Well, I have to say that that's not the way I see it. For one, if you did live by that rule, you wouldn't murder someone in the first place. For another, the way I see it, it's not just about how you would want to be treated but also how you should be treated. If I do something that warrants a punishment, I don't really want the punishment, but I also understand that I should be punished.
That's a fair perspective. It's not that there aren't arguments that make the Golden Rule make sense. I just think that the foundation of morality shouldn't need apologetics. Did that make sense?
Maybe the Wicca way of putting it is better, "An' it harm none". Does that fit you better?
Yes, it does. Of course, then the problem becomes how one defines "harm."
So, what would you say about that then? How would you word that as a rule?
Hmm. "While use of force should always be a last resort, it is sometimes necessary. We have an obligation to protect one another from harm. To 'draw a line against the darkness.' (~JMS). In defense of life, freedom, and justice, the violence is elevated from basest instinct to noble sacrifice. We will endure the horror of war that greater horrors might be defeated."
How does that sound?
So, the woman is more important to you.
I wouldn't say that. I'd say that the right of self-determination is more important than the right to life.
How would you put that into a rule to live by?
All I can come up with is platitudes.
You can steer clear. I'm just trying to bring up things that usually make up the hard part of ethics. It's always easy to say "Don't murder" and "Don't steal", and I think the best way of putting them is, as I said before, the Wicca way "An' it harm none". But that doesn't differentiate anything. Answering the tough questions like this are what makes your view of ethics distinct
Oh, it was an excellent question. It's just one on which I'm completely irrational, which strikes me a poor foundation for ethics.
But then you have to show why killing someone for religious reasons is bad while killing an animal is acceptable.
We have to look out for our own first. We engage in a social contract (without which we cannot function) that says murder is wrong. Meanwhile, we cannot eat without killing. So we prioritize. A human life takes precedence over that of an animal. That's just the way it is. I see it as neither laudable nor despicable.
First, do you think we should kill animals to eat them? Beyond that, if you think we shouldn't, then what's the difference from taking an animal's life to eat it and taking a plant's life to eat it? Is it consciousness?
I have no qualms with killing animals for food, but I'll address your second question anyway. I do not believe there is a cosmic heierarchy in which animal life is superior to plant life. Indeed, from the theological perspective, the life of a human has no greater value than the life of a tree. All life is precious. This is why I don't buy into the moral arguments for vegetarianism.
Let's try this: What do you think the avatars are trying to teach us? If Hitler is an avatar as well as Mother Teresa, they both have things to teach us. What can Hitler teach us, and what can MT teach us?
Each Avatar has their own lessons, there's no one answer to that question. Hitler taught us, among other things, the dangers of divorcing morality from progress.
I don't believe that Mother Teresa was an Avatar, so I'm going to substitute the Buddha. He taught a mystical methodology, a remarkably successful path to Enlightenment.
The lessons are highly diverse, with only one common attribute: they are intended to help us learn and Become more quickly.
The other questions were more to try to find a commonality among your beliefs, like a unifying theory.
If there is an underlying principle to my ethical code, it is that the struggle for morality is paramount. Which conveniently ties into my theology: the exploration of morality is humanity's primary function in the Becoming.
While we can't disengage from the struggle, we can make it a priority. We can subject ethical codes to criticism and examination, rather than passively accepting moralities imposed by some authority, and this is the truly superior path.
The conclusions reached don't matter near so much as the journey taken.