Posted on 01/16/2011 4:09:10 PM PST by balch3
Already answered earlier: Because it benefits everyone in ways nothing else can achieve.
Now you answer: Why is the Golden Rule not sufficient, on its own, to make moral decisions?
I’m not arguing against the golden rule, it’s a Christian rule also. And it’s taken as an absolute truth, not conditional. Absolute truths are not problematic in religious spheres.
What I am looking at is how it is derived for you.
Ok, then it does have a reason, a "because." We're still in logic with a because: to benefit everyone. Wouldn't you need to define "benefit" here? Is the benefit survival or is it happiness or material goods or evolutionary strength or cultural worth or my tribe survives to save the world...?
There can be differing ideas of what benefit means.
Whatever these benefits are defined to be, they become the greater value that the golden rule valuable as a means to achieve.
Unfavourable outcome? Death. Alternative? Act in your own self interest.
Yes, but my point was that when it comes to morality, it's the only tool required. No extra baggage.
What I am looking at is how it is derived for you.
How did Confucius "derive" it? Or did he just see it?
It can be acting in one's own selfish self-interest to steal. If a society tolerates this (thus tolerating the violation of the Golden Rule), what becomes of that society? Since the individual is also part of the society, what then happens to that individual? Is it now in his "self-interest" act in ways that damage the society that will sustain him and his progeny?
How did Confucius "derive" it? Or did he just see it?
I think you would not believe something because Confucius says so. Do you just see it?
It's survival AND happiness, which again is key to survival. It goes down to the root of existence itself - it sustains the want to be alive.
I asked you earlier, but got no direct answer: What's the benefit of 1 Samuel 15:3? What's the benefit of the killing of David's child? After all, it's part of your scriptures... is it better to ignore it as human addition, as you implied earlier, and therefore call the entire prophecy of Samuel from your god to commit genocide, as falsehood?
The Golden Rule is a tool - a tool to make moral decisions, the only tool required. Insofar as that is concerned, what it is operating on has greater value than the tool itself, but without the tool, that 'greater value' is lost.
Don't you, too? Didn't Confucius too?
WATCH AND REVIEW: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgWUeI3AHrs
Ok, that would make the golden rule dependent on the value of survival and happiness.
Are these absolute values or are they valuable because
I've answered the Samuel question at least twice and expounded copiously on how I view the OT in general. You're still looking to argue with a bible-thumper and you don't have one here. I can point you to another thread if you're just dying to. :)
Yeah, but you keep adding these becauses and kicking it down a level. What do you just see? That it's good for survival and happiness (which refers back again to survival)?
Survival is a pretty low moral value, perhaps the lowest, even lower than "feels good."
Isn't there something more to the golden rule's value?
Inter-dependent.
I've answered the Samuel question at least twice and expounded copiously on how I view the OT in general. You're still looking to argue with a bible-thumper and you don't have one here. I can point you to another thread if you're just dying to.
Even in your copious replies, you carefully skirted around to avoid providing your opinion of whether the prophet Samuel conveyed falsehood when Saul was asked to slaughter the infants (1 Samuel 15:3). In other words, Samuel, and many others, were false prophets. The thickness of the casing of the replies didn't matter much when the kernel itself was missing.
Really? The want to live, and let live, is a low moral value?
Society does tolerate the stealing of bread in the face of starvation, e.g., and this is a cliche. It's just a question of how far the idea can be stretched.
Then again, there are such as to consider it virtue to say, virtue is necessary. But at bottom they believe only that the police is necessary. Friedrich Nietzsche
What can be more valuable than to be critical in sustaining life?
You said survival. Survival is a very low moral value. Killers want to survive. Crustaceans want to survive. Morality based on self-preservation is quite a low value system.
With the situation that caused the starvation to occur resulting from the prior violation of the Golden Rule itself?
If the "stealer" and "steal-ee" had their places switched, would they want the new owners to hoard their wares? Do not do unto others what you wouldn't want done unto you.
Give me liberty or give me death.
Humans will suffer greatly to see that their descendants are well-off. Is that selfish?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.