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

[Peter_Plato]

Why would I judge their morality using my conditions as the meter.

Why wouldn’t you? Are you saying your metric is defective?

I am not clear, either, how the conditions under which the Inuit engaged in “lending wives” is relevantly different than your conditions, in any case. The conditions were virtually identical to gathering at a party, turning off the lights and engaging in an orgy with other men’s wives. What is so remarkably different about those conditions that seem to render your metric impotent (pardon the pun.)

Why not take the option of determining a better metric rather than simply adopting the view that your metric can’t make the assessment?

PR’s point is that if you are abstaining from making a moral judgement in this case, why not abstain in the case of Aztec human sacrifice, for precisely the same reason?

Let me answer that for you. You are not “actually” abstaining (pardon another pun) in the first instance, you are tacitly accepting that the Inuit position is morally acceptable to you without actually saying it is because readers (and your wife perhaps) might misinterpret your position.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I am not clear, either, how the conditions under which the Inuit engaged in “lending wives” is relevantly different than your conditions,

Isolated tribes vs City living - it’s different.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Parable of the Lost Seekers

Two men were on a journey far from home and found themselves lost in the Land of Moral Confusion. The first man, Absolom, set his heart on finding his way home to Clarity. The second, named Relatavio was not certain that the way home would ever present itself. Whenever Absolom would set out along a determined path, Relatavio would give all kinds of reasons why this might not be the right path and why any other path might be just as good.

Undaunted Absolom continued study maps, explore possibilities and venture on paths he thought might lead him home because, after all, he knew home was where he belonged and that he would never get there unless he kept in his heart the absolute determination to find Clarity.

Relatavio, on the other hand, chose not to think on the matter any longer because he came to accept that any path would be no better than any other. Any time a fleeting memory would remind him of Clarity, he would dismiss it contemptuously with the absolute conviction that no path could be any better than the others. He spent no more time walking or exploring and remained where he was.

Absolom knew in his heart that Moral Clarity was a far better place than the Land of Confusion and never gave up finding the path home.

In the end, Absolom came to explore the Land of Confusion better than any other traveller. He drew accurate maps and found his way out of Confusion to Clarity where his anticipation and conviction were richly rewarded.

Relatavio remained in the Land and State of Confusion for the rest of his days.

***Moral: It is not possible to find Clarity without an absolute conviction to do so.

---

 

[Peter_Plato]

Isolated tribes vs City living - it’s different.

Sure it’s different, the question is whether that difference is morally relevant.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am not willing to defend Child Sacrifice anymore than I’m willing to defend the Genocide in Deuteronomy. Are you willing, under banner of absolute morality, defend the child killing in those episodes?

Are you equating polygamous relationships and child killing? Are all moral questions equally weighted?

By the way, I do think the Old Testament episodes are morally defensible in way that child sacrifice is not. I have defended the former twice in these fora without hearing any compelling rebuttal.

 

[PRmerger]

I am not willing to defend Child Sacrifice anymore than I’m willing to defend the Genocide in Deuteronomy.

So you must see how it sounds like cognitive dissonance that you are proposing here.

On the one hand you are espousing, with the Inuits, “I cannot judge what they did as immoral. That’s how they saw things, and if it was moral to them, who am I to say that it was wrong?”

On the other hand you are denying the above paradigm completely, with a 180 degree change in position with the Aztecs and professing, “I will judge what they did as immoral.”

Which is your paradigm, Roscoe? You can’t discern whether acts endorsed by an entire are moral or immoral or you can?

 

[PRmerger]

Are you willing, under banner of absolute morality, defend the child killing in those episodes?

I tend to view those stories as a metaphorical. As apologist Jimmy Akin says, regarding the stories of genocide in the OT: “How literally this language is to be understood is open to question”–see “Hard Sayings of the Old Testament” by Jimmy Akin here.

More: “In this case the commands found in the Pentateuch concerning the
Canaanites would not be meant to be taken in a literal sense. We know
that the early history in Scripture contains symbolic elements as well
as literal ones, and these commands would then turn out to be symbolic.”

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Sure it’s different, the question is whether that difference is morally relevant.

Of course it relevant. Back to the cannibalism example. It would be morally permissible if like the soccer team who’s plane crashed in the mountains ate their dead. Where it would not be permissible in other cases. Circumstances matter.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

By the way, I do think the Old Testament episodes are morally defensible in way that child sacrifice is not. I have defended the former twice in these fora without hearing any compelling rebuttal.

I’d love to hear the elevator version of this.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

So you must see how it sounds like cognitive dissonance that you are proposing here.

On the one hand you are espousing, with the Inuits, “I cannot judge what they did as immoral. That’s how they saw things, and if it was moral to them, who am I to say that it was wrong?”

On the other hand you are denying the above paradigm completely, with a 180 degree change in position with the Aztecs and professing, “I will judge what they did as immoral.”

Which is your paradigm, Roscoe? You can’t discern whether acts endorsed by an entire are moral or immoral or you can?

I can judge them by my standards and see that the live by another. Just as I can find haggis not fit for human consumption yet can see that the Scotts find it enjoyable. Let the Scotts have their haggis. Not everyone has to agree on the culinary value of haggis.

We can agree that child killing is morally repugnant and condemn both the Aztecs and the Israelites. they both killed in service to their gods. Both thought they were being moral.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I tend to view those stories as a metaphorical. As apologist Jimmy Akin says, regarding the stories of genocide in the OT: “How literally this language is to be understood is open to question”–see “Hard Sayings of the Old Testament” by Jimmy Akin here.

More: “In this case the commands found in the Pentateuch concerning the
Canaanites would not be meant to be taken in a literal sense. We know
that the early history in Scripture contains symbolic elements as well
as literal ones, and these commands would then turn out to be symbolic.”

