How to argue?

[Spock]

The differences seem trivial.

God implies that His servants while doing their duty doing things constructive and inspirational according to His Law should take additional care in doing “unto others…”. There is action and movement forward in a social context.

The negative does not fully convey duty, and implies the liberty of indifference,individual isolation and self focus. But then that would be consistent with a Godless world. There IS nothing remaining but self gain. The finite world of the godless offers one reward for everyone regardless of merit.

Hi Andy,

I would like to explain my position. I think that the difference is significant. Let me give you an example:

Golden rule: “Do unto others…”. Suppose I see a beautiful lady, and I would like her to make passionate love to me. According to the golden rule, I am allowed, or even commanded to make passionate love to her, regardless of her intentions. “Do unto others…” permits me to do that.

Inverse golden rule: “Do not do unto others…”. (Same scenario as before). I do not want my bodily integrity to be violated, therefore I am prohibited to violate her bodily intergrity no matter how much I want her.

That is the difference. The original golden rule can be twisted easily to allow me to do whatever I want, and disregard whatever the other party may or may not want. The inverse golden rule forces me to contemplate the other party’s wishes, and forbids me to do what I want, but commands me to take into consideration what they want.

The original “golden rule” is permissive. The “reverse golden rule” is forbidding. Do you see my point?

 

[JDaniel]

Maybe you missed it: I was talking about the inverse golden rule. And the original golden rule has been articulated well before Jesus. It was present in almost all ethical systems, religious and otherwise - therefore it is rightfully called a secular concept.

No, I didn’t miss little, ineffectual point. Doesn’t change anything.

Now, you further state - with super-ultra-authority - “And the original golden rule has been articulated well before Jesus. It was present in almost all ethical systems, religious and otherwise - therefore it is rightfully called a secular concept.” I don’t know, you could be right. But, why should I accept that you are right from you? What authority do you possess? What documentation did you provide?

It would appear that you have a vested interest in hyping your thesis into mainstream righteousness. That being the case: you’re no authority.

jd

 

[rookieonedge]

I have a very important question for you: “Do you believe in singularities?”



jd

I wasn’t intending to continue with this thread, but reading it is very interesting, and I’ll just respond to your inquiry with a question: “Do you believe in multiplicities?”

If your question is referring to a singular universe, my answer would be that maybe our universe is singular and designed by a great Designer for the enjoyment of his creatures. OR, maybe this great Designer created a multitude of universes for the enjoyment of discovery by his creatures.

It’s possible, as well, that our universe continues to expand and contract indefinately so that we, as humans on planet earth, may be the billionth generation of humans on any given planet.

If your question doesn’t have anything to do with my answer, please inform and elaborate, if you will.

Unfortunately, I don’t have intricate knowledge on these matters. Nevertheless, I enjoy reading about cosmology and wish I had studied this admirable science when I had the chance. There’s nothing more deleterious for a human being than a lost opportunity.

 

[JDaniel]

I wasn’t intending to continue with this thread, but reading it is very interesting, and I’ll just respond to your inquiry with a question: “Do you believe in multiplicities?”

If your question is referring to a singular universe, my answer would be that maybe our universe is singular and designed by a great Designer for the enjoyment of his creatures. OR, maybe this great Designer created a multitude of universes for the enjoyment of discovery by his creatures.

It’s possible, as well, that our universe continues to expand and contract indefinately so that we, as humans on planet earth, may be the billionth generation of humans on any given planet.

If your question doesn’t have anything to do with my answer, please inform and elaborate, if you will.

Unfortunately, I don’t have intricate knowledge on these matters. Nevertheless, I enjoy reading about cosmology and wish I had studied this admirable science when I had the chance. There’s nothing more deleterious for a human being than a lost opportunity.

Good, stay with it then. The debate has since branched over to the Apologetics forum. Go there and look for warpspeedpetey’s name as the instantiator of the thread. I look forward to your (name removed by moderator)ut(s). Feel free to ask any questions about anything you don’t understand. But, my friend Rookie, don’t be as mean as me.

I tend to get annoyed when people don’t read any except the last two or three posts, in a thread, then ask redundant questions - be sure: I am not meaning you. Sometimes I come off as being curt to some people.

May God bless you always,
jd

 

[rookieonedge]

Good, stay with it then. The debate has since branched over to the Apologetics forum. Go there and look for warpspeedpetey’s name as the instantiator of the thread. I look forward to your (name removed by moderator)ut(s). Feel free to ask any questions about anything you don’t understand. But, my friend Rookie, don’t be as mean as me.

