amorphous_constellation
Well-Known Member
So here we have I guess two different ethical trees, so to speak. Where to begin comparing them. So where do these things really show up in our day to day world, or how are they made to be building blocks of society. I assume first of all that these maxim-memes are somehow foundational to behavior, as myriad types of behavior will be produced as actions springing forth from them. Such is the case with all human beings, I think, that the foundational behavior of every individual can be broken down into a meme. Thus they can be seen as building blocks of the greater society.
Anyway, what are the results, what are the practices. When you take someone onto small claims court I assume you are engaging into a reciprocal relationship with them, that reciprocity being a basis in "an eye for an eye," trying to achieve that equation of hydraulic justice. The moral thing of it seems couched in logic, a mechanism which acts as a repellent against offenders, a negative action meets an aversive resistant. The argument against this was to conflate it with vengeance however, though arguably 'vengeance' is a thing unrestrained, thus it might instead have leanings toward such an idea as 'head for eye.' Obviously a moral reversal occurs somewhere in that. However, never would the keen allow themselves be fleeced.
Now for the Golden rule, this maxim is not bedded in logic, nor is it a method of reciprocity. It does however, find its sturdiest ground as an educational outreach, a bypass and claimant of higher civilization. Cold reciprocity can be bypassed it argues, if but the offender may be educated, incited to think or ruminate. Basically this incitement to ruminate is set to achieve two things, an ethical win-over of offending parties, and a societal turnover via the ancient reciprocal justice that can be done away with, cause and effect to broken down in a quadratic equation of brotherly love. So the argument is one of bypass, that learning can occur in conscious beings, in spite of wrongs but at the behest of greater consciousness, allowing for an expanded ability to circumvent natural reciprocity.
Anyway, what are the results, what are the practices. When you take someone onto small claims court I assume you are engaging into a reciprocal relationship with them, that reciprocity being a basis in "an eye for an eye," trying to achieve that equation of hydraulic justice. The moral thing of it seems couched in logic, a mechanism which acts as a repellent against offenders, a negative action meets an aversive resistant. The argument against this was to conflate it with vengeance however, though arguably 'vengeance' is a thing unrestrained, thus it might instead have leanings toward such an idea as 'head for eye.' Obviously a moral reversal occurs somewhere in that. However, never would the keen allow themselves be fleeced.
Now for the Golden rule, this maxim is not bedded in logic, nor is it a method of reciprocity. It does however, find its sturdiest ground as an educational outreach, a bypass and claimant of higher civilization. Cold reciprocity can be bypassed it argues, if but the offender may be educated, incited to think or ruminate. Basically this incitement to ruminate is set to achieve two things, an ethical win-over of offending parties, and a societal turnover via the ancient reciprocal justice that can be done away with, cause and effect to broken down in a quadratic equation of brotherly love. So the argument is one of bypass, that learning can occur in conscious beings, in spite of wrongs but at the behest of greater consciousness, allowing for an expanded ability to circumvent natural reciprocity.
Last edited:
