The Golden Rule Does Not Work

[Walker]

I haven't heard of any Christians hollering "Praise Jesus!" before detonating their suicide vest to kill innocents, and if that should happen it would be the result of Christianity corruption, not interpretation of doctrine.

From what I know, Christians who pray to God before going into battle (sporting or real) pray for strength and courage, to measure up to the image that they are. Christians don’t pray to win, but rather, to not disappoint God. Folks pray to be worthy, not for outcome. The outcome is God's will, not human entreaty.

Both the Jew and the Muslim would agree, the second true for some branches of Christianity, but not all (some could pray for victory, etc.) Christianity is broad compared to both Judaism and Islam. But the first perhaps true, even if distorted. Both the Jew and the Muslim are supposed to die praising god (final words). No matter how they die. In other words, the suicide vest NOT RELEVANT in the case of the Muslim. For example, about to undergo a dangerous medical procedure, the Muslim might say "god is great" just before the ansthesia mask put on. The Jew would recite the Sh'ma.

As I understand it, most Christians do not have specific last utterances required.

Doesn’t killing infidels earn a bonus in the afterlife for the murderer of innocents, ‘specially if the murderer is a martyr wearing a suicide vest?

Interesting.
In one religion a martyr is a victim.
In another religion the martyr is a slaughterer of innocents.

So, in equating the intent of a murderer and the Christian victims who both die in an incident instigated by the murderer ... Christians and their murderer both are martyrs for their cause.

Does being a murderer of innocents guarantee a bunk in heaven for a Christian?

[Walker]

If that is the case mass murder/genocide is morally permissible to a suicidal person.

There is no law that states a person should or should not value themselves. There is no law to value other than value occuring.

Well, there you have it.

The purpose of a suicide vest is not suicide. (Religious prohibitions).
The purpose of a suicide vest is the slaughter of innocents.

It should be called, A Slaughtering of Innocents For Personal Aggrandizement and Reward, Vest.

*

Rebuttal: How many innocents have actually been slaughtered by suicide vest murderer, or do just straw men, straw women, and straw children wear them?

[Eodnhoj7]

Of course. Evolution knows what it's doing.

If morality is desire driven than effectively everyone is right that acts on desire.

Right? Where does that fallacy come from?

"If morality is rooted in desire", then the people who act on desire are inherently moral....regardless of the outcome.

[Eodnhoj7]

If that is the case mass murder/genocide is morally permissible to a suicidal person.

There is no law that states a person should or should not value themselves. There is no law to value other than value occuring.

Well, there you have it.

The purpose of a suicide vest is not suicide. (Religious prohibitions).
The purpose of a suicide vest is the slaughter of innocents.

It should be called, A Slaughtering of Innocents For Personal Aggrandizement and Reward, Vest.

*

Rebuttal: How many innocents have actually been slaughtered by suicide vest murderer, or do just straw men, straw women, and straw children wear them?

People die by "fire by cop" all the time. Self value does not guarantee equivalent moral outcomes.

[MikeNovack]

"If morality is rooted in desire", then the people who act on desire are inherently moral....regardless of the outcome.

"Morality rooted in desire" (stating THIS emotion the root basis) might be worthy of discussion. I think those immediately discarding the idea are forgetting that desire always has an object. In other words, the claim would not be "desire for anything at all" is the root but "desire for X", "desire for Y", etc. where we are filling in various X, Y, Zs << the X, Y, Zs not emotions, the desire is >>
Thus the ancient "war comes for the desire for more cows" << the Irish term for war came from "cattle raid", thus Táin Bó Cúailnge >>

So let's see this proposed root with some X, Y, Zs filled in.

"Regardless of outcome" is also worthy of discussion (a separate discussion). I believe that's a basic question "what is morality for?" Depending on what it is and what for, morality involves at least a situation, a choice of action, plus possibly eventual outcome, resulting in an evaluation right/wrong. If we say morality is for evaluating in retrospect (not used as a guide for choice of action) then the evaluation could be using eventual outcome. But if we say morality a guide/tool to aid us when choosing actions, the eventual outcome cannot be involved as unknowable at the time of choice.

