"don't do that"

Isn't that what threat of punishment (prison) is for.
Golden rule makes no sense.

It does make sense in trivial matters, of course everyone will start to make exceptions right of the bat, claiming "maybe I would not want someone to do this to me, but my case is special, because..."
Thats why there is the categorical imperative. If you want to bait someone atleast read up on more than a hundred years old philosophy before posting this infantile bullshit.

Because there are people who do not adhere to that principle. The main focus of the golden rule is a personal ethics question about “would I like it if someone did that to me.

I recommend you look at Kohlberg's stages of moral development. He argued that there were several stages to moral development starting at level one (this is wrong because I would get punished for doing this) to level six (MLK/Gandhi universal values). Most criminals are considered to be on level 1 or 2 where as most adults are on level 4 or 5.

Here is the link to the Wikipedia page: en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_Kohlberg's_stages_of_moral_development

>It does make sense in trivial matters
No it doesn't.>The main focus of the golden rule is a personal ethics question about “would I like it if someone did that to me.
Why does that matter?

Not being a shit to people has advantages. The fact you haven't considered this suggests you are either some sort of sociopath or really bad at thinking things through.

>"don't do that"
>why
>"would the world work if everyone did that?"
Is this a joke? Because I'm fucking howling right now.

it makes sense between equals
would you try to mug a guy as strong as you?
would you try to fool a guy as smart as you?
you have a 50/50 chance of winning in a situation like that. it's better to cooperate with your equals.

>stage 2 is "i scratch your back you scratch mine"
isnt that what social contract essentially is?

Yes and no. A way to understand the social contact is that the citizens created the government so that the government can further the goals of the citizens. So yes, you can argue that the social contract stage two morality, however the difference here is that the stages of morality are normaly though of on the personal level.

Think of it this way, do you like people being rude to you?
If you say no, one of the best ways to prevent other people from being rude to you is to not be rude yourself.

If someone acts badly towards you, how likely are you to act negatively towards then compared to if they were polite?

Society is not composed of equals.

I never said it was.

I'd argue that most people throughout their lives will operate on all these levels to one extent or another depending on the circumstances. To use two very different ends of a spectrum of criminal activities:

- I infringe copyrights and pay prostitutes for sex because getting caught in the first place is unlikely and the consequences for getting caught are typically really fucking trivial.

- I don't rape, murder and then eat the corpses of children because I find such actions morally abhorrent first and foremost.

To sum up, I don't find this chart to be a very useful way to determine how morally developed a person is.

I feel the same, then I remember from sociology class that you should at least pretend it makes sense so nobody sends you to a hospital or something.

Also, nothing wrong with asking folks to help you create some sort of rule book on how to behave in a more ethical and principled manner.

Less trouble in life if you play by the rules...
A happier environment is a safer one.

>"don't shitpost"
>why
>"would you really only want to read shitposts on the internet?"

Stop making this thread OP.

Okay, let’s make this simple. Chances are you are not the strongest person in the world, nor are you the smartest, fastest, most devious, etc. In fact, the likelihood that you are even the best at anything in your own community is statistically low.

If the only inhibition to crime was the chance of getting caught, it would only be a matter of time before you came up against someone smarter/stronger/trickier than you. The golden rule exists because society (especially one as complex as ours) would be untenable if it only relied on punishment to restrain its populace.

It's a "/r9k/ doesnt understand empathy and still bemoans their situation about being friendless, hugless NEETs" thread.

>"would you want someone to do it to you?"
>Do people really think this makes sense?
Because there bigger, stronger and more malevolent people out there than you, and despite how delusional you are about your own ability to harm people psychological and physical, there are people out there far better at it than you and the only thing that stops them from eating you alive is that society frowns upon that sort of behaviour.

You're just using My individual actions aren't going to change society to one where all people act egoistically.
If "good" society can sustain for example ~10% of selfish people why not be one of the 10%?

>If "good" society can sustain for example ~10% of selfish people why not be one of the 10%?
Because you most likely end up in jail if you follow that line of thinking to it's logical conclusion. If not, at some point, someone will knock you down and beat you within an inch of life.

Not only that. People dont want to be around you, you can maybe fool someone once or twice, but when they figure out you're only out to use them they will promtly tell you to fuck off. Unless you somehow manage to find someone extremely suceptable for manipulation, in which case, she/him most likely have people around him/her that will call you out on your bullshit.

All in all, it's just not sustainable.

It makes sense to people who aren't edgy weabs such as yourself

>get hit in the face
>hit back
>UR JUST AS BAD AS HIM

thats self defence nigga, nobody is disputing that except your animes and jrpgs.

