Fun Stuff > BAND
Folk Music and the Environment
Jackie Blue:
--- Quote from: John Curtin on 27 Jan 2008, 04:17 ---My counterexample to it would be a person who wishes to be killed in a car accident. If that person follows the golden rule then there is no reason for him/her to not deliberately seek to cause a fatal car accident on the autobahn.
--- End quote ---
That's rhetorical simplification that is just silly and I think we can disregard it as statistically insignificant.
--- Quote ---It's not hard to come up with pretty extreme examples like this
--- End quote ---
Sure, but it would be pretty damn hard to actually find people who fit those examples.
--- Quote ---On a less fatal scale, what's stopping a person who can't stand watching television from stealing his neighbour's TV
--- End quote ---
Because the golden rule, in this case, is "Don't steal people's shit because you wouldn't want them to steal your shit", not "Disliking television programming means you can steal someone else's device for watching it".
--- Quote ---So yeah, it's good in most situations but to be honest it doesn't really help in the areas where ethics are most needed. Most people have a pretty good intuitive idea that stealing is bad.
--- End quote ---
Because stealing being bad is covered by the Golden Rule.
Edible:
--- Quote from: zerodrone on 27 Jan 2008, 14:11 ---
--- Quote from: John Curtin on 27 Jan 2008, 04:17 ---My counterexample to it would be a person who wishes to be killed in a car accident. If that person follows the golden rule then there is no reason for him/her to not deliberately seek to cause a fatal car accident on the autobahn.
--- End quote ---
That's rhetorical simplification that is just silly and I think we can disregard it as statistically insignificant.
--- End quote ---
Ok, how about If I like to play music really loud, and people in the immediate area around me dont, If I would tolerate their loud music, should I not worry about their opinion of it.
Peoples my point before was that nothing should be above question and that people should never take one thing as the "truth" and refuse to question it, not that there is always a more valid argument to any point.
Jackie Blue:
There are logically consistent arguments against the Golden Rule (I posted some) but yours isn't.
Let's take your first example: "I want to be killed in a car crash."
It's an oversimplification - what that person really means is "I would be pleased to be killed in a car crash."
Therefore it doesn't logically follow that it would be OK for that person to go out and get in a car crash with someone who, and here's the key part, wouldn't be pleased about it.
Same applies to your loud music argument. You're positing that you would tolerate, or enjoy, loud music around you. That's fine. But the point is not that this gives you the right to play loud music; the point is that you would be causing them pain or displeasure.
Do not cause displeasure in others because you wouldn't want them to cause displeasure in you.
You're setting up straw men, not taking into account the entirety of the situations you're describing.
bbqrocks:
Do not cause displeasure in others because you wouldn't want them to cause displeasure in you.
But what if you did want them to cause displeasure in you?
Jackie Blue:
By definition, if you want someone to cause you displeasure, then it is actually pleasure. (See: masochism.)
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version