if everyone acted from righteousness alone, would religion and government be necessary?

Question

if not, do you think it is in the interest of those in governement and religion for you to start acting from righteousness alone, or to continue to act from ego, fear, and greed?

Answer 1

First righteouness and goverment is sort of an oxymoron... dont' you think...and those adjectives you gave ME don't apply...i am not egotistical, scard or greedy...so they say that the one calling the names is speaking from their own truth...

Answer 2

A man would abandon the most acomendating mistress in a second, and a women give up her child without a second thought, before parting with there ego, for
with out an ego these things just mentioned
would not be necessasary to begin with . . .

Man's greatest fear is not goverment but a lack of government, for then and only then would he need to think for himself making
him or her, answerable only to them selves
hence righteousness would be the ultimate
act of judgement . . .

Answer 3

I'm sorry, did I stumble into the religion section again on accident? Let me check. No, there it is. Arts & Humanities > Philosophy. Did you know you can be reported for purposely placing a topic in the wrong section? Read the Guidelines once again.

Sorry to take this out on you, but Philosophy does not begin my assumeing some massive concept like "righteousness". How would I be doing my job as a Philosopher by letting that concept go unexamined? If you are in seminary and you are asking this question in the context of a givien doctine, you would be justified. In the philosophy section it simply becomes rediculous. If a man runs an election and gets voted in by one party, but always sides with the other party, he dosn't have an open mind, he is not doing the job. I have a lot of sympathy with what you are promoting here. Anyone who tries to show that "greed" is not always good, I respect and share the point of view. Just don't make me agree with you at the cost of my intellectual honesty. "No, man is righteousness, no, not one."

Answer 4

I think that with rightiousness alone the world would be a much easier and safer place to live in. However, since I do beleive in being Catholic I can't say exactly that government and religion is not neccessairy. This is an interesting question. It truly depends on your outlook on government, religion and what is right.

Answer 5

This is absurd. It presupposes that there is such a thing as "Righteousness". It's like trying to qualify "virtue" without first defining it: annotating and denoting the term. Not just the semantic deferential, but the way Socrates argues the concept of "Virtue". Trust me. It's more than a notion.

Answer 6

Righteousness, was basically first coined with the jews. Righteous means you don't need an outsiders opinion on what you are doing, you are right(eous) in your acts, simply because you believe you are.

If everyone acted on rigtheousness, it would basically be billions of tiny governments running around.

I don't see how that could honestly be much better?

Answer 7

Yes they would still be necessary because we all have our own interests and in times of crisis we need a third party to fairly arbitrate matters of property and inheritance. we also need government to collect and distribut taxes in such a way as to maintain infrastructure and keep our standard of living where it is.

Individuals cannot achieve these things in a fair and unbiased way across the city/province/country. We have all seen what happens when even good peoples individual interpretations of religious and ethical matters clash. A priest and a rabbi for example may never agree on certain issues. Government gives everyone a voice but balances them with legal rights for individuals who dont share those beliefs.

Answer 8

Righteousness alone is ideally the best!
Problem is defining Righteousness!
Religion and government play with this definition! :-)

Answer 9

Righteousness is up for interpretation. Those people who are killing people in the middle east are "righteous." The Kamakazi pilots in WWII were "righteous." The man who gave grape kool-aid laced with poison was "righteous" as was David Kerish (sp) when he killed those in the Branch Dividian in Waco Texas.

Righteousness is not enough.

Answer 10

The word you use "if" is a conditional word. But theres no way
people can act righteousness alone as proven historically. Man is finite. "No finite point has any meaning unless it has an infinite reference point". Theres only one religion that God in the Bible has established but not for perfection. He established the Jewish Religion in order to show that no one is perfect whether in religion or not. Thats why Christianity is not a religion. It is a life as expounded by Paul's 13 epistles.

Answer 11

Righteousness is only a point of view. My righteousness is not yours, nor vice versa. One righteous person cannot impress his version of what is right on another without resistance. You'd end up creating anarchy.