Try to see it from my perspective. There are currently some number of people who believe in the Golden Rule, which in their opinion, forbids them from throwing others into prison. These people do not throw people into prison.
Yet there are also some number of people who think there is nothing wrong with abducting people they don’t like and locking them up. These people, in the opinion of various others, are not practicing the Golden Rule.
Now there are further people who are a shade worse. They also may believe in killing people they don’t like or abducting people they don’t like, etc. But – they fail to do so in an “appropriate” way. So, these people of the third party are thrown into prison by those people of the second party.
So, that is the situation we are presented with today – so don’t tell me I can’t join the first group and not the second at least in regard to whether I throw people into prison or not.
"I wonder what my life will be like?
“This is your life, and this is what it is like.” – some old cartoon…
In theory, it’s not about locking up people (or groups of people) you don’t like. It’s about enacting rules and laws which a majority of people in a society feel we should follow for our mutual safety. Part of that is protecting the weak from the strong, and isolating people who are dangerous.
I agree that the laws are often capricious or are enforced unjustly. There are certainly cases where I, as a juror, would refuse to incarcerate someone. (e.g. most drug laws) But it’s short-sighted for me to just say “the system is flawed”, and refuse to incarcerate anyone. IMO, it’s much more productive to agitate to change the unjust laws, and to reform our methods of enforcement and punishment.
The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
If I were convicted of a serious crime, I should expect there to be consequences for my actions. So how is convicting someone for a crime a violation of the Golden Rule? Unless, of course, as I’ve suspected all along, you are too cowardly to deal with consequences to your actions, in which case you would be obligated to not allow other people to deal with consequences to their actions.
Friedo – I don’t know how many times I have to explain you can’t just stict hypotheticals into the Golden Rule.
If I was of person type X, I’d want consequence Y. Therefore, I can do Y to people of type X.
That is not a proper understanding or reasonable correlary to the Golden Rule. You can then label anyone as something you are not and do anything you want to them. This understanding negates the whole meaning of the Golden Rule. Can’t you see that?
jmullaney, this is getting - no, has gotten - tiresome, but let’s try one more time. Either here or in the Pit thread I raised the issue that Friedo just posed. Let’s try it with NO hypothetical.
The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
It’s summertime. I’m on Third Avenue and 44th Street. A gorgeous woman, a complete knockout, comes toward me. I’m mesmerized. I want her to approach me, tell me she finds me incredibly attractive and wants to screw me silly. Oh BABY!
Should I do the same thing to her? I mean, approach her and all. Is that a good thing? According to the Golden Rule, I should - I should do unto her as I want her to do unto me. (OK, this part is hypothetical, but the first part happens frequently. )
Your problem is that you believe in the Golden Rule only if the end result - your actions toward another - would come out “positive” by the Rule’s application. The logical extreme of the Golden Rule is that bad people can use it to justify bad acts, since they would expect and want other people to do bad acts to them. He who lives by the sword dies by the sword.
By the way, I’m still fuzzy on this whole “shunning” thing - how does “shunning” someone help if that person isn’t going to shun you when he comes to kill you?
You are very, very wise. I have made this exact same argument (but of course, when I do it I am just being foolish). Love your neighbor as you love yourself only works if you know what love is. You should, I guess, love Love above all else first.
Personally, I find the Sermon on the Mount to be an important “midrash” on this rule for people who don’t know what love is. Not that I can’t justify all those teachings myself to someone who is sane and caring, it is just that such people are a rare find.
“Do not lust.” (not to mention it is hard to score when you are drooling!)
“Greet everyone you meet.”
I have said elsewhere it does not stand alone very well on its own, so it is difficult for me to say you don’t have a good point. I am sure Gaudere might want to come and restate her argument of how the Golden Rule works as a basis for morality without a commonly held image of Love that can be put into words.
)