Is the Golden Rule a Foundational Moral Principle or A Rule of Thumb?

[Peter_Plato]

Peter, your “Plato Face Palm” GIF would have been perfect here, in response to Roscoe’s final acknowledgement achieved so circuitiously.

You noticed that, eh?

Unfortunately, animated gifs don’t play well when sourced from a CAF library. Some are visible, some not and making them visible is just as circuitous as the discussion on cannibalism, so I don’t use it often.

Sometimes admissions are only possible with face saving, rather than face palming.

So be it.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Fair enough.

Have you never swatted a fly?
Used roach spray?
Smashed a mosquito on your forearm?

Have you ever taken an antibiotic?

I 'll qualify it, killing other people. There maybe a cheeseburger in my past.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Peter, your “Plato Face Palm” GIF would have been perfect here, in response to Roscoe’s final acknowledgement achieved so circuitiously.

I had the same position through out.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Huh?



Did I say that?

http://media.tumblr.com/720115e79f48aae19bc1b61e230491c3/tumblr_inline_mvvkfg7c8E1r79k32.gif

No, you haven’t offered any clue to what the metaphor is to teach us. I am asking. What does the metaphor of baby killing teach us?

 

[PRmerger]

No, you haven’t offered any clue to what the metaphor is to teach us. I am asking. What does the metaphor of baby killing teach us?

I told you that you are free to learn whatever you like from it, given the parameters of the faith given once for all to the saints.

 

[PRmerger]

I 'll qualify it, killing other people. There maybe a cheeseburger in my past.

So if someone had a gun and was pointing it at your wife, and you came into the room unexpectedly and shot the gunman, that would be immoral in your estimation?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I told you that you are free to learn whatever you like from it, given the parameters of the faith given once for all to the saints.

Can you parse this?

Can you give an example of an interpretation under your guidelines? No is an acceptable answer. I am at a loss to what conclusions I can draw from the metaphor of baby killing that fits with Catholic Teaching.

 

[Peter_Plato]

It’s already covered in “thou shall not kill” putting connivence as a qualifier is redundant and unnecessary. We can qualify when the act may be allowable, like self defense. We don’t need a list of when it’s not allowable. The same with cannibalism. All cannibalism is wrong, with the exception of eating the dead in a survival situation.

I thought you meant “connivance” and was completely baffled by how that was ever introduced as a qualifier. You, obviously, meant “convenience.”

Presumably, you are correct that it would seem redundant in a sound moral system to introduce convenience as a qualifier because it would be hoped that the value of one human life is self-evidently worth more than another person’s convenience. However, it seems that it isn’t self-evident in a morally degraded culture, where the taking of a human life for the sake of convenience is permissible and quite legal.

Apparently convenience is an important and necessary qualifier because individuals living under a moral cloud do not see the premise as “obvious” but are finding ever more reasons for disputing it.

Bradski, for example, has not accepted that convenience is, indeed, redundant and unnecessary.

I thought we could start at the “lowest” common denominator, but that, alas, did not seem low enough.

By the way, the word “kill” in, “Thou shalt not kill!” is a translation from a Hebrew word that essentially means “to hunt down without just or lawful cause” or, in other words, “Do not kill someone you have no morally justifiable reason to kill.”

Hebraic Insight…

The Jewish sages note that the word “ratsakh” applies only to illegal killing (e.g., premeditated murder or manslaughter) — and is never used in the administration of justice or for killing in war. Hence the KJV translation as “thou shalt not kill” is too broad.

Since man is made in the image of God, his life is infinitely precious — only God Himself has the right to give and take life. In the Mishnah it is written, “Why was only one man (i.e., Adam) created by God? — to teach that whoever takes a single life destroys thereby a whole world.”

But murder can be figurative as well as literal. The Talmud notes that shaming another publicly is like murder, since the shame causes the blood to leave the face. Moreover, gossip or slander are considered murderous to the dignity of man. The Pirkei Avot (Ethics of the Fathers) states, “The evil tongue slays three persons: the utterer of the evil, the listener, and the one spoken about…” The Lord Jesus also linked the ideas of our words and attitudes with murder (see Matt. 15:19).

