The Golden Rule

Post Reply New Topic

Please let us know when you have been abducted and sexually molested by slanty eyed creatures from flying saucers.

Oh! now I get it. Those hairy primates so well depicted in Kubrik's "2001" grunting and massaging the mysterious black obelisk were Jews! Somehow, they didn't look Jewish.

[quote="Sand"

Oh! now I get it. Those hairy primates so well depicted in Kubrik's "2001" grunting and massaging the mysterious black obelisk were Jews! Somehow, they didn't look Jewish.[/quote]

Read the book of Ezekiel. A vivid description of a Lander given there. Also the "angel" that informed Sampson mom and dad of his forthcoming birth. When he got done he did a perfect Star Trek beam up.
Elija departing in a Chariot of Fire. Could that be Jeremiah being taken up by a lander? The Israelites being guided through the wilderness day a night, by a fire or bright light at night.

The parting of the Sea of Reeds. Something or someone was violating the Prime Directive there.

I don't believe anything that exists is supernatural so what was giving the Israelites a hand?

ruveyn

But you have forcefully said many times the Bible is a book of fantasy folk tales. Does this mean you are growing long curly sideburns and wearing a beanie and a beard?

this is nothing to be proud of.

It has nothing to do with pride, it's a mere statement of the current condition in the world, and especially in the USA.

my meaning is that this is nothing for this world to be proud of. it is not an exalted moral condition but one of thorough mediocrity.

A morally mediocre condition? I suppose it's subjective.
Though I agree it's a more bitter rule, without a base of financial/fanatical power, you can't make the kind of framework that results in the more morally pleasant rule you mention.

humankind has had several thousand years now, to get a clue- but for every human with a clue, s/he is outnumbered by legions sans clue. 3 steps forward, two and a half steps backward, and an interminable time in between steps. morally, humanity has made relatively little progress to show for our centuries on earth. our technology is in the 6th grade but our spiritual development is in pre-school. we could be so far past the iron rule, if only enough people wanted it to be so. but the majority are opposed to moral progress. the powers-that-be are profitting handsomely with the current scheme, and have by default the power of a world full of petty selfishness behind them to resist any change that will help anybody besides the lucky few atop the pecking order. this is what i meant when i said [earlier] that "'good enough' only sees itself, and cannot conceive of anything better."

Our species, homo sapien sapien has been around (by some estimates) between a quarter and a half million years. We have been civilized for about ten thousand years (when agriculture became the major mode of food production). Biologically we are primates and closer to our ape cousins than we are to the gods or the angels.

We are torn between two urges: one, to do what seems best for ourselves (as individuals) and our families and the other to be socially co-operative and operate for "the greater good". These are two opposed forces acting on us and we are torn as a result.

I don't see any solution. When disaster strikes we act either for ourselves or at least try to keep our children (our own children, not someone else's children) safe. On the other hand people spontaneously organize into teams to help people who are hurt or in danger. During the San Francisco earthquake of 1988 people in the neighborhoods without any prodding or leadership from government formed rescue teams to help people trapped under rubble. There is a natural inclination to empathy and sympathy among most people There was also looting during the earthquake. So we see both the best and worst during times of trouble and emergency.

ruveyn

How about: " Do unto others, before they do unto you!"

Lol!

The main benefit of the golden rule principal, in my view is, that it appeals to both objective and subjective moralists.

To the subjective moralist, who holds that morality evolved through the social interactions of communities, that which is defined has not been useful for the development and sustaining of social interaction can be defined as immoral.

For instance in the case of rape, a subjective moralist could argue, that it is not be useful in a society based on a common understanding of social rules. It can be argued both philosophically, psychologically and evolutionarily to any individual that therefore rape should be prohibited. For instance you can see within a pride of lions certain amount of collective morality and rules. This is essentially the view argued by Daniel Dennett.

To the objective moralist, the action of rape is wrong and this position is based upon belief that some actions are necessarily wrong. The objective moralist also argues that the subjective moralist has no grounds for describing an action as moral. At best an action could be considered useless to society but there is not moral ground for that actions condemnation. The flaw in the subjective position is that its rules are essentially an illusion.

That is a very good insight. The G.R. is both a sentiment and an operating procedure.

ruveyn

Thank you for the compliment.