They seem genuine at a glance, but let's dissect these "tenets".
One should act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.
What does reason have to do with empathy and compassion? One could argue that it is irrational to act compassionately toward someone who can provide nothing in return. So is this tenet promoting empathy and compassion only when there is self-gain? Or that we should act with reasonable amounts of compassion and empathy?
The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.
Sounds like they are advocates for the ever-changing mob rule mentality.
One's body is inviolable, subject to one's own will alone.
Does this mean they are accepting of suicide? Which takes precedence the 'inviolable' part or the 'one's own will' part?
The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is forgo one's own.
Again, ambiguous meaning. Yes, the freedoms of others should be respected, but does that mean we allow pedophiles freedom to do as they please as long as their child victims give consent?
Beliefs should conform to one's best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one's beliefs.
The second sentence is a noble sentiment that the scientific community should strive to meet, but the first sentence is a bit odd. Why is it imperative to equate values to science? Not everything can be explained by science such as love and miracles, but this tenet claims a person's beliefs and morals should be quantified by the scientific method. I see it as a ploy to cheapen our intrinsic value as humans and to dissuade belief in something greater than one's self.
People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one's best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.
I agree with this.
Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word.
Spirit prevails over words? What is spirit, but feeling? What are words, but ideas? Are they saying what we feel is compassionate, wise and just supersedes law and order? What is law but a consensus of acceptable behavior? Sure, not all laws are just, but the people have the power to change them. I'd rather live in a law-abiding neighborhood than one whose residents were dictated by subjective feelings.
They seem genuine at a glance, but let's dissect these "tenets".
What does reason have to do with empathy and compassion? One could argue that it is irrational to act compassionately toward someone who can provide nothing in return. So is this tenet promoting empathy and compassion only when there is self-gain? Or that we should act with reasonable amounts of compassion and empathy?
Sounds like they are advocates for the ever-changing mob rule mentality.
Does this mean they are accepting of suicide? Which takes precedence the 'inviolable' part or the 'one's own will' part?
Again, ambiguous meaning. Yes, the freedoms of others should be respected, but does that mean we allow pedophiles freedom to do as they please as long as their child victims give consent?
The second sentence is a noble sentiment that the scientific community should strive to meet, but the first sentence is a bit odd. Why is it imperative to equate values to science? Not everything can be explained by science such as love and miracles, but this tenet claims a person's beliefs and morals should be quantified by the scientific method. I see it as a ploy to cheapen our intrinsic value as humans and to dissuade belief in something greater than one's self.
I agree with this.
Spirit prevails over words? What is spirit, but feeling? What are words, but ideas? Are they saying what we feel is compassionate, wise and just supersedes law and order? What is law but a consensus of acceptable behavior? Sure, not all laws are just, but the people have the power to change them. I'd rather live in a law-abiding neighborhood than one whose residents were dictated by subjective feelings.