View Single Post
Old 01-06-2010, 10:28 AM   #115
Dapper Chimp
Achilles's Avatar
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,227
Current Game: Pillars of Eternity
10 year veteran!  Helpful!  Veteran Modder  Forum Veteran 
Originally Posted by purifier View Post
Okay. Can you give me some examples from your own point of view, as to why the "golden rule" has problems.
How about starting with the example that you included in the quote above.

Re: disputing with judges - under the golden rule, a judge could let a person go because that is how they would want to be treated. Under the categorical imperative, the judge should act in the manner that is just, not in the manner in which they would wish to be treated. Hence why the golden rule has problems that are not present under the categorical imparative.

Originally Posted by purifier View Post
Well now don't get me wrong. I wasn't trying to imply, in my earlier statement, that it should be rejected or ignored. But that it might be a little hard to comprehend for some individuals, that's really all that I was indicating. And I don't see any harm at trying to read and understand it, I did, but any individual who does (and can understand it's concept's) should be able to make there own judgement about it; and whether it's right for them or not, etc.
So some people should be excused from morality because the concepts are too difficult for them to comprehend?

In fact, let's back up a step further: do you believe that morality is relative? In other words, is it okay to murder someone just because you don't believe (or haven't been told) that it is wrong?

Originally Posted by purifier View Post
Yep, agreed, only I say...via "The Golden Rule".
My apologies, but this statement doesn't even make any sense. The "golden rule" is a the product of religion. Your argument contains a contradiction.

By way of comparision, the categorical imperative is not derived from religion at all.

Originally Posted by purifier View Post
Thank you. I'm going to take look at these and I think one of them might be in my local library. The first book you suggested looks really interesting too.
You're welcome. Russell's book is a collection of essays, therefore might be a better place to start. It's been around for a while, so I would be very surprised if your local library didn't have a copy.

Originally Posted by purifier View Post
Well once again Achilles we are in agreement, except I don't think I could or would get over it. I gotta keep searching for the real answer, that's just me, the truth is out there somewhere. ( Now I know I made a bad X-Files joke, but I really believe it is.)
Okay, but now I'm even more confused. I don't understand how you can differentiate between a "real" answer and a..."non-real" answer unless you had some process or methodology for identifying the two. Whether you realize it or not, that process is, by it's very nature going to be some flavor of the scientific method.

I have no doubt that you sincerely believe that you after the truth. But when you tell me that you're willing to accept a made up "answer" just because it allows you to "fill a blank space on a page" (using a metaphor here), then I have to think that you're falling short of your own ideals. Sometimes the "truth" is "insufficient data". That's just a fact of life.
Achilles is offline   you may: