Best moral rule?

[selfinflikted]

If I'm not mistaken, the traditional golden rule by biblical standards is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Also a most excellent ideal.

 

[KnowtheSilence]

"You ought to do what you would most want to do if you were reasoning correctly and aware of the relevant facts."

 

[dms1972]

What is best single moral rule or principle you have ever heard?

I like this line (if it is a moral rule):

"Man, please thy Maker and be merry, and set not by this world a cherry"

Which is a slight alteration on the Scottish:

"Man, pleis thy makar and be mirry, And sett not by this warld a chirry"

From a poem called Of Covetise [And all for caus of cuvetice] by William Dunbar

http://www.lib.rochester.edu/camelot/teams/duntxt1.htm#P22

 

[JackofSpades]

That doesn't seem like a moral rule, or principle.

It is a moral principle, and its meaning as its mostly understood, is that there is no reason to deny oneself anything that doesn't directly cause harm to others. It can be seen as antithesis for ascetism, ritual rules or cultural code of conducts, which typically deny various things which cause no harm.

It also suggests that pleasures of life are by default good things which ought not to be limited by rules for sake of making rules, unless there is reason to do so in order to protect others.

Thirdly, instead of telling how one should precisely act, it relies on persons own capability of understanding consequences of his/hers actions and acting based on that understanding.

Perhaps you could explain what you understand by 'moral rule', and morality.

Very likely similarily as average person does. That rule alone isn't obviously anyones whole understanding of morality which would cover every single aspect of it.

If I remember correctly, in OP I asked people to pick what they think is best single rule/principle, not to explain their full moral systems. And I did myself just that, by picking single idea.

In regard to the above what would happen when you meet someone who doesn't hold to that 'moral rule', but they want to steal your wallet?

As far as I can understand it, that principle doesn't really deal with issues related to self-defense. It's related to other topics. So what I would do in such case isn't related to that particular rule.

 

[LOVEthroughINTELLECT]

What is best single moral rule or principle you have ever heard?...

I do not know if I can say that I have "heard" these--they are my original ideas, as far as I know (Maybe, on the other hand, I subconsciously heard them from a source outside of my own self. You never know.).

Anyway,

1.) Only something that cannot be stolen has any substantive value.

2.) The question one must answer is not "What is worth living for?". The question one must answer is "What is worth dying for?".

 

[barotaro]

What is best single moral rule or principle you have ever heard?

Best one I've heard would be: "Do whatever you want, as long as you don't harm others or limit others freedom to do as they want".

It's awesome because it's at the same time very merciful, freedom-loving and responsible towards others.

Well from a Christian perspective, it's permissible to inform others when they engage in behavior that is harmful to them or others spiritually. It's their decision, but often they don't know why they shouldn't steal other than "it's wrong" / "it harms others." Well of course, coveting and living by the flesh is spiritually harmful.

 

[barotaro]

The Golden Rule seems to me a worthy code of ethics both from a spiritual and humanistic view

 

[dms1972]

Originally Posted by dms1972

Perhaps you could explain what you understand by 'moral rule', and morality.
​

Very likely similarily as average person does. That rule alone isn't obviously anyones whole understanding of morality which would cover every single aspect of it.

If I remember correctly, in OP I asked people to pick what they think is best single rule/principle, not to explain their full moral systems. And I did myself just that, by picking single idea.

You have described it seems to me what might be called a meta-approach, an overarching approach to finding out what one can do.

In my view though it is a principle of permissiveness that you have described, not of morality.

Would a single moral rule, or principle not be something like?:

"Choose loss, rather than shameful gains" Greek

or

"One should never strike a woman; not even with a flower." Hindu

or

"When thou cuttest down thine harvest...and hast forgot a sheaf...thou shalt not go again to fetch it; it shall be for the stranger, for the fatherless, and for the widow." Jewish

 

[Conscious Z]

Best one I've heard would be: "Do whatever you want, as long as you don't harm others or limit others freedom to do as they want".

It's awesome because it's at the same time very merciful, freedom-loving and responsible towards others.

