Golden Rule

[Quantum Quack]

I understand what you're trying to say but your basic premises are not accurate.

On both points: Few people can actually live without social interaction. And that means we must all more or less agree on conventions and parameters within which to execute that interaction. As a result, if we choose to not stay within those ethical bounds we can cause others to be unhappy, unsafe and threaten their well-being.

I believe you can easily see how that negates both statements.

and of course if your neighbour feels unsafe and threatened you are likely to get your head blown off.
The golden rule is not just an abitary ethic it is a logically consistant approach to life that works for your own vested inetersts.
More can be achieved in an environement of mutual benefit that in one that only benefits one.
I think of it as reflective reasoning or perspective reasoning and is an essential part of our every day thiniking processes.
As to whether it is a gold standard of ethics I think it is a fundamental essential for co-existance.

Societies only worth is in the good will of it's participants IMO.

 

[Light]

and of course if your neighbour feels unsafe and threatened you are likely to get your head blown off.
The golden rule is not just an abitary ethic it is a logically consistant approach to life that works for your own vested inetersts.
More can be achieved in an environement of mutual benefit that in one that only benefits one.
I think of it as reflective reasoning or perspective reasoning and is an essential part of our every day thiniking processes.
As to whether it is a gold standard of ethics I think it is a fundamental essential for co-existance.

Societies only worth is in the good will of it's participants IMO.

Agreed. And well said.

 

[cosmictraveler]

So how did the golden rule apply to the Native Americans? They were exterminated because they weren't believing in the same ideals as those who were taking away their lands, killing their babies and lying to them about peace treaties. Those that murdered the Native Americans were Christians for the most part.

 

[c20H25N3o]

I don't think masochists should follow the rule but does that make them the exception that proves the rule

c20

 

[water]

Light,


Do you even know what my premises are? I don't think so.

Indeed, few people can live without social interaction. The issue in question is what is the nature and quality of this interaction.

Are we doomed to be unhappy without others? Indeed, many people feel so. But I argue that these people are ignorant about the nature of happiness. We do not need other people in order to be happy, other people cannot make us happy. In the same manner, we cannot make anyone unhappy. It may seem that we can, but this is just seem.

From where I'm standing, it looks like you in fact agree with the two premises -- that humans do need others in order to be happy and safe, and that we are per default responsible for eachother's well-being.

I said in my previous post that these two beliefs are not apriori true -- are you claiming they are?

 

[water]

So how did the golden rule apply to the Native Americans? They were exterminated because they weren't believing in the same ideals as those who were taking away their lands, killing their babies and lying to them about peace treaties. Those that murdered the Native Americans were Christians for the most part.

Native Americans weren't considered human by the settlers.
They were considered a lower race that can be killed the same way animals can be killed.

 

[Roman]

Native Americans weren't considered human by the settlers.
They were considered a lower race that can be killed the same way animals can be killed.

So then the golden rule only makes a valid argument when in the context of your own kind. It doesn't apply to everyone.

That would be the danger of racism, then. Any investigation into what the nature of race means will invariably yield differences that shows one group superior to the other. It's hardly a far step, then, to justify the race as an outgroup, subhuman, and not producted by society's basic tenet.

 

[Quantum Quack]

So then the golden rule only makes a valid argument when in the context of your own kind. It doesn't apply to everyone.

That would be the danger of racism, then. Any investigation into what the nature of race means will invariably yield differences that shows one group superior to the other. It's hardly a far step, then, to justify the race as an outgroup, subhuman, and not producted by society's basic tenet.

it is worth keeping in mind I think that we as a race [ human] have evolved our sense of racial arrogance. Apart from a few red-necks here and there people do not consider other races as sub human any more. Our definition of "human" has evolved considerably over the last 400 years or so.

To day the golden rule even applies to animal well fare and even plant life.
In fact sometimes a dog [ for example] has a higher status than another human. [ sorry ...sloppy analogy]

I recall a film where thousands of buffalo were slaughtered just for their skins, their meat value lost to the fields on which they stood.

