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

[Roscoe_Turner]

Motivating factors might exist for doing what is the right thing, but motivating factors do not determine what the right thing is.

As soon as motivating factors enter into determining what the right thing is, then the right thing becomes dependent upon some pragmatic condition or consideration.

The presumption then is that moral obligations do not exist and motives become the basis for moral principles.

This is the crux of the issue RE: moral relativism vs moral absolutism.

When do you know you’ve arrived at “this is the right thing?”

 

[Peter_Plato]

Being Christian isn’t compulsory. It is a choice. Everyone makes a choice how they will live their lives. It can be cultural but the choice to follow or not is always available.

You have just made an absolute determination that “being Christian isn’t compulsory.” How would you know that without presuming some kind of absolute power to make that determination?

What gives you the power to determine whether it is a choice and not obligatory?

As soon as you declare it to be “a choice,” you have assumed that you are in a position to decide that. What gives you that authority?

To intercept a question: What gives ME the power to determine that it isn’t a choice?

I wasn’t the one who presumed to say it was or wasn’t a choice. I can abstain from answering that question precisely because I do not claim the authority or right to make it a choice, you have.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

You have just made an absolute determination that “being Christian isn’t compulsory.” How would you know that without presuming some kind of absolute power to make that determination?

What gives you the power to determine whether it is a choice and not obligatory?

As soon as you declare it to be “a choice,” you have assumed that you are in a position to decide that. What gives you that authority?

To intercept a question: What gives ME the power to determine that it isn’t a choice?

I wasn’t the one who presumed to say it was or wasn’t a choice. I can abstain from answering that question precisely because I do not claim the authority or right to make it a choice, you have.

If you aren’t made to do it, it’s not compulsory.

Because one can go through their whole lives not being a Christian, even after being exposed to the Religion. Obviously it’s not compulsory.

 

[Peter_Plato]

When do you know you’ve arrived at “this is the right thing?”

A process of intuition/reasoning concerning moral truth that takes into account and/or discounts influences (including egoism) which detract from moral clarity.

It is the same way I determine what is real. I do not rely on “the way I want it to be” or some other motive to colour the way I perceive reality. That would simply be wearing blinkers and denying the aspects of reality I don’t want to be true.

Reality exists. That is the starting point. To see it objectively requires that I look for the truth of the way it is, not what I want to see. Ditto for moral reality. Any “motive” I might have regarding moral determinations is a filter that only serves to hinder seeing the truth. Awareness of motives clears them away. It is a question of absolute authenticity.

I think Jesus called it “purity of heart” or “being without guile” which includes refraining from beguiling oneself.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If you aren’t made to do it, it’s not compulsory.

Because one can go through their whole lives not being a Christian, even after being exposed to the Religion. Obviously it’s not compulsory.

Obligatory or compulsory does not apply only to things which individuals are forced to do.

Refraining from killing others is, I would suggest, both obligatory and compulsory even when nobody is forcing you to comply. Things can be compulsory and freely done, which is, at least partly what morally obligatory means.

Being a slave is a forced condition that some individuals have been made to do, but that does not entail slavery is either compulsory or obligatory.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

A process of intuition/reasoning concerning moral truth that takes into account and/or discounts influences (including egoism) which detract from moral clarity.

It is the same way I determine what is real. I do not rely on “the way I want it to be” or some other motive to colour the way I perceive reality. That would simply be wearing blinkers and denying the aspects of reality I don’t want to be true.

Reality exists. That is the starting point. To see it objectively requires that I look for the truth of the way it is, not what I want to see. Ditto for moral reality. Any “motive” I might have regarding moral determinations is a filter only serves to hinder seeing the truth. Awareness of motives clears them away. It is a question of absolute authenticity.

I think Jesus called it “purity of heart” or “being without guile” which includes refraining from beguiling oneself.

