Let's have a discussion about the Golden Rule, is it a solid basis for morality?

Let's have a discussion about the Golden Rule, is it a solid basis for morality?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule
youtube.com/watch?v=Pi7gwX7rjOw
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

it's not gay if it's in a three way?

I'm not sure if you are referring to Mari, La Fayette and a giant penis ostrich or asking about the Golden Rule.

Here's the quickiepedia page about the latter.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Reverse image search the former to find lots of fun French Revolution era propaganda.

youtube.com/watch?v=Pi7gwX7rjOw

Thanks, user, but I'm in my thirties, I only have the slightest clue who these people are.

No

Let's say you did unto others as you would have them do unto you; and conversely, they didn't do what you didn't do.

A man rapes and kills your wife, which would illicit the "rightful" necessity for a punishment, the punishment being relative to the crime. So you kill the man. The man that you killed was an employer to hundreds of people, and you just lost them their jobs. One of them ex-employees decides to take it out on your family by stealing all of your money.

Point is, the golden rule would only work if it could be policed. But as morality is individual, how can it be policed when everyone might disagree on the crime and punishment?

The golden rule needs policing and definition. What makes an animal less than a human in terms of morality? What makes a chinaman less than an Englishman? What makes a loyalist better than a revolutionary? Morality exists by the guilt we feel. What makes a meat eater justified over a vegetarian? Animals feel pain too. Morality is relative.

This is some of the dumbest shit I've ever read
You need to read Kant

How is a man raping and killing your wife or you killing him remotely examples of the Golden Rule?

Clearly neither of you followed the Golden Rule.

This is the stupidest shit I have ever heard in my life.

It goes without saying that the golden rule would apply to punishment as it applies to morality.

With the "Golden rule", reciprocity ends hypocrisy. I respect your boundaries because I want you to respect my own. Non-violence reciprocates non-violence. But if there are any offenders, what then?
According to the same logic, it's justified that violence be met with violence.

If someone were to aggress, they would be met with equal aggression, as it's justified by the same reasoning.

As I said earlier, it's impossible to accurately gauge what values ought to be reciprocated. For example, if I hated dogs, and you loved dogs, whose values take precedence? If I kill a dog, you might feel morally wronged. How does the golden rule account for that?

Golden rule is for sociopaths normal feel guilt doing immortal things and thats enough to have a moral compass.

I'm pretty sure that the golden rule in most cases advocates for pacifism "turning the other cheek" even if you've been wronged by someone. I don't see how an eye for an eye punishment system would really fit in with a guideline that promotes good vibes and forgiveness senpai-a-lam.

Fuck I thought F.A.M would get past the filter by using fucking hyphens in a word.

>A man rapes and kills your wife, which would illicit the "rightful" necessity for a punishment, the punishment being relative to the crime. So you kill the man.
That's not how the fucking golden rule works, brainlet. It's not "eye for an eye". Jesus specifically tells us to turn the other cheek because that's what you'd want someone to do if you struck them.

The perp goes to prison where he won't be a danger to society, while you have already started the process of healing. Vengeance won't bring your dead wife back, but forgiving the people who wrong you will make it so that you will be forgiven when it's your turn.

No because then everyone who felt suicidal would be justified in going out on a murder spree.

The obvious conflict is when one man's meat is another man's poison.

Hume was wrong.

And what I was saying is that the golden rule logically is followed by "eye for an eye".

Instead of the whole "eye for an eye" scenario, consider this:
Right now, you snap and kill someone. Would you want to be forgiven? Given the same situation, that someone kills someone you love, then you ought to forgive that person because you would expect the same treatment.
But if you killed millions of people, would you want to be forgiven? I know I wouldn't want to be forgiven, and I know that most people would not forgive me. Would I forgive someone who killed millions of people? No.

Regardless of the severity of the crime (which Jesus has no regards for, anyway) it's logically impossible to reciprocate all positive forms of treatment (forgiveness, rights, freedoms, etc), because it IS the severity of the crime that does matter.

>The perp goes to prison where he won't be a danger to society
And who decides who is and isn't a danger to society?
Murder is justified by war and love many times in history.
Theft is justified by economic and political interests.
Even lying is justified because it can protect people from truths that would hurt them.

If you don't want to be imprisoned, why would you imprison me?

My point is that the golden rule is flawed, because it has no bearing on what is immoral and what is punishable.
The golden rule absolves you of individual accountability and responsibility, because you believe that the immoral will suffer in hell or prison. The golden rule indirectly implies that we must tolerate eachother as much as possible through forgiveness and understanding, that those who are intolerant and uncompromising will be sent to hell or prison.

Prison is not the answer. Why the fuck are you making me pay even more for what he did? Restitution is the answer, whether an eye for an eye or something else.

haha benis

>And what I was saying is that the golden rule logically is followed by "eye for an eye".
You're looking at it backwards. "eye for an eye" is a crude, primitive, early groping for the golden rule

>But if you killed millions of people, would you want to be forgiven? I know I wouldn't want to be forgiven, and I know that most people would not forgive me. Would I forgive someone who killed millions of people? No.
If you killed millions of people, it was because you weren't, in fact, following the golden rule

>And who decides who is and isn't a danger to society?
trial by peers. Because they're the ones who will face the consequences of that decision.
>Murder is justified by war and love many times in history.
it's never, actually justified, the violence just makes things worse for everybody. Read the Leviathan.
>Theft is justified by economic and political interests.
And a society built around theft is destined to collapse when they run out of other people's money.

