Freethought & Rationalism Archive

dk · 07-24-2003, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe
Of these, Malthus, Darwin, Freud, and Dawkins did not propose ethical theories. They presented scientific theories, in the context of which "do unto others" would be as relevant as it would be in a theory of star formation.

I am unfamiliar with Galvin, and could not find a clear reference in a Google search, and feel no need to consider the views of such an obscure individual.

Bentam's moral theory includes "Each to count for one, and none to count for more than one."

First Gal_vin was a mistake, I meant Galton (Darwin's Cousin). It sounds like you're saying science and ethics are disjoint, why?

I though ethics was the science or "ought", so I don't see how they can possibly be disjoint.

dk · 07-24-2003, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Mageth
Well, I can't speak for some of these, but neither Darwin's nor Dawkins' books are intended as ethical guides for humans. I doubt Freud's works should be taken that way either.

And I seem to remember quite a bit about altruism in Dawkins' work.

Further, many outside of religions teach or recommend variations of the Golden Rule. One that comes to mind is Joseph Campbell. So your selection of four examples isn't exactly representative of all non-religious literature, is it? Heck, I and others "teach" the Golden Rule (or a modification thereof) here on this board.

Further, I don't recall that non-religious ethics is based upon any one or a combination of the writings of the four you listed.

Incidentally, the Golden Rule is a cornerstone of Humanitarianism.

I'm glad you teach the Golden Rule, my point is that the golden rule gives secular philosophers (positivists) fits, and cultural relativists aneurisms. The Golden Rule teaches, Do good to others because that is how you would want to be treated, and I would call this an ethical maxim. Confucius states in the Analects 12:2 the Silver Rule �What you don�t want done to yourself, don�t do to others� i.e. ethical minimalism.

Rusting Car Bumper · 07-24-2003, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
The Golden Rule teaches, Do good to others because that is how you would want to be treated, and I would call this an ethical maxim. Confucius states in the Analects 12:2 the Silver Rule �What you don�t want done to yourself, don�t do to others� i.e. ethical minimalism.

Actually I refer to both of these as the GOlden Rule. They are merely two different forms. As for it giving secular philosophers fits, I think not.

It seems obviously secular.

DC

Alonzo Fyfe · 07-24-2003, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
I'm glad you teach the Golden Rule, my point is that the golden rule gives secular philosophers (positivists) fits, and cultural relativists aneurisms.

Positivists, as far as I can tell, became extinct somewhere in the 1950s, when positivism was proved to be internally inconsistent.

Cultural relativists deserve their aneurisms. Relativism might be the dominant view in sociology, anthropology, and English (though why English professors decided that they had the background to make announcements on moral philosophy has always puzzled me), but in academic philosophy it carries very little weight.

rfwu · 07-24-2003, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by dk
The Golden Rule teaches, Do good to others because that is how you would want to be treated, and I would call this an ethical maxim. Confucius states in the Analects 12:2 the Silver Rule �What you don�t want done to yourself, don�t do to others� i.e. ethical minimalism.

Did anyone see my post? The so called "Golden Rule" is flawed because of people's point of view! For example, there are people who really enjoy pain (forgot how to spell definition). If those people followed this golden rule, then they would spread pain everywhere. It's a moral loophole. The so called "Silver Rule" really avoids all that. The point is, that not everyone wants what you yourself would like!

eldar1011 · 07-24-2003, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe
[BIt says, "Treat everybody else as if they are exactly like you." But everybody else is not exactly like me. They are different. They have different likes, dislikes, needs, wants, and the like.

I should not be "do[ing] unto others as I would have them do unto me," I should be "do[ing] unto others as he would have me do unto him."
[/B]

Hmm, I guess it's just a question of interpretation. I have no problem with the Golden Rule. I read it as "I want others to treat me as I want to be treated, therefore I should treat others as they want to be treated."

Funny how such a simple and somewhat obvious rule be open to such interpretation.

Alonzo Fyfe · 07-24-2003, 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by eldar1011
Funny how such a simple and somewhat obvious rule be open to such interpretation.

Funny how a rule that can be open to such interpretation can be considered simple and somewhat obvious.

xorbie · 07-24-2003, 09:07 PM

With regards to the Golden Rule, I think you are supposed to read it more abstractly. If you are sad, you wan't someone to make you happy, so you should do this for others, etc.

If, however, we are gonna get nitpicky, the "Platinum Rule" is also flawed. If some alcoholic wants beer, should I give it to him? I think not. If a crackhead really has a craving for some heroine, should I melt it for him and even lend him my very own HIV infected needle? Surely not.

What is needed is what I dub the "Morality Rule" which goes like so: "do unto others as is good and right." Yep, its perfect

The only drawback is that what you think is right, someone else might disagree with. That's when you whip out the shotgun

Mageth · 07-24-2003, 10:18 PM

If, however, we are gonna get nitpicky, the "Platinum Rule" is also flawed. If some alcoholic wants beer, should I give it to him? I think not. If a crackhead really has a craving for some heroine, should I melt it for him and even lend him my very own HIV infected needle? Surely not.

Well, no one said either the platinum or the golden rule should be applied blindly without using a little common sense and considering the particular situation.

The AntiChris · 07-25-2003, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alonzo Fyfe
Funny how a rule that can be open to such interpretation can be considered simple and somewhat obvious.

The point is Alonzo that it makes no sense to interpret it in the way you do. Do you honestly believe that that this simple maxim is an injunction to impose one's will on others?

A certain amount of poetic licence is required when interpreting any of the the old adages and maxims. To see these ancient sayings as precise technical specifications for moral behaviour seems plain barmy to me.

Chris

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

07-24-2003, 09:07 PM	#28
xorbie Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Champaign, IL or Boston, MA Posts: 6,360	With regards to the Golden Rule, I think you are supposed to read it more abstractly. If you are sad, you wan't someone to make you happy, so you should do this for others, etc. If, however, we are gonna get nitpicky, the "Platinum Rule" is also flawed. If some alcoholic wants beer, should I give it to him? I think not. If a crackhead really has a craving for some heroine, should I melt it for him and even lend him my very own HIV infected needle? Surely not. What is needed is what I dub the "Morality Rule" which goes like so: "do unto others as is good and right." Yep, its perfect The only drawback is that what you think is right, someone else might disagree with. That's when you whip out the shotgun

07-24-2003, 10:18 PM	#29
Mageth Contributor Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Deep in the heart of mother-lovin' Texas Posts: 29,689	If, however, we are gonna get nitpicky, the "Platinum Rule" is also flawed. If some alcoholic wants beer, should I give it to him? I think not. If a crackhead really has a craving for some heroine, should I melt it for him and even lend him my very own HIV infected needle? Surely not. Well, no one said either the platinum or the golden rule should be applied blindly without using a little common sense and considering the particular situation.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.