“Thou Shalt Not Kill”
— Ex. 20:

Source: levitt.com/hebrew/commandments.html

 

[PRmerger]

Can you parse this?

Can you give an example of an interpretation under your guidelines? No is an acceptable answer. I am at a loss to what conclusions I can draw from the metaphor of baby killing that fits with Catholic Teaching.

“Bad things happen when you kill babies” would be a permissible interpretation.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Killing is already immoral. If one kills another one immoral act has been committed. If they then eat that person another has been committed. They could have stopped at killing them.

It’s like your standard “convenience of one person sometimes ought to override the value of the life of another.”

My standard was not, as you quoted, “…convenience of one person sometimes ought to override the value of the life of another…” My standard was that convenience ought NEVER to override the value of the life of another.

The fact that you can make such a blatant error makes me wonder if you are paying close attention to what you write.

It’s already covered in “thou shall not kill” putting connivence as a qualifier is redundant and unnecessary. We can qualify when the act may be allowable, like self defense. We don’t need a list of when it’s not allowable. The same with cannibalism. All cannibalism is wrong, with the exception of eating the dead in a survival situation.

Actually, you haven’t shown that “all cannibalism is wrong.” In fact the soccer team eating one of their dead being morally permissible is a prima facie reason for thinking cannibalism is morally permissible, if cannibalism simply means “eating human flesh.”

If it does simply mean that - and you are the one separating the act of killing from the act of eating - then your conclusion has to be that the killing is wrong, but the eating is not. A cannibal who eats the flesh of another human is not doing anything more wrong by eating human flesh because, according to you, the wrong came about in the killing, not the eating. The eating is permissible as shown by the soccer team case, the eating would only be wrong if it was preceded by the killing.

If you want to insist that the act of cannibalism, per se, is wrong but permitted to the soccer team, then you need to show why cannibalism itself should be considered wrong, but the circumstances mitigated the culpability of the soccer team. By separating the two acts and offloading the moral wrong onto “killing” then you have taken on the burden of proving that cannibalism by its own nature is wrong.

You haven’t done that!

You need to get your implications in order before you contrive a conclusion, Roscoe.

 

[meltzerboy]

I thought you meant “connivance” and was completely baffled by how that was ever introduced as a qualifier. You, obviously, meant “convenience.”

Presumably, you are correct that it would seem redundant in a sound moral system to introduce convenience as a qualifier because it would be hoped that the value of one human life is self-evidently worth more than another person’s convenience. However, it seems that it isn’t self-evident in a morally degraded culture, where the taking of a human life for the sake of convenience is permissible and quite legal.

Apparently convenience is an important and necessary qualifier because individuals living under a moral cloud do not see the premise as “obvious” but are finding ever more reasons for disputing it.

Bradski, for example, has not accepted that convenience is, indeed, redundant and unnecessary.

I thought we could start at the “lowest” common denominator, but that, alas, did not seem low enough.

By the way, the word “kill” in, “Thou shalt not kill!” is a translation from a Hebrew word that essentially means “to hunt down without just or lawful cause” or, in other words, “Do not kill someone you have no morally justifiable reason to kill.”

BTW, according to the Jewish sages, gossip may be a worse offense than theft since once a misspoken word is released, it cannot be unreleased, while something that one steals can be returned.

 

[Peter_Plato]

BTW, according to the Jewish sages, gossip may be a worse offense than theft since once a misspoken word is released, it cannot be unreleased, while something that one steals can be returned.

Meltzerboy, for the sake of clarity, is there even a minor hint intended that you find something in my words (perhaps misspoken ones) to make this observation necessary? If so, I honestly want to know for the sake of my own moral clarity.

On the other hand, if this observation is made for the sake of refining our moral acuity or sensibilities, it is a thought to ponder deeply.

 

[meltzerboy]

Meltzerboy, for the sake of clarity, is there even a minor hint intended that you find something in my words (perhaps misspoken ones) to make this observation necessary? If so, I honestly want to know for the sake of my own moral clarity.

On the other hand, if this observation is made for the sake of refining our moral acuity or sensibilities, it is a thought to ponder deeply.

