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

[Aloysium]

Doesn’t answer the question why a perfect, not lacking in anyway would want to create. Want means he is lacking.

No disrespect intended, the question reflects an incorrect understanding.

“Wanting” is perhaps insufficient a word.

I can definitely foresse problems in communication.

He wants me to know Him. I want to know Him.
My want stems from my being incomplete.
His want is to make me complete; He is not lacking. I am.

Why did He do all this?
Not because of a want/need - perhaps like any creative act, to express Himself.

Again, I’m just a random guy on the Internet.
I would refer you to the catechism for answers that have been developed over two millennia.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

No disrespect intended, the question reflects an incorrect understanding.

“Wanting” is perhaps insufficient a word.

I can definitely foresse problems in communication.

He wants me to know Him. I want to know Him.
My want stems from my being incomplete.
His want is to make me complete; He is not lacking. I am.

Why did He do all this?
Not because of a want/need - perhaps like any creative act, to express Himself.

Again, I’m just a random guy on the Internet.
I would refer you to the catechism for answers that have been developed over two millennia.

All those examples convey a want.

 

[Aloysium]

All those examples convey a want.

 

[Peter_Plato]

All those examples convey a want.

A want is inherently meaningless without reference to an end good. Without an end good to render wants worthy or worth pursuing, wants are mere emotional baggage.

End goods do not imply a need or lack except for agents who do not possess the end good.

God is the absolute fullness of Being. He does not NEED to create, he creates from the effulgence of Goodness itself, of Love itself.

If he needed to create, created things would exist necessarily. Created things are not necessary, we are contingent so God did not NEED to create anything.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

A want is inherently meaningless without reference to an end good. Without an end good to render wants worthy or worth pursuing, wants are mere emotional baggage.

End goods do not imply a need or lack except for agents who do not possess the end good.

God is the absolute fullness of Being. He does not NEED to create, he creates from the effulgence of Goodness itself, of Love itself.

If he needed to create, created things would exist necessarily. Created things are not necessary, we are contingent so God did not NEED to create anything.

A want is still a want, whether is “worthy” or not, that isn’t the point. A want means there is something lacking. If god wants something he’s lacking that thing. If he had it, there would be no want for it.

If god’s nature of love is the cause of his creation then he is compelled to create. It is his nature, he can’t act outside his nature. A creator must create. If he is compelled to create, it would make creation necessary.

 

[Peter_Plato]

A want is still a want, whether is “worthy” or not, that isn’t the point. A want means there is something lacking. If god wants something he’s lacking that thing. If he had it, there would be no want for it.

If god’s nature of love is the cause of his creation then he is compelled to create. It is his nature, he can’t act outside his nature. A creator must create. If he is compelled to create, it would make creation necessary.

You insist on defining what God does as a want and then claiming it entails a lack or need. The problem you are creating is simply a semantic one because of the linguistic connotations you keep persisting in drawing.

Definitionally, if God is fullness of Being, there is nothing he “lacks.” You are claiming creativity is fundamentally an expression of a lack, rather than a positive characteristic in its own right. Your view is clearly wanting (pardon the pun.)

 

[Aloysium]

A want is still a want, whether is “worthy” or not, that isn’t the point. A want means there is something lacking. If god wants something he’s lacking that thing. If he had it, there would be no want for it.

If god’s nature of love is the cause of his creation then he is compelled to create. It is his nature, he can’t act outside his nature. A creator must create. If he is compelled to create, it would make creation necessary.

Is that the god you believe in?
FYI, that is not God as he is understood and worshipped in the RC Church.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

You insist on defining what God does as a want and then claiming it entails a lack or need. The problem you are creating is simply a semantic one because of the linguistic connotations you keep persisting in drawing.

Definitionally, if God is fullness of Being, there is nothing he “lacks.” You are claiming creativity is fundamentally an expression of a lack, rather than a positive characteristic in its own right. Your view is clearly wanting (pardon the pun.)

I see your attempts as linguistic wrangling in order to exonerate god of want. If he wants, he lacks. If he doesn’t lack, there is nothing he wants. Straight forward logic.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Is that the god you believe in?
FYI, that is not God as he is understood and worshipped in the RC Church.

