You think far too highly of yourself. You cannot read minds, neither apparently can you properly read texts.
Your 'supernatural' opinions on my personality are pot/kettle amusing. Get real.
Have I claimed to have supernatural insight into your personality? No. I claim to have read your posts and seen by entirely ordinary means that you have misunderstood my comments and probably aren't able to follow an argument of the type I'm making.
As I said, get real. You've made some baseless & uncalled for personal remarks/opinions about me. There are no "misunderstandings" here.
In fact, this comment is an example. Where would you even get that idea? I'm interested in how YOU claim to know that the Golden Rule is right.
Because it has worked for me, and for those I've known in my 68 years.
It seems you personally have never had (or, you say, seen -- I suspect you're forgetting some of the things you've seen) the experience of dealing honestly and getting screwed over for it.
You suspect? I'm forgetting? -- More guessing on your part. Again, get real.
Which makes your years more lucky than mine. It happens both that people have behaved contrary to the Golden Rule and suffered for it, and that they've prospered for it. So should our moral codes be based on personal anecdotes? It is not self-evident. On the contrary, it is self-evident that what one random, meaningless collection of atoms does to another is meaningless and hence morally neutral.
That's a nonsensical, and quite a sad statement about your own 'philosophy'. What we say & do to "another" is what this life is all about, imho.
You do not truly believe that life is "all about" what we say and do to others.
Incredible. - Again you make a flat out pronouncement about what I've experienced in my life. You must be a psychic.
You just defended the Golden Rule by how following it impacts you. That makes your personal self-interest the fundamental thing. So it's only about others as they influence your personal happiness. I'm glad that you've found that treating others well leads to your own maximum of satisfaction, especially if our paths should happen to cross.
Thank you. Its nice to know that you agree with me on the golden rule.
But it's not morality. It's just a nice form of amorality. And it has nothing to say to unnice forms.
There you go again, off on some irrational tangent. Nice vs un-nice forms of amorality? Good grief.
_______________________________________
Pure self interest in having a good life leads rational people to treat others as they would be treated.
Assuming they share something like your conception of a good life. Which they may not.
It still behooves the rational man to always treat others as "good", with caution.
_____________________________________
Two bits you are so convinced of your position that you will be unable to rationally comment upon, or refute, my self interest answer to your question.
Judged by whom?
Anyone reading this is fine by me, -- or no one. To my mind your flippant retort is my answer. -
Thanks.
You were, and possibly still are (it's hard to tell given your confused style of writing), under the impression I am actually a nihilist. This is very much a misunderstanding.
For what reason did you splice together two paragraphs of mine from two different posts?
You do not truly believe that life is "all about" what we say and do to others.
Incredible. - Again you make a flat out pronouncement about what I've experienced in my life. You must be a psychic.
Except that as anyone can see, my comment said nothing about your experience. It's about your beliefs, and these not learned psychically but -- if you'd pay attention to something called context -- by your other comments. I don't doubt that you "believe" in some sense that life is all about what you do and say to others -- but only as a platitude. As I already discussed, you defended the Golden Rule with reference to your own interests. The secondary principles are derived from the primary ones. If you derive the Golden Rule from your own self-interest, the self-interest is primary and the Golden Rule only secondary.
There you go again, off on some irrational tangent. Nice vs un-nice forms of amorality? Good grief.
The fact that you lack the resources to understand what I said doesn't make it irrational. Now again: if your basic principle is what's good for you (and by the evidence of what you've chosen to say here, it is), you're amoral. Not necessarily immoral; you're simply acting without reference to morality. In your case because you've subsumed morality to self-interest. If treating others nicely promotes your idea of the good life, then, perfectly amorally, you'll behave relatively decently. But others may have different ideas of the good life. What will you say to them? That they ought not to like what they like? But then you need some standard by which to judge their delights bad and unworthy, and then you would need to explain where this standard comes from and what makes it normative and this, I maintain, cannot be done coherently with a naturalistic worldview.