Christians, Prove Your God Is Good

[Thumpalumpacus]

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 treat others the way I would like to be treated is straightforward English -- yet your question asked me about an entirely different matter. My curiosity as to your motive is no less valid than your curiosity as to my meaning -- particularly because my meaning is much plainer than your motive.

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:

No, simply because someone has a desire to do something, that doesn't mean they have the justification. That is why my morality is based upon empathy, and not sophistry.

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)

It falls under "add to the general weal". I will assume for ease of conversation that you know what that means.

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".

Sorry for explaining stuff to you. I hadn't realized it was needed, and quitefrankly, I'm not big on writing giant posts, so I give my interlocutor the benefit of the doubt and assume that common concepts are understood typically.

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?)

I had assumed you knew what mental illness is. You can google it.

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?)

"Ever" is a long time. Can you be more specific?

3) Individuals have a right not to be harmed (pg. 24, #237) (How do you know that?

I accept it as axiomatic. It's that whole living things like to live hook, coupled with living things prefer to be happy. I avoid impeding the ability of others to live a happy life.

Be aware, I'm speaking of humans, and not other animals.

The right to not be harmed is reflected in our laws -- not that they are the basis of morality, but they do tend to reflect consensus. It should be noted as well that a society in which people had no right to be free of harm would be less likely to hold together over time. History supports this point.

What is a right?

Do you need a dictionary too? I'll draw your attention to the second listing under "noun".

What causes individuals to have this particular right?)

See above, this is in essence a repeated question.

4) The principle that guides all of this is "inflict no unnecessary harm" (pg. 24, #237) (what makes it necessary or unnecessary?

That would depend on the situation; whether the harm one inflicts belays a greater harm being done.

In what way does this guide the other aspects?)

The right to be free of harm ends when one intends to harm another person unjustly, i.e., without due cause. My apologies for being so confusing.

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

It's pretty simple to me. Your welter of questions puzzles me. You don't seem to have given morality much thought, as shown by this post of yours; you seem to be unaware of some common concepts.

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...

Perhaps. I had assumed that I was writing simply, and that the ground was understood. Apologies.

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).

Whenever I use a word, you may rest assured I am using standard usage; I am a writer and do like the idea of supplying my own definitions to the common language, and that tends to clutter the conversation -- as we're witnessing here.

Not to worry, pretty much everyone in Western civilization does the same thing (and it makes rational discussion about the common good almost impossible).

Oh, I'm not worried. I had assumed you had a firmer grounding in some pretty simple concepts and definitions. The mistake is mine.