Can you show empirical tests that can be applied to moral questions? It is how we determine “reality” in the sciences. A repeatable result, regardless of preconceived notions.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Obligatory or compulsory does not apply only to things which individuals are forced to do.

Refraining from killing others is, I would suggest, both obligatory and compulsory even when nobody is forcing you to comply. Things can be compulsory and freely done, which is, at least partly what morally obligatory means.

Being a slave is a forced condition that some individuals have been made to do, but that does not entail slavery is either compulsory or obligatory.

Being compulsory it is required under law.

Adhering to moral absolutism you are implying that Christianity is compulsory. The law, is God’s law, if we don’t follow it, there are punitive consequences. But it presupposes the truth of Christianity. If I don’t find the truth of Christianity compelling as truth, I am not obliged to follow it nor I am not compelled by it. Yet I can still lead a moral life.

Without empirical evidence of the absolutism of a moral truth, it is relative to the belief in the truth of Christianity.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Can you show empirical tests that can be applied to moral questions? It is how we determine “reality” in the sciences. A repeatable result, regardless of preconceived notions.

Actually, empirical tests only apply to physical reality that is mechanistic or predictable by nature. Can you show that all reality is predictable by nature? To presume physical reality is “all reality” is an assumption that predetermines the manner by which truth is determined.

At the first instant of the Big Bang, could you have predicted the outcome?

Can you show an empirical test that demonstrates conclusively that all reality is subject to empirical testing without simply presuming that it does?

What constitutes moral agency depends upon a definition of what is moral. That is not an empirically bound question. To insist upon an empirical answer is simply to be confused about the nature of what the word moral means.

The nature of morality depends entirely upon the nature of the “good” or “end” towards which moral beings are ordered. That is a teleological question, if it is to mean anything. Empirical tests rely on the presumption that the way things are is the way things will always be, that you can predict the future by an understanding of past events.

The problem with that presumption is that good, better, best are completely outside the scope of empirical analysis. It cannot say one outcome is better than another, simply that one outcome is more likely given the causal conditions.

How do you measure courage empirically? It wouldn’t make sense to exhibit courage unless the odds were very much in your favour. In which case you are not exhibiting courage at all, but rather taking the most favorable course. Courage would simply be empirically untenable. As would all other moral virtues under a restrictive empiricism.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Actually, empirical tests only apply to physical reality that is mechanistic or predictable by nature. Can you show that all reality is predictable by nature? To presume physical reality is “all reality” is an assumption that predetermines the manner by which truth is determined.

At the first instant of the Big Bang, could you have predicted the outcome?

Can you show an empirical test that demonstrates conclusively that all reality is subject to empirical testing without simply presuming that it does?

What constitutes moral agency depends upon a definition of what is moral. That is not an empirically bound question. To insist upon an empirical answer is simply to be confused about the nature of what the word moral means.

The nature of morality depends entirely upon the nature of the “good” or “end” towards which moral beings are ordered. That is a teleological question, if it is to mean anything. Empirical tests rely on the presumption that the way things are is the way things will always be, that you can predict the future by an understanding of past events.

The problem with that presumption is that good, better, best are completely outside the scope of empirical analysis. It cannot say one outcome is better than another, simply that one outcome is more likely given the causal conditions.

How do you measure courage empirically? It wouldn’t make sense to exhibit courage unless the odds were very much in your favour. In which case you are not exhibiting courage at all, but rather taking the most favorable course. Courage would simply be empirically untenable. As would all other moral virtues under a restrictive empiricism.

I am not the one making a claim of absolutism.

I think reality is relative to the observer and observed. Much of what predicted is theoretical and is not considered reality until proven empirically. i.e. Higgs Boson recently “discovered” We only can observe a infinitesimal amount of “reality”

I think courage is relative, not absolute.

If the outcomes can be vary, not empirical, how can you claim an absolute answer? There would different answers, not one absolute one.

 

[Aloysium]

. . . I think courage is relative, not absolute. . . .

That kind of thinking is very helpful when one wants to shut down one’s conscience.
Without a moral compass and map, one will get lost. Higgs Bosons won’t show one the way out.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

That kind of thinking is very helpful when one wants to shut down one’s conscience.
Without a moral compass and map, one will get lost. Higgs Bosons won’t show one the way out.

Although all courage I see a difference between a child going into preschool for the first time, someone fighting cancer, someone giving a public performance and a soldier in battle. You don’t?

 

[PRmerger]

Can you show empirical tests that can be applied to moral questions? It is how we determine “reality” in the sciences. A repeatable result, regardless of preconceived notions.

Logic and reason are how we test moral questions. Not through the sciences.

Why should empirical tests be a criterion for determining truths of moral law?

What you are doing is akin to saying, “Prove mathematically that Shakespeare’s sonnets are beautiful.”

 

[Aloysium]

Although all courage I see a difference between a child going into preschool for the first time, someone fighting cancer, someone giving a public performance and a soldier in battle. You don’t?

Courageous action manifests itself in each particular situation.
There is a difference but it is not relative. That child, that cancer patient, that person fighting a social phobia, that soldier are all being courageous. It is not an opinion. They are exhibiting courage.
It is a reality that exists in conscience. Conscience needs to be guided, and that is where moral laws become important.
Now, whether someone sees the truth or not, that is another matter.

 

[PJM]

=Peter Plato;11362823]I intended to post this in a thread related to opposition to gay marriage being hateful, but that thread was summarily closed. I am hoping that Mr. Turner will continue this discussion.

Mr. Turner made the following observation concerning the Golden Rule and included a number of Biblical quotes to support his contention.

To which I intended to reply:

All your quotes notwithstanding, the golden rule is not to be considered a “moral principle” because it doesn’t “underpin” the ethics of Christianity.

Definition of principle:

The fundamental truth of Christianity is not that we should treat others the way we want them to treat us, because, as a fundamental truth, that would be consistent with sadomasochism.

No, the fundamental truth that underpins or forms the foundation of Christianity is that all human beings are valued eternally by the infinite ground of all reality, aka God. Given THAT basic understanding, i.e., that each of us has eternal - and not just consensual or contractual worth - we are obligated to treat others according to our understanding of that worthiness.

Thus the Golden Rule follows from the more foundational ethical belief concerning human value.

From that basic or foundational understanding we can reason to (recall the definition of principle) the moral rule of thumb that we SHOULD treat others as we would want to be treated, GIVEN the manner WE should be treated as creations valued by the ground of all reality.

That is why the Golden Rule is, strictly speaking, a “rule of thumb” and not a moral principle.
Here’s the definition from Wikipedia:

Clearly, the Golden Rule is not a foundational principle, as you claim, because it assumes the person citing it is familiar with and agrees to the foundational belief that human beings do have eternal value. It is, as the definition from Wikipedia states, the “easily learned,” “easily applied,” procedure for “recalling some value” (the eternal worth of others) or “making some determination” (how to treat them.)

It cannot be the “foundational principle” because without the assumption of eternal worth, the Golden Rule can be quite effectively applied by someone who hates everyone, including themselves, to go on a shooting spree. If he wants to be killed, the Golden Rule would seem to encourage him in the direction of killing anyone he encounters.

The Golden Rule is, therefore, not foundational, but rather functions a “rule of thumb” derived by “a chain of reasoning” (as the definition of principle cited above shows) from the more foundational moral premises of Christianity.

That is the way Christ intended it to be understood; that much is clear. It was intended as a quick and dirty means of assessing how to act in a challenging and pressing situation based on the foundational belief that all humans have equal and eternal worth. It was not an explication of the underlying reality that God values every human being eternally, which is the necessary moral principle undergirding the Golden Rule.

THEE GOLDEN RULE: TREAT EVERYONE AS YOU YOURSELF WISH TO BE TREATED" is both a moral precept and a logicl truth.

