ewp@ihuxn.UUCP (07/14/83)
I will try to clarify some points about my explanation of the Golden Rule. Laura Creighton states that *I* concluded being fed to the crocs, etc. was not good in the reply where she misspells my name, but I won't mention that. I didn't conclude that. The original article used these as examples of where the Golden Rule breaks down. *That* is where the implication that the actions are not good comes from. Alan Wexelblat thinks I missed the point. I understood that you were trying to show how the Golden Rule fails to work as a means of deciding what is the *good* or *moral* thing to do. What I was trying to explain is that I think you are misinterpreting the Golden Rule and that is part of the reason that it results in "immoral" actions. For example, the heroin addict doesn't necessarily feel that everyone should be a heroin addict. That person may not even want to be one. You must allow some intelligence on the part of the people involved. I may like blue suede shoes, and think that everyone would like them, if they were shown just how neat they are. I also know that everyone else may not feel that way. If I am sincere in my beliefs, I may try to "help" you by getting you to buy some blue suede shoes, or even give you a pair, but if you just didn't like them I would stop. I would have to consider your viewpoint. In the case where it is something of ultimate importance, like eternal bliss, I may do more. This is where you claim the rule fails and I disagree. I don't see what the Indians who fed the Spaniard to the crocodile did that could be considered *immoral* on their part. They did what they thought was in the best interest of their friend. You claim it was not. What if they are right? You merely see a different action as being in the best interest of the Spaniard. How does that make you right and the Indians wrong? Doing what you feel is moral may not in reality be in the best interest of others (ie they may have been wrong). Humans are fallible in their judgement. One human has no way of knowing what is in the *best* interest of another. Sometimes we don't even know what is in our own best interest. If a parent tells a child, "Eat your vegetables so you can grow up to be an engineer just like mommy," is that immoral if the child doesn't like vegetables? In dealing with other people, the best, most *moral*, way of acting is by doing what is in the interest of others as well as ourselves. This is what the Golden Rule says. It may take a lot of thought. We may have to study some problems in great depth and learn more about ourselves. We may not always do what is ultimately the "best", but all you can do is try. Ed Pawlak ihnp4!ihuxn!ewp
wex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) (07/15/83)
I really seem to be failing to get my point across. Let me give it one more (short) shot: I make several claims (see preceding articles for arguments; i don't want to repeat them here): 1) The Golden Rule is not usable as a basis for morality. 2) Neither is it a useful instruction when considering the 'best interests' of a person. Only the person can say what his own best interests are. Morality is an attempt to legislate things that are thought to be in the best interests of all. See point 1. 3) Doing what is moral may be contrary to the best interests of the party concerned, and vice versa. You cannot say that one or the other (of morality / best interests) is more important in all cases. 4) Absolute morality is doomed to failure. If Kant couldn't do it, what makes you think you have a better idea? (Note, this is not intended as derogatory, merely to indicate that I have studied the works of some of the greatest moralists of all time, and if you have a better theory, please explain it.) 5) Without non-moral goods existing, there CANNOT be moral goods. 6) The only common non-moral goods I can find are those that promote survival. This leads to: 7) Is a person who does not care about his own survival required to be moral? If so, by what theory do you say this? This is actually longer than I intended, so I'll stop here. I don't think I have any answers, folks, just a whole lot of questions. --Alan Wexelblat decvax!ittvax!wex