I am merely pointing out the logic.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I see your attempts as linguistic wrangling in order to exonerate god of want. If he wants, he lacks. If he doesn’t lack, there is nothing he wants. Straight forward logic.

We can turn that linguistic wrangling back to you.

Beings only “want” when they have needs. That is precisely what the word “want” implies. You would have to show that any active agent can ONLY act from a need or deficit without simply taking that as a presumption.

I am not clear that that is even true with regard to humans. I can act, not from a need or deficit but from a will to create some good that I do not necessarily have any need or want for, but merely for the good of some other being. On your view, altruistic actions would be impossible for any agent, including God.

In fact, acting not from one’s own needs but purely for the sake of the other, is precisely what love is. Agape love is just that: acting completely for the sake of the other and not for any need or want of our own.

On your view, all love (and God as well) would necessarily be narcissistic, which is precisely what I deny.

I just don’t find your “connections” logical, reasonable nor in any way compelling, at all.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

We can turn that linguistic wrangling back to you.

Beings only “want” when they have needs. That is precisely what the word “want” implies. You would have to show that any active agent can ONLY act from a need or deficit without simply taking that as a presumption.

I am not clear that that is even true with regard to humans. I can act, not from a need or deficit but from a will to create some good that I do not necessarily have any need or want for, but merely for the good of some other being. On your view, altruistic actions would be impossible for any agent, including God.

In fact, acting not from one’s own needs but purely for the sake of the other, is precisely what love is. Agape love is just that: acting completely for the sake of the other and not for any need or want of our own.

On your view, all love (and God as well) would necessarily be narcissistic, which is precisely what I deny.

I just don’t find your “connections” logical, reasonable nor in any way compelling, at all.

Of course you can have a want that is outside yourself. It is still a want. I want to protect my family. Done from love, it is still a want.

It still doesn’t answer why god would create an “other”. What does a complete, lacking nothing, being need?

 

[davidv]

Of course you can have a want that is outside yourself. It is still a want. I want to protect my family. Done from love, it is still a want.

It still doesn’t answer why god would create an “other”. What does a complete, lacking nothing, being need?

The direct answer is: God does not “need” anything. Any expression of desire implied by His creating us cannot be legitimately describe as a “need”.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

The direct answer is: God does not “need” anything. Any expression of desire implied by His creating us cannot be legitimately describe as a “need”.

Why?

 

[davidv]

Why?

Why not?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Why not?

I’m asking for clarification. Just saying it isn’t a want, doesn’t make it so.

 

[davidv]

I’m asking for clarification. Just saying it isn’t a want, doesn’t make it so.

God does not need anything. Want does not = need (check any dictionary to confirm). It seems you are resorting to illogic. “Want” and “desire” in this context are red herrings. Then you are using them to draw an unfounded conclusion (non sequeteur)

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

God does not need anything. Want does not = need (check any dictionary to confirm). It seems you are resorting to illogic. “Want” and “desire” in this context are red herrings. Then you are using them to draw an unfounded conclusion (non sequeteur)

have a desire to possess or do (something); wish for.

Why would you want something you already have? Want indicates a lacking. If you want something you don’t have it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

have a desire to possess or do (something); wish for.

Why would you want something you already have? Want indicates a lacking. If you want something you don’t have it.

Creativity means willing into being that which does not already exist. You may will it into being, i.e., create it, not from the fact that you don’t have it, in order to possess it or because you want it, but simply from the fact that it doesn’t exist. That is not a “lack” as an aspect about you, as creator, being in need of something you don’t have, but rather simply that it, the thing you create, objectively, doesn’t exist. That says absolutely nothing about your needs or lacks, but merely that objectively that “thing” doesn’t exist and objective reality would be better off if it does exist than if it does not.

That, again, says nothing about your personal needs, desires or wants. It can be an objectively grounded act of will, based upon an external objective determination that has nothing to do with you personally, neither your needs or wants, but merely for its own sake.

The existence of that created object may make absolutely no difference to you (fulfills no needs or wants) but that it makes a substantive difference to the objective “state of things.” That “state of things” need not have anything to do with you personally or your desires (needs or wants.).

