the golden rule for this life

[Thief]

it seems some people are willing to.....
Do unto others as they would have it done unto them
but do not believe in the afterlife

as there is no life after death.....(not my belief)
why not do as you see fit?
every man for himself
take all you can ....give nothing back (Capt. Jack Sparrow)

a pirates life under a pirates code

 

[Darkstorn]

why not do as you see fit?

You don't think atheists don't already do as they see fit? The other option is someone else giving them orders from higher up.

/E: I'd also argue that my personal well-being is entirely dependent upon the environment around me. So, in the end, it's better for me to treat others as i would expect them to treat me.

I think part of the problem is you thinking this golden rule thingy is something unique to Christianity. But it's actually an universal concept found in almost ALL religions. But in most of them only in theory.

For example, i've never seen a Christian treat me as an equal.

I would also say that's it's one of the principle tenets of humanism in general as well.

 

[bobhikes]

it seems some people are willing to.....
Do unto others as they would have it done unto them
but do not believe in the afterlife

as there is no life after death.....(not my belief)
why not do as you see fit?
every man for himself
take all you can ....give nothing back (Capt. Jack Sparrow)

a pirates life under a pirates code

That only works if most people believe Do unto others as they would have it done unto them. If everyone believed take all you can, give nothing back there would be no life, just a lot of death.

 

[Darkstorn]

If everyone believed take all you can, give nothing back there would be no life, just a lot of death.

It's not actually this simple, to be honest.

I would argue that in a post-scarcity society "giving back" would no longer be an issue in the first place.

 

[DavidFirth]

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is pretty much just good common sense.

 

[bobhikes]

It's not actually this simple, to be honest.

I would argue that in a post-scarcity society "giving back" would no longer be an issue in the first place.

My arguement would be that to get to a post-scarcity society you would need a lot of death. I would also argue there is no such thing as post-scarcity unless humans lose ego. If humans lose ego you wouldn't have wants only needs.

 

[DavidFirth]

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is pretty much just good common sense.

What gets me is why doesn't everybody do it?

 

[Daemon Sophic]

Atheists, agnostics, and others who do not believe in some magical post-death judgment, live by the basics of the golden rule because it is a fundamental, inherent part of being a human being.
It is not ordained from upon high, but rather a biologically, socially, and intellectually indisputable route for creating a better future world; a better life for our descendants; and even a better life for ourselves.
Denial of the golden rule and living by the glaringly shortsighted "pirate code" would quickly result in widespread anarchy, death, famine, and sorrow.

It is the fact that we nonbelievers all understand that we only have this one life to make things right in, one life to make sure that our children and our neighbors children will have less sorrow and less strife than we had to work through, that guides all of us toward the basic rule of civilization and decency that you know as 'the golden rule'. Believers in the magical judgment don't get one simple, inherent, and very practical point about our own selves, our society that we live in, our world, or even our entire universe.

....and that simple point is......

It's not about you.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

why not do as you see fit?

Why not do as you see fit WITH an afterlife belief, especially if you think simple belief will get you off scot-free? You may not personally feel that way, but there are plenty of people who seem to think a shallow boot-licking declaration is all that is required to get into heaven.

take all you can ....give nothing back (Capt. Jack Sparrow)

Cap'n was also a lot nicer and more generous than he let on, though. He is akin to the Jesus parable about saying you will or won't but then doing the opposite. He could've made a mint on slavery but refused, etc., as well. It's also implied that he's not even that drunk, but utilizes a sort of custom "drunken style" fighting to confuse his opponents. He's had at least a couple of options for immortality in the movies so far and yet always ends up ruining it for himself to help someone else. Don't judge a pirate by his eyepatch.

For example, i've never seen a Christian treat me as an equal.

That's a shame. I would.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you is pretty much just good common sense.

Unless you like being tortured or something.

 

[HonestJoe]

it seems some people are willing to.....

Do unto others as they would have it done unto them

I’m not convinced that’s actually the case . In my experience people (religious or not) tend to expect more from others than they’re willing to give themselves. I’m also not convinced belief in an afterlife actually influences most believers day-to-day actions at this level, it’s much more fundamental social conventions, expectations and habits indoctrinated from childhood that we all follow regardless.

 

[Darkstorn]

My arguement would be that to get to a post-scarcity society you would need a lot of death.

But you don't explain in the statement itself WHY you would need a lot of death. So, while it might be a possibility, it's not obvious or inherent in the claim itself. So i can't just accept your claim as is.

