tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post5459673905167639430..comments2024-03-27T17:15:37.606-04:00Comments on Triablogue: The Bankruptcy of the Secular Golden RuleRyanhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/17809283662428917799noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-81976203030644017012007-04-08T13:30:00.000-04:002007-04-08T13:30:00.000-04:00I think that your interlocuter is a bit confused. ...I think that your interlocuter is a bit confused. Tit for tat (even if not for reciprocating an exact act) strategy is not based on moral reasons. The whole point is that it explains what appears to be moral in terms of "is" rather than "ought". So in this way the golden rule is merely useful, but not moral (unless you want to say morality is an illusion, and it is apparently moral). The golden rule doesn't have a moral basis on a secular view, only a pragmatic one. That is if the sucularist is consistent, which it appears that your intercoluter is not.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-25128272483788127692007-04-05T13:35:00.000-04:002007-04-05T13:35:00.000-04:00Actually, rather than being "overly abstruse" it d...Actually, rather than being "overly abstruse" it demonstrates that Interlocuter's original claim was insufficient and needed further clarification, such as what you provided.<BR/><BR/>Ignoring the fact that you're arguing against my analogy rather than my argument, you said:<BR/>---<BR/>The strong man doesn't lift the rock off of the weak man out of the hope/belief that the weak man will reciprocate that exact act, but because of the fact that there are milliosn of other situations which can be thought up where he needs the help of another.<BR/>---<BR/><BR/>And yet this is not the way that morality generally occurs. When you ask the strong man who rescues someone--especially someone he does not know--he will generally reply, "I was in the right place at the right time" or some such phrase. When he acts, <I>he never intends for future compensation</I>. His action is not perceived by him, nor by society, as making the rescued person <I>owe</I> him. He acts because he knows intrinsically that it is the right thing to do; and this intrinsic knowledge <I>cannot</I> be accounted for via selfish motives, as you and Interlocuter claim, as demonstrated by my previous argument.<BR/><BR/>All you've got here is someone who rescues another person because he <I>hopes</I> that in some future time someone will rescue him if he needs it. But hope doesn't make moral compulsion.<BR/><BR/>Furthermore, this doesn't account for the person who disregards society as a whole (e.g. sociopaths) and why we would consider them immoral for not entering into a "moral contract" with everyone else. What is the compelling reason that people <I>ought</I> to behave a certain way?<BR/><BR/>Again, secularism has no answer for this.Peter Pikehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11792036365040378473noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6789188.post-64239265917102365212007-04-05T13:03:00.000-04:002007-04-05T13:03:00.000-04:00Your question was one of motive, and self-interest...Your question was one of motive, and self-interest was offered. The strong man doesn't lift the rock off of the weak man out of the hope/belief that the weak man will reciprocate <I>that exact act</I>, but because of the fact that there are milliosn of other situations which can be thought up where he needs the help of another. The idea of symmetry isn't necessarily "tit for tat" in every action, of course, that is unnecessarily constraining. It is the idea that kindness or altruism are like investments into one's society and into one's own future -- the more we invest in others, the more likely we are to receive from them (or the society we all foster together) later on. You have gotten overly abstruse here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com