The Golden Rule as Stemming From Geometry

[Veritas Aequitas]

Victim of cannibal agreed to be eaten
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2003/ ... ukeharding

You seem to think this is a moral maxim.
I suggest you educate yourself on the typical Philosophy of Morality not those of your own twisted ones.

I am far better educated than you are. Thank you. I bet you think your morality is the only morality there is. What a twisted, immoral philosophy

I would be curious where you stand on euthanasia.

https://www.timeslive.co.za/news/south- ... or-murder/

I have countered your point successfully.
You are shifting [shifty] but I am sure whatever your next contention you raised it will be likely to be short-sighted.

My morality is heavily grounded on Kantian Morality [proper] plus other, e.g. consequentialism as secondary.
If you can successfully trash the actual Kant's morality & ethics, then you have trashed mine as well.

[TimeSeeker]

I have countered your point successfully.

You have? By what objective criteria for success?

You are shifting [shifty] but I am sure whatever your next contention you raised it will be likely to be short-sighted.

Of course I am! Showing you the failures of your absolutes (Categorical imperatives?) is what I am all about.

It's just that - euthanasia and the right to die is NOT short-sighted. It is a valid objection! And if you don't believe that then the way to deal with bigots like you is to just commit suicide on your front door with a shotgun. So you can clean up the mess

My morality is heavily grounded on Kantian Morality [proper] plus other, e.g. consequentialism as secondary.
If you can successfully trash the actual Kant's morality & ethics, then you have trashed mine as well.

I know that. Which is why we disagree a lot. Kant was an idiot. Universals don't work in the real world. My morality is grounded in consequentialism.

And I can go even further to argue that Kant is a consequentialist. He just didn't recognise it. "Intent" is a computation of consequence.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have countered your point successfully.

You have? By what objective criteria for success?

You are shifting [shifty] but I am sure whatever your next contention you raised it will be likely to be short-sighted.

Of course I am! Showing you the failures of your absolutes (Categorical imperatives?) is what I am all about.

It's just that - euthanasia and the right to die is NOT short-sighted. It is a valid objection! And if you don't believe that then the way to deal with bigots like you is to just commit suicide on your front door with a shotgun. So you can clean up the mess

My morality is heavily grounded on Kantian Morality [proper] plus other, e.g. consequentialism as secondary.
If you can successfully trash the actual Kant's morality & ethics, then you have trashed mine as well.

I know that. Which is why we disagree a lot. Kant was an idiot. Universals don't work in the real world. My morality is grounded in consequentialism.

And I can go even further to argue that Kant is a consequentialist. He just didn't recognise it. "Intent" is a computation of consequence.

Ignorant as usual.
Did Kant ever state universals work in the real world?
Kant even condemned Plato's claim of universals as the most real.

Don't critique Kant until you have a thorough understanding [not necessary agree with] of his work on morality and ethics.

[TimeSeeker]

Ignorant as usual.
Did Kant ever state universals work in the real world?
Kant even condemned Plato's claim of universals as the most real.

Don't critique Kant until you have a thorough understanding [not necessary agree with] of his work on morality and ethics.

Are you seriously going to argue for a position where the Categorical imperative is not a Kantian idea?

Categorical imperatives are universals!

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

Please! Spare us both the time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Ignorant as usual.
Did Kant ever state universals work in the real world?
Kant even condemned Plato's claim of universals as the most real.

Don't critique Kant until you have a thorough understanding [not necessary agree with] of his work on morality and ethics.

Are you seriously going to argue for a position where the Categorical imperative is not a Kantian idea?

Categorical imperatives are universals!

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

Please! Spare us both the time.

Yes, the Categorical Imperatives are universals [absolutes] but Kant did not state they exist nor will work as they are in the real world. The Categorical Imperatives are merely ideals to act as guides not as objectives to be achieved in the real world.
If you insist otherwise, where is the reference?

Don't critique Kant until you have a thorough understanding [not necessary agree with] of his work on morality and ethics.

[TimeSeeker]

Yes, the Categorical Imperatives are universals [absolutes] but Kant did not state they exist nor will work as they are in the real world. The Categorical Imperatives are merely ideals to act as guides not as objectives to be achieved in the real world.
If you insist otherwise, where is the reference?

Don't critique Kant until you have a thorough understanding [not necessary agree with] of his work on morality and ethics.

Well. It is obvious to me that you don't understand Kant. You also don't understand inconsistencies in logic.

If "preventing murder" is an ideal/guide, not objective. Then what is it worth?

"I thought about stopping that guy from shooting you in the head, but I didn't follow through", said the policeman.

In a world of cause-and-effect you can't ignore consequentialism!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Yes, the Categorical Imperatives are universals [absolutes] but Kant did not state they exist nor will work as they are in the real world. The Categorical Imperatives are merely ideals to act as guides not as objectives to be achieved in the real world.
If you insist otherwise, where is the reference?

Don't critique Kant until you have a thorough understanding [not necessary agree with] of his work on morality and ethics.

Well. It is obvious to me that you don't understand Kant. You also don't understand inconsistencies in logic.

If "preventing murder" is an ideal/guide, not objective. Then what is it worth?

"I thought about stopping that guy from shooting you in the head, but I didn't follow through", said the policeman.

In a world of cause-and-effect you can't ignore consequentialism!

I won't waste time on this.
Note Kant did not ignore consequentialism.
No go for me until you have spent at least 5000 hours on reading Kant thoroughly.

[TimeSeeker]

I won't waste time on this.
Note Kant did not ignore consequentialism.
No go for me until you have spent at least 5000 hours on reading Kant thoroughly.

Like theists spend reading their holy books?

Understanding doesn't come from reading. Understanding comes from doing

[Veritas Aequitas]

I won't waste time on this.
Note Kant did not ignore consequentialism.
No go for me until you have spent at least 5000 hours on reading Kant thoroughly.

Like theists spend reading their holy books?

Understanding doesn't come from reading. Understanding comes from doing

Holy books? Lost again.

I stated if you want to critique Kant [in this case you attempted to do] then you have to understand his work thoroughly. That's an intellectual responsibility.

[TimeSeeker]

Holy books? Lost again.

I stated if you want to critique Kant [in this case you attempted to do] then you have to understand his work thoroughly. That's an intellectual responsibility.

You need to practice what you preach methinks.

How much time have you spent reading/understanding The Qur'an, Bible, Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads and vedas, The Torah (I will stop now because it is a really long list!) before you criticised theism?

And since I know you aren't about to go and do that I guess I get to criticise your religion (Kantianism)

[Veritas Aequitas]

Holy books? Lost again.

I stated if you want to critique Kant [in this case you attempted to do] then you have to understand his work thoroughly. That's an intellectual responsibility.

You need to practice what you preach methinks.

How much time have you spent reading/understanding The Qur'an, Bible, Bhagavad Gita, Upanishads and vedas, The Torah (I will stop now because it is a really long list!) before you criticised theism?

And since I know you aren't about to go and do that I guess I get to criticise your religion (Kantianism)

I have spent 3 years studying and researching the Quran full time [nb: 6-7 hours a day] plus learning very basic Arabic. Also 2+ years full time on Buddhism.

I have not engaged in strong criticisms of the Bible, Gita, [which I have read extensively] Upanishads and vedas [not much].

As for theism, I have done very extensive research on the idea of God from various perspectives.

Where I am not competent to comment on any subject, I will say so and qualify.

[TimeSeeker]

I have spent 3 years studying and researching the Quran full time [nb: 6-7 hours a day] plus learning very basic Arabic. Also 2+ years full time on Buddhism.

I have not engaged in strong criticisms of the Bible, Gita, [which I have read extensively] Upanishads and vedas [not much].

As for theism, I have done very extensive research on the idea of God from various perspectives.

Where I am not competent to comment on any subject, I will say so and qualify.

And I have spent 20 years studying AND practicing complexity science and systems theory.

And so I am criticising your competence in understanding the very meaning of the word "understand". There is a much higher bar for "understanding" than what you display in your arguments!

And yet - I have not yet heard you say you are incompetent in the subject of Understanding. Because you don't recognise your incompetence.

It seems to me that you are yet to accept this statement for its wisdom: In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. But, in practice, there is.

[gaffo]

A masochist's "Golden Rule", i.e.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

i think i understand - but pars your words, I would like them to do unto me as i would them...............

where the "kick me" shows up is the mindset of the offence by the others must me returned by one that affirms the Golden Rule - in the form of Love/punching bag.

