Morality = The Golden Rule

[Just_me_Mike]

why does it have to be black and white?
Either the golden rule is the be all end all of morality or it has to be completely wrong?

Why you people read my posts and think "Oh my god!! he thinks the golden rule is completely wrong!" is beyond me.

Talk about reading more into what is said......

Because many great philosophers, believe that the end of all things is black or white, when it comes to morals.

I am not a great philosopher, so I presented a subject, and I still welcome you to explain why it isn't the be all end all to morals. I am not wanting to fight with you, but get a clear reason why it isn't. So if the slap-sticking is over, please give me a reason it isn't black or white.

 

[Adso]

As a broken record... Please give me an example where the Golden Rule doesn't apply.

Okay, just so we don't end up going in circles, let me ask a few direct questions so I might be able to wrap my head around it:

1) How are you defining "morals"
2) What should a moral system entail? Is it a matter of just right or wrong?
3) For those who aren't "normal" and thus not subject to the Golden Rule...Where do they fit into the system?
4) Haven't you already identified yourself where the Golden Rule is inapplicable (rapists, masochists, etc.) ?
5) Is the system internal, external, or both?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Okay, just so we don't end up going in circles, let me ask a few direct questions so I might be able to wrap my head around it:
1) How are you defining "morals"

For the sake of this thread, morals = the golden rule.

2) What should a moral system entail? Is it a matter of just right or wrong?

Carrying over from point 1, the golden rule encompasses every aspect of moral obligation and decision making when faced with any situation. To expand just a little bit, if I treat others the way I want to be treated, I would first need to be sure how I wanted to be treated was universal in nature, that could apply to everyone. Which is, I don't want to be killed, stolen from, lied too, cheated on, etc... This is the basis of morals, and at the same time it is what makes up the golden rule.

3) For those who aren't "normal" and thus not subject to the Golden Rule...Where do they fit into the system?

These people are still part of the system, but as we see today, they are often removed from society, because they hurt people (some of them do), others that aren't violent, but just mentally challenged, like my son, well, I plan on taking care of him for the rest of my life, because his brain can not grasp certain social functions. If we need to talk about this further, or I am not clear enough, let me know.

4) Haven't you already identified yourself where the Golden Rule is inapplicable (rapists, masochists, etc.) ?

Actually I said it is applicable. It is applicable from both sides. The rapists, it is applicable still because if the rapists had a normal brain, he would see what he is doing is wrong. In other words, the sky looks blue to most people. If a color blind person can't see that, it doesn't make the color any less real to everyone else. So to, does the golden rule exist and apply, even when those can't understand it.

5) Is the system internal, external, or both?

It is definitely both. We can internalize it for our own lives, and also apply externally.

I would just ask that you reflect on the golden rule, and then reflect on what morals are to you. Tare it apart and see if it still stands. To be sure, though, if you don't agree with me on what morals are in point 2, none of this will make sense.

 

[Adso]

I'll respond in full tomorrow, itwillend. It's late here in the UK, and I needs me some beauty rest.

 

[Quiddity]

Not sure if I even understand what it is you are asking.

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Not sure if I even understand what it is you are asking.

Well lately, Msizer has been discussing whether or not morals are absolute. Actually he has been stating they are.

I then took it upon myself, to compare the criteria he used for absolute morals, and simply compared that criteria to the golden rule.

After doing so, it seems the golden rule in fact encompasses the moral framework that even atheists agree upon. I know, I know, nothing earth shattering. I just thought it was interesting.

 

[logician]

Does the golden rule work for masochists?

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Does the golden rule work for masochists?

Did you even bother to read any of the thread?

 

[ManTimeForgot]

Morality does not equal the golden rule. Human moral judgment at its foundation is Not a positive; it is actually a negative. The fundamental basis for moral judgment is resentment. Those behaviors which we view in a critical light towards neither condoning or accepting (that is those behaviors we condemn) are the ones resent. And it is only by establishing that which is immoral that we have any notion of morality. What people "want" to do is so varied that speaking about what people "want to do" reveals practically nothing. But what people can and do agree on is what is "painful." So the contrapositive: Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you is more properly the basis for morality.

MTF

 

[Just_me_Mike]

Morality does not equal the golden rule. Human moral judgment at its foundation is Not a positive; it is actually a negative. The fundamental basis for moral judgment is resentment. Those behaviors which we view in a critical light towards neither condoning or accepting (that is those behaviors we condemn) are the ones resent. And it is only by establishing that which is immoral that we have any notion of morality. What people "want" to do is so varied that speaking about what people "want to do" reveals practically nothing. But what people can and do agree on is what is "painful." So the contrapositive: Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you is more properly the basis for morality.