The problem with that rule is that it doesn't include any sort of obligation you have to act in a certain way to improve the happiness of another or minimize the suffering of another. For example, if you're walking down the street and you see a person bleeding to death, and you happen to have the necessary supplies to stop the bleeding, I believe you have a moral obligation to intervene. Your moral rule would not specify such an obligation.

The best moral rule is some sort of utilitarian ethic. It's not maximizing happiness, and it's not minimizing suffering, but it's some combination of both.

 

[JackofSpades]

The problem with that rule is that it doesn't include any sort of obligation you have to act in a certain way to improve the happiness of another or minimize the suffering of another.

That rule is meant for everyday existence, not for emergency situations. That's another thing I find so great about it. Usually moral rules make life sound like it was life and death - choices all day long but that one is about what happens inbetween those rare moments.

 

[Conscious Z]

That rule is meant for everyday existence, not for emergency situations. That's another thing I find so great about it. Usually moral rules make life sound like it was life and death - choices all day long but that one is about what happens inbetween those rare moments.

While I cited an emergency response, I think there are all sorts of daily situations in which we should feel compelled to act in a certain way. Your rule makes no mention of any scenarios in which we should act, only ways in which we shouldn't act.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Rational attraction to being.

For me, this is the ultimate goal and function of eithics (or it ought to be), and is therefore the "meaing of life".

 

[Conscious Z]

Rational attraction to being.

For me, this is the ultimate goal and function of eithics (or it ought to be), and is therefore the "meaing of life".

I guess I missed the rule in your post. What was the rule....or even the goal? I saw a phrase, but no complete thought.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

be rationally attracted to being, then ...

 

[Eudaimonist]

be rationally attracted to being, then ...

What does "being rationally attracted to being" mean?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Conscious Z]

What does "being rationally attracted to being" mean?


eudaimonia,

Mark

Ditto. I don't know how one can be "rationally attracted" to anything, as desires are not a product of rationality. I can have conflicting desires. It's irrational for me to believe that I must go to college to become a doctor, believe I will become a doctor, and not intend to go to college. It isn't irrational for me to desire to become a doctor and desire to not go to college.

 

[Resha Caner]

What is best single moral rule or principle you have ever heard?

Deuteronomy 6:5

 

[GrowingSmaller]

AFAIK Rationality is in philosophy intelligent pursuit of self interest. Value in life stems from having feelings. People are a "locus of care" for the value of being, which is an emergent, evolutionary designed, existential modality. Because there is value there is dignity (innate worth, {+ or - mental states}) and preferability of some states as compared to others. A basis for moral choice and moral concern.

Because some mind based existential states are preferable to (or better than) others they ought to be pursued. This is a reasonable or rational response to dignity, ie it is dignified. This is deontologiccallly logical, because it is morally logical to pursue the better ethical option.

Where there is logic there is truth and rationality. Preferable or better states (internally) ought to be linked to adaptive and well adjusted behaviours (externally). Because they in the long run are the cause of benign mental states. This is basically what rational attraction to being is: liking being - happy existence - whilst being behaviourally adjusted as an organism.

It has its existential dimension ("yippee life!") and its biological one (flourishing physically, or health) and behavioural or cultural one (rational and adaptive cultural traits and behaviour).

Conscious zombie: I think that the objection "rationality does not relate to feelings or desires" depends on Aristotolian concepts of logic, rather than deviant / non standard modern logics. And on the old fact / value distinction which came before Husserls phenomenology of emotion (where we have phenomenology of value) and basically treated the inner life as not quite factual , i.e. only the "object domain" counted.

You may think I am inapropriately borrowing the term "deontology" from Kant, but in fact it was Bentham who came up with the term.

I have written a 10 page essay on this if anyone wants an email attachement sending.

 

[GrowingSmaller]

Or, in their own way, all of the previous answers are "rational attraction to being" I suppose.

 

[Hammster]

What is best single moral rule or principle you have ever heard?

Best one I've heard would be: "Do whatever you want, as long as you don't harm others or limit others freedom to do as they want".

It's awesome because it's at the same time very merciful, freedom-loving and responsible towards others.

In what do you think this differs from the Golden Rule?