Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[Ignorant]

Why are you asking me this?

Well, I am asking you questions about your position so that I can better understand it. You said that you thought that all "people of sound mind" would agree about how they wanted other people to treat them. By asking you questions about that thought, I hoped to get a better sense of what you mean. I am sorry if it annoys you, but you are under no obligation to respond to me.

I said "I treat others the way I would like to be treated", not "I poll them and treat them the way that they answer".

Well, sure. But supposing a hypothetical person who wants other people to kick him in the face, such a person, according to the imperative, would be justified in kicking people in the face (i.e. he is treating other people the way he would like to be treated). Obviously, there is more to your understanding of good action than merely that imperative... and you reveal it in your post, for which I am thankful:

even if he enjoys being kicked in the face himself, he has no right to physically assault anyone else

Which is an important piece (i.e. "rights") that is only now being put forth as a part of your understanding. UNLIKE the simplicity you attributed to your position earlier:

"My conception of goodness is pretty simple -- treat others the way I'd like to be treated, add to the general weal, and leave the world a better place than I find it." (pg. 4, #39)

In response to my question: "[Is] your conception of goodness an imperative to act in a way that you would like others to add toward you?" (pg. 19, #187), you answered, without qualification, "Yes" (pg. 22, #219)

To the "simple" imperative, which is intelligible only to people of "sound mind" and bounded by individual physical harm rights (which as of yet have no description), you have finally added a "guiding principle" (which seems like it would be a pretty important aspect of a description of goodness of which it is guiding...), viz. "inflict no unnecessary harm". So what started out as a single imperative (pg. 22, #219):

1) To act in a way that you would like others to act toward you

Has become a simple imperative AND several more complex and currently ambiguous and unexplained things:

1) To be of sound mind (pg. 22, #219) (what does that mean?)
2) To act in a way that you would like others to act toward you (pg. 22, #219) (Can this ever lead to bad action?)
3) Individuals have a right not to be harmed (pg. 24, #237) (How do you know that? What is a right? What causes individuals to have this particular right?)
4) The principle that guides all of this is "inflict no unnecessary harm" (pg. 24, #237) (what makes it necessary or unnecessary? In what way does this guide the other aspects?)

Not so simple I guess. That is ok! That is why we talk it out.

Why this should mystify you baffles me. This is pretty simple stuff.

See above. It isn't so simple and you have left quite a bit unexplained. You are assuming that there is a lot of common ground between us about the language of goodness and right action (there is common ground... but if we want to speak rationally about it, we need to articulate exactly what that ground is. Don't just assume that I know what you mean when you use terms like "sound mind" and individual rights). Not to worry, pretty much everyone in Western civilization does the same thing (and it makes rational discussion about the common good almost impossible).