User talk:CodeNoEvil

@Oxyaena reverted my expansion on the Fatal Flaw of the Golden Rule.

I will await a response as to why. CodeNoEvil (talk) 21:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

That's not how it works, you have to post to the talk page of the article you wanted to edit. And nobody is under any obligation to give you a response at all. --Logos (talk) 22:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I had no idea, thank you for providing a quick response. I was left going "So now what?". I will gladly post to the articles talk page CodeNoEvil (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that's because it's both wrong and dumb. A neo-Nazi may truly believe that Jewish people deserve to be murdered, and on that basis, they could choose to kill a Jewish person and remain fully within the moral framework (which would be ridiculous to any sane person). Spriggina (thảo luận) (đóng góp) @ 22:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Allow me to provide a counter-example, a judge may truly believe that a person on trial deserves to be sentenced, and on that basis, they could choose to find the defendant guilty and remain fully within the moral framework.

This line of reasoning isn't getting to the crux of the matter. The logic "treats others as they deserve to be treated" isn't about belief but rather that you know (beyond a reasonable doubt) what they deserve. Be it from personal experience or hard/empirical evidence. Kinda like how Judges do things.

This logic, like the Golden Rule, is NOT a substitute for Critical Thinking. However this logic does avoid the trap of being taken advantage of those who don't follow the Golden Rule where you would be breaking the Golden Rule by fighting back.

I was inspired by GrapplingIgnorance on his video The Devil's Five Rules where the fifth rule is Reject the Golden Rule.

However his replacement logic was "treat others how they want to be treated". The user Aryador made a comment on the video exposing what is problematic with that:

"Because you see this open a can of worms: because someone can be polite(#1) and honest(#3) while also demanding that you treat them like a god when you interact with them. Not because they're actual gods but because they genuinely think that they're much better then you which may actually be true(#2). Such a person would still mind his own business by not seeking you out at all.(#4)"

"Therefore such rules would allow someone to act like a piece of shit to someone provided that they somewhat fit such a description. It do not take a rocket scientist to know for sure that such a behavior is not okay no matter how you try to spin it."

When it comes to a bully, you can choose to not fight back because it would be breaking the Golden Rule and even considered immoral. I, on the other hand, will fight back in self defense as I treat others accordingly and see nothing immoral about that.

CodeNoEvil (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

I mean, base consequentialism is usually better than single-rule deontology. That's not exactly a profound insight. The golden rule is supposed to be an insight for a way of crossing the is-should barrier, and not a single rule defining all moral philosophy. ikanreed ^{🐐Bleat at me} 15:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)