Only a narcissist would claim that the state of objective reality must be tied essentially to their own needs and wants. Just as, I would claim, love in the sense of authentic agape does not will the good of the other out of some need or want of their own. The capacity to see “others” and “reality” as distinct from one’s own personal existence is necessary for reasoned judgement, objectivity, morality and love in the sense implicit in the Gospels.

This is precisely what I am claiming about objective morality and obligation in the sense of determining right and wrong as independent of wants and needs. Wants and needs might be considerations in the determination of right and wrong, but these are not the fundamental constituents. Otherwise, morality collapses into subjective wish fulfillment rather than teleological end.

This is, I would say the fundamental difference between our positions. I view “good” as a teleological end, you see it as merely the fulfillment of desires, wants or apparent needs. My claim is that these can be assessed and ordered - even disregarded - in terms of an objective good outside of our own current emotive state. That “good” cannot come from our internal mental or emotional state, but must come from the real nature of things.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Creativity means willing into being that which does not already exist. You may will it into being, i.e., create it, not from the fact that you don’t have it, in order to possess it or because you want it, but simply from the fact that it doesn’t exist. That is not a “lack” as an aspect about you, as creator, being in need of something you don’t have, but rather simply that it, the thing you create, objectively, doesn’t exist. That says absolutely nothing about your needs or lacks, but merely that objectively that “thing” doesn’t exist and objective reality would be better off if it does exist than if it does not.

That, again, says nothing about your personal needs, desires or wants. It can be an objectively grounded act of will, based upon an external objective determination that has nothing to do with you personally, neither your needs or wants, but merely for its own sake.

The existence of that created object may make absolutely no difference to you (fulfills no needs or wants) but that it makes a substantive difference to the objective “state of things.” That “state of things” need not have anything to do with you personally or your desires (needs or wants.).

Only a narcissist would claim that the state of objective reality must be tied essentially to their own needs and wants. Just as, I would claim, love in the sense of authentic agape does not will the good of the other out of some need or want of their own. The capacity to see “others” and “reality” as distinct from one’s own personal existence is necessary for reasoned judgement, objectivity, morality and love in the sense implicit in the Gospels.

This is precisely what I am claiming about objective morality and obligation in the sense of determining right and wrong as independent of wants and needs. Wants and needs might be considerations in the determination of right and wrong, but these are not the fundamental constituents. Otherwise, morality collapses into subjective wish fulfillment rather than teleological end.

This is, I would say the fundamental difference between our positions. I view “good” as a teleological end, you see it as merely the fulfillment of desires, wants or apparent needs. My claim is that these can be assessed and ordered - even disregarded - in terms of an objective good outside of our own current emotive state. That “good” cannot come from our internal mental or emotional state, but must come from the real nature of things.

The act of creation does fill a need, especially on the human level. If you aren’t compelled to create, you don’t.

If you view evil as a privation of good, how can morality be anything but a restoration of the good. The good is lacking and we have a need to restore it.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The act of creation does fill a need, especially on the human level. If you aren’t compelled to create, you don’t.

If you view evil as a privation of good, how can morality be anything but a restoration of the good. The good is lacking and we have a need to restore it.

If you act only on existing wants or compulsions, you have no means by which to assess if the wants themselves ought to be fulfilled. What your position entails is that if you want something you ought to pursue it and if you want something stronger than you want something else then, as a mere determination by the strength of wants, you should pursue the stronger want. You have no means by which to assess the legitimacy of any particular wants except by the feature of their strength. If you want something more than something else, you should pursue the stronger want.

What if a person only wants what is harmful to others? By what determination can you say to that person: “You ought not want that!” YOU can’t because your position, as a moral one, is that people should (or simply do) follow their wants. You have no mechanism (such as obligation) by which to deny wants, since wants, for you, take precedence as a simple matter of fact.

Furthermore, this says nothing about conflicting wants among different groups of people. Politically, you are left with a model that mandates that the wants of the majority are going to dominate the wants of all minorities for the same reason you think stronger wants simply will dictate what any person, as an individual, wants. Again, your view of what a person is is going to affect how you see politics (and morality as its ground) working.

Political “right” is going to collapse into a right of the majority to impose its wants on minorities. So appealing to emotion, rather than sound ethical principles will be the dominant strategy and what got Obama and virtually every politician in modern western democracies elected. The tail - or, rather, the lower organs - wags the dog.