IMO - (I affirm the Golden Rule - but not a Christian/Jew or Muslim - as a rule of conduct) - but as one withing the confines of reciprocity.

default for me is to treat the stanger as my brother - if the stanger pulls a knife - (the christian - sits there and get stabbed? - I pull my own knife out and we tussle.

- again - i hate dicks, and support Golden Rule - only unlike the conventional "love your enemy - be a punching bag" mentality I see too often, I do note who "starts it" (and if i was me - and i've been in the wrong many times/dick - the other party has the right to not love me, but return my dickiness - their actions have served as a "Wake call" to my failings - so a good thing (settting me straight )..............when being a dick the last thing i need is "my enemy loving me" - i need a nice pick in the pants!

I've been set straight a couple of times.

I support Reciprocity - i never pulled a knife on anyone while being a dick, and they did not stab me for being so while they gave me the business.


so not a fan of stabbing a-holes, but being an a-hole back at em.

if they have ears and learn, fab, if not, then they can be an a-hole to the next customer who may be the bigger one and end his/her life.

such is life.

would not be considered a moral maxim.

I affirm the "proper understanding" of Golden Rule as moral maxin (i.e. never start a fight, and treat the stranger as your brother upon first encounter).

then the ball is in their court and you need to determine your reply to their offence/s

.............

you do not affirm the Golden Rule (within the confines of Reciprocity - which i do)?

if not, welcome why not your view.


thanks for reply!

[TimeSeeker]

A masochist's "Golden Rule", i.e.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

i think i understand - but pars your words, I would like them to do unto me as i would them...............

where the "kick me" shows up is the mindset of the offence by the others must me returned by one that affirms the Golden Rule - in the form of Love/punching bag.

IMO - (I affirm the Golden Rule - but not a Christian/Jew or Muslim - as a rule of conduct) - but as one withing the confines of reciprocity.

default for me is to treat the stanger as my brother - if the stanger pulls a knife - (the christian - sits there and get stabbed? - I pull my own knife out and we tussle.

Reciprocity applies to violence too.

If you are kind to me - I will be kinder to you.
If you are aggressive towards me - I will be devastating towards you.

It is better to be a warrior in a garden, than a gardener in a war.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A masochist's "Golden Rule", i.e.
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

i think i understand - but pars your words, I would like them to do unto me as i would them...............

where the "kick me" shows up is the mindset of the offence by the others must me returned by one that affirms the Golden Rule - in the form of Love/punching bag.

IMO - (I affirm the Golden Rule - but not a Christian/Jew or Muslim - as a rule of conduct) - but as one withing the confines of reciprocity.

default for me is to treat the stanger as my brother - if the stanger pulls a knife - (the christian - sits there and get stabbed? - I pull my own knife out and we tussle.

- again - i hate dicks, and support Golden Rule - only unlike the conventional "love your enemy - be a punching bag" mentality I see too often, I do note who "starts it" (and if i was me - and i've been in the wrong many times/dick - the other party has the right to not love me, but return my dickiness - their actions have served as a "Wake call" to my failings - so a good thing (settting me straight )..............when being a dick the last thing i need is "my enemy loving me" - i need a nice pick in the pants!

I've been set straight a couple of times.

I support Reciprocity - i never pulled a knife on anyone while being a dick, and they did not stab me for being so while they gave me the business.


so not a fan of stabbing a-holes, but being an a-hole back at em.

if they have ears and learn, fab, if not, then they can be an a-hole to the next customer who may be the bigger one and end his/her life.

such is life.

would not be considered a moral maxim.

I affirm the "proper understanding" of Golden Rule as moral maxin (i.e. never start a fight, and treat the stranger as your brother upon first encounter).

then the ball is in their court and you need to determine your reply to their offence/s

.............

you do not affirm the Golden Rule (within the confines of Reciprocity - which i do)?

if not, welcome why not your view.


thanks for reply!

I am for the Golden Rule but it has to be reinforced with a 100% fool proof absolute rule [not from God] as a GUIDE within a Framework and System of Moral & Ethics.
If in terms of Morality Quotient, the Golden Rule is at best 90% so we need something 99.99% as the final Moral rule.