RE: The Golden Rule ? Sense or Bullshit?
July 25, 2013 at 8:01 am
(This post was last modified: July 25, 2013 at 8:06 am by Creed of Heresy.)
I find that the moment someone uses the word "conformist" to describe anyone [themselves, others], they immediately render themselves invalidated in matters pertaining to intellectual discourse. Nobody calls someone a conformist anymore. That shit stops in high school because it's a stupid term and you should feel stupid for using it. Attie, you're using ad hominems as well. "What, are you American?" Funny you should ask that question. A lot of the world seems to think Americans are all idiots.
Well last I checked we were the first to land a man on the moon and the ones providing most of the intellectual manpower for space-born vehicles, we were going to build the first [and would have also been the largest even by modern standards] superconducting super collider [which did not happen only due to budgetary concerns], we have had the most active space program to date, most technological innovations on a large scale have emerged from the US, and our universities are the best in the world, so you can take that little unwarranted ad hominem and shove it right up your butt-pucker.
The Golden Rule is the most basic form of moral objectivity we have, but it sure isn't flawless. It's also not as simple as saying things like "I like to be tortured, does that mean I get to torture others?" Because you have to take into account what they would want as well. "Do unto others blahblahblah" is a simple way of putting it but it means a lot more than that.
Using the torture metaphor; you enjoy being tortured, thus you want others to torture you. But does that give you a right to torture others? Well, it depends. Do THEY want to be tortured? If no, then no, you do not; the separation and distinction is between what YOU want, and what OTHERS want. It is not the overlying action itself but the underlying DESIRE for that action.
Tl;dr, the golden and silver rules espouse empathy towards other human beings; understanding what they want, and what you want, and finding balance in that. If you just dumb it down to absolute literalism then no, the G/SRs are easily torn asunder, but if you look at the wisdom of the words in their implications it starts making a lot more sense.
Is it objective? No. I'm pretty sure there is no objective morality. But it's a pretty reasonable, sensible stance all the same, especially in comparison to the other stances that exist out there.
Well last I checked we were the first to land a man on the moon and the ones providing most of the intellectual manpower for space-born vehicles, we were going to build the first [and would have also been the largest even by modern standards] superconducting super collider [which did not happen only due to budgetary concerns], we have had the most active space program to date, most technological innovations on a large scale have emerged from the US, and our universities are the best in the world, so you can take that little unwarranted ad hominem and shove it right up your butt-pucker.
The Golden Rule is the most basic form of moral objectivity we have, but it sure isn't flawless. It's also not as simple as saying things like "I like to be tortured, does that mean I get to torture others?" Because you have to take into account what they would want as well. "Do unto others blahblahblah" is a simple way of putting it but it means a lot more than that.
Using the torture metaphor; you enjoy being tortured, thus you want others to torture you. But does that give you a right to torture others? Well, it depends. Do THEY want to be tortured? If no, then no, you do not; the separation and distinction is between what YOU want, and what OTHERS want. It is not the overlying action itself but the underlying DESIRE for that action.
Tl;dr, the golden and silver rules espouse empathy towards other human beings; understanding what they want, and what you want, and finding balance in that. If you just dumb it down to absolute literalism then no, the G/SRs are easily torn asunder, but if you look at the wisdom of the words in their implications it starts making a lot more sense.
Is it objective? No. I'm pretty sure there is no objective morality. But it's a pretty reasonable, sensible stance all the same, especially in comparison to the other stances that exist out there.
