Talk:Alternatives to the Ten Commandments

Philosophy: Ethics / Religion Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Ethics
	Philosophy of religion

Bible Low‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Text and/or other creative content from this version of Selig Starr was copied or moved into Ten Commandment alternatives with this edit on Dec/31/12. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Purpose of the Ten Commandments

The ten commandments were generally designed for the survival and betterment of the community (as opposed to personal perspectives). The breaking of a commandment by an individual was bad for the group (e.g. it was thought that warship of multiple gods as well as atheism splinters society). Notice that "thou shall not rape" or "though shall not torture" are not a commandments - because this [arguably] deals more with personal rights and freedoms than with preservation of the group. Most alternatives in the article are naive to this fundamental principal. Furthermore, "don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you" and "love your neighbor" are general principle of every major religion on the planet, but are too abstract to be commandments. Authors need to understand the purpose of the commandments before blathering on about alternatives. Personally I would like to see "thou shall not pollute" added to the list of commandments, along with some other revisions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.248.69.77 (talk) 04:33, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Three Laws of Robotics

No mention of the Three Laws of Robotics which seems to have expanded to 6 or so laws, that more or less work for humans?

Yeah, I think they should at least be referenced. I may do that in a bit. Foomandoonian (talk) 00:44, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ted Kazinsky (sic)? Really?

Do we really need to include a section on the code of conduct of a terrorist & serial killer? Don't his actions invalidate his standing as a person entitled to discuss ethical social behavior? Wouldn't it be better to just ignore such a person? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.26.47.171 (talk) 17:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Kaczynski's own article mentions that a number of his fellow anarcho-primitivists have actually defended him and his manifesto, if not his actions. So despite being a terrorist, his ideology has been influential among some. Consider that we also have an article about the Ladenese epistles, which were also written by a (far more notorious) terrorist. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 20:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty clear that Kaczynski's screed and the off-the-cuff other ones are intentionally included to make the true alternatives appear less worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.163.71.116 (talk) 09:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Organization? Themes?

This page is incoherent. It could use an introduction and some effort at organizing the lists in some way. The lists could use a little context as well; for instance, George Carlin's list was meant to get laughs, while Selig Starr’s was directed at furture Orthodox Jewish rabbis and is (I assume) a supplement rather than an "alternative" to the Ten Commandments.

At least we could arrange the lists chronologically. I can't think of any good reason why the first place in the article should go to a Las Vegas stage magician. As it stands, it makes the whole article seem frivolous. — ℜob C. alias ALAROB 17:35, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Good suggestion. I arranged the list in chronological order according to the year of publication.Andy3334 (talk) 11:04, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pastafarianism

I find the inclusion of this really objectionable. It's a joke, right. It's a long running joke, part of which is that the jokers pretend they are serious, but still, it's a send up. Like the Church of Bob and the Illuminatus Trilogy.

Here we are working towards a encyclopedic article on a topic and it's like a Monty Python script has been inserted in the middle.

I agree with the above poster who said that it seems like some of these have been added to rubbish the topic with their inclusion. There may be a case of the Unabomber, he and those who agree with him are at least sincere. His manifesto was dead-serious, not an elaborate inside joke.

Let's improve this article and delete Pastafarianism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 (talk) 17:02, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Meant to say "Pleonastic" rather than "Neoplasm"

Christopher Hitchens did say and write "should". See the video essay on YouTube for Slate. Phil of rel (talk) 12:59, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]