I tend to get annoyed when people don’t read any except the last two or three posts, in a thread, then ask redundant questions - be sure: I am not meaning you. Sometimes I come off as being curt to some people.

May God bless you always,
jd

Thank you for your kind response. I will go to the Apologetics forum as suggested. And I’ll be sure to read all the posts (except for the one thread with over 700 – I don’t know under what category. Hopefully, any question I ask will not be redundant but merely uneducated.

If you don’t mind, you can start by explaining “singularities”. I noted the little shrug icon. Yes, that’s me. I’m just a mom. Traveling mom, must leave the boards for awhile.

God bless you and yours,
Rookie

 

[Spock]

No, I didn’t miss little, ineffectual point. Doesn’t change anything.

I beg to differ and explained it in my post above, directed to Andy.

Now, you further state - with super-ultra-authority - “And the original golden rule has been articulated well before Jesus. It was present in almost all ethical systems, religious and otherwise - therefore it is rightfully called a secular concept.” I don’t know, you could be right. But, why should I accept that you are right from you? What authority do you possess? What documentation did you provide?

Easy enough to Google it. One good result: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity

It would appear that you have a vested interest in hyping your thesis into mainstream righteousness. That being the case: you’re no authority.

Just a humble question: is that a good example of how to express one’s objection in a charitable manner?

 

[JDaniel]

I beg to differ and explained it in my post above, directed to Andy.

Let’s take this a bit further, shall we? Do you not believe that the negative of the Golden Rule is not implied on the positive side? Did you think that you were enlightening posters herein? It took all of this to get to this point.

Now, as nice and the Golden Rule is, including its implied negative, there are multitudeness laws written and not, enforced and not, that do not directly flow from the Golden Rule. These laws and rules are not derivative from the Golden Rule. Therefore, something more than the Golden Rule, and, other, more basic, rules of human conduct are at work here. We call these the natural law and the eternal law.

The Golden Rule and its negative do express an overall attitude that can certainly enhance the correct direction of some of the laws not directly derived from them though.

Just a humble question: is that a good example of how to express one’s objection in a charitable manner?

As you may have no doubt noticed, many who post herein expose a certain chip-on-their-shoulders attitude in their writings. This is especially so of newbies. Many of us have been here for many months and years. Although I realize that the newbies don’t realize that their positions are not new, that their positions have been debated perhaps hundreds of times - to death - no one is ever profoundly happy to take the time to, over and over again, re-explain. We really want newbies (on both sides) to bring themselves up to speed as much as possible before weighing in.

Anyway, what’s so bad about my statement?

jd

 

[Spock]

Let’s take this a bit further, shall we? Do you not believe that the negative of the Golden Rule is not implied on the positive side? Did you think that you were enlightening posters herein? It took all of this to get to this point.

Yes, I do believe that they express two different attitudes. Of course I support the positive version as well (under certain circumstances), but I have reservations about it. And those follow from stressing that one may impose oneself on others. Actually it pretty much orders to impose. (“do unto others…”). Under some conditions the direct golden rule is applicable: for example if someone is hurt, needs assistence and is unable to express their need.

Now, as nice and the Golden Rule is, including its implied negative, there are multitudeness laws written and not, enforced and not, that do not directly flow from the Golden Rule. These laws and rules are not derivative from the Golden Rule. Therefore, something more than the Golden Rule, and, other, more basic, rules of human conduct are at work here. We call these the natural law and the eternal law.

Would you please give some examples? I like examples, they can help a lot. I am not sure that I understand what you mean by “natural” or “eternal” laws.

In my opinion the negative golden rule expresses the best attitude toward others: permissiveness, respect, an attempt to put oneself into the other person’s shoes. It allows everyone to make decisions for themselves, to lead their life as they consider best. At the same time it puts limitations on one’s behavior.

All that is nice, but if I am not mistaken, we started from a secular underpinning to ethical behavior. And the golden rules (direct or inverse) are precisely that.

Anyway, what’s so bad about my statement?

I find nothing wrong with it. It seemed a bit “talking down”, but hey, if you can’t stand the fire, stay out of the kitchen.

 

[AndyF]

Spock:

But where does it void other rules?. The golden rule is a complement to the ones that exist and thus forbids also.
The follow through seems non sequitor as your saying the rule is an argument that allows for everything the rule does not cover.

Andy

 

[Spock]

Spock:

But where does it void other rules?. The golden rule is a complement to the ones that exist and thus forbids also.
The follow through seems non sequitor as your saying the rule is an argument that allows for everything the rule does not cover.

Andy

I am not sure what you are talking about. Could you give an eample?