Example: Morality as a tool COULD do something like this --- in any situation, choose the action evaluated as right based on the (weighted) probabilities of best eventual outcome That COULD be well defined at time of choice. The eventual outcome might be other than that best but that does not alter what the probabilities were. I stuck "weighted" in there because possibly we might want to skew probabilities if some possible outcomes VERY bad or VERY good compared to most of the outcomes.

This discussion would have to start with the "what is morality for" question because until that settled can't know what morality could or could not use for basis. UNLESS -- if you think you see a way morality COULD be both a tool for choosing actions but still be based on strict consequentialism, by all means produce your case.

[Eodnhoj7]

"If morality is rooted in desire", then the people who act on desire are inherently moral....regardless of the outcome.

"Morality rooted in desire" (stating THIS emotion the root basis) might be worthy of discussion. I think those immediately discarding the idea are forgetting that desire always has an object. In other words, the claim would not be "desire for anything at all" is the root but "desire for X", "desire for Y", etc. where we are filling in various X, Y, Zs << the X, Y, Zs not emotions, the desire is >>
Thus the ancient "war comes for the desire for more cows" << the Irish term for war came from "cattle raid", thus Táin Bó Cúailnge >>

So let's see this proposed root with some X, Y, Zs filled in.

"Regardless of outcome" is also worthy of discussion (a separate discussion). I believe that's a basic question "what is morality for?" Depending on what it is and what for, morality involves at least a situation, a choice of action, plus possibly eventual outcome, resulting in an evaluation right/wrong. If we say morality is for evaluating in retrospect (not used as a guide for choice of action) then the evaluation could be using eventual outcome. But if we say morality a guide/tool to aid us when choosing actions, the eventual outcome cannot be involved as unknowable at the time of choice.

Example: Morality as a tool COULD do something like this --- in any situation, choose the action evaluated as right based on the (weighted) probabilities of best eventual outcome That COULD be well defined at time of choice. The eventual outcome might be other than that best but that does not alter what the probabilities were. I stuck "weighted" in there because possibly we might want to skew probabilities if some possible outcomes VERY bad or VERY good compared to most of the outcomes.

This discussion would have to start with the "what is morality for" question because until that settled can't know what morality could or could not use for basis. UNLESS -- if you think you see a way morality COULD be both a tool for choosing actions but still be based on strict consequentialism, by all means produce your case.

You are assuming that morality has an end point embodied within a thing, ie "'what' is morality for?". If we limit the ends by means of the term "what" we limit the answer to a specific context that says more about us than about morality.

The question may be taken simply as "morality?"

Agree, disagree, neither, both?

[MikeNovack]

Well you COULD reverse that, say we first decide what morality IS, and the decide what it is for (what utility it might have). But that perhaps begs the question. If we had a use in mind for M1 (morality) and by our decision about what M1 was, found it useless for that purpose, then we might want to s=discuss some M2 (not MORALITY; but related in some way) that could be used for the purpose.

So strictly speaking, all I was saying was that IF we decided MORALITY depended on strict consequentialism (was the eventual outcome good or bad?) then it would be useless as a guide for our actions. It could only inform us post facto did we choose right or wrong. OK, THAT might have some use, not that it is easy for me to pin one down. I would then ask IS there something that could serve as a guide for our choices of action. Else we choose blindly, with no knowledge whether we we chose right or wrong. You say that would be something other than morality which is OK by me, I don't care about its name.

Notice this is a consequence of deciding "results matter". People have used other things as a basis for morality. That might even be an argument in favor of morality based on deontology.

[Eodnhoj7]

Well you COULD reverse that, say we first decide what morality IS, and the decide what it is for (what utility it might have). But that perhaps begs the question. If we had a use in mind for M1 (morality) and by our decision about what M1 was, found it useless for that purpose, then we might want to s=discuss some M2 (not MORALITY; but related in some way) that could be used for the purpose.