Peter Plato, my comment was directed in response to your quotation concerning the Jewish sages’ insight and elaboration on the meaning of murder. I was simply adding some information to the concept of murder and the immoral effects of gossip. I did not intend to criticize your own words, even though I have, at times, disagreed with some of your ideas.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Peter Plato, my comment was directed in response to your quotation concerning the Jewish sages’ insight and elaboration on the meaning of murder. I was simply adding some information to the concept of murder and the immoral effects of gossip. I did not intend to criticize your own words, even though I have, at times, disagreed with some of your ideas.

Thanks for clarifying.

Your post led me back to that same quote to reflect on how true it is, but also how our intentions can colour every act, and that intentions are the aspects of behaviour we often are most blind to. Hence, my question.

 

[meltzerboy]

Thanks for clarifying.

Your post led me back to that same quote to reflect on how true it is, but also how our intentions can colour every act, and that intentions are the aspects of behaviour we often are most blind to. Hence, my question.

Peter, I say this as a psychologist: you are a little too psychological in your thinking! Relax…

 

[Peter_Plato]

Peter, I say this as a psychologist: you are a little too psychological in your thinking! Relax…

I prefer to think of it as metacognitional, but I will take your advice.

Is there a fee involved?

 

[meltzerboy]

I prefer to think of it as metacognitional, but I will take your advice.

Is there a fee involved?

Free consultation.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I thought you meant “connivance” and was completely baffled by how that was ever introduced as a qualifier. You, obviously, meant “convenience.”

Presumably, you are correct that it would seem redundant in a sound moral system to introduce convenience as a qualifier because it would be hoped that the value of one human life is self-evidently worth more than another person’s convenience. However, it seems that it isn’t self-evident in a morally degraded culture, where the taking of a human life for the sake of convenience is permissible and quite legal.

Apparently convenience is an important and necessary qualifier because individuals living under a moral cloud do not see the premise as “obvious” but are finding ever more reasons for disputing it.

Bradski, for example, has not accepted that convenience is, indeed, redundant and unnecessary.

I thought we could start at the “lowest” common denominator, but that, alas, did not seem low enough.

By the way, the word “kill” in, “Thou shalt not kill!” is a translation from a Hebrew word that essentially means “to hunt down without just or lawful cause” or, in other words, “Do not kill someone you have no morally justifiable reason to kill.”

Sorry about the mistake, I was using my phone and not being watchful of autocorrect.

Being not a Hebrew, and seeing that most cultures frown on killing other human beings with a few exceptions like self defense and war. I’m going to stick with “kill”.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

“Bad things happen when you kill babies” would be a permissible interpretation.

How do you get that from the story? God orders that the babies are to be killed, not the killing of babies is to be avoided. They were rewarded with land not punished. How did anything bad happen from the killing of the babies?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

My standard was not, as you quoted, “…convenience of one person sometimes ought to override the value of the life of another…” My standard was that convenience ought NEVER to override the value of the life of another.

The fact that you can make such a blatant error makes me wonder if you are paying close attention to what you write.

Actually, you haven’t shown that “all cannibalism is wrong.” In fact the soccer team eating one of their dead being morally permissible is a prima facie reason for thinking cannibalism is morally permissible, if cannibalism simply means “eating human flesh.”

If it does simply mean that - and you are the one separating the act of killing from the act of eating - then your conclusion has to be that the killing is wrong, but the eating is not. A cannibal who eats the flesh of another human is not doing anything more wrong by eating human flesh because, according to you, the wrong came about in the killing, not the eating. The eating is permissible as shown by the soccer team case, the eating would only be wrong if it was preceded by the killing.

If you want to insist that the act of cannibalism, per se, is wrong but permitted to the soccer team, then you need to show why cannibalism itself should be considered wrong, but the circumstances mitigated the culpability of the soccer team. By separating the two acts and offloading the moral wrong onto “killing” then you have taken on the burden of proving that cannibalism by its own nature is wrong.

You haven’t done that!

You need to get your implications in order before you contrive a conclusion, Roscoe.

Again thanks for the proofread I copied and pasted fro your post 302, doing so quickly didn’t realize it was the reverse construction.

I am saying that cannibalism is wrong, but permitted to the soccer team. I would propose other than health and safety issues involved, it shows a lack of respect for the human life that animated the body. The same reason we don’t dump bodies into the street after someone dies.