 

[AndyF]

I am not sure what you are talking about. Could you give an eample?

What is it you don’t understand?

[Why aen’t you sippin’ colatas on the beach instead of cooped up like me in my room surrounded by snow, or ar ya doing just that on some white beach sumwhers.. I’m already 10 pounds over. ]

Andy

 

[Spock]

What is it you don’t understand?

[Why aen’t you sippin’ colatas on the beach instead of cooped up like me in my room surrounded by snow, or ar ya doing just that on some white beach sumwhers.. I’m already 10 pounds over. ]

Andy

Huh? What does this have to do with other rules???

 

[AndyF]

Huh? What does this have to do with other rules???

Sorry. Back to the discussion.

 

[Detales]

In either form of the rule the implicit ideas appear to me to be reciprocity and consistency. That means to me that the idea endorsed by these rules is to develop such a conscience as would have one understand what your action with respect to another would feel like if it was yourself you were doing it to. The negatively stated form does, as far as I can see, add a nuance of importance to the Rule exactly as infered above by the notion of including the other’s sensibilities in an action you might like for yourself, but may not be the wish of another. It also seems to me to be very relevent in such problems as we have today in terms of pollution. “Don’t dump poison into someone’s drinking water if you would not want to drink it then yourself” e.g.

The two forms also have for me the flavor of the “walk a mile in the other’s shoes” idea, as well as “Judge not lest ye be judged.” There is also the resonant injunction “Love thy neighbor as thyself” that comes to mind.

In my book, this last is where the non-dualist school is far less complicated than all the rules and regulations morality. They embody the Golden Rule in that they assume that the other is the Self and as equal to oneSelf. Therefore, anyone with this sense of identity* would by nature refrain as best possible from harming another.** They would also by that nature endeavor to do what is the best for the overall common good, as that is, in that understanding, equal to one’s own good.

Of course, the conscience in that case would be developed according to one’s feeling an intellectual ability, but that is the case in all strivings toward maturity

**Knowledge by identity *is a little explored concept in the West. If interested, see F. Merrel-Wolff's* Pathways Through to Space* and *The Philosopphy of Consciousness Without an Object.*

**Certainly one can't make omelets without/with out breaking eggs.

 

[Spock]

In either form of the rule the implicit ideas appear to me to be reciprocity and consistency.

I agree with your analysis 100%.

If only everyone would accept this standard, we would need no laws at all. Too bad, that it takes two keep peace, but only one to start a war. Of course this is a utopian dream, but it is worthy to strive toward, even though it might be unattainable for a long time.

 

[Detales]

I don’t think we are going to have, as humans, anyway, peace or utopia, though we are at least technically capable of that. Buddha said “Life is suffering.” NIsargadatta, along with some other similar observations, said that existance is predicated on ignorance. In my scope of reading I have found that very many great minds are extremely dismayed at the average state of human maturity. Here is one of my favorites, from Albert Einstein. “I know two things that are infinite: the Universe and Man’s stupidity. And I am not sure about the Universe.”

Nevertheless, it behooves us to strive toward our best idea of Perfection. It helps, I think, if we treat others as ourselves, at least doing no harm.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

I don’t think we are going to have, as humans, anyway, peace or utopia, though we are at least technically capable of that.

i think even the technical capability is pushing the envelope of the plausible, a utopia populated by highly educated, intelligent and mature people, is a place where the strife would be conducted with big words, and greater effeciency.

in other words, ignorance and suffering arent the cause of strife. the fault is within us. we have wills and ego’s that desire what they desire, and all the education in the world doesn’t change the that most intrinsic of natures.

for me nobility is a character trait that requires a lifetime of suffering to craft correctly.

suffering is good for the soul.

 

[Detales]

Yes, it is interesting in that regard that many folks I’ve talked with have gone one way or another with suffering. It either drove them into something akin to despair, or they have grown from it. My own Mom, who was a refugee near the end of WWII, said that despite the horrors of it all, she would not trade it for anything because of the lessons she learned, especially about herself. I have heard this in particular from people who have experienced combat or were the victims of war. Of course, my sampling is very very small, but I was surprised to hear that similar remark from many.

So it is possible, for sure, to conclude that suffering *may be *good for the soul, if correctly utilized as motivation. Certainly the usual need for dealing with suffering is to end it. And I think that the greatest suffering is the sense of separation. In fact, my Mentor defined hell as the sense of separation and heaven as the sense of unity.