Kohlberg developed the chart to see how people’s sense of morality changes over a lifetime. So the average child would start at level one and move up. Kohlberg concluded that the average man would reach level 4/5 and the average woman would stay at level 3/4 (The difference between the sexes is still considered to be controversial).

These levels and their values are not absolute but are seen an individual’s general moral reasoning ability, so you can have someone who strongly believes in the social contact but also wants rapist to be thrown from helicopters into volcanos.

>likes anime
>sociopath
>edgy
Yep, all checks out. You should end your life.

Don't ever use Silverfox for your retarded shitposts ever again faggot.

>>sociopath
Nice meme.

Becuase it's not logicaly consistent. You are an ego. The one your affecting is also another ego. Your placement in this egos is irrelevent to the moral state of your action becuase your ego is skewed and only shows things from your side. That is an illusion. You can't make true statetments based on from an illusion.
Morality is the regulation of behavior. Our behavior works so that we want to avoid negative stimuli and get positive stimuli. Giving someone else negative stimuli contradicts our basic behavioral principle while also acting on the basis of an illusion. The maxim from which you then acted in violation of the moral law must be incorrect based on it's incorrect premises.

Not true at all desu.

Can any vegetarians/vegans argue against this claim:
>we can treat animals however we want, as they are incapable of forming a social contract with us

If you think that morality is more than a social contract, then moral agents are indeed held at a higher standard than non-moral agents.

my gut agrees with you but could you elaborate on the basis of our higher standard, and also on whether we treat moral agents and non-moral agents differently or not

Well if ethics are not relative (there is an objectively true set of morals, at least at a logical level even if we don't know it yet), then morals agents would be objectively immoral if they disobey morals, yet beings who are not moral agents cannot be considered moral or immoral the same way a rock is not good or evil.
Killing animals for their meat could be morally wrong, if that's the case moral agents would be wrong for doing so while non-moral agents couldn't be considered morally wrong for doing the same thing.
Obviously the debate would probably be whether or not killing animals is morally wrong (making it more or less morally wrong depending on the circumstances is rather flimsy and convulated unless you are an utilitarian even if you can think that killing animals for meat is not wrong but making them suffer too much is bad).
A thing important to note is that it's hard to find a philosophical argument in favor of eating meat and most people defending eating meat do it by critizing vegetarian arguments. (I'm not a vegetarian but I agree that it's a fault because no one here has the burden of the proof)

I think veganism is a growing trend within utilitarian circles anyway. Thanks for replying

Marginal cases.

That only works under the assumption that you'll really be better off for having done that thing. Let's say you see an attractive woman, and you're overcome by lust and rape her. Are you really better off for having done that? You got some temporary physical pleasure at the cost of being morally reprehensible, and if you're actually a human being and not an animal, you'll feel remorse and disgust at your actions. If these concepts are beyond you then you either need to go back to school or GTFO of society, you're not welcome here among the humans, animal.

>you'll feel remorse and disgust at your actions.
Why?

Read my post again.
>if you're actually a human being

"Why?"

Because you made someone else suffer for your own petty pleasure, which isn't actually beneficial to you anyway. "Says who? If I do immoral things I can potentially profit profit from them." Yes, at the cost of your humanity. Say you're poor, and you steal something. Are you better off now? "Yes, because I have more money." So what? You're still the same petty, covetous, miserable person you were before, now you just have more money, congratulations.

This is behaviour we expect of animals, who have no concept of morals, empathy or reason.If you behave in this way, you are not behaving like a human, but rather like an animal, or at best a child who still needs to learn these things. You may think, "But why is that a bad thing? Why bother with all this morality when I can just pleasure myself with no regard for others?". This is the mindset of degenerates. The reason we bother is because without it, there would be no society, there wouldn't even be a human race, we'd just be living in the wild like primates.

Again, these are simple concepts, and if you don't understand them then you need to be taught again, or worse yet, if you deliberately choose to ignore them and pursue degenerate behaviour, then you are a sociopath, and sub-human.

>poor people should just starve to death
How moral.

Is a strawman argument the best you can do?

If you do something bad to someone it legitimizes them taking revenge which would result into the equivalent of fueds which would destabilize the social fabric of society/friend group/whatever.

Yes believe it or not, back in the day white people used to hang and shoot people in the backs. Op is a retard though.

Whites took family feuds seriously back in the day.

How will they know it was you?

Watch where you're swinging that edge OP, you could cut someone.

You have to be at least 18 to post here

53 posts and you haven't explained why it doesn't make sense. Impressive.

>"Don't eat that carrot"
>why
>"Would you want a carrot to eat you?"
It just doesn't make sense unless doing the action somehow makes it more likely for me to be in opposite position.