Just an example of how absurd mankind was back then. Of course today we are more conscious of our environment and would never waste thousands of buffalo in such a manner.

So the golden rule has evolved to include just about everything these days...IMO

 

[Light]

Light,


Do you even know what my premises are? I don't think so.

Indeed, few people can live without social interaction. The issue in question is what is the nature and quality of this interaction.

Are we doomed to be unhappy without others? Indeed, many people feel so. But I argue that these people are ignorant about the nature of happiness. We do not need other people in order to be happy, other people cannot make us happy. In the same manner, we cannot make anyone unhappy. It may seem that we can, but this is just seem.

From where I'm standing, it looks like you in fact agree with the two premises -- that humans do need others in order to be happy and safe, and that we are per default responsible for eachother's well-being.

I said in my previous post that these two beliefs are not apriori true -- are you claiming they are?

Yes, I understood you perfectly. And yes - those two beliefs are true. For the most simple example just consider how only a few people can make many others unhappy. Perhaps you haven't said what you really mean but the logic you have presented is entirely false right on the face of it.

 

[Roman]

Quantum,

it is worth keeping in mind I think that we as a race [ human] have evolved our sense of racial arrogance. Apart from a few red-necks here and there people do not consider other races as sub human any more. Our definition of "human" has evolved considerably over the last 400 years or so.

Not so much as describing other humans as subhuman, but viewing them as an 'outgroup', as opposed to our group, or 'ingroup'. We treat percieved outgroups with less fairness than we treat ingroups. The golden rule remedies this, to a degree.

Yet the people we apply the golden rule to still tends to be ingroups, rather than outgroups.

 

[water]

So then the golden rule only makes a valid argument when in the context of your own kind. It doesn't apply to everyone.

Of course.


* * *

Apart from a few red-necks here and there people do not consider other races as sub human any more. Our definition of "human" has evolved considerably over the last 400 years or so.

You kid me? "Apart from a ***few*** rednecks here and there people do not consider other races as subhuman anymore"?
I suggest you pay attention to the newest statistics on questions like "Would you rather have a black person as a neighbour, or a murderer?"

To day the golden rule even applies to animal well fare and even plant life.

How consistently?
We feed our pet cat the best food, but don't mind to run over stray cats. And so on. We apply positive principles of wellfare only to the animals (and plants) that we consider *ours* (ino ne way or another).

Just an example of how absurd mankind was back then. Of course today we are more conscious of our environment and would never waste thousands of buffalo in such a manner.

No, we waste more subtly, and on a grander scale.

So the golden rule has evolved to include just about everything these days...IMO

Yes, and this is why it is so useless.


* * *

Yes, I understood you perfectly.

I still don't think so.

And yes - those two beliefs are true.

Yes, but they are true only for those living in ignorance.

For the most simple example just consider how only a few people can make many others unhappy.

Indeed, many people like to pick up the arrows others shot, and then they stab themselves with them.

If I'd call you bad names, would that make you unhappy? Would you feel threatened?
If you'd get robbed, would you be unhappy?

Perhaps you haven't said what you really mean

I said exactly what I mean.

but the logic you have presented is entirely false right on the face of it.

Not at all.
Most consequent Buddhists, Hindus, Christians (and probably some others as well) hold the same stance as me.


* * *

Not so much as describing other humans as subhuman, but viewing them as an 'outgroup', as opposed to out group, or 'ingroup'. We treat percieved outgroups with less fairness than we treat ingroups. The golden rule remedies this, too a degree.

Yet the people we apply the golden rule to still tends to be ingroups, rather than outgroups.

Yes. Just yesterday on the news, I heard that the majority of Croatians would rather have a murderer for a neighbour than a homosexual. They had a gay parade and the police had to intervene, as people protested against and physically attacked the homosexuals.

 

[Light]

Water, I have no idea where you are trying to go with this. Many of your statements defy all logic.

For a case in point, you said, "In the same manner, we cannot make anyone unhappy. It may seem that we can, but this is just seem."

That is purely absurd. As a fairly recent and extreme example, consider the events of 9/11. Just a few people flying those planes made THOUSANDS of people very unhappy! You are making no sense that I can see.

 

[water]

Water, I have no idea where you are trying to go with this. Many of your statements defy all logic.

For a case in point, you said, "In the same manner, we cannot make anyone unhappy. It may seem that we can, but this is just seem."

That is purely absurd. As a fairly recent and extreme example, consider the events of 9/11. Just a few people flying those planes made THOUSANDS of people very unhappy! You are making no sense that I can see.

You judge at mere face value, and take it to be the norm.

Sure, those people were unhappy -- but the question is if they were justly so. Or whether they just seized the opportunity to play the victim.

Water, I have no idea where you are trying to go with this. Many of your statements defy all logic.

My statements don't defy logic. They defy a particular system of ethics.

 

[Light]

You judge at mere face value, and take it to be the norm.

Sure, those people were unhappy -- but the question is if they were justly so. Or whether they just seized the opportunity to play the victim.

What?!?!?!

You actually doubt that the parents, spouses and children of those killed were "justly uhappy!?!"

Exactly what kind of person are you, anyway?

 

[water]

What?!?!?!
You actually doubt that the parents, spouses and children of those killed were "justly uhappy!?!"

Yes.

Exactly what kind of person are you, anyway?

A monster, to you, I guess.

 

[Light]

Yes.




A monster, to you, I guess.

No, I would use the highly techincal term "fool" instead. You are clearly not someone I would want to know or be associated with.

 

[Quantum Quack]

No, I would use the highly techincal term "fool" instead. You are clearly not someone I would want to know or be associated with.

ok...ok..peoples...hmmmmm...from my own readings both of you are quite astute. Light, possibly it would be wise to ask Water more detail as to why her words seem so biased. I think you will be surprised by the outcome.

Water,
You are right and as usual you have succeeded in denting my ideal view on the world.
You mention the strife in Croatia and fail to realise that even though the individuals concerned may be upset about homosexuality the governement has evolved enough to know this as being a negative quatlity and showed no support for their outrage at homosexuality. If thed government acted in support of the homophobia your point would be more valid. IMO
I find it sad that you have such pessimism towards humanity. Sure my view sometimes seems idealistic, well Ok I admit it I am an idealist. But whilst I see great strife in mankind I also see great potential that affords optimism.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Quantum,


Not so much as describing other humans as subhuman, but viewing them as an 'outgroup', as opposed to out group, or 'ingroup'. We treat percieved outgroups with less fairness than we treat ingroups. The golden rule remedies this, too a degree.

Yet the people we apply the golden rule to still tends to be ingroups, rather than outgroups.

Yep and double yep.....I agree and do you think that this will ever be removed from society even if it is theoretically removed from governent legislations and laws?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Yes. Just yesterday on the news, I heard that the majority of Croatians would rather have a murderer for a neighbour than a homosexual. They had a gay parade and the police had to intervene, as people protested against and physically attacked the homosexuals.

Water I stopped taking inspiration from the media years ago. It has the tendancy of polluting and distorting your world view due to the need to sensationalise and sell advertising.

If you relied upon the news on TV for inspiration you can be sure to be constantly depressed and pessimistic.....this I have found any way.

The news tends to focus on minority groups and usually avoids discussing the majority view. IMO
The last time I read a news paper was when I realised this.
Now I get my news from hearsay and inuendo a wink and a nudge and find it much more effective but at least I don't forget that it is usually just that [ a sensational distortion of reality]...ha

 

[water]

Water I stopped taking inspiration from the media years ago.

I'm not taking inspiration from them. I'm just quoting the reports and statistics they present.
You have to go to some information outlet in order to get some information, you know.