But your last remark about suffering and character also reminded me of a statement from Mary Baker Eddy. She said “Science or suffering.” I understood her to mean that deliberate devotion, prayer, and rightly motivated good works may bring one to God. If those are shunned, than suffering must be the way, as lacking right action brings strife. And yet even the holy and devoted often experience suffering. This seems as well to line up with many systems that claim that shock is necessary for change. Personally, looking at my own life, that of my friends, and the news, I would agree with this.

It also brings to question the whole area of inquiry, self examination, and by what are we motivated to do so. I have found that those who have not experienced some major shock, particularly one that forced a different mode of awareness, lack a certain quality in their questioning and tend to be far more dogmatic. That is to say that their devotion tends to appears to be, to me, driven by intellectual and emotional conviction primarily, as distinct from an inner revelation of possibility. This seems especially true of those who have had NDE, OBE, or some experience where the rational mind was shut of long enough to experience the underlying supporting awareness. That last seems most often associated with trauma, meditation, and deep and persistent inquiry, often under guidance. The implications of that, in my estimation, are huge, and very much overlooked, most religionists being, I think, of the other category.

This also appears to align with the non-dualist understanding that the purpose of life is to Be, as distinct from achieving a particular goal. Certainly Westerners misunderstand this, as don many in the East, as not having a goal, purpose, or aim, but this is not a correct interpretation. In actuality it has to do with the state of awareness that allows suffering to be met with equanimity and yet function as a force of clarity and right action.

At any rate, it is an interesting area of consideration. Byron Katie, for instance, claims that pain and suffering are two distinct aspects of experience. One may be in pain, I paraphrase, but whether or not they experience suffering as well depends on their integrity with themselves, especially in terms of untangling the sense of self from association with judgmental stories about the pain.

 

[warpspeedpetey]

Yes, it is interesting in that regard that many folks I’ve talked with have gone one way or another with suffering. It either drove them into something akin to despair, or they have grown from it. My own Mom, who was a refugee near the end of WWII, said that despite the horrors of it all, she would not trade it for anything because of the lessons she learned, especially about herself. I have heard this in particular from people who have experienced combat or were the victims of war. Of course, my sampling is very very small, but I was surprised to hear that similar remark from many.

So it is possible, for sure, to conclude that suffering *may be *good for the soul, if correctly utilized as motivation. Certainly the usual need for dealing with suffering is to end it. And I think that the greatest suffering is the sense of separation. In fact, my Mentor defined hell as the sense of separation and heaven as the sense of unity.

But your last remark about suffering and character also reminded me of a statement from Mary Baker Eddy. She said “Science or suffering.” I understood her to mean that deliberate devotion, prayer, and rightly motivated good works may bring one to God. If those are shunned, than suffering must be the way, as lacking right action brings strife. And yet even the holy and devoted often experience suffering. This seems as well to line up with many systems that claim that shock is necessary for change. Personally, looking at my own life, that of my friends, and the news, I would agree with this.

It also brings to question the whole area of inquiry, self examination, and by what are we motivated to do so. I have found that those who have not experienced some major shock, particularly one that forced a different mode of awareness, lack a certain quality in their questioning and tend to be far more dogmatic. That is to say that their devotion tends to appears to be, to me, driven by intellectual and emotional conviction primarily, as distinct from an inner revelation of possibility. This seems especially true of those who have had NDE, OBE, or some experience where the rational mind was shut of long enough to experience the underlying supporting awareness. That last seems most often associated with trauma, meditation, and deep and persistent inquiry, often under guidance. The implications of that, in my estimation, are huge, and very much overlooked, most religionists being, I think, of the other category.

This also appears to align with the non-dualist understanding that the purpose of life is to Be, as distinct from achieving a particular goal. Certainly Westerners misunderstand this, as don many in the East, as not having a goal, purpose, or aim, but this is not a correct interpretation. In actuality it has to do with the state of awareness that allows suffering to be met with equanimity and yet function as a force of clarity and right action.

At any rate, it is an interesting area of consideration. Byron Katie, for instance, claims that pain and suffering are two distinct aspects of experience. One may be in pain, I paraphrase, but whether or not they experience suffering as well depends on their integrity with themselves, especially in terms of untangling the sense of self from association with judgmental stories about the pain.

maybe the difference is in how one takes suffering, the ‘pity me’ crowd dont seem to thrive, the ‘lets deal with it’ crowd do.

i understood suffering in a different light when exposd to the tao, as a philosophy of non-attachment. when finally firmly rooted in Catholicism and its intrinsic purpose, i found happiness.

without that suffering, and the ability to more fully understand irtt in light of purpose, i just never felt sorry for myself again. regardless of what happens, i know it has a purpose in shaping me. i take great comfort in that, in fact i look forward to it. its that much closer to G-d

and still, i find that those who dont suffer have no temper, like steel quenched to quickly. they are brittle. weak.

i pity the blue sky crowd, when the world shakes they disintegrate

 

[JDaniel]

Yes, I do believe that they express two different attitudes. Of course I support the positive version as well (under certain circumstances), but I have reservations about it. And those follow from stressing that one may impose oneself on others. Actually it pretty much orders to impose. (“do unto others…”). Under some conditions the direct golden rule is applicable: for example if someone is hurt, needs assistance and is unable to express their need.

