Thread by @shrikanth_krish

Religious people tend to focus on ethical practices that are independent of Golden rule

E.g. Lifetime monogamy, spartan diet, teetotalling

Atheistic "Modernists" focus on Golden-rule anchored morality

E.g. Adhere to contracts, abide by traffic lights, Politeness, Punctuality

Given that the Golden rule is played up so much in Christianity (even finds mention in the Bible), one can argue that this 'consequentialist' approach to ethics originates with Christianity

In other older cultures, ethics has a deontological and hence subjective basis

Golden rule is essentially consequentialist

And in its modern form it is not even "do unto others as you'd have others do unto you"

But the less ambitious -

"Do not do unto others which you wouldn't like others to do to you"

The mindset behind Golden rule is what eventually gets reflected in Enlightenment philosophy of Hobbes and Locke - where morality emerges from a nasty state of nature as an expedient thing to get along in a cruel world

The problem with a Golden rule-driven mindset is that it "shrinks" man

It shrinks his ethical ambition

It tells us - Hey...anything goes as long as others don't mind

The shift away from religion has meant that men are now governed not by their own personal ethical ambition grounded in their theological world view

But merely governed by secular laws made by fellow men

The yardstick is relative. Not absolute. Nor subjective

The reason it is not subjective, is because when you bring in "other people" to determine your morality, a consensual view of what's acceptable and what's not is inevitable.

So you don't get a diversity in ethical views

What you get is a boring consensus - called rule of law

In contrast if you were to let religion determine what's moral as opposed to game theoretic considerations of Golden rule, you get "diversity"

So beef is off limits for Hindus
Alcohol off limits for Muslims
Bigamy off limits for Christians

I find this diversity more appealing