So strictly speaking, all I was saying was that IF we decided MORALITY depended on strict consequentialism (was the eventual outcome good or bad?) then it would be useless as a guide for our actions. It could only inform us post facto did we choose right or wrong. OK, THAT might have some use, not that it is easy for me to pin one down. I would then ask IS there something that could serve as a guide for our choices of action. Else we choose blindly, with no knowledge whether we we chose right or wrong. You say that would be something other than morality which is OK by me, I don't care about its name.

Notice this is a consequence of deciding "results matter". People have used other things as a basis for morality. That might even be an argument in favor of morality based on deontology.

Morality is a process of aligning experiential reality to what is valued.

[Jori]

Maybe a better version goes like this: Do onto others what is good for them.

How about something based on Kant's Categorical Imperative: Do what you would have all people do.

[Age]

Maybe a better version goes like this: Do onto others what is good for them.

But, how does one know what is 'good', for them, exactly?

Do you know what is 'good', for you?

If yes, then what is 'that', exactly? And, would not 'that' be 'good' for all, as well?

If no, then why not?

How about something based on Kant's Categorical Imperative: Do what you would have all people do.

But, not all people are 'the same'. Obviously, what is 'good' for some people, is 'not good' to other people.

[Phil8659]

Your seeing or not seeing things only points to the contradictory nature of establishing an ethical system as sight is subjective and the Golden Rule is a means of interpreting experience.

Now here is another fine example of bonehead.

I swear, I did not see them in the road, my eyes be pointing, and blinded me a a crucial moment.

The Golden Rule, a product of a grammar system now means the system by which we interpret making that very same grammar.

No, No, No, the worm was not eating its own tail, it was trying to shove its own head up its ass.
So, genius, the golden rule, is just a particular application of the law of identity. Grow a fucking brain. Binary, means you are working with two and only two concepts which can be used to make information parsing systems, Take your computer aside and talk with it.

[Eodnhoj7]

Your seeing or not seeing things only points to the contradictory nature of establishing an ethical system as sight is subjective and the Golden Rule is a means of interpreting experience.

Now here is another fine example of bonehead.

I swear, I did not see them in the road, my eyes be pointing, and blinded me a a crucial moment.

The Golden Rule, a product of a grammar system now means the system by which we interpret making that very same grammar.

No, No, No, the worm was not eating its own tail, it was trying to shove its own head up its ass.
So, genius, the golden rule, is just a particular application of the law of identity. Grow a fucking brain. Binary, means you are working with two and only two concepts which can be used to make information parsing systems, Take your computer aside and talk with it.

You seem angry over nothing, so much for the "enlightenment" your knowledge brings you.

Grammar is a byproduct of what it points to by nature of its inverse. Communication is an act of pointing, geometrically intuitive by design.

This law of identity, A=A, is the recursion of A, a cyclical statement that is effectively static, also geometric intuitively.

The golden rule is the projection of internal patterns of perception, that which repeats cyclicallity within the mind so as to filter reality, patterns mismatch within given contexts.

The conflict which results is the assymmetry that allows reality to transform.

[Phil8659]

You just full of shit,

[Walker]

The custodial-engineer who built and paid for the library himself, and then burns it to the ground thereby destroying his own creation, has no moral conflict when others do the same, and so he treats them according to the golden rule. However, that is a fictional situation because the custodial-engineer did not design, fund or build the library. He just takes care of it as best he can, which isn’t necessarily as best he could.

However, burning down the creation that he is entrusted with, because he forgot his place as a custodian of the library as a result of the high-fallutin job title that cost him four years of college with a dubious field of study ... well if that ain’t morally wrong then at least it’s a dereliction of duty.

However, because the custodial-engineer did not fund and build the library himself, burning it to the ground is immoral.

It is not his to destroy, only his to maintain perhaps with some additional cosmetic decorations, so that it can function as its creator and designer intends, at least until lightning strikes for the benefit of the planet’s recycling processes, or a licensed civil engineer condemns and razes it.

Self-justifying suicide and nurturing the suicide self-justifications of other folks turns the intent of the Golden Rule away from eternal life and towards eternal death, since the intent of euthanasia is to kill the unbearable aspect of eternal life, whatever the particulars of unbearable may be.

[Walker]

Golden Rule, revised ...

Be as you want the world to be.

(and let battle of maya play out)