Spock:

Well, sorry it took a while to get back to you. I had it all typed out, this morning at about 2 AM, tried to post it, only to discover that the website was undergoing this update and some routine maintenance. This is a greatly-modified-rewrite!

Your point concerning the differences between the positive enunciation and the negative enunciation of the golden rule, to me is the same as saying either of the following to express one’s pleasure with a movie: (1.) “You know, I liked that movie!” and (2.) “you know, that movie wasn’t bad at all!”

The enunciation of the golden rule in its positive form was was never intended to be taken completely literally. The enunciation of it is a shortened, more succinct form of a greater length proclamation. I can see, from its words, that one could spin it to mean whatever one wants, but, that would be a violation of the very rule itself.

A head waiter tells a server to “deliver this knife to that man in the back.” Is he telling the server to stab the man in the man’s back, or, is he asking the server to transport this knife to the man at the back of the restaurant? If we use our reason, we discover that it will actually help us out of these conundrums. What the rule is succinctly expressing is: Whatever good (ethical, kind, lawful, etc.) treatment you wish, or expect, or would hope for, from others, do also good (ethical, kind, lawful, etc.) treatment unto them. Many of the other iterations of the rule, from other cultures and languages, go into more detail to make it clearer what is being proposed.

An interesting dilemma arises when we consider the sentence part that I highlighted in your reply. The golden rule does, indeed, say that we are expected to render assistance to someone in need. The question is left open, though, as to just how much assistance is sufficient to comply with the intent of the rule. If a man is in dire need, are we expected to be heroic?

Some rules (that have made it into laws) are of the kind that we call, “purely penal.” What is a purely penal law? A good example of one is a highway speed law. No one is injured by your doing 66 in a 55 mile per hour zone (of course, providing no accident takes place). However, if you are caught, you go to court and pay a fine and get some points. One could intimate that even these laws derive from the GR as we would not want some speeder to cause us an accident. Of course, and this is the rationale used by lawmakers to promulgate such laws.

But, the truth is, compared to the number of speeders on the roads today, the odds are minute that 66 in a 55 will be the causative agent of an accident, especially when you consider that most states will up to 9 miles per hour higher without penalty. Furthermore, no one was injured and yet the punishment was imposed. Not to mention the fact that we know that unnecessary speed traps are set up, from time to time, apparently for the purpose of raising revenue!

Would you please give some examples? I like examples, they can help a lot. I am not sure that I understand what you mean by “natural” or “eternal” laws.

The natural law, also known as the natural moral law, is called so because it emanates naturally from our reason. If we believe in God, we know from where this emanation arose. God “implanted” it in us, in our souls. For non-believers, it comes from some kind of natural decency in men.

The Eternal law is what we look for when we look for the ultimate moral basis for the natural law. We know, for example, that despite the fact that mankind can be “good”, at times, we have also noticed that he can be quite “bad” at others. How do we tell the difference? Is the natural law sufficient all by itself to provide an explanation, or, is it derivative of an even higher law, or set of laws? Is the natural law imposed upon us?

In my opinion the negative golden rule expresses the best attitude toward others: permissiveness, respect, an attempt to put oneself into the other person’s shoes. It allows everyone to make decisions for themselves, to lead their life as they consider best. At the same time it puts limitations on one’s behavior.

How is the GR (+ or -) imposed upon us? Is it, in fact, imposed upon us? If there is no imposition of it, why are we obliged to follow it? If a ruler of a society causes its imposition, then that ruler has the power to do whatever he/she wants, correct? Another poster once said, “Genocide can be justified completely.”

It is my opinion - and it parallels many better thinkers than me - that your “secular underpinning” leads us into a morass of conundrums

All that is nice, but if I am not mistaken, we started from a secular underpinning to ethical behavior. And the golden rules (direct or inverse) are precisely that.

I am unwilling to undertake what would become a huge undertaking with regard to this subject. If I may, can I suggest a book for you to read? It will probably take you less time to buy it and read it than it will take to handle it herein. Google: Right and Reason, by Austin Fagothey. Amazon has it in stock.

jd