>If you don't want to be imprisoned, why would you imprison me?
Because I didn't do anything would would warrant imprisonment?

>My point is that the golden rule is flawed, because it has no bearing on what is immoral and what is punishable.
It's flawed because of the great loophole
>"I don't have to treat people the way I would want to be treated if I don't recognize them as the same kind of human that I am."
Its replacement won't disprove the golden rule, just like the golden rule didn't displace the 10 commandments, it simply condensed those lessons into a form that makes sense for the times.

>The golden rule absolves you of individual accountability and responsibility, because you believe that the immoral will suffer in hell or prison.
You could just as easily state the inverse: that the absence of rules and eternal consequences makes people more inclined towards immorality because what does it matter in a meaningless universe where nothingness is the final state for all being?

>Prison is not the answer.
You're not going to sentence people to death over petty shit

>Why the fuck are you making me pay even more for what he did?
Why the fuck should I pay for your tax cut if it won't benefit me? Why should I pay the salary of a politician I didn't vote for? Why should I be made to fight and die in a war I didn't agree with?

Society works because everybody contributes, and takes in proportion to what they need. By sentencing men to prison, you are investing in public order

>Restitution is the answer, whether an eye for an eye or something else.
No, rehabilitation is the answer. Turning scum into productive citizens is what will produce the most long-term fruits for society, and it forgives people for being products of a shitty environment.

You're really missing the point. Like.. I'm trying to explain why the golden rule is wrong (in principal) with examples.

>trial by peers.
>Because they're the ones who will face the consequences
Theoretically every sinner is a danger to society. Didn't Jesus tell those who were without sin to cast the first stone? And which of them cast the first stone? Nobody, because they were all sinners.

As I said, this theocratic golden rule absolves you of accountability. You say "I forgive you" to a murderer, but he's already going to be punished on Earth and in hell. Your forgiveness is therefore meaningless, because he's still going to be punished.

>You could just as easily state the inverse: that the absence of rules and eternal consequences makes people more inclined towards immorality because what does it matter in a meaningless universe where nothingness is the final state for all being?
But that's not true.
Let's say you have a child, and you let him play in the front yard. Well, if you put a fence around the yard, protecting him from the open road, it absolves the boy of needing to know "safety"; safety to him would be about as vestigial as forgiveness is to someone who believes in the golden rule. But take away the fence, and he's forced to make an observation of road safety. The consequences are obvious.

Likewise, remove all law and punishment (be it religious or political), and people are forced to do 2 things:
First, they become more exclusive and tribal, because law doesn't exist to force peace on everyone; therefore, peace is created by individual relationships and reputations; people live by real trust and honour.
Secondly, punishment becomes unnecessary, as people don't repent for the sake of avoiding punishment, but do good for the sake of reputation.

golden rule kinda falls apart in the presense of sadomasochists.

>You're looking at it backwards. "eye for an eye" is a crude, primitive, early groping for the golden rule

An eye for an eye is pretty damn lenient in comparison to what came before it, which was basically "you kill one of my relatives, I wipe out your entire fucking family"

>Theoretically every sinner is a danger to society. Didn't Jesus tell those who were without sin to cast the first stone? And which of them cast the first stone? Nobody, because they were all sinners.
The whole point of that story was Jesus calling judgmental assholes out for being hypocrites.

We don't know what Jesus was writing in the sand when they brought the adulterous woman before him and said "according to the law, she should be stoned". Most Biblical scholars conjecture that Jesus was writing the names of all the mistresses of the accusers, writing them anonymously so that the only people committing the act would understand why he said "who ever here is without sin, cast the first stone."

It's a statement against hypocrisy, and having this attitude where we justify ourselves by unflinching legalistic interpretation of religious law instead of compassion and understanding, especially when we're judging people for behavior that we, ourselves indulge in.

> You say "I forgive you" to a murderer, but he's already going to be punished on Earth and in hell.
You've missed the point entirely. It's not about punishing a wrong-doer, or adhering to some "natural law", it's about fostering inner peace about something awful that happened in your life. Punishing someone who wronged you won't undo the wrong, and it won't bring you inner peace, it will only teach you to take solace in vindictiveness, and numb the pain in your heart by spreading misery to others.

>Let's say you have a child, and you let him play in the front yard
nonsense. A child won't exist forever in the yard, he'll eventually venture out and need to learn road safety. By putting a fence around your yard, you're setting him up for success by protecting them while they're still in the "I'm going to chase this ball into the street" phase of their development.

In the words of G.K. Chesterton, never tear down a fence until you understand why somebody put it there

>An eye for an eye is pretty damn lenient in comparison to what came before it, which was basically "you kill one of my relatives, I wipe out your entire fucking family"
I agree. Human knowledge is a tapestry that builds off of itself, with each new interpretation bringing us ever so slightly closer to divine truths. Eye for an eye was the best that they could do for their time, but as society grows more complex, a more complex array of issues present themselves to our previously established ideas, forcing us to revisit them.

Just like circumcision was a good idea when everyone was a nomadic goat herder and Jerusalem was just another anonymous mountain-town without sanitation or plumbing, and it was a statement of acknowledging concrete reality that infected foreskins killed a lot of babies in those times.

but by the time of St. Paul public bathing facilities made it so that even poorfags had a place to go and wash the cheese out of their dick, so the only reason for circumcision to continue being practiced was because of tradition, which religious purists were turning into a litmus test to divide and exclude people.

Veeky Forums debates can be kind of downing, so I just want to cheer you on. Keep going my good man