MTF

I don't have time, but there is a good argument against this. You should look it up if your interested. I read it and agreed why it was not as solid as the positive form.

 

[Humanistheart]

Hi your back. So you are done with the rapist. Great let's move on to the masochist!



If you need me to point to science that tells us this is a mental disorder or impairment, I will do so, but I shouldn't have too.

Have you listed any evidence yet?

It's interesting that you're entire golden rule argument comes down to assuming various people who don't think like you must invariably have a mental disorder, and thus somehow are exempt from consideration. Paricularly when you have not been able to defend any of your claims.

 

[footprints]

When dealing with normal, mentally functioning human beings?

Why or why not?

Nah, I treat some non-believers the way they treat others, think I am being respectful to them and their ways, they only ever see me as being disrespectful. Apparently it is only when they do it, is it respectful.

I have come to the conclusion their golden rule is, "Do as I tell you, don't do as I do", or, "Treat others how you feel like treating them, but others should treat you how you feel you should be treated."

When dealing with the normal, healthy brain, it should always be remembered that all normal, healthy brains are not hardwired with the same knowledge base, therefore relate and associate differently.

 

[Humanistheart]

I have come to the conclusion their golden rule is, "Do as I tell you, don't do as I do", or, "Treat others how you feel like treating them, but others should treat you how you feel you should be treated.".

Of course, if the golden rule was really followed by christians, and the way they've treated other's is the way christians want to be treated the world would have to slaughter it's christian population. Christians have commited numerous mass genocides throughout the centuries; they kill those they don't like so if they are following the golden rule they must want to be killed off themselves.

 

[footprints]

Of course, if the golden rule was really followed by christians, and the way they've treated other's is the way christians want to be treated the world would have to slaughter it's christian population. Christians have commited numerous mass genocides throughout the centuries; they kill those they don't like so if they are following the golden rule they must want to be killed off themselves.

What a strange association an unreasoned position. How far back in the past do you want to go to prove a narrow point? Or do we judge all others from your same perspective, do we judge all non believers on pol pot (a known person brought up on religion, buddhism and catholicism, who rebelled against it and became atheist), on stalin pol pots hero, et al.

If the golden rule was followed by Christians, they would be walked all over by non believers. Christians have a right to survive, just as any other person does.

By your reasoning we might as well just kill every human on earth.

 

[logician]

The golden rule really is not viable, because it assumes perfection of the individual. W/o perfection, it fails.

 

[ManTimeForgot]

The contrapositive of the golden rule is actually usable, and it actually describes human reactions. Sure it doesn't tell us what we should do, and that might leave room for "indifference," but from what I have seen human behavior is so varied that telling people what they should do is doomed to failure.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Does this mean that all is permissible? Or should it be "Only do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" Also what about people who consider it right and proper to make arranged marriages (and were perfectly willing to enter into the arranged marriage they had for themselves)?

Human behavior is more complex in the positive than the "golden rule" can encompass. Even if you restrict this to only encompass the treatment of others rather than the totality of behaviors, you would still have problems with people who value a more intensity in their lives than another can manage.


Perhaps in the final analysis it is best to use the "golden rule" for those who understand that in order to properly satisfy it the contrapositive must first be completely satisfied. That if you wish to be treated well, not not treating others well is a large part of that.

MTF

 

[Heneni]

A man that dictates his own moral code cannot be trusted. Today his moral code might be its not ok to kill you, tomorrow he might think it is ok to kill you.

 

[Magic Man]

A man that dictates his own moral code cannot be trusted. Today his moral code might be its not ok to kill you, tomorrow he might think it is ok to kill you.

So, nobody's moral code can be trusted?

 

[Heneni]

So, nobody's moral code can be trusted?

Nobody minus god.

Mankinds moral code is fluid. It changes with the times and the seasons. A few years ago it would have been immoral to walk around with a bikini. And in some cultures it still is (Saudi Muslims). So which society is right? Yes mankinds moral code can not be trusted. Cause its whatever goes at that point in time.

 

[Magic Man]

Nobody minus god.

Mankinds moral code is fluid. It changes with the times and the seasons. A few years ago it would have been immoral to walk around with a bikini. And in some cultures it still is (Saudi Muslims). So which society is right? Yes mankinds moral code can not be trusted. Cause its whatever goes at that point in time.

So, in other words, morality can't be trusted. Weird.

You're right, though, when people try to speak for God, you should never trust them. Always trust the ones who only claim to speak for themselves, and reason through decisions.