being applied to family and those nearest.
I don't think religion is required for ethical development. That's just the primary way it worked out historically.
I don't understand how you can make such a claim given that you don't know what came before religion in regards to these concepts.
I think for a comprehensive ethical framework to take root, it needs some kind of institutional support and credibility. Siddhartha Gautama didn't cause the eightfold noble path to take root across Asia. The religion he inspired did.
I see the value of this, yes, but it sort of sounds like you are saying that until Gautama Buddha spoke his words there would have been no general understanding of the "Golden Rule" concept.
I will gladly admit that an organized religious movement WOULD help to establish a cohesive moral framework, I just don't see how anyone can claim that it was necessary to the establishment of that moral framework.
I'm still struggling with WHY Neanderthals would set bones and care for the injured if it was required that Buddhism or Hinduism or even Christianity had to exist first to promulgate the concepts. In fact unless one can make a case that Neanderthals had an organized religion I think their bones show sufficient evidence that even pre-religious establishment, much of our moral framework in how we deal with each other was well on the way to being established.