Aleq, it was my understanding that the Wicca rule for morality was along the lines of “Do as ye wish so long as ye hurt none.” In your post, you seem to argue that it is okay to do what you want, as long as you’re willing to accept the consequences. Karma seems to me as more of a concept for how moral/immoral behaviors are rewarded/punished by the gods/universe, although, it does sort of intrinsically imply that doing things to others you wouldn’t want done to yourself is probably a bad idea (since you’d get it worse than you did to them).
I am ***not ***a believer in the golden rule. There are too many masochists in the world and people who wind up shooting themselves in the foot on a regular basis. Does this mean I have the right to treat them the way they treat themselves.
And I don’t believe ethics should only be concerned with how we treat others. What about the way we treat ourselves?
So it comes down to treating everyone, including myself, with honesty, compassion, dignity and reasonableness. And I don’t need someone ordering me to live by a certain set of “commandments” in order to be an ethical human being. In fact, I believe that you can’t really command someone to lead an ethical life. If it’s not chosen, with free will, it goes beyond the realm of ethics.
I’m not so certain that you getting gum you wanted is all that measurable an increase as opposed to them noticing it missing. But let’s say that the gum provides you with great happiness; yes, I would agree it is good for you to steal that.
Well, we do include his happiness in there too. And the amount of happiness gone from both killing the guy (which i’m assuming he wouldn’t enjoy) and that left in the rest of his life is pretty much larger than simply being a bit annoyed by a grumpy guy. And killing him is still a pretty severe option - the moral path is the best parth, not one that’s just going to help. I doubt that killing the guy is the only way to help the situation. But yes, somewhere down the line, in certain circumstances, I would consider it good to kill him, yes. But it’s not so simple as “He makes people unhappy, let’s off him” - as you’ve said, difficult decisions, not simple ones.
I’m not any kind of atheist, but may I suggest the following as a possible improvement to the Golden Rule?
“Don’t affect others without their permission, and not in ways except that they have permitted, unless they have affected you without your permission.”
That’d be a problematic position to hold if you were a cop.
Well, what if we established cops as a proxy for wronged people? That is to say, if Carl Criminal affects Vinny Victim without his permission, then, say, Patrick Policeman can arrest Carl Criminal, even though . . .
Okay, I’m not even going to finish that thought, because it can only lead to misery. I’m gonna go sulk for a while.
I try to minimize suffering first, and to be helpful and loving second.
In practice, I judge the suffering of others and help to others based on my own experience and my imagination of others’ experience, and especially on what others say or demonstrate about their own experience.
I have a skeevy sliding scale for humans and various animals, based on how elaborate I imagine their sense of upset and hurt is. I think such a scale is a practical necessity. I don’t worry at all about the bacteria my immune system or laundry soap kill, and worry very little about insects, moreso for fish and chickens and shorter lived mammals and longer lived mammals and mammals with whom I have a developed relationship. Scales like these are unnerving because they seem important and untestable and one might be tempted to warp them to suit one’s other tastes, like how pork products interact with the renowned intellegence of pigs, but I don’t see much way around that.
Finally, I imagine prayer and other attempts to interact with the supernatural are at best neutral and at worst harmful in a variety of ways, because our morality reflects our actions, and we choose actions on the basis of information, and anything that taints that information should tend to lower the moral quality of our actions.
I hate the golden rule too. It’s never made any sense to me.
For instance, I could never support sending myself to prison. I don’t care what hypothetical crimes I commit in the future, being arrested, tried, and incarcerated just isn’t the way I want to be treated. So, you know, do unto others as you would have them do unto you means that I could never support sending others to prison. But I do.
I don’t have a moral code. Morality is more or less bunk. I have empathy for others so I try not to cause people unnecessary pain. And I don’t want to go to prison so I try to obey the laws. That’s pretty much it. I don’t claim that any of my actions are morally right or that anyone else’s are morally wrong, 'cause no God came down from on high and told me about a universal moral code.
Great, we can get along well.
Also, any Christian who thinks slavery is immoral, does not get their morals from their religion.
That’s another one and it’s a good one too–but it doesn’t have the consequences spelled out nearly as well as the Threefold Rule. As for my use of the word “karma,” it’s not the classic usage but one that’s been modified a bit by the pagan mindset–one fundamental rule is “as above, so below” which aside from the mystical meaning also carries the mnemonic that all things affect each other and that all things are connected. Whereas karma on the cosmic scale can be seen as the blind working out of gigantic uncontrollable forces, it can equally validly be seen as the concatenation of many tiny forces and decisions which in their entirety span the cosmos and all of time as well. Each of our actions shapes the very fabric of existence, in its own small way.
None of us are outside the world, all of us belong to every other part of it. Everything we do has a consequence for good or ill, we can never stand outside of it and watch it happen unaffected. But we must still act and decide because each of our tiny decisions become part of the greater forces that shape the universe. Our thoughts, our desires, our actions, our needs, our expectations–all have effects on those around us.
Sometimes it’s necessary to take on unpleasant tasks with hard consequences, because they NEED TO BE DONE. If I am the person most suited to take on those consequences and I feel it’s the right thing to do then I can choose to take on the burden of an action and its likely result–or I can refuse the task and bear the consequences of my inaction. The only thing I cannot do is to remove myself from the circle of responsibility. I am always there, the choices are always going to need to be made and the burdens shouldered. I can only hope that if I do my best then the rest of you will as well and the balance will be maintained.