A post-scarcity society implies production FAR exceeds needs. And in a lot of cases, wants too. Why would death be a pre-requisite for... Essentially a much higher efficiency and nothing else? And most models involve machines eventually performing ALL mundane work.

I simply do not see death as a pre-requisite, unless you refer to natural means as in evolution. In that case i agree: It'll take a long time of both physical and societal evolution from us to reach such a stage.

I would also argue there is no such thing as post-scarcity unless humans lose ego. If humans lose ego you wouldn't have wants only needs.

A post-scarcity society would typically also fulfill everyone's wants. This can be achieved by your way, yes, or by increasing production. I.E either you produce everything everyone wants, or you simply start wanting less.

This is obviously entirely hypothetical. We are extremely far away from even approaching something like a post-scarcity society.

 

[bobhikes]

This is obviously entirely hypothetical .

The problem with wants are they have nothing to do with rational thoughts. For example Sheldon can believe a napkin that wiped Leonard Nimoy's lips the most vaulable thing in the world. Even if you had a machine that would generate it perfectly, Sheldon would only want the one that actually touched Leonard Nimoy's lips. You know the phrase keeping up with the Jones. What that means is that we find things vaulable because others have them(Ego). Unless you get rid of (ego) you could never get rid of scarcity.

 

[Thief]

You don't think atheists don't already do as they see fit? The other option is someone else giving them orders from higher up.

/E: I'd also argue that my personal well-being is entirely dependent upon the environment around me. So, in the end, it's better for me to treat others as i would expect them to treat me.

I think part of the problem is you thinking this golden rule thingy is something unique to Christianity. But it's actually an universal concept found in almost ALL religions. But in most of them only in theory.

For example, i've never seen a Christian treat me as an equal.

I would also say that's it's one of the principle tenets of humanism in general as well.

yep....and I have seen an archaeologist make report...
the golden rule was carved in stone at least a thousand years before the Carpenter walked
(which is why the Pharisees sought to kill Him.....quoting heathen law in preference to Moses)

 

[Thief]

I’m not convinced that’s actually the case . In my experience people (religious or not) tend to expect more from others than they’re willing to give themselves. I’m also not convinced belief in an afterlife actually influences most believers day-to-day actions at this level, it’s much more fundamental social conventions, expectations and habits indoctrinated from childhood that we all follow regardless.

oh yeah.....good point

 

[Thief]

Atheists, agnostics, and others who do not believe in some magical post-death judgment, live by the basics of the golden rule because it is a fundamental, inherent part of being a human being.
It is not ordained from upon high, but rather a biologically, socially, and intellectually indisputable route for creating a better future world; a better life for our descendants; and even a better life for ourselves.
Denial of the golden rule and living by the glaringly shortsighted "pirate code" would quickly result in widespread anarchy, death, famine, and sorrow.

It is the fact that we nonbelievers all understand that we only have this one life to make things right in, one life to make sure that our children and our neighbors children will have less sorrow and less strife than we had to work through, that guides all of us toward the basic rule of civilization and decency that you know as 'the golden rule'. Believers in the magical judgment don't get one simple, inherent, and very practical point about our own selves, our society that we live in, our world, or even our entire universe.

....and that simple point is......

It's not about you.

I cannot agree.
I suspect the onset of Man was quite different
go forth, be fruitful, multiply and dominate all things

which was fine until Man turned that ability unto his fellowman
(which is why I believe the garden event became a needful reboot)

 

[Darkstorn]

The problem with wants are they have nothing to do with rational thoughts.

This sounds like an extreme statement without supporting evidence. I could dismiss it without evidence as well. And i will.

I say wants can be completely rational. You wanting to let go of ego is rational for example.

For example Sheldon can believe a napkin that wiped Leonard Nimoy's lips the most vaulable thing in the world. Even if you had a machine that would generate it perfectly, Sheldon would only want the one that actually touched Leonard Nimoy's lips.

I don't think that's actually irrational at all. If you want a napkin that wiped Nimoy's lips, then you most certainly would not settle for something that doesn't fulfill those conditions. Accepting something else as the very thing you wanted would be irrational.

You know the phrase keeping up with the Jones. What that means is that we find things vaulable because others have them(Ego).

I don't think people are actually that simplistic. I could for example want things that are valuable, because they are worth a lot of money.

Plus it wouldn't matter. In the context of a hypothetical post-scarcity society, ALL your rational wants could be fulfilled.

And i would argue that wants can be rational: For example when they don't conditionally demand breaking the laws of physics.

Unless you get rid of (ego) you could never get rid of scarcity.

I think you're making an extreme statement but fail to support it.

