• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Most religious groups in USA have lost ground, survey finds

American said:
Oh blow it out your ass.

blowshirt.jpg
Click to expand...

What? You're into rap music?

YouTube - ludacris - Blow It Out - Chicken & Beer
 
Moderator's Warning:


While blowing things out one's ass may be a great party trick for some, it's a party foul around these parts. Let's not push the civility line with such blatant encouragments to perform butt tricks in this manner.
 
BulletWounD said:
Kant's quote only applies in a system where others are breaking the golden rule. We have a justice system in lieu of the fact that not everybody has accepted it and not everybody is following it. It's a compromise. The key is to break the cycle of injustice so that the justice system is stripped of its necessity.
Click to expand...
I believe you have shifted the debate. Instead of the golden rule being the basis for moral action you have decided the justice system is the basis and the Golden Rule takes a back seat to the laws defined. This merely extends the problem to how the laws for the justice system were determined and whether they follow the golden rule or are somehow exempt from its limitations.

If you reexamine the Kantian example without relying on the premise that laws are somehow trump to the Golden Rule then the problem with the Golden rule may appear more obvious to you.

BulletWounD said:
We make reasonable assumptions about what others would want based on what we want.
Click to expand...
And this is a guarantee of nothing. "Reasonable assumptions" are still flawed and in fact do not solve the problems that:
1) You cannot know what others expect in many situations.
2) Your expectations differ from others.

BulletWounD said:
Today I was thinking about taking my elderly neighbor's dog for a walk. I thought about it and this is pretty much how my train of thought went.

"If I were elderly and unable to walk my own dog whom I love, wouldn't I want someone to walk him for me?"

"Only if they asked first"

"I'll go ask"

"Oh yeah, I'm sick and by contacting her I could get her sick and that could kill her. Surely she doesn't want to get sick and die." (a reasonable assumption)

So I didn't go ask.
Click to expand...

You can give me a million examples of it working, but all I must do is find one example where it doesn't work to conclude its a defective solution.
 
scourge99 said:
I believe you have shifted the debate. Instead of the golden rule being the basis for moral action you have decided the justice system is the basis and the Golden Rule takes a back seat to the laws defined. This merely extends the problem to how the laws for the justice system were determined and whether they follow the golden rule or are somehow exempt from its limitations.

If you reexamine the Kantian example without relying on the premise that laws are somehow trump to the Golden Rule then the problem with the Golden rule may appear more obvious to you.
Click to expand...

The judge is breaking the golden rule but so did the criminal to get there in the first place (unless of course we're talking about laws which are meant for social control rather than justice which im absolutely against). As I stated earlier, the justice system is a compromise I'm willing to accept until it is largely stripped of its necessity.

And this is a guarantee of nothing. "Reasonable assumptions" are still flawed and in fact do not solve the problems that:
1) You cannot know what others expect in many situations.
2) Your expectations differ from others.

You can give me a million examples of it working, but all I must do is find one example where it doesn't work to conclude its a defective solution.
Click to expand...

Very well. Find one.
 
Last edited:
BulletWounD said:
The judge is breaking the golden rule but so did the criminal who got there in the first place (unless of course we're talking about laws which are meant for social control rather than justice which im absolutely against). As I stated earlier, the justice system is a compromise I'm willing to accept until it is largely stripped of its necessity.
Click to expand...
:doh Not quite. The one and only point of the example is to show a flaw in the Golden Rule. Its not about judges or modern day court systems!!! It highlight the problem that there is no standard for all human interests, situations, and values. Because there is no concrete standard then the Golden Rule cannot be applied without flaws.


BulletWounD said:
Very well. Find one.
Click to expand...
I already have. We are discussing it above.
 
scourge99 said:
:doh Not quite. The one and only point of the example is to show a flaw in the Golden Rule. Its not about judges or modern day court systems!!! It highlight the problem that there is no standard for all human interests, situations, and values. Because there is no concrete standard then the Golden Rule cannot be applied without flaws.
Click to expand...

Can you elaborate as to how "It highlight the problem that there is no standard for all human interests, situations, and values?"
 
BulletWounD said:
Can you elaborate as to how "It highlight the problem that there is no standard for all human interests, situations, and values?"
Click to expand...

Yes.

Human interests - Would you rather X or Y. (insert a different activity for X and Y and many people will choose differently. E.G. X = ski, Y = play tennis)

Situations - Would you rather have X or Y happen to you. Insert a different situation for X and Y and many people will choose differently.

Values - I think you get the point and I don't need to go on.

I think its fairly obvious that many people hold many different values, expectations and interests. There are some common denominators, for example, most people believe its wrong to kill another human for no reason. but even such common denominators are narrowly defined because killing for many is acceptable in self defense. Additionally some find killing acceptable after certain provocation or for offenses you and I would find irrelevant.

Tying it back into the Golden Rule: there is no standard for all human interests, situations, and values, therefore, doing unto others as I would have them do unto myself is flawed.
 
Last edited:
GySgt said:
Moderator's Warning:


While blowing things out one's ass may be a great party trick for some, it's a party foul around these parts. Let's not push the civility line with such blatant encouragments to perform butt tricks in this manner.
Click to expand...
Sorry, it was in jest.
 
scourge99 said:
Yes.

Human interests - Would you rather X or Y. (insert a different activity for X and Y and many people will choose differently. E.G. X = ski, Y = play tennis)

Situations - Would you rather have X or Y happen to you. Insert a different situation for X and Y and many people will choose differently.

Values - I think you get the point and I don't need to go on.

I think its fairly obvious that many people hold many different values, expectations and interests. There are some common denominators, for example, most people believe its wrong to kill another human for no reason. but even such common denominators are narrowly defined because killing for many is acceptable in self defense. Additionally some find killing acceptable after certain provocation or for offenses you and I would find irrelevant.

Tying it back into the Golden Rule: there is no standard for all human interests, situations, and values, therefore, doing unto others as I would have them do unto myself is flawed.
Click to expand...

Yes, if we were to strictly adhere to the golden rule then we must accept that throwing people in jail and killing (even in self defense) are wrong; wrong but justifiable. The idea is to follow the golden rule and encourage others to do the same and in so doing gradually strip away the justification for violence.
 
BulletWounD said:
Yes, if we were to strictly adhere to the golden rule then we must accept that throwing people in jail and killing (even in self defense) are wrong
Click to expand...
no because I may not agree that jail is ever acceptable or I may believe that nother should kill me in self defense if they can.

Just accept that the Golden Rule isn't some perfect ideal that can be used to solve any moral dilemma. That is the point afterall.

The idea is to follow the golden rule and encourage others to do the same and in so doing gradually strip away the justification for violence.
Click to expand...
Violence stems from conflict. Conflict cannot be avoided with the Golden Rule as shown above thus your methodology for achieving Utopia is flawed.
 
scourge99 said:
no because I may not agree that jail is ever acceptable or I may believe that nother should kill me in self defense if they can.

Just accept that the Golden Rule isn't some perfect ideal that can be used to solve any moral dilemma. That is the point afterall.


Violence stems from conflict. Conflict cannot be avoided with the Golden Rule as shown above thus your methodology for achieving Utopia is flawed.
Click to expand...

It can be avoided by removing the context under which we justify our actions outside that of the golden rule (namely, that others are breaking the golden rule). Because none of us can want to have our will violated, the golden rule cannot be used as a justification to violate the will of others. If everybody's following the golden rule, there is no need for prisons or self-defense. Of course this idea that everybody will follow it is probably Utopian and unrealistic in nature, hence there will always need to be some form of compromise however it can be minimized.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom