3 ms·

> No it's not logical, it's completely irrational. Are you suggesting that the Golden Rule must be a divine law because it couldn't come from human reasoning a

> No it's not logical, it's completely irrational. Are you suggesting that the Golden Rule must be a divine law because it couldn't come from human reasoning alone? “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or in simpler, less frilly terms treat others as you would want them to treat you is a basic form of preemptive reciprocity which even monkeys can grasp. Using deductive reasoning: if we can devise something as complex as language to describe our ideas, we can devise simple maxims. > If someone has something you want, and there is no way to get it, the rational thing to do is kill them and take it. In a constrained game-theory setting where 1.) there are only two players and 2.) it's something critical to remaining alive and it can't be shared, then you might have an argument. But squishy reality doesn't play well with half thought out game theory scenarios. If everyone did what you suggest, we'd all be dead. Instead we cooperate because we're gifted with theory of mind. > If morality were rational we would live in a world where people rarely do anything immoral because they realize it would be irrational to do so. Faulty reasoning - your position assumes all people are rational all of the time. We're bags of chemicals which in optimal conditions can be rational. Thankfully we have mechanisms to record our thoughts, including the odd rational ones we have which can then stand up to the test of time and consideration.

vivekd 9y ago
>Are you suggesting that the Golden Rule must be a divine law because it couldn't come from human reasoning alone? No Im saying there is no rational reason to choose golden rule over lying, cheating and pillaging. >But squishy reality doesn't play well with half thought out game theory scenarios. If everyone did what you suggest, we'd all be dead. But we dont live in that world where everyone does as I suggest. We live in a world where most people dont lie cheat or kill, and thus its rational to lie cheat and kill while maintaining the reasonable belief that others wont copy us. Some people, like those in severely war torn countries where there is little or no government do live in a world where many people do lie cheat and kill. In absolutely 0 cases have humans in that circumstance chosen the supposedly rational path advocated here. In fact, in that circumstance, the supposedly rational path of not killing in hopes that others won`t wont kill you seems naive and foolish. >Faulty reasoning - your position assumes all people are rational all of the time. We're bags of chemicals which in optimal conditions can be rational. Maybe but we do make rational decisions most of the time, we dont need people forcing us to behave rationally because thats sort of the default. If someone offers ice cream for 1 $ and I offer the same ice cream for $ 100 people will rationally choose my neighbors ice cream. This is rational. How about stealing or hitting, do we have to teach kids that or do they come to it by reason? Imagine a kid who is never punished for lying or hitting other kids, will he or she naturally derive that its wrong through reason.
- icanhackit 9y ago
  >> Are you suggesting that the Golden Rule must be a divine law because it couldn't come from human reasoning alone? > No Im saying there is no rational reason to choose golden rule over lying, cheating and pillaging. Then you'd fail at any game theory scenarios with a player base larger than 2. > But we dont live in that world where everyone does as I suggest. Circular and somewhat nonsensical reasoning. Yes, we live in a world where most people cooperate and some don't. I never made claims otherwise. Just because some people act irrationally doesn't invalidate the claim that the Golden Rule is logical. > do we have to teach kids that or do they come to it by reason? You're making the error of suggesting I posited that logic is innate in all people and even at the earliest stages in life - I never made that claim. What I am willing to assert: we can learn things, and humans can build mental frameworks which can be transferred to others by speech and text.
  - vivekd 9y ago
    >Circular and somewhat nonsensical reasoning. Yes, we live in a world where most people cooperate and some don't. I never made claims otherwise. Just because some people act irrationally doesn't invalidate the claim that the Golden Rule is logical. You seem to have missed the point. I was responding to your objection that if everyone killed we would all be in trouble so we shouldnt kill ourselves. My response was that we dont live in a world where everyone lies cheats and kills and there is no reasonable risk of others following my example if do lie cheat and kill. The mere fact that I kill someone wont create a world where everyone kills so your point about not wanting to live in such a world is moot.
    - icanhackit 9y ago
      > your point about not wanting to live in such a world is moot I never made a point about not wanting to live in any kind of world. Please quote the exact piece of text where I said such a thing. The original argument, made by you, was that the Golden Rule wasn't logical as I suggested. What you possibly meant to say is that it isn't innate -- as in something present in all of us from birth. I never posited that the Golden Rule is innate. Logic doesn't require all of humanity to follow it, to flow only within its boundaries like a fleshy stream, to validate it. It exists in spite of us.

vivekd 9y ago

>Are you suggesting that the Golden Rule must be a divine law because it couldn't come from human reasoning alone? No Im saying there is no rational reason to choose golden rule over lying, cheating and pillaging. >But squishy reality doesn't play well with half thought out game theory scenarios. If everyone did what you suggest, we'd all be dead. But we dont live in that world where everyone does as I suggest. We live in a world where most people dont lie cheat or kill, and thus its rational to lie cheat and kill while maintaining the reasonable belief that others wont copy us. Some people, like those in severely war torn countries where there is little or no government do live in a world where many people do lie cheat and kill. In absolutely 0 cases have humans in that circumstance chosen the supposedly rational path advocated here. In fact, in that circumstance, the supposedly rational path of not killing in hopes that others won`t wont kill you seems naive and foolish. >Faulty reasoning - your position assumes all people are rational all of the time. We're bags of chemicals which in optimal conditions can be rational. Maybe but we do make rational decisions most of the time, we dont need people forcing us to behave rationally because thats sort of the default. If someone offers ice cream for 1 $ and I offer the same ice cream for $ 100 people will rationally choose my neighbors ice cream. This is rational. How about stealing or hitting, do we have to teach kids that or do they come to it by reason? Imagine a kid who is never punished for lying or hitting other kids, will he or she naturally derive that its wrong through reason.

icanhackit 9y ago
>> Are you suggesting that the Golden Rule must be a divine law because it couldn't come from human reasoning alone? > No Im saying there is no rational reason to choose golden rule over lying, cheating and pillaging. Then you'd fail at any game theory scenarios with a player base larger than 2. > But we dont live in that world where everyone does as I suggest. Circular and somewhat nonsensical reasoning. Yes, we live in a world where most people cooperate and some don't. I never made claims otherwise. Just because some people act irrationally doesn't invalidate the claim that the Golden Rule is logical. > do we have to teach kids that or do they come to it by reason? You're making the error of suggesting I posited that logic is innate in all people and even at the earliest stages in life - I never made that claim. What I am willing to assert: we can learn things, and humans can build mental frameworks which can be transferred to others by speech and text.
- vivekd 9y ago
  >Circular and somewhat nonsensical reasoning. Yes, we live in a world where most people cooperate and some don't. I never made claims otherwise. Just because some people act irrationally doesn't invalidate the claim that the Golden Rule is logical. You seem to have missed the point. I was responding to your objection that if everyone killed we would all be in trouble so we shouldnt kill ourselves. My response was that we dont live in a world where everyone lies cheats and kills and there is no reasonable risk of others following my example if do lie cheat and kill. The mere fact that I kill someone wont create a world where everyone kills so your point about not wanting to live in such a world is moot.
  - icanhackit 9y ago
    > your point about not wanting to live in such a world is moot I never made a point about not wanting to live in any kind of world. Please quote the exact piece of text where I said such a thing. The original argument, made by you, was that the Golden Rule wasn't logical as I suggested. What you possibly meant to say is that it isn't innate -- as in something present in all of us from birth. I never posited that the Golden Rule is innate. Logic doesn't require all of humanity to follow it, to flow only within its boundaries like a fleshy stream, to validate it. It exists in spite of us.