No, no. 1. not non-intrusive or non-violent. What constitutes 'harm' is just as relative as what constitutes 'good'. Some people are convinced they are doing 'no harm', yet other people think they do plenty of harm. Unless we have recourse to absolute standards of 'good' and 'harm', the Golden Rule, in all its variations, is eventually useless.
hehe try googling "reflexive criticism" next time before caving in to ad homming Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Look you are asking me to cram a comparative studies in religion / philosophy of religion course in to a single post. Aldous Huxley makes the case for there being a Perennial Philosophy across "religions" and does so in a nice accessible format without having to wade through a bunch of Leibniz and Jung. His book is the starting point of any discussion on the subject and any good library should have a copy and its usually available used on the web at the main resellers for a couple bucks. If you are actually interested pick up a copy read it and then read some of the critiques of the position and see what you think. If you aren't really interested then the answer is there is at least superficial similarity of some positions, like the golden rule, but the deeper you probe the more you turn up dissimilarities and people aren't sure if the similarities are because of an ultimate unified source (the pro side) or because if you talk about the human condition in vague enough terms anything you say sounds pretty similar to what others say (the con side).
Yes the "golden rule" is defective across all religions. A better pass would be... Learn what is good to do with others and strive to improve your understanding together.
By this unreasoning, nothing is true or good because people have different views. We can't say child abuse is harmful because there are different views of what child abuse is? Wrong. Some people are convinced they are repairing your automobile yet other people think they do plenty of harm.
The differance is there and it is a clear differance. The supposed golden rule is not the same. Jesus said do unto others what you would want them to do unto you. While the other says do not harm others in different ways. The Word of Jesus encourages His followers to Good. While the other only encourages the adherant to avoide doing evil. If a person who follows Jesus see's a person suffering they are compelled as a follower of Jesus to seek to help that person out of suffering. One is moved by the Word of Jesus to take an active role in helping the suffering. The other teaching "Do no harm to others" does not compell anyone to actually go out of their way to assist someone in distress. A person who follows this teaching can simply walk on by and leave the one suffering in their current state. There is no positive motivation in the teaching "do not hard to others" to actually help anyone who is already harmed. All Praise The Ancient Of Days
Wrong. The reason why you would like a better pass is because you do not understand what those rules really mean. In order for you to understand them you must twist it/them to fit your fits. This makes it a lie/illusion far from the truth. It is not what it is, it is what you want it to be. It is most probable how you live your real life as well.
A requirement for absolute standards is not reasonable. The following is essentially a cop out & suggests that we should give up on establishing rules for ethical behavior. BTW: I consider ethical & unethical to be less value/emotion loaded words than good, bad moral, immoral, et cetera. Ethical & unethical are more likely to invoke rational analysis. Words like good, bad, moral, immoral tend to invoke conditioned responses. Any group larger than an extended family requires some laws/rules governing behavior. It is easier to establish reasonably objective rules/laws defining harmful or unethical behavior than to do the same for rules/laws defining good/ethical behavior. Murder, assault, theft, fraud, et cetera seem like behavior which should be prohibited or at least considered unethical in almost all circumstances. In most circumstances rational people agree with such laws. What about allowing a family to undergo extreme hardship due to poverty? Should I sacrifice my children’s college education in order to support an indigent family? How much should I cut my own standard of living to help such a family? Why should I be the good Samaritan rather than somebody else? Should I allow somebody to die if I have a good chance of saving the person? Perhaps you think I should, but what if the person needs one of my kidneys? What if a very large man is drowning? Assuming that I am a very good swimmer, what level of risk should I take to save him? If I were extremely poor, I would certainly want somebody to help me. If I needed a kidney, I would surely want somebody to donate one. If I were drowning, I would want somebody to try to save me. Does my desire for such good Samaritan behavior require that I be the good Samaritan? The welfare state mentality seems to be attempting to create the same standard of living for all. I hope it never gets to the point of saying: “You can live with one kidney & you are next on the list to donate to a person with renal failure.”
just as "google reflexive criticism" is an appropriate suggestion Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
No. It's not. It's ridiculous. Which fits with why I asked if you're on drugs. Which you won't answer. As usual. Your posts usually have NOTHING AT ALL to do with what you're supposedly responding to. You're hardly ever clear about anything. You rarely answer questions. Do you think you're communicating? Do you have ADD? Alzheimer's?
When I first googled 'reflexive cricitism', I also found a blog where it was claimed to the effect that 'self-reflexive criticism should not be practised because it undermines what one says and that one should not do things to shoot oneself in the foot - in this case, practice self-reflexive criticism'.
adstar, On the surface this might seem reasonable, but then if you need a rule to tell you whether to help someone in need then you already have a problem with your sense of humanity. The do no harm version is essentially - live and let live - do not tell others what to do and do not judge them.
Quite good. I think that the golden rule is something held in common by many religions, even those not shown on that graphic. For example, my religion emphasises personal responsibility and reciprocal ethics. As a Wiccan, I feel I should clarify this- the rede isn't held as a core moral statement. It's intended as merely good advice. The only real moral core belief held in Wicca is the law of return, which stresses personal responsibility and reciprocity.
Sarcasm? At three in the morning? Bad timing, sir. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