Oh, and karma has nothing to do with punishment–it’s purely responsibility and consequence, because to be punished means that there’s a higher authority over you dictating your fate, and I don’t believe there is such a thing no matter how it might please me at times to personify the workings of the universe–especially when they cause all the lights to be red when I’m in a hurry…
That’s excellent. It makes me feel like there must be something you’re leaving out since it seems so conclusive 
That’s twice that masochism was mentioned in this thread; am I missing something?
Maybe the terms are being used differently, but I’m having a hard time fathoming what’s immoral about s/m. The whole premise is one of voluntary duality.
Is the point that a sadist, for example, would derive happiness from torturing other unwilling people that are not masochists and that’s the immorality referred to?
I need a fear of a book to be a good person! Without that book i wouldn’t know right from wrong and would defiantly be the worse person ever, probably even end up going to hell if it wasn’t for this book; The Alphabet Of Manliness by Maddox
Why…thank you. I sincerely appreciate it.
The one thing I wanted to put more emphasis on was rationality. But I find that honesty goes a fair piece with that – AFAICT, logic and science are the best tools for determining truth (or, at the very least, being able to conclusively state I don’t know), which I think is a subset of “rationally understanding the world (including myself) as it is”.
Masochism is a problem with the expression do unto others as you would have done to you. A masochist applying that principle would be bound to inflict pain on someone who didn’t enjoy it. It’s an issue with any extreme opposing viewpoints (e.g., an extrovert and an introvert, a nymphomaniac and a prude, etc.) and is only applicable to the extent that traits/values/emotions are shared.
Of course, one can always claim a too-literal reading of the rule and focus on the effects instead (e.g., a masochist derives pleasure from receiving pain, but a non-masochist gets no pleasure from being on the receiving end; therefore it is immoral for a masochist to inflict pain on a non-masochist, even though it may be how they would like to be treated).
I think the SMDB sums it up pretty well: “Don’t be a jerk.”
Ah, I see. Yes, that was such a literal reading it went over my head.
Clearly, the point would be intended – I assumed – to be like that which you pointed out in the parenthetical part there at the end; a masochist wants others to give him pleasure in a manner consistent with how he enjoys it.
Actually, the s/m thing can be a great tool for clarifying the issue of perspetives and understanding that doing unto others has to take into account their experience of it rather than imposing your perspective without regard for the fact they’re not you.
A lot of the world’s historical – and ongoing – problems could probably be helped by including that awareness.
I believe all laws are written by rich people, and love of money is the root of all evil.
That about covers it.
Holy crap, that seems simplistic.
But maybe it’s true! :eek:
I wonder what happens, say, in indigenous communities without currency; are there behaviors therein that would qualify as ‘evil’? I’d think ‘currency’ in those systems would just be translated into something else like power or prestige or something.
Interesting.
The Golden Rule mixed with utilitarianism (greatest good for greatest number) is the big one of course. If you feel the need to nitpick the way it is commonly worded it then rephrase it as you like or add lawyerly footnoes - no one really thinks it means if you like chocolate ice cream to give vanilla lovers chocolate anyway, and no one really thinks it means to beat up people with self esteem issues because they think they deserve it. Come on people now, get real!
The verdict is still out for me on how to define “greatest good” - are we maximizing happiness? Joy? Pleasure? Fufillment?
I’m leaning towards thinking that the ultimate good is freedom of experience. The greatest ability to choose what you experience while at the same time maximizing everyone else’s freedom to choose what they experience and minimizing lessening of that choice.
Of course you get into situations where which choice will maximize overall good is not clear. In those cases I like to do two things:
-
Don’t stress out about it too much - without proper knowledge of the outcome my power to choose correctly is limited, and therefore so is my responsibility and liability. Make the best choice I can given what information and resources I have at the time.
-
If I don’t know what the pragmatic outcome of my decision will be, then make a choice based on values and principles. Then even if the specific outcome isn’t ideal, at least the important principle or value will be strengthened.
Mine is a little like a cross between rational egoism and preferential utilitarianism.
- My desires, by definition, are things I want to happen. Again by definition, I think it’s good when the desires I hold are fulfilled. (Note that sometimes my desires conflict; I’ll address that below).
- I’m aware that similar desires exist in other entities.
- I can see no particularly good reason to rate my own desires above those of other entities, except that I can more efficiently fulfill my own desires, all else being equal.
- The exception to point #3 is significant but not overwhelming.
Therefore, I tend to see the fulfillment of all desires, no matter the entity in which they exist, as a good thing. Similarly, the thwarting of a desire, no matter the entity in which it exists, is a bad thing.
That said, desires often conflict. I desire to eat steak; the cow desires not to suffer. I desire to keep my job; I desire to screw around on the Internet instead of writing next week’s lesson plans. Frances desires to play with a stapler instead of doing her spelling work; Frances’s mom desires for Frances to learn how to spell. How can I reconcile these conflicts?
The reconciliation is a complex process, in which I try to weigh different desires against one another and consider the many outcomes and implications of different choices. I don’t have easy answers.
But my foundation is that desires ought, all else being equal, to be respected, since my own desires are things I want to happen and I see no rational approach by which I may privilege my own above those that exist in others.
Daniel