Deeming Regulations have been released!!!!
- Thread starter Oliver
- Start date
- th_trl_thread_readers 0
That is a great philosophy but it isn't strong enough emotionally to charge the whole country to overcome political differences.
Immanuel Kant famously criticized the golden rule for not being sensitive to differences of situation, noting that a prisoner duly convicted of a crime could appeal to the golden rule while asking the judge to release him, pointing out that the judge would not want anyone else to send him to prison, so he should not do so to others. ;-)
The flaw in that is that if the rule had been followed the man would have never committed a crime to be sent to prison in the first place, thereby negating then entire situation.
It is an individual philosophy of life to be lived. Emotional charge is short lived, you referenced 9/11. What followed 9/11 was an emotional reaction which dissipated rather quickly and gave us the "Patriot Act". Personally, I'll pass on a unifying emotional response, if prolonged they generally degenerate into a French or Bolshevik revolution. I am not trying to be argumentative but I want no part of an emotional movement. Where goes the crowd, I go elsewhere.
The 'flaw' in that is that you're changing the context.
In the context given, with regards to prison, it is absolutely right.
The 'flaw' in that is that you're changing the context.
I didn't change the context. You can't go around robbing people, killing people, or committing other crimes, then cry that people treat you like they want to be treated. If the man had followed the Golden Rule, he wouldn't have committed the crimes. If he did commit the crimes, then he loses the ability to claim that rule as a defense because he didn't follow it. Simple logic really. The Golden Rule is a philosophy of life, not a law.
The 'flaw' in that is that you're changing the context.
Well, for whatever it is worth, I am with Scott on this and your argument reminded me of the chicken or egg. Essentially the prisoner is asking that the rule be followed in his case as prisoner but in case his case a criminal he is free to break the rule. Cake having while eating it, too.
I took a Comparative Religion class in college. Despite homework assignments like "Read the New Testament this week," well, I must say, I got to read and compare a LOT of religious tenants.
They all had flaws. They all had one common theme, which I boiled down to something not quite printable here: "Don't be a (censored). Just don't do that and it's all going to be fine."
Sadly, when one becomes rabidly focused on one side or the other, one tends to forget, "Oh, right, I shouldn't be a (censored).
If we could all just act less like, well, (censored) and if the penalty were not, "Treat others as you wish to be treated," which doesn't even work in SCHOOLS, oh my Gosh, well, if instead it were:
"Don't be a (censored)" and once one's personal rights infringe on those of others, well, that's the time to be looking at issues.
And behavior that isn't "being a (censored)" does include:
Tolerance of others and their needs.
Keeping personal control over one's own behaviors.
Allowing states rights
Allowing free trade.
Fair and just taxation (although I think the big J would have had an issue with that one).
Not accusing others of being "sinners" for vaping/smoking/drinking anything UNLESS it endangers the lives or wellbeing of others.
Allowing schools/neighborhoods/clubs/whatever to be self-policing to an extent.
Sigh, I could go on. They're all fairly sensible things but unfortunately of late, politics has been rather "shrill" with both sides having fits, and both sides accusing each other which is really a Political Play for "How will I take your money/freedom etc."
I'm afraid I figured that out after a few news cycles of "screaming death, war, bird flu, here's a cute story about a kid (probably some dastardly thing was getting passed in Congress), OH WAIT the volcano could kill us all.... Mild economic upturn.... Higher tax rate for "insert group" racism, more racism, or sexism."
I consider it mostly "show" at this point. I'd rather rally around the "Don't be a (censored)" cry, personally. I will often repeat it to myself if agitated about an old lady crossing my path at Safeway or whatever.
The golden rule isn't actually helpful, because I might treat someone like *I* want to be treated, and well they might consider that OFFENSIVE.
If I'm trying my hardest not to be a (censored), I have usually found that I cause LESS offense. I can gently usher a woman carrying a baby in front of me even if I'm in a hurry, and that's usually better (and feels better) than BEING a "censored." Also, if I offend someone inadvertently, the move is much better if I can say, "Oh, I'll argue my VALUES, darn it," or I can leave said person's values alone, and not be a (censored.)
