- Joined
- Jan 5, 2007
- Messages
- 9,349
- Reaction score
- 3,947
- Location
- Montana
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
How so?
Evil is only subjective in the context of people not following the golden rule to begin with. For instance, there would be no need for a justice system if everybody tried their best to follow the golden rule. What ever minor transgressions they make would be between them and God.
The only way to break the cycle is to follow the golden rule.
Because it implies conformity and a lot of the time conformity leaves little room for individuality in my opinion.
Every single person has their own personal definition of what is or isn't evil. For me personally, I think evil is too broad and simplistic a term to describe anything. In order for absolute evil to exist, everyone would have to agree. As far as the golden rule, you are assuming that Christianity is the correct religion. And as you said earlier, this is based on trust. I just think trust is a little too flimsy.
The Golden Rule is an impossible standard for humans to achieve. It would require omnipotence and castration from emotion and desire to be achieved in the utopian manner you propose. You must consider that humans are limited. We are irrational, inconsistant, fallible beings due to our emotions, passions instincts, mortality, and slow learning capabilities.
Again, how so?
Everything is based on trust and Christianity is not the only religion which teaches us to follow the golden rule. Are you telling me you can't distinguish right from wrong? Wouldn't you agree that walking up to someone and smashing them in the face is wrong?
No. The only thing it requires is self-control. We must use our higher mind (that which distinguishes us from animals) to control our behavior.
Are you serious? How can you not see how that would take away a certain amount of individuality from a person?
Yes, I believe morality is subjective too.
No, I wouldn't agree with that. It's neither wrong or right. The only thing one can say with a fair amount of certainty is that there are consequences for ones actions. If I were to hit someone and it were completely unwarranted I should certainly expect to be hit back or at least face some kind of consequences for my actions.
No human save those mentioned in story books have ever been capable of such. This "christ-like"/Buddha behavior is clearly a standard only of fairytales or extreme improbability.
No, I can't. Please tell me.
What is it that causes one to seek revenge when he has been smashed in the face? The feeling that he has been wronged, that the other person's actions were unjust. We know instinctively what is right from what is wrong, another characteristic which distinguishes us from animals. For instance, when hear on television that 100 civilians were killed in a bombing, we know it is wrong though we may try to justify it by claiming it serves a higher cause.
I agree that it's impossible for the average person to follow it 100%, but so long as you try your very best and encourage others to do the same you are doing the right thing.
Well, if you haven't understood where I'm coming from based on what I've already said, there's really nothing more that I can add that will make you understand. You have your opinion and I have mine.
A desire for justice perhaps? If a person has wronged you, why not seek revenge? One can pretend to be pious and above that, but what purpose does that serve?
Obviously, it serves a purpose if you believe in a higher power, but not everyone does. And we are animals. We can pretend not to be all we want, but it changes nothing.
You could explain to me how voluntarily following the golden rule robs an individual of his individuality.
It serves the higher purpose of breaking the cycle which has us trapped in a ****ty world of man-made injustice.
In the biological sense, we are animals but there are several characteristics which separate us from other animals (conscience being a pretty big one).
Like I said, if you haven't gotten the gist of my views by now, there is nothing further that I can say that would help you to understand. I've clarified as much as I can.
I don't really think that Lex Talionis is a man-made law. Animals also seem to live by this law.
Yes, but there's really no reason that we should deny our animal instincts as if we are better than animals somehow.
You haven't clarified anything. You simply made an assertion and didn't explain it.
"An eye for an eye" is a limitation, not a justification. This is a misinterpretation. I know because I have studied the whole of the text, rather than picking out bits and pieces to prove a point.
There absolutely is a reason and that is to avoid hurting others, the same way you don't want to be hurt. How does a father explain morality to a child when they have breached it? "How would YOU like it if someone did that to YOU?"
I posted this in another thread, but here's a great example of people behaving like animals. Notice how they hurt the grandmother:
YouTube - LA Riots - Gunfight In Koreatown
Fine. Then let me clarify one final time. By subscribing to the "golden rule" you are agreeing that the "golden rule" is right and that other rules are wrong. And since the "golden rule" is based in Christianity you are subscribing to a particular belief system. Part of what makes us individual are our spirtual beliefs. Not only that, but since I believe morality is subjective, you are also subscribing to a particular moral code. We all have our own individual definitions of morality which take part in making us individuals. If you wipe that away it takes a certain amount of our individuality away. Personally, individuality is far too important to me to lose to a bull**** "love everybody" philosophy.
How is it a limitation?
Yeah, if you want to look weak. Like I said, I think it's silly to subscribe to a "love everybody" ideology. If someone does wrong to me I will get revenge in a way that I feel is appropriate.
I don't condone thievery, but those people made a choice to steal and I'm sure they will face the consequences of said actions. If not this time then another time I'm sure. I don't steal because I personally don't think it's worth the possible consequences.
I don't know if its impossible. Its just thus far been unproven as practical or possible in recorded history.... unless you believe testimony and mythology is reliable proof.I agree that it's impossible for the average person to follow it 100%,
Well haven't I already shown the subtle flaws in the Golden Rule?but so long as you try your very best and encourage others to do the same you are doing the right thing.
I don't know if its impossible. Its just thus far been unproven as practical or possible in recorded history.... unless you believe testimony and mythology is reliable proof.
Well haven't I already shown the subtle flaws in the Golden Rule?
1) How it is a flawed standard since it is incapable of being adhered to due to human nature.
2) how everyone has a different opinion on what proper reciprocation is due to differing knowledge.
But if the rule is impractical or flawed (both in this case) why not strive for a better one?We are imperfect, not the law. We must accept that and try our best to conform to it.
Look up "ethic of reciprocity" on wiki. Near the bottom are criticisms.For instance?
But if the rule is impractical or flawed (both in this case) why not strive for a better one?
Look up "ethic of reciprocity" on wiki. Near the bottom are criticisms.
The one presented by Kant is enlightening.
Do unto others as they wish be done unto them. (How do you know what they want?)
Do unto others as you would expect they should do unto you. (What if they don't agree with your expectations?)
Do Unto others as you would have them do to you
The problem with the Golden rule (At least the rule I know as the golden rule)
Is quite flawed.
There are people that like to get buck naked and get spanked as adults, does that mean it is ok for someone like that to spank others in that way because that person would like it done unto them? No.
That rule is seriously flawed to say the least when you're dealing with a person you don't relate to.
What an absurd non-factual argument. The richest and most educated among us are devoutly religious and many being Catholic.
The survey finds a strong relationship between a country's religiosity and its economic status. In poorer nations, religion remains central to the lives of individuals, while secular perspectives are more common in richer nations.1 This relationship generally is consistent across regions and countries, although there are some exceptions, including most notably the United States, which is a much more religious country than its level of prosperity would indicate. Other nations deviate from the pattern as well, including the oil-rich, predominantly Muslim -- and very religious -- kingdom of Kuwait.
This is as absurd as suggesting that Governments can confiscate the wealth of the people who create jobs and re-distributes them to the poor to elevate their status.
Oh blow it out your ass.Proof? Prove it. The overwhelming majority of the religious are POOR. Just look at Africa, South America & the Middle East. The rich on the other hand are less religious.
Religion & Wealth: Less Religious Countries are More Wealthy
The Washington Monthly
Pew Global Attitudes Project: Summary of Findings: World Publics Welcome Global Trade -- But Not Immigration
The more rich. The less religion. The more poor. The more religion. This is based on FACT. You like that word don't you?
Ummm what?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?