3 ms·

>> 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

>> 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
    >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. your initial reply: >If everyone did what you suggest, we'd all be dead. Instead we cooperate because we're gifted with theory of mind. This is moot because not everyone is doing as I suggest. A murderer doesn't think "wait, if I kill, that might lead to a world in which everyone would kill" because that's ridiculous and it won't happen. Seeing as that's the only reason you can provide for the golden rule, and it's not a very logical reason, we can conclude that following the golden rule is not rational, regardless of whether it is innate.
    - 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. > your initial reply: > > > > If everyone did what you suggest, we'd all be dead. Instead we cooperate because we're gifted with theory of mind. You've failed to demonstrate what I asked: quote the text where I mentioned not wanting to live in such a world > A murderer doesn't think "wait, if I kill, that might lead to a world in which everyone would kill" And you present a bait-and-switch argument. Just because a killer is irrational doesn't mean the Golden Rule isn't logical.
      - vivekd 9y ago
        >And you present a bait-and-switch argument. Just because a killer is irrational doesn't mean the Golden Rule isn't logical. I'm not seeing the logical flow, perhaps you can point it out to me: John wants Tim's wife, Marcy. Marcy is not happy with Tim, and she is in love with John. However, John knows that Marcy will never marry him while married to Tim. One day John and Tim are out for a Swim in the lake and Tim begins to Drown. John can save him but decides not to knowing that he will never get caught for the murder. After letting Tim die, John seduces his wife. Before the murder, John has a consideration "wait, if everyone killed, that would lead to an unpleasant world where I may get killed myself." Then John comes to his senses and realizes: 1. No one is going to find out so it is impossible that my actions will influence anybody. 2. This consideration of what happens if everyone kills is not relevant to my current act of killing Tim as killing Tim is very unlikely to result in everyone killing. Thus, John realizes it is advantageous to kill Tim and John and Marcy live happily every after. Please point out to me the logical (not moral, but logical ) flaw in John's reasoning:

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
  >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. your initial reply: >If everyone did what you suggest, we'd all be dead. Instead we cooperate because we're gifted with theory of mind. This is moot because not everyone is doing as I suggest. A murderer doesn't think "wait, if I kill, that might lead to a world in which everyone would kill" because that's ridiculous and it won't happen. Seeing as that's the only reason you can provide for the golden rule, and it's not a very logical reason, we can conclude that following the golden rule is not rational, regardless of whether it is innate.
  - 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. > your initial reply: > > > > If everyone did what you suggest, we'd all be dead. Instead we cooperate because we're gifted with theory of mind. You've failed to demonstrate what I asked: quote the text where I mentioned not wanting to live in such a world > A murderer doesn't think "wait, if I kill, that might lead to a world in which everyone would kill" And you present a bait-and-switch argument. Just because a killer is irrational doesn't mean the Golden Rule isn't logical.
    - vivekd 9y ago
      >And you present a bait-and-switch argument. Just because a killer is irrational doesn't mean the Golden Rule isn't logical. I'm not seeing the logical flow, perhaps you can point it out to me: John wants Tim's wife, Marcy. Marcy is not happy with Tim, and she is in love with John. However, John knows that Marcy will never marry him while married to Tim. One day John and Tim are out for a Swim in the lake and Tim begins to Drown. John can save him but decides not to knowing that he will never get caught for the murder. After letting Tim die, John seduces his wife. Before the murder, John has a consideration "wait, if everyone killed, that would lead to an unpleasant world where I may get killed myself." Then John comes to his senses and realizes: 1. No one is going to find out so it is impossible that my actions will influence anybody. 2. This consideration of what happens if everyone kills is not relevant to my current act of killing Tim as killing Tim is very unlikely to result in everyone killing. Thus, John realizes it is advantageous to kill Tim and John and Marcy live happily every after. Please point out to me the logical (not moral, but logical ) flaw in John's reasoning: