Best moral rule?

[JackofSpades]

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

Golder Rule is about what we should do for others. One I quoted is about personal freedom and respecting others freedom. I don't see them being related at all.

 

[Hammster]

Golder Rule is about what we should do for others. One I quoted is about personal freedom and respecting others freedom. I don't see them being related at all.

But you are concerned about others in your view, correct? So how are they not related?

 

[JackofSpades]

But you are concerned about others in your view, correct? So how are they not related?

Yes, but only in sense of what not to do. It's not about what person should do for them. It's same difference as "do good" vs "don't do bad".

"Do whatever you want unless you hurt someone" - kind of rule is very often used to argue against Christian moral standards, particularly in sexual ethics. So, I don't think it's much of a Christian rule because it keeps ending up on opposite side of argument than Christian moral standards.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, but only in sense of what not to do. It's not about what person should do for them. It's same difference as "do good" vs "don't do bad".

"Do whatever you want unless you hurt someone" - kind of rule is very often used to argue against Christian moral standards, particularly in sexual ethics. So, I don't think it's much of a Christian rule because it keeps ending up on opposite side of argument than Christian moral standards.

Is your view one that you believe everyone should follow, or are you a moral relativist?

 

[JackofSpades]

Is your view one that you believe everyone should follow, or are you a moral relativist?

Something between them. I would call myself individualist, not relativist.

I think people can end up doing well with somewhat different sets of moral standards. It's anyways more about person than what standards he/she actually thinks are the best.

 

[Hammster]

Something between them. I would call myself individualist, not relativist.

I think people can end up doing well with somewhat different sets of moral standards. It's anyways more about person than what standards he/she actually thinks are the best.

This only works if you assume that people share similar moral standards. For example, ISIS thinks they are morally right. Their view would clash with yours.

 

[JackofSpades]

This only works if you assume that people share similar moral standards. For example, ISIS thinks they are morally right. Their view would clash with yours.

I said "somewhat different", not "opposite".

 

[Hammster]

I said "somewhat different", not "opposite".

Fair enough. So do you think stealing from the very rich is okay? You won't harm them, or limit their freedom to do what they want as long as what you steal is replaceable.

 

[stevenfrancis]

St. Paul taught that sexual morality was the most important, and that we should be especially careful in that regard. I suppose, if one remains sexually moral, the rest just kind of falls into place.

But looking over the other posts here, I don't think this is the kind of thing you're after. Most people are posting a saying or a maxim. In this case, the best is probably Christ's recommendation to "Be perfect, as your Father in Heaven is perfect".

 

[JackofSpades]

St. Paul taught that sexual morality was the most important, and that we should be especially careful in that regard. I suppose, if one remains sexually moral, the rest just kind of falls into place.

This is one of many things where I disagree with Christians. I think Christian understanding of morality puts way too much weight on sexual purity, even to the point that it sometimes pictures sexuality in itself to be something immoral.

Fair enough. So do you think stealing from the very rich is okay? You won't harm them, or limit their freedom to do what they want as long as what you steal is replaceable.

Instead of answering to that, I'd like to remind you about the point of my OP: I asked for a one rule or principle, not all of them, nor complete moral system, nor something that sums everything people believe in. Just one example of a good moral rule. And I posted one myself. It's a gem of them, but by no means applicable to every situation.

 

[Hammster]

This is one of many things where I disagree with Christians. I think Christian understanding of morality puts way too much weight on sexual purity, even to the point that it sometimes pictures sexuality in itself to be something immoral.





Instead of answering to that, I'd like to remind you about the point of my OP: I asked for a one rule or principle, not all of them, nor complete moral system, nor something that sums everything people believe in. Just one example of a good moral rule. And I posted one myself. It's a gem of them, but by no means applicable to every situation.

That's fine. I think your view is fundamentally flawed as it isn't applicable to all. But if you don't wish to discuss it because it takes the thread off topic, I understand.

 

[JackofSpades]

That's fine. I think your view is fundamentally flawed as it isn't applicable to all.

For comparsion, moral rule/principle: "Military leaders first responsiblity is to take care of wellbeing of his men". This rule isn't applicable to all because not everybody is military leader, but it doesn't mean its fundamentally flawed. Limited rule can make perfect sense in its own context.

But if you don't wish to discuss it because it takes the thread off topic, I understand.

I can discuss it. It appears that most people who wanted to post their top1 moral rule have allready done so, so might aswell derail it.

 

[Hammster]

For comparsion, moral rule/principle: "Military leaders first responsiblity is to take care of wellbeing of his men". This rule isn't applicable to all because not everybody is military leader, but it doesn't mean its fundamentally flawed. Limited rule can make perfect sense in its own context.

I think you're making a poor comparison mainly because it might not even be applicable to him if he has a wife and kids, or an ailing parent he's taking care of. In his employment, however, it's spot on.

I can discuss it. It appears that most people who wanted to post their top1 moral rule have allready done so, so might aswell derail it.

Your choice. So, do you think stealing from the very rich is okay? You won't harm them, or limit their freedom to do what they want as long as what you steal is replaceable.

 

[JackofSpades]

Your choice. So, do you think stealing from the very rich is okay? You won't harm them, or limit their freedom to do what they want as long as what you steal is replaceable.

That depends of definition of "harming". This actually requires more principles than just the one, like philoshopy of ownership or philoshophy on emergency situations (like, if the person stealing is starving or not).

I would intuitively define stealing as "harming", so I would answer "no, it's not okay, because stealing from others is harming them". But if we make very expectional case, like stealing when other option is starving to death, then its really out of that principles area.

The fact that it's replacable doesn't change anything, you can destroy very valueable things which are still replaceable.

 

[Hammster]

That depends of definition of "harming". This actually requires more principles than just the one, like philoshopy of ownership or philoshophy on emergency situations (like, if the person stealing is starving or not).

I would intuitively define stealing as "harming", so I would answer "no, it's not okay, because stealing from others is harming them". But if we make very expectional case, like stealing when other option is starving to death, then its really out of that principles area.

The fact that it's replacable doesn't change anything, you can destroy very valueable things which are still replaceable.

Is it okay for me to do it, if I don't think it's harmful? Me being an individualist and all.

 

[JackofSpades]

Is it okay for me to do it, if I don't think it's harmful? Me being an individualist and all.

Since you ask my opinion on it, I answer no, it's not okay because stealing is harming.

 

[Hammster]

Since you ask my opinion on it, I answer no, it's not okay because stealing is harming.

Then you are a relativist.

 

[JackofSpades]

Then you are a relativist.

I think that comment tells more about you than it does about me.

 

[Eudaimonist]

JackOfSpades: Since you ask my opinion on it, I answer no, it's not okay because stealing is harming.

Hammster: Then you are a relativist.

Wow, Hammster, that doesn't make any sense. How do you figure that?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Hammster]

I think that comment tells more about you than it does about me.

Yours tells me nothing.

Here's your moral view. "Do whatever you want, as long as you don't harm others or limit others freedom to do as they want".

If I steal something, let's call it a widget, from someone who has excess, it does them no harm. It's just an extra widget. And since it they have other widgets, it's not limiting their freedom.

Remember, if you think it's a good moral code, it should be good for everyone.