DRFseven

If that's so, was Nietzsche, perhaps, so biased against religion that he couldn't see the fundamental behavioral forces at work? When I was growing up Christian, I had no desire to see that sort of exhibition in people; as far as I was concerned, that was God's department; he was God, after all, so he got to set up the requirements without regard to my desires. All I cared about was 1.) saving myself from hell, and 2.) convincing others that it was true so they could be saved, too. Freedom from hell was all I cared about. I didn't even care about heaven, where I was told I would eat only peaches and ambrosia (something my mother concocted at Christmas out of fruit and coconut that I didn't care for all that much). I used to imagine everyone wearing white robes and eating out of cans of Del Monte peaches. As far as I was concerned, the big thing was to escape hell, and I resigned myself to do any cockamamie thing God said to do, such as to pray, to try not to covet things, to witness, and to not dance except when the teacher made us Square Dance in the gym at school because that wasn't my fault. Even when I grew older and didn't take things quite so literally, I never had any desire for people to have to be subjugated, etc; my desire was for them to escape some kind of unknown lasting torment.

Bill Snedden

Ouchie. Actually, my own moral framework is one of ethical egoism, and I have to say that the action you detail does not fall anywhere within what I would term "acceptable."

"Ethical egoism" is the term used to describe a normative theory of ethics in which "good" is defined in terms of enlightened self-interest.

It is arguably true that it is not "good" to obtain money from others fraudulently even if it does satisfy one's own short-term interests. This is where the "enlightened" part of "enlightened self-interest" comes in.

The "strict" ethical egoist understands that self-interest represents "good", but that long-term self-interests are not served by behaving unethically toward others. Therefore, IMO, ethical egoists should feel as positively about the golden rule as anyone else.

Regards,

Bill Snedden

Bill Snedden

An interesting point. I would agree that without some sort of "starting point", it would seem to be too general (how should I wish to be treated and why?).

Could such a "starting point" be found in human nature? Is there a standard of value inherent to all humanity?

Regards,

Bill Snedden

hammegk

And here I thought the Golden Rule meant "do unto others as they would like to be done to by you" ( with some concern for illegal, immoral, fattening, etc which would be our shared societal norms I suppose).

Here my legal & moral concerns may make 'non-action' my choice; do we see a case where that actually hurts the other person?

[ March 04, 2002: Message edited by: hammegk ]</p>

Corwin

Personally I find that the rule makes sense. It deals with the basic concept of reciprocity.... if everyone treats others the way they would like to be treated... (giving others the same basic freedoms we want) society flows smoothly. Let's remember... Jesus (IF he ever existed) was not the originator of this quote... Confucious said it about 250 years earlier... and he may not have been the originator of it either.

Personally, atheist tho I am... I find that the Golden Rule combined with the Rede would make a decent society to live in. The two rules boil down to 'play NICE dammit' and 'don't mess with each other.' From a social contract perspective.... it works out pretty well.

John Page

Because if the other party is nasty, you lose. Establish their behavioral framework first then try and build trust and reciprocity for mutual benefit.

(This is practical experience from international business negotiations!)

hammegk

Err, does this suppose multinationals have 'morality'? (Ammorality, maybe I'd agree. )

For the individual negotiators' moral values the choice is there; stand by your morals & lose your job if your morals and corporate interests don't coincide. Not much Golden Rule there.

Ms. Siv

That was my point, brahma ... I suppose the joke was lost on everyone here... never mind !

- Sivakami.

jpbrooks

Sorry for my late reply, Bill.

True.
But is what is to constitute "enlightened self-interest" a normative decision for egoists?

If not (and there is therefore no normative ethical principle that prescribes that long term self-interests should take precedence over short term self-interests), then "enlightened self-interest" cannot be prescribed universally, which just seems to reintroduce the problem on a different level.

But if, on the other hand, it is a normative decision, then it is either arbitrary (being, itself, based on self-interest), or "non-egoistic", which implies that the ethical egoist's ethical decisions are all based on something else more fundamental than self-interest.

[ March 05, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

phaedrus

Ahhh, Golden Rule, the one upholded by the majority of religions since BC... <a href="http://www.frontiernet.net/~smithfam/goldrule.htm" target="_blank">The Golden Rule Around the World </a>

A simple but powerful (?) statement. But the problem is - does the individual have the knowledge and imagination in all situations to be able to get into "others' shoes"? Can the individual be "certain" of others' reaction (or their rationality) in all types of conditions ? What about consequences of any act after it passsed the golden rule? Does it tell you what is wrong or right?

Now when the moral situation consists of multiple people, what is the criteria to be used? By any chance does the liberal application of the rule result in relativism in the extreme form or we base our faith in the human character?

If I see hitler getting killed should I rescue him, since i expect him to resuce me in the same situation? Am i not putting my faith in his probable action? If I rescue him am I morally responsible for any future deaths that could occur because of him?

Edited after a day for bad copy

[ March 08, 2002: Message edited by: phaedrus ]</p>