Which Is Properly

[dairygirl4u2c]

thoughts?
im having a hard time conveying what i see as the complications in this rule
one of them besides what's implied above is that even if one decided how to act, they couldnt say they're acting objectively, making the per se necessarily right choice. (unless one decides they're consistency or system is by definition the right choice)

Edited May 28, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c

[Nihil Obstat]

[img]http://i.neoseeker.com/mgv/173169-Kevin/169/32/lolwut_verbose_display.jpg[/img]

[IgnatiusofLoyola]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' date='28 May 2010 - 02:26 PM' timestamp='1275074804' post='2119797']
[img]http://i.neoseeker.com/mgv/173169-Kevin/169/32/lolwut_verbose_display.jpg[/img]
[/quote]

I couldn't top that if I tried.

[Resurrexi]

[Laudate_Dominum]

i refuse to speculate

[Hilde]

I think it's time for a corona with lime.

[MIKolbe]

I find your questions sexist (he does heroin and he eats too many tacos, so very tasty and good for you,). You should consider taking a break from posting for a while.

[Selah]

[img]http://bluwiki.com/images/4/4c/Lolcat.jpg[/img]

[Hilde]

Oh, geez gotta tell you this. It's now past midnight, and I'm like convinced I look like the main jerk guy in a clockwork orange, so yeah. I cringe in the violent scenes, but I'll always know I can scare people off with my stare all creepy like. So, whatever and if someone asked me would it really be the best if I did someone gave you something they would want themselves, I mean different people different strokes right? Oh, yeah that reminds me, Gary Coleman is dead. I wonder what that stuff about domestic violence was all about. The insider seems like a bogus show, and that court thing doesn't look like what goes on in a real court room. I know because my dad's a lawyer. Not the sneaky kind, but the kind that represents the state and put bad guys in jail. In cells that they may or may not be able to commit suicide in. By choking on TV-wires or jumping on their heads or whatever. So if somebody said to me "what'choo talkin' bout' you don't like carnations? I just did like the bible said, I did unto you what I wanted myself" and I'll be like "well what you would was your favorite flower right? So you should have given me mine: orchids. I'll just put this in water I guess, not trying to be rude or anything" And what this stuff you say about heroine, I don't even understand. Maybe I should look in a dictionary or something, but I don't think that would help. I think it would help if the questions didn't end like "d...." or "wh..." though. I want tacos, so very tasty and good for you, now but it's way to late for that.

[Hilde]

[img]http://media.nscdn.com/uploads/member/icons/117813.jpg[/img]

[dairygirl4u2c]

the pear response is nail on the head.
lots of jibber jabber.

heres some jibber jabber.
when i figure out what exactly my question is, i'll get back to you.
i think it has something to do with, other than objective responses.
something about personal deferences, v. complete deferences etc.

'id want someone to intervne if i was doing hereonine-- the genral rule is if it's really really bad, they should intervene. but, personally, if i have a vice and i insist it's mine to hold, id want it deferred to.

[dairygirl4u2c]

i tried putting more thought into this. it wasn't a pretty picture, the process.
hypos, hope this is clearer what im getting at

X looks at porn. A says it's wrong, and that he wants to burn X's stash. X absolutely insists that he desires his stash be left alone- arguing if A wants to follow the golden rule, then he should allow X to do that which he views as an absolute issue of freedom. A would personally view the act of looking at porn as something that he might insist to be able to do, but if he were wrong in more objective senses, he'd want someone to intervene. A recognizes that sometimes though, he'd want someone to defer to him, even if he's objectively wrong, at least when he doesnt realize it. Should A do what he'd want done per the principle of the matter 'intervene if it's something objectively wrong', or should he respect B's wishes given A would also want respect of his wishes in at least some circumstances? Should A follow the principle of deferences here, or should he follow narrowly that he thinks he'd want someont to intervene if he did something wrong in that situation?
A wants to follow the golden rule-- is A more properly following the rule by intervening based upon his own perception of what he'd want, or is he more properly following the rule by not intervening by giving ultimate deference to X's view of the matter, and in many senses what hed want done at least in certain other situations?
---------------------------------------------
A eats meat. X thinks it's absolutely wrong. X follows A's line of thinking above, and A argues X's line of thinking. Has X followed the golden rule by intervening? What if we assume that eating meat is not objectively wrong (as even the bible says)? if we say 'porn is objectively right, and meat is objectively okay, so im gonna burn the stash and insist on meat, what if it wasn't so clear?
What if the issues weren't so clear like setting off fire crackers that one person might view in an unsafe way, while the other says it is safe?
--------------
---------------
---------------------
Or, is A ultimately following the rule, given a possible argument, 'what he chooses as the proper response is following the rule by definition of him choosing it'? If we accept that though, then we must accept that A should permit that X is following the golden rule too in the meat case. A should and could argue vehemently that the proper argument is his in the meat situation, but he'd have to accept X is following the rule, at least if A utilizes the rules in a similar fashion given he shouldnt expect anything different.
--------------
If A chose to permit X's porn addiction, or X allowed A to eat meat, are they following the golden rule, given they'd follow the arguments initially posed agaisnt them instead? If we can't say that this is the proper following of the rule, how does one fully comply with the rule?
Again, Is the answer based on what they ultimately would decide by definition of their decision?
Is this a matter of consistency, or is there a "necessarily" right approach, eg, A should or shouldnt intervene? etc
-----------------------
Could it be said that a person is only following the golden rule when they are consistent? Wouldnt it be often the case that a person picks and chooses when to do things like "defer" or "not defer" instead of having a consistent developed ethical system? If the golden rule is one of the best things that we should aspire to, shouldnt we strive to form a more consistent system, then? or at least have the thorught processes for what to do in each new case that arises?



id imagine that given i thought this through with analogies, that there's some broader principles that could probably be developed, given i didnt have a means of articulating it without reasoning my way there. that's usually how development of new ideas transpire. we could label the concepts 'irrevocable deference' or 'non-irrevocable' deference' etc.

Edited May 29, 2010 by dairygirl4u2c