The Golden Rule [large picture]

[wynn]

On the surface this might seem reasonable, but then if you need a rule to tell you whether to help someone in need then you already have a problem with your sense of humanity.

Would you say that the mark of a healthy and sane person is that she does not have any clearly stated rules in regard to her sense of humanity - but that she instead acts humanely without thinking of whether it is humane or not?

The do no harm version is essentially - live and let live - do not tell others what to do and do not judge them.

But what when others don't let you live and judge you?

 

[Cris]

signal,

Would you say that the mark of a healthy and sane person is that she does not have any clearly stated rules in regard to her sense of humanity - but that she instead acts humanely without thinking of whether it is humane or not?

The successful evolution of our species is that we are social animals. We are genetically inclined to relate socially.

But what when others don't let you live and judge you?

Our other primeval instinct kicks-in - survival, and we will defend and fight for ourselves and our social group.

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

I can't say if the 1st to propose it meant it as a rule. I don't regard it as such but rather a philosophical attitude or simply a concise description of how I live.

 

[wynn]

The successful evolution of our species is that we are social animals. We are genetically inclined to relate socially.

So those people who have clearly stated rules are not successfully evolved?

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you covers every thing you do & don't do that affects others.

It doesn't translate into :
I love to have the crap scared out of me so I must scare the crap out of others.
or
I don't believe in DNR so I won't recognize your right to it.
or
If I were homosexual, I'd want someone to straighten me out.
or
If I didn't believe in gods, I'd want someone to straighten me out.

 

[Cris]

signal,

So those people who have clearly stated rules are not successfully evolved?

Only if you want to perversely conclude that such rules are not based on our evolved social instincts.

 

[lightgigantic]

signal,

Only if you want to perversely conclude that such rules are not based on our evolved social instincts.

Then even a lack of humanity would be genetic .... and in fact even your explanations on what constitutes a lack of humanity would be too

:shrug:

(And even then, given that what is understood to be the nature and means of "evolved social instincts" has been "evolving" itself for sometime now, the whole argument ends up on its ass - particularly since some genetic elements are understood to be triggered by environment)

 

[Cris]

lg,

Then even a lack of humanity would be genetic .... and in fact even your explanations on what constitutes a lack of humanity would be too



(And even then, given that what is understood to be the nature and means of "evolved social instincts" has been "evolving" itself for sometime now, the whole argument ends up on its ass - particularly since some genetic elements are understood to be triggered by environment)

Well again like most of your posts I have no idea what point you are attemptig to make.

 

[lightgigantic]

lg,

Well again like most of your posts I have no idea what point you are attemptig to make.

In short, tagging "that's because of our evolved social instincts" to any given is kind of like "goddunnit"

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

Is LG a reincarnated vaudeville comedian?

 

[swarm]

Is LG a reincarnated vaudeville comedian?

No. He just isn't sane.

 

[wynn]

Only if you want to perversely conclude that such rules are not based on our evolved social instincts.

You said earlier:

On the surface this might seem reasonable, but then if you need a rule to tell you whether to help someone in need then you already have a problem with your sense of humanity.

 

[lightgigantic]

Is LG a reincarnated vaudeville comedian?

No. He just isn't sane.

you are only speaking like that because of your evolved social instincts

(try it ... just add "because of your evolved social instincts" to anything anyone says. Its a good tool to have if your evolved social instincts prohibit you from saying "godunit" ... especially since its a claim that can never be proven)

 

[StrangerInAStrangeLand]

IF that were so, it would yet be much clearer than 98% of your posts. Try clarifying yourself then come back for more on this.
YOU never prove anything. You answer questions with questions, attempt to swerve around issues, laugh off & brush off & ignore things. Your "discussion" is arrogant, evasive, deceptive & avoiding facts.
You are only speaking as you do because of your evolved inability to think logicly.

 

[wynn]

IF that were so, it would yet be much clearer than 98% of your posts. Try clarifying yourself then come back for more on this.
YOU never prove anything. You answer questions with questions, attempt to swerve around issues, laugh off & brush off & ignore things. Your "discussion" is arrogant, evasive, deceptive & avoiding facts.
You are only speaking as you do because of your evolved inability to think logicly.

And you are only saying so "because of your evolved social instincts"!

 

[Cris]

signal,

“ Originally Posted by Cris
Only if you want to perversely conclude that such rules are not based on our evolved social instincts. ”

You said earlier:


“ Originally Posted by Cris
On the surface this might seem reasonable, but then if you need a rule to tell you whether to help someone in need then you already have a problem with your sense of humanity. ”

The point is that most of do the right thing because it is instinctual, that many see a need to write rules is not in conflict since such rules also tend to be based on those instincts. But it is just that many basic rules do not need to be written.

 

[wynn]

The point is that most of do the right thing because it is instinctual, that many see a need to write rules is not in conflict since such rules also tend to be based on those instincts. But it is just that many basic rules do not need to be written.

Why do you think those basic rules don't need to be written?

 

[lightgigantic]

IF that were so, it would yet be much clearer than 98% of your posts. Try clarifying yourself then come back for more on this.
YOU never prove anything. You answer questions with questions, attempt to swerve around issues, laugh off & brush off & ignore things. Your "discussion" is arrogant, evasive, deceptive & avoiding facts.
You are only speaking as you do because of your evolved inability to think logicly.

snazzy, huh?

 

[Cris]

signal,

Why do you think those basic rules don't need to be written?

Oh I don't know, it's not a big deal I guess, but when I'm faced with various moral scenarios I go with my gut feel and somewhat tempered by my intellect. I do not go look up the rules to discover what I am meant to do.

 

[lightgigantic]

signal,

Oh I don't know, it's not a big deal I guess, but when I'm faced with various moral scenarios I go with my gut feel and somewhat tempered by my intellect. I do not go look up the rules to discover what I am meant to do.

and this leads to the question to what degree you have already internalized them - IOW visceral intuitions are often shaped by the social environment of the performer .... and social environments (at least those that have scope for written communication) are often found to have some sort of literary body at their foundation to the same effect (For instance, an investigation of american literature is arguably the most prominent means of investigating american culture)