My one, and only moral.

[Luther-Stark]

I have one moral, that determines all the rest of my belifes, i base everything i believe in, on this one moral:

"Do unto others as you woyuld have others do unto you"

Can anyone see a flaw in that morale, or a reason why that morale shouldn't hold up???


(p.s ask me my opinion on any other topic and you'll see how my answer co-heres to the above statement)

[WeekendLazyness]

What if you were crazy and wanted to be killed by people?

[Nuts]

The Bible has many practical life lessons, the best being the Golden Rule. It is perfection in an odd sort of way.

[GrassDragon]

I don't think you can challenge a moral by starting with "What if you were crazy and..." :p

I don't think that's a bad moral to have, but I don't know if it can be applied to everything like you say. Does your moral go the other way as to say "You may do unto others as they do unto you"?

[Nuts]

Does your moral go the other way as to say "You may do unto others as they do unto you"?

That would contradict the original moral, wouldn't it?

[Luther-Stark]

Most definatly it would NUts.

[Grom_Icecream]

I prefer the rule:

Do unto others whatever you are paid to do.

This has the potential to be abused though.

[Whiteknight]

So, by this morale, if you had a deathwish, then you kill someone, and you would die. You are still following this morale.

EDIT: Blanked out some, don't want to offend any religious here.

[Battlecruiser]

I would rather not follow a moral. I just do what my instincts tell me.

[EdvardMunch]

I like the Wiccan Rede better: An it harm none, do what ye will.

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" only works if everyone is equal and wants to be treated the same way, but we're not. Here's an example:

Billy and Jimmy are students in a philosophy class. Billy loves to aggressively debate, whereas Jimmy likes to calmly and peacefully work with the other person to talk out the issue and come to what seems to be the truth.

Billy will treat Jimmy the way Billy wants to be treated: Aggressivelly, because Billy loves a good, heated, debate.

Jimmy will treat Billy the way Jimmy wants to be trated: Nice and calm, because Jimmy hates the fiery intensity of a heated debate.


The Wiccan Rede, on the other hand, seems more impenetrable. If you're not harming anyone, then what you're doing isn't wrong.

Of course, the Wiccan Rede doesn't work in situations where one must do some harm for the greater good (a doctor sacrifices 100 patients to save 1000), but neither does the golden rule.

[Luther-Stark]

INyour example you could figure that the other person simply wants you to be yourself.

[Nuts]

I like the Wiccan Rede better: An it harm none, do what ye will.


Yet this rule would not serve any positive benefit to another. Inaction is not a victimless
position. For instance, a woman walks up to a door, under the Wiccan Rede, I could simply sit there, and let the woman open the door herself, harming nobody. Under the golden rule, I would open the door for the lady, she would be pleased, I would be happier knowing that I was able to extend a courtesy. Wiccan Rede promotes selfishness, the golden rule promotes kindness.


Here's an example:

Billy and Jimmy are students in a philosophy class. Billy loves to aggressively debate, whereas Jimmy likes to calmly and peacefully work with the other person to talk out the issue and come to what seems to be the truth.

Billy will treat Jimmy the way Billy wants to be treated: Aggressivelly, because Billy loves a good, heated, debate.

Jimmy will treat Billy the way Jimmy wants to be trated: Nice and calm, because Jimmy hates the fiery intensity of a heated debate.

Which only serves to support the golden rule even further. Jimmy and Billy would treat each other with reciprocal respect because this is how they would wish to be treated. The details aren't important, it's the sentiment that matters.

To coin a popular trend,

The golden rule > Wiccan Rede ;)

[EdvardMunch]

But the point behind my example is that neither one of them wants to be treated that way. It would annoy Billy to go up against someone as calm and weak-willed as Jimmy, and it would stress out Jimmy to have to argue when he hates arguing.

Nonetheless, maybe I don't understand the golden rule very well. Is it a matter of specific actions (what actions you perform to/for other people are the same actions you would want performed to/for yourself?) or a more generalized sense of "treat people with the same measure of respect you would like to be treated"? Thus, with the second option, although two person's actions are different, the value is the same?

[Nuts]

Your second conclusion is dead on. :)