Mt. 5 41-48 “And whosoever will force thee one mile, go with him other two, Give to him that asketh of thee and from him that would borrow of thee turn not away. You have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thy enemy. But I say to you, Love your enemies: do good to them that hate you: and pray for them that persecute and calumniate you: That you may be the children of your Father who is in heaven, who maketh his sun to rise upon the good, and bad, and raineth upon the just and the unjust. For if you love them that love you, what reward shall you have? do not even the publicans this? And if you salute your brethren only, what do you more? do not also the heathens this? Be you therefore perfect, as also your heavenly Father is perfect.”

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Logic and reason are how we test moral questions. Not through the sciences.

Why should empirical tests be a criterion for determining truths of moral law?

What you are doing is akin to saying, “Prove mathematically that Shakespeare’s sonnets are beautiful.”

The beauty is in the eye (ear) of the beholder. It’s not an absolute.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Courageous action manifests itself in each particular situation.
There is a difference but it is not relative. That child, that cancer patient, that person fighting a social phobia, that soldier are all being courageous. It is not an opinion. They are exhibiting courage.
It is a reality that exists in conscience. Conscience needs to be guided, and that is where moral laws become important.
Now, whether someone sees the truth or not, that is another matter.

It is relative. Two children can walk into school, one is afraid, one is not. The both “do” the same act. One needs courage, the other does not. The child’s need for courage may be momentary, the cancer patient months or
a year. It’s relative to the person and the situation.

 

[meltzerboy]

However, the one option a moral agent does not have regarding moral questions is to conclude that it does not matter which side is taken - that is entirely what makes it a moral question after all, i.e., that we are obliged to accept the decided answer to every moral question.

We cannot choose to simply sidestep the question completely and pretend both sides of a moral question CAN be correct, because THAT is making a determination that the question is NOT a moral one after all because whatever choice is made is inconsequential.

The point of moral questions is that the answer DOES matter and the choices ARE monumentally consequential. In fact, there is an obligation to find the “right” answer that is implicit in moral questions.

In real life, one has to make moral decisions all the time. Some seem to us more consequential than others, but not all are “monumentally consequential,” as you describe them. The decisions that are exceptionally consequential are made based on our reason and emotion, but that does not mean we have found the only right answer nor that we stop asking questions. We must often act without having all the answers, and sometimes after the decision is made, we regret it, while at other times, we rationalize it. The main point I’m making is that we may have to convince ourselves (or delude ourselves) into believing we have made the best decision we could given the constraints of time and knowledge. We may indeed change our mind at some point in the future and make an alternative decision in a similar situation, which we would not have made previously. And in certain situations there is no one moral choice that is completely satisfactory according to our conscience. We attempt to inflict the least harm possible and do the greatest good, as we define it; but, at times, the decision that encompasses this outcome is not so clear-cut.

 

[PRmerger]

The beauty is in the eye (ear) of the beholder. It’s not an absolute.

Not really the point, Roscoe.

The point is that you are demanding that a criterion be used for a discipline which has no investment in that criterion.

Mathematics is not used to evaluate poetry. It is used as a standard for…mathematics.

Empirical studies are not used to evaluate things which are not empirical. They are useful for things which are…empirical.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Not really the point, Roscoe.

The point is that you are demanding that a criterion be used for a discipline which has no investment in that criterion.

Mathematics is not used to evaluate poetry. It is used as a standard for…mathematics.

Empirical studies are not used to evaluate things which are not empirical. They are useful for things which are…empirical.

It is the point. If it’s relative or open to interpretation it’s not absolute.

 

[Aloysium]

It is relative. Two children can walk into school, one is afraid, one is not. The both “do” the same act. One needs courage, the other does not. The child’s need for courage may be momentary, the cancer patient months or
a year. It’s relative to the person and the situation.

But you know whether you are courageous or not. That is where all this is happening: your conscience, your connection with what is God’s will. It has to be worked on because lies and ignorance are very powerful.