For the discussion of all things philosophical.
https://canzookia.com/
Although just think of how the behavior of many women would change when they're around me with that reformulation.thedoc wrote:The Golden Rule as written is rather selfish, "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." It should read "Do unto others, as they would have you do unto them." Much less selfish, as now you are taking their needs and desires into account, and not just your own.
I think it is more maturely written"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law"thedoc wrote:The Golden Rule as written is rather selfish, "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." It should read "Do unto others, as they would have you do unto them." Much less selfish, as now you are taking their needs and desires into account, and not just your own.bahman wrote:What do you mean?thedoc wrote: In some situations it requires knowing the other person, and their wishes.
You might be surprised at how many are willing, but you would need to accept the rejection as well.Terrapin Station wrote:Although just think of how the behavior of many women would change when they're around me with that reformulation.thedoc wrote:The Golden Rule as written is rather selfish, "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." It should read "Do unto others, as they would have you do unto them." Much less selfish, as now you are taking their needs and desires into account, and not just your own.
The better definition can be: Sin is acting contrary accepted moral principle. How that sounds?Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think you need to do that, since you brought up the wordbahman wrote:How do you define sin?Hobbes' Choice wrote: 1) Your definition of sin is ridiculous
I see.Hobbes' Choice wrote:No- "no one knowingly is bad"bahman wrote:You mean "I know that I know nothing". How that is related to sin?Hobbes' Choice wrote: 2) Look up "socratic paradox".
I mean that you can perform an act which is against the accepted moral principle. You are not sure that what is the outcome of the act so you perform the act because of the sense of curiosity or lack of proper outlook.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Why would any person feel guilt for not knowing something? Socrates, who knew nothing for sure, could not feel guilt if his supposed wrongdoing was the result of not knowing what they did was supposed to be wrong.bahman wrote:But adults actions can also be the result of their ignorance so they cannot take the responsibility for their actions therefor what is left is guilt for what they have done.Hobbes' Choice wrote: I never feel any guilt - not anymore. Guilt is for children, adults take on responsibility for their actions.
And if you can't or won't, at least be nice about it.Hobbes' Choice wrote: I think it is more maturely written "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law"
I have to disagree with this, I have encountered people who have knowingly done bad things, and felt no guilt about it.Hobbes' Choice wrote: No- "no one knowingly is bad"
How would we have rejections where someone does unto others as they would have one do unto them though?thedoc wrote:You might be surprised at how many are willing, but you would need to accept the rejection as well.Terrapin Station wrote:Although just think of how the behavior of many women would change when they're around me with that reformulation.thedoc wrote:The Golden Rule as written is rather selfish, "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." It should read "Do unto others, as they would have you do unto them." Much less selfish, as now you are taking their needs and desires into account, and not just your own.
Because some might want some really freaky stuff done to them?Terrapin Station wrote:How would we have rejections where someone does unto others as they would have one do unto them though?
That's a meaningless definition since I think you will agree there are multitudes of incorrect acts in a given situation that are not normally thought of as sins.bahman wrote:Lets define sin as incorrect act in a given situation.
How about this definition: Sin is an act contrary accepted moral principle.bobevenson wrote:bahman wrote: Lets define sin as incorrect act in a given situation.
That's a meaningless definition since I think you will agree there are multitudes of incorrect acts in a given situation that are not normally thought of as sins.
I would regard sin as an anachronism. Sin is an act against the will of god. Since god is no longer a serious consideration with most people, I think 'sin' is out of date.bahman wrote:The better definition can be: Sin is acting contrary accepted moral principle. How that sounds?Hobbes' Choice wrote:I think you need to do that, since you brought up the wordbahman wrote:
How do you define sin?
I see.Hobbes' Choice wrote:No- "no one knowingly is bad"bahman wrote:
You mean "I know that I know nothing". How that is related to sin?
I mean that you can perform an act which is against the accepted moral principle. You are not sure that what is the outcome of the act so you perform the act because of the sense of curiosity or lack of proper outlook.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Why would any person feel guilt for not knowing something? Socrates, who knew nothing for sure, could not feel guilt if his supposed wrongdoing was the result of not knowing what they did was supposed to be wrong.bahman wrote:
But adults actions can also be the result of their ignorance so they cannot take the responsibility for their actions therefor what is left is guilt for what they have done.
That;s because at that moment they do it; they are not bothered that, or do not agree that, the act is wrong. But do not take it up with me - you need to take that up with Socrates.thedoc wrote:I have to disagree with this, I have encountered people who have knowingly done bad things, and felt no guilt about it.Hobbes' Choice wrote: No- "no one knowingly is bad"
I don't think so. There are religious people around. According to demographics of atheism which is published in Wikithere are at most 13% atheist worldwide.Hobbes' Choice wrote: I would regard sin as an anachronism. Sin is an act against the will of god. Since god is no longer a serious consideration with most people, I think 'sin' is out of date.
Why not? Religious people believe in a set of moral laws.Hobbes' Choice wrote: As for your own definition, even if you accept the use of the word there is a massive problem with the phrase "accepted moral laws". This is a thing, no longer well defined - thankfully.
That is not true. Please read the first comment.Hobbes' Choice wrote: Our practice of ethics offers us a more nuanced and context related response to moral acts, in a such a way that we no longer have to follow strict moral laws; there is no more sin. People can act illegally, but do not "sin".
That is not a incorrect definition if you accept the sin are defined by God. God is all knowing hence an act could be incorrect, reaching to bad end, in a given situation.Hobbes' Choice wrote: Your opening definition ;"incorrect act in a given situation." is far too general to be useful, and begs the question; how would we determine what is 'incorrect'? And if we know it is incorrect - why would we do it in the first place.
They shouldn't if the act is not defined wrong.Hobbes' Choice wrote: Why would anyone feel guilt for an 'incorrect' act if they do not know it is incorrect?
Why not?Hobbes' Choice wrote: And why would they feel guilt for knowingly and intentionally committing an act they know to be wrong?
I don't think so. I think that guilt like other emotions has a deep root in human nature. Non of our emotion is bad per-se.Hobbes' Choice wrote: Guilt is a completely redundant emotion.
I agree.Walker wrote: An act is a sin only if you know it’s a sin.
I don't understand what you are trying to say here.Walker wrote: This distinguishes sin from crime, since ignorance is no defense before the law, that is, unless you’re special.
I think that crime is different from sin, crime is defined by a social system whereas sin is defined by God.Walker wrote: Then your crimes are treated as sins and since you have expressed regret for your claimed ignorance that led to crimes now considered e-sins and forgivable because you are special, you are forgiven, Politician.