Getting the government to not be a (censored)??
We'd need to begin anew.
Anna
They all had flaws. They all had one common theme, which I boiled down to something not quite printable here: "Don't be a (censored). Just don't do that and it's all going to be fine."
Sadly, when one becomes rabidly focused on one side or the other, one tends to forget, "Oh, right, I shouldn't be a (censored).
If we could all just act less like, well, (censored) and if the penalty were not, "Treat others as you wish to be treated," which doesn't even work in SCHOOLS, oh my Gosh, well, if instead it were:
"Don't be a (censored)" and once one's personal rights infringe on those of others, well, that's the time to be looking at issues.
And behavior that isn't "being a (censored)" does include:
Tolerance of others and their needs.
Keeping personal control over one's own behaviors.
Allowing states rights
Allowing free trade.
Fair and just taxation (although I think the big J would have had an issue with that one).
Not accusing others of being "sinners" for vaping/smoking/drinking anything UNLESS it endangers the lives or wellbeing of others.
Allowing schools/neighborhoods/clubs/whatever to be self-policing to an extent.
Sigh, I could go on. They're all fairly sensible things but unfortunately of late, politics has been rather "shrill" with both sides having fits, and both sides accusing each other which is really a Political Play for "How will I take your money/freedom etc."
I'm afraid I figured that out after a few news cycles of "screaming death, war, bird flu, here's a cute story about a kid (probably some dastardly thing was getting passed in Congress), OH WAIT the volcano could kill us all.... Mild economic upturn.... Higher tax rate for "insert group" racism, more racism, or sexism."
I consider it mostly "show" at this point. I'd rather rally around the "Don't be a (censored)" cry, personally. I will often repeat it to myself if agitated about an old lady crossing my path at Safeway or whatever.
The golden rule isn't actually helpful, because I might treat someone like *I* want to be treated, and well they might consider that OFFENSIVE.
If I'm trying my hardest not to be a (censored), I have usually found that I cause LESS offense. I can gently usher a woman carrying a baby in front of me even if I'm in a hurry, and that's usually better (and feels better) than BEING a "censored." Also, if I offend someone inadvertently, the move is much better if I can say, "Oh, I'll argue my VALUES, darn it," or I can leave said person's values alone, and not be a (censored.)
Getting the government to not be a (censored)??
We'd need to begin anew.
Anna
"I didn't change the context."
Yes you did - either that or you're reading more into what was posted.
Your context - is the crime - (which I agree completely). Kant's context was after the crime where punishment was to be decided. Within that context only, the 'golden rule' doesn't work with the judge.
One could point out another 'flaw' - what is someone with my avi doing citing Kant, lol - but that would involve having more information than is normally seen around here.
See my response to Scott. Kant isolates the context, on purpose, to make a rather good point. There are other problems with the golden rule - that's just one.
I am out, soon we will be discussing how many angels will dance on the head of a pin. We are in the midst of societal entropy and no force on earth will stop it.
As I posted in another thread, I'm in Rome for a month. Smoking is much more common here than in the US. Vaping I think exists less commonly, but does exist. Neither one is demonized. Although smoking is discouraged, and taxed, it isn't demonized. Although smoking is prohibited in places such as the airport, vaping is perfectly acceptable there. Which I knew from my last trip. I happily vaped in the airport awaiting my flight while the smokers were closeted into a glass lined tiny lounge. I sat there vaping away and someone occasionally looked over at my exhalations, no one said a word. But the smokers do have a lounge, segregated from others. Not encouraged behavior, but it's understood that adults have that right, and those who don't partake are protected from the fumes.
IMHO, it's all about our puritan culture in the US. And our over protectiveness of "children." Sure, it's proper to set a good example, and sure it's good to guide the kids away from harmful behavior. But, good grief, I was a kid and I did what I wanted to, in secret or not. The kiddie thing is a ruse.
IMHO, it's all about our puritan culture in the US. And our over protectiveness of "children." Sure, it's proper to set a good example, and sure it's good to guide the kids away from harmful behavior. But, good grief, I was a kid and I did what I wanted to, in secret or not. The kiddie thing is a ruse.
Similar threads
- Locked