I would argue that if you had no sense of wants, then you wouldn't have any reason to work towards a post-scarcity society anyway. So i'm just going to say, ego has nothing to do with it.

And that wanting to get rid of one's ego is still a want.

 

[LuisDantas]

as there is no life after death.....(not my belief)
why not do as you see fit?

There is no real difference between the two.

The Golden Rule (and its derivatives informed by Utilitarist Ethics) are the logical, rational choice.

 

[bobhikes]

I don't think that's actually irrational at all. If you want a napkin that wiped Nimoy's lips, then you most certainly would not settle for something that doesn't fulfill those conditions. Accepting something else as the very thing you wanted would be irrational.



I don't think people are actually that simplistic. I could for example want things that are valuable, because they are worth a lot of money.
Plus it wouldn't matter. In the context of a hypothetical post-scarcity society, ALL your rational wants could be fulfilled.
And i would argue that wants can be rational: For example when they don't conditionally demand breaking the laws of physics.



I think you're making an extreme statement but fail to support it.
I would argue that if you had no sense of wants, then you wouldn't have any reason to work towards a post-scarcity society anyway. So i'm just going to say, ego has nothing to do with it.
And that wanting to get rid of one's ego is still a want.

Last asked first reply. You admit that you post-scarcity society is entirely hypothetical and yet I am making the extreme statement. Even without wants needs still lead to scarcity all it takes is one natural disaster or unlimited population so your arguement is wrong.

Wants can be rational yes but they also can be irrational. How much do Sports players, Actors and Politicians make. Why do they make this much money is it because everyone is rational and treats they as regular people. How many people by a shirt because it has a Player or Actors name on it. I guess it all depends on how you define rational.

As to the Sheldon senerio the problem is not the Sheldon is rational or not about getting the Lenord Nimoy napkin, it is that 100's if not 1000's of people will also want it and these people will not except the machine made version. The napkin will be a scarcity.

 

[Darkstorn]

Last asked first reply. You admit that you post-scarcity society is entirely hypothetical and yet I am making the extreme statement.

Yes.

You are claiming that "The problem with wants are they have nothing to do with rational thoughts."

I can simply dismiss it without evidence. I am not doing this out of spite: Remember, this is a debate forum. My example is hypothetical entirely, yes. But you are actually making a statement of reality. Without evidence.

I can simply reply with "wants can be rational." Due to the very nature of your statement: There was no evidence, so i don't need evidence to dismiss it. Sorry.

Even without wants needs still lead to scarcity all it takes is one natural disaster or unlimited population so your arguement is wrong.

That just makes no sense. ONE natural disaster? How about all the natural disasters we've faced until now? Our society is not in ruins overall, even though certain parts are always affected.

Thirdly: In a post-scarcity society, how would population even be an issue? If there's "unlimited population" then there is also "unlimited living space."

Wants can be rational yes but they also can be irrational.

Yes.

You however said this: "The problem with wants are they have nothing to do with rational thoughts."

While i was saying what you're saying now.

How much do Sports players, Actors and Politicians make. Why do they make this much money is it because everyone is rational and treats they as regular people. How many people by a shirt because it has a Player or Actors name on it. I guess it all depends on how you define rational.

Yes. It all depends on how you define rational.

As to the Sheldon senerio the problem is not the Sheldon is rational or not about getting the Lenord Nimoy napkin, it is that 100's if not 1000's of people will also want it and these people will not except the machine made version. The napkin will be a scarcity.

Yes. But i never said you shouldn't get rid of some wants. It WOULD be irrational to want multiple instances of a thing that only exists in one instance. For example.

If you know it's not possible, but you will not give it up, then it is irrational.

I am actually a Buddhist, but i prefer talking in the hypothetical, and ignoring my own subjective opinion of the argument i'm presenting. But i actually agree that a lot of wants are destructive and will only end in disappointment or suffering eventually.

But: Wants can still be rational, and they can still be of benefit. Bear in mind, even the Buddhist path begins from want: Of something.

 

[bobhikes]

Yes.

I am actually a Buddhist, but i prefer talking in the hypothetical, and ignoring my own subjective opinion of the argument i'm presenting. But i actually agree that a lot of wants are destructive and will only end in disappointment or suffering eventually.

But: Wants can still be rational, and they can still be of benefit. Bear in mind, even the Buddhist path begins from want: Of something.

Basically the difference is how we see humanity. For me your rational arguement for Humanity is the same as your arguement for a post-scarcity society, extremely hypothetical. I doubt we could ever come to an agreement.