Aka “this is inconvenient must be metaphorical”.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I wasn’t saying the metals are moral agents. I am saying you are indirectly responsible for horrible conditions for other human beings by using electronics.

The principle said “directly ending the life.” Go back and read it. Post #239

When the choice is between directly ending the life of a human being and the convenience of another human being, the value of life ought always supercede the value of convenience.

This is not to deny that we may bear some moral responsibility for use of resources where illicit activity is involved in procuring them. For example, someone who buys clothing from a retailer where the known source of that clothing is a factory in Pakistan where systemic abuse of workers is known to exist, may bear some moral culpability.

It would certainly be morally problematic for you to indulge your appetite while a starving family lives next door, but the principle I set out in Post #239 need not even imply that. The principle had to do with the “active” taking of a life out of convenience.

I am still waiting for a commitment from both you and Bradski as to whether you view that principle as morally binding. So far, I am not seeing any form of commitment to it, but rather dodging the question.

Bring up a case where you see it as morally licit to take the life of another person out of convenience.

By the way I am locating the posts on the problematic Old Testament passages. I found one, but the other was a stronger position. I will post later this evening.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course it relevant. Back to the cannibalism example. It would be morally permissible if like the soccer team who’s plane crashed in the mountains ate their dead. Where it would not be permissible in other cases. Circumstances matter.

Differences are not relevant just because they are differences. Stipulate, if you don’t mind, what the MORALLY relevant difference actually is between Inuit men sharing their wives at a party and a group of middle class executives doing so.

A difference in the average temperature of the region is not a relevant difference, nor is the fact that the Inuit eat whale meat or paddle kayaks.

Claiming that the Inuit were raised to believe this kind of behaviour is acceptable may mitigate the culpability of Inuit men, but it does not prove that the behaviour is morally right. That requires a completely different line of thought. One that demonstrates why it is MORAL for Inuit men to do so, while it is IMMORAL for middle class executives to.
Or do you want to retreat hastily to a position that states it is quite correct in both cases as long as it is consensual? Why would you view it as morally okay for some and not for others? At least be consistent.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Of course it relevant. Back to the cannibalism example. It would be morally permissible if like the soccer team who’s plane crashed in the mountains ate their dead. Where it would not be permissible in other cases. Circumstances matter.

This just seems muddled.

Cannibalism is the active taking of the life of another human being for food. A soccer team whose plane crashed and the survivors ate their dead in order to survive is a whole different matter. The dead are dead, they were not murdered to be turned into food. If members of the team actively hunted down and killed other members in order to eat them, then the cases would be similar, and just as wrong.

 

[PRmerger]

Aka “this is inconvenient must be metaphorical”.

Perhaps you have forgotten that you are on a Catholic forum, in dialogue with (mainly) Catholics?

Did you think, mayhap, that you were on a Fundamentalist Christian, Sola Scriptura-advocating forum?

 

[PRmerger]

I can judge them by my standards and see that the live by another. Just as I can find haggis not fit for human consumption yet can see that the Scotts find it enjoyable. Let the Scotts have their haggis. Not everyone has to agree on the culinary value of haggis.

Ah, so you believe that some people may like Child Sacrifice, just like some people like haggis.

We can agree that child killing is morally repugnant and condemn both the Aztecs and the Israelites. they both killed in service to their gods. Both thought they were being moral.

Ah, so you do see that there is an Absolute Morality. Some things are wrong for all people, at all times, in all places.

Do you see why I don’t think you have really thought out your position quite logically, Roscoe?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Differences are not relevant just because they are differences. Stipulate, if you don’t mind, what the MORALLY relevant difference actually is between Inuit men sharing their wives at a party and a group of middle class executives doing so.

A difference in the average temperature of the region is not a relevant difference, nor is the fact that the Inuit eat whale meat or paddle kayaks.

Claiming that the Inuit were raised to believe this kind of behaviour is acceptable may mitigate the culpability of Inuit men, but it does not prove that the behaviour is morally right. That requires a completely different line of thought. One that demonstrates why it is MORAL for Inuit men to do so, while it is IMMORAL for middle class executives to.
Or do you want to retreat hastily to a position that states it is quite correct in both cases as long as it is consensual? Why would you view it as morally okay for some and not for others? At least be consistent.

The tribes being isolated use it as bonding. It also is good for genetic diversity.

 

[PRmerger]

The tribes being isolated use it as bonding. It also is good for genetic diversity.

Still there is no culture which declares, “It is permissible for a man to take another man’s wife.”

That there is “wife-lending” in some cultures is quite different than the above.

 

[meltzerboy]

Aka “this is inconvenient must be metaphorical”.

Not exactly, because even statements in the Bible that are not “inconvenient” may be metaphorical, such as in Psalms and Proverbs. One would have to familiarize oneself with the narrative style and context of the passage and the book in question and whether it is didactic, poetic, figurative, and so on.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

This just seems muddled.

Cannibalism is the active taking of the life of another human being for food. A soccer team whose plane crashed and the survivors ate their dead in order to survive is a whole different matter. The dead are dead, they were not murdered to be turned into food. If members of the team actively hunted down and killed other members in order to eat them, then the cases would be similar, and just as wrong.

noun
1.
the eating of human flesh by another human being.
2.
the eating of the flesh of an animal by another animal of its own kind.
3.
the ceremonial eating of human flesh or parts of the human body for magical or religious purposes, as to acquire the power or skill of a person recently killed.
4.
the act of pecking flesh from a live fowl by a member of the same flock.
5.
the removal of parts, equipment, assets, or employees from one product, item, or business in order to use them in another.

How do the soccer players not qualify?