1 edit
Originally posted by FMFYou miss my point. We rationalize that people are not our equals, so that we are free to bypass the golden rule and mistreat them for our own benefit
I can't recall anyone on this forum ever referring to Jewish people as "vermin Jews" apart from you.
For example, how do we treat animals? We put them in zoos into captivity, we use them as beasts of burden, and we kill and eat them. We are free to do so because they are not our equals.
That is why historically, certain segments of society are deemed "inferior", much like black slaves in the 1800's were viewed as glorified apes.
Originally posted by vistesdOne of the problems with our interpretation of The Golden Rule is that nearly all of us follow it to some degree or another, treating others like we wish to be treated.
Whether you treat others well or badly,
I only wish you upon yourself.
The interpretation's weakness, as I have learned, is that people would do better to treat others as they wish to be treated.
If my personality is withdrawn and leans toward reticence, I'm probably not equipped or prepared to treat someone who wants an aggressive extroverted relationship.
Tailoring our 'serve' to the wishes of others addresses this gap.
Originally posted by whodeyTwo questions come to mind.
You miss my point. We rationalize that people are not our equals, so that we are free to bypass the golden rule and mistreat them for our own benefit
For example, how do we treat animals? We put them in zoos into captivity, we use them as beasts of burden, and we kill and eat them. We are free to do so because they are not our equals.
That is why his ...[text shortened]... ciety are deemed "inferior", much like black slaves in the 1800's were viewed as glorified apes.
You are admitting you bypass the 'golden rule' to mistreat people?
Who is it you personally rationalise as not being your equals?
Originally posted by whodeyA third matter arising.
For example, how do we treat animals? We put them in zoos into captivity, we use them as beasts of burden, and we kill and eat them. We are free to do so because they are not our equals.
Don't you believe your God figure, as described in ancient Hebrew mythology, wanted humans to own, use and eat animals?
Originally posted by FreakyKBHWell put.
One of the problems with our interpretation of The Golden Rule is that nearly all of us follow it to some degree or another, treating others like we wish to be treated.
The interpretation's weakness, as I have learned, is that people would do better to treat others as they wish to be treated.
If my personality is withdrawn and leans toward ret ...[text shortened]... e extroverted relationship.
Tailoring our 'serve' to the wishes of others addresses this gap.
Though one can find a weakness, I suspect, in any generalized ethical rule. I am reminded of the old joke:
Masochist: "Beat me, torture me, hurt me!."
Sadist: "No."
Originally posted by whodeyYou are not my equal but I would not mistreat you.
You miss my point. We rationalize that people are not our equals, so that we are free to bypass the golden rule and mistreat them for our own benefit
.
Surely it is the weak and defenceless that we should treat well?
Who would want to mistreat a child, criminal, madman, animal ...
just because they were not our "equal"???
Originally posted by whodeyI think this is clearer if you agree that "equals" can be replaced by "kind."
You miss my point. We rationalize that people are not our equals, so that we are free to bypass the golden rule and mistreat them for our own benefit
For example, how do we treat animals? We put them in zoos into captivity, we use them as beasts of burden, and we kill and eat them. We are free to do so because they are not our equals.
That is why his ...[text shortened]... ciety are deemed "inferior", much like black slaves in the 1800's were viewed as glorified apes.
Originally posted by wolfgang59whodey has a good point, he just had difficulty expressing it.
You are not my equal but I would not mistreat you.
Surely it is the weak and defenceless that we should treat well?
Who would want to mistreat a child, criminal, madman, animal ...
just because they were not our "equal"???
He is saying that if most people apply morals and moral rules to their own group and not beyond or when they do go beyond, they have a modified form. Even the 'golden rule' talks of 'neighbour' and not 'anybody'.
I think that to some extent you do think of children, criminals, madmen and animals as equals. Maybe 'equals' is the wrong word. Whatever makes you say 'they have rights too' or 'they have feelings too'.
Originally posted by JS357'Kind' isn't necessarily the right word either. We can have empathy for animals and no empathy for someone only marginally different from us. Sexism is essentially saying 'Oh, she's just a woman, so it doesn't matter'.
I think this is clearer if you agree that "equals" can be replaced by "kind."