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

[Peter_Plato]

Hey, hang on a minute. So my ‘well-developed human morality’ as an atheist is fine…just as long as it is ‘consistent with a set of religious beliefs’.

Have you ever heard a theist claim your moral belief that rape or child abuse is “not fine” because you arrived at those beliefs by reason and logic?

Your “well-developed human morality” is fine precisely because it was arrived at by impeccable moral reasoning, but questionable where it wasn’t.

The problem isn’t with moral beliefs that verge on being self-evident.

Where a theist has issues is when your “well-developed human morality” has arrived at conclusions which radically differ from his/her “well-developed human morality” on rational grounds.

The theist may have an additional set of religious beliefs which cast a different light on things, but where natural morality is concerned, that could mean considerations you may not have thought about at a natural level or weighing the value of some things with a slightly different set of scales. I don’t see why that would be unexpected or, necessarily, irreconcilable.

 

[Peter_Plato]

As you pointed out, it is the whole story of the Old Testament, of people falling short. It would seem odd to end it where it began, no progress would have been made.

If you are referring to the book of Judges I don’t see your point. Judges is not the end of the story, why would you think it was intended to be?

If you are speaking of the entire Old Testament, then the sequel (NT) should not be ignored and answers precisely your point.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

If you are referring to the book of Judges I don’t see your point. Judges is not the end of the story, why would you think it was intended to be?

If you are speaking of the entire Old Testament, then the sequel (NT) should not be ignored and answers precisely your point.

The book, it has a clear and repeated narrative. Following that narrative, the rape is the resolution to the problem with wifeless Benjamites. It fits into the narrative. It isn’t presented as something to be punished but rather a solution to the problem.

I rather not spend any more time on this sidetrack. I’ll leave it as - There are things that I find immoral in the O.T. We will disagree about the nature of these things. I don’t think it’s terribly relevant to the main discussion.

 

[PRmerger]

The book, it has a clear and repeated narrative. Following that narrative, the rape is the resolution to the problem with wifeless Benjamites. It fits into the narrative. It isn’t presented as something to be punished but rather a solution to the problem.

I rather not spend any more time on this sidetrack. I’ll leave it as - There are things that I find immoral in the O.T.

Catholics find them immoral as well.

Your error lies in the belief that “if it’s found in the Bible” this necessarily means, “it is endorsed by God.”

 

[PRmerger]

Man A forces Man B to rape or Man A will kill man B’s family. I would say that’s morally permissible. Ridiculous but permissible.

Fair enough.

Then you are appealing to the moral principle, “It is always right to do [A] if it will protect your family”

Where [A] is some act that is being imposed upon you by a man with a gun.

Yes?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Catholics find them immoral as well.

Your error lies in the belief that “if it’s found in the Bible” this necessarily means, “it is endorsed by God.”

God punished throughout the book of Judges, He did not in this case. The rape was a resolution to a problem, not the problem.

I’m not sure this is worth pursuing in the context of discussing the Golden Rule and morality.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Fair enough.

Then you are appealing to the moral principle, “It is always right to do [A] if it will protect your family”

Where [A] is some act that is being imposed upon you by a man with a gun.

Yes?

No. If all he was going to do was slap my wife then I don’t think it’s a moral trade off to rape someone else. A rape is less severe than death, so death trumps rape.

 

[PRmerger]

God punished throughout the book of Judges, He did not in this case. The rape was a resolution to a problem, not the problem.

Did things work out well for those who raped?

I’m not sure this is worth pursuing in the context of discussing the Golden Rule and morality.

I always think discussions are worth pursuing.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Did things work out well for those who raped?

I always think discussions are worth pursuing.

The Tribe of Benjamin survived, I don’t know how the raped felt about “helping the cause” It wasn’t mentioned.

 

[Bradski]

I am sure we can agree on some.

It’s not the ones that we agree on that I’m interested in. If we agree on some point, we may have discovered the truth of the matter in different ways. If that is the case there’d be no way of telling who was right (without one of us deferring to a higher authority). But if we disagree, then it’s quite likely that one of us is wrong and we can look to see how we reached our decisions to see which one of us that is likely to be.

I would argue that, in principle, it would be possible to arrive at the same set by logic and reason.

Obviously that’s not the case. Or it is the case and one of us, when we have a disagreement, is using faulty logic or reason.

The problem is the starting point, the basic premises.

If you start with the divine, then you’re going to end with a divinely sanctioned answer. The starting point, in any case, cannot be: there is a God and therefore there is Absolute Morality (because without God there cannot be any such thing). Your starting point is the conclusion.

I agree with her. Natural morality is not premised on religious beliefs, but at the same time should not be disqualified because it happens to align with religious beliefs. That is simply a irrelevant feature.

If the premise is not religious beliefs as far as you are concerned, then what is the starting point, ‘the basic premises’

People who don’t like some moral conclusions often try to hide behind the accusation that these conclusions arise from religious beliefs, which is often simply untrue. They may conjoin with religious beliefs, but are often defensible based solely on natural moral law.

If you claim that a certain morality arises solely from religious beliefs, then expect all the slings and arrows that head your way. From atheists and those with other religious beliefs. And also those with the same religious beliefs but who interpret them differently. If you can base them just on logic and reason, then the question still remains – how do you really know you personally have the right answer. How do you know there is an Absolute Morality without reference to a religious belief?

Where a theist has issues is when your “well-developed human morality” has arrived at conclusions which radically differ from his/her “well-developed human morality” on rational grounds.

The theist may have an additional set of religious beliefs which cast a different light on things, but where natural morality is concerned, that could mean considerations you may not have thought about at a natural level or weighing the value of some things with a slightly different set of scales. I don’t see why that would be unexpected or, necessarily, irreconcilable.

But you are then interpreting morality through the prism of religious belief. Your starting point is your religious belief. You are premising everything on your religious belief. Despite that fact that you have just said: ‘conclusions arise from religious beliefs, which is often simply untrue’.

If you want to deny this, then tell me where any aspect of your morality differs from your religious belief. Or do you really want to suggest that everything you understand about morality (which you have arrived at entirely independently), coincides exactly with the views of the Catholic Church.

 

[PRmerger]

No. If all he was going to do was slap my wife then I don’t think it’s a moral trade off to rape someone else. A rape is less severe than death, so death trumps rape.

So then it would always be immoral to rape someone, unless a gun was pointed at your head or another person’s head.

Yes?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

So then it would always be immoral to rape someone, unless a gun was pointed at your head or another person’s head.

Yes?

I’m sure I could come up with another ridiculous scenario (like the Benjamites) but for the sake of argument lets say yes, except to save a life rape is always immoral.

 

[PRmerger]

The Tribe of Benjamin survived, I don’t know how the raped felt about “helping the cause” It wasn’t mentioned.

My understanding is the the Tribe of Benjamin was systematically slaughtered.

 

[PRmerger]

I’m sure I could come up with another ridiculous scenario (like the Benjamites) but for the sake of argument lets say yes, except to save a life rape is always immoral.

There you go.

There is only one moral answer to the question of whether it is permissible to rape.

 

[PRmerger]

IOr it is the case and one of us, when we have a disagreement, is using faulty logic or reason.

 

[PRmerger]

It may become immoral in one person’s view, but not another’s. And as Roscoe asks, how do we know what the ‘right’ answer is? How do we know what the absolute truth is without reference to the divine?

I think that everyone with a well-formed conscience will come to the “right” answer on issues of morality.

It is only a sociopath who will say, “Yes, it is permissible to torture animals for fun.”

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

There you go.

There is only one moral answer to the question of whether it is permissible to rape.

No, It may be the only conclusion for me, but not everyone reaches the same conclusion. Some may not concede the clause " unless it to save a life", others may make a case for rape as breeding strategy that benefits the species, a short term evil but a long term good.

 

[PRmerger]

No, It may be the only conclusion for me, but not everyone reaches the same conclusion. Some may not concede the clause " unless it to save a life", others may make a case for rape as breeding strategy that benefits the species, a short term evil but a long term good.

Really.

You think that someone who concludes, “It is sometimes permissible to rape” is giving a moral accounting of the act of rape.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Really.

You think that someone who concludes, “It is sometimes permissible to rape” is giving a moral accounting of the act of rape.

Again it’s not my conclusion.

People have and do make the argument for rape as a valid breeding strategy. I don’t think they are saying it’s an act they condone in modern life but I don’t think they are calling it immoral in the context of gene pool diversity.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If the premise is not religious beliefs as far as you are concerned, then what is the starting point, ‘the basic premises’

See post #169.

The most basic premise is that moral questions must have, in principle, a correct solution.

No wiggling out when reason arrives at a conclusion, in particular one that we don’t like.

The problem, I find, is that interlocutors on moral questions arrive at a place where their view is in jeopardy and the “out” for them is to claim, “That’s your moral view, I just see it differently. To each his own,” and resort to that as a final rebuttal of the opposing view. The assumption is that moral relativism is a kind of “fall back” recourse that buttresses their view against any and all counterpoints even though they have no real logical answer.

To NOT have an, in principle, understanding that moral questions have correct answers and that no illicit recourse to a default relativism is acceptable is the most basic premise of moral discourse. Without that, discussions tend to be fruitless.

By analogy, these kinds of discussions are like placing a wager where the loser is allowed to rescind the bet after finding out they’ve lost - that they weren’t “all in” after all, even though to be “moral” means, by definition, to be “all in.”

Or, by another analogy, like using logic with someone who thinks they can overrule the law of non-contradiction or change the meaning of words at any point in the discussion, at their discretion.

This is precisely the case where moral questions involving disputing moral agents begin with a presumption that the question is meaningful but when the matter is definitively decided the agent on the short end of the decision feels free to dismiss the question entirely, by appeal to relativism.

That simply entails the person leaving the discussion does not want to morally commit to the logical conclusion and cites moral relativism as their justification.

Or, some even go as far as claiming, “Well that’s your religious position!” or “Your religion tells you that!” as a means of deflecting the argument.