[ExI] morality

[Ben Zaiboc]

On 18/05/2023 15:17, Brent Allsop wrote:
> How does the platinum rule breakdown /(sic)(you really mean "break 
> down". This confused me for a while!)/ when anyone is a masochist? 
> Unless you are pointing out that the pleasure the masochist receives 
> from damage to their body is incorrectly temptingly wired (damn 
> whatever God wired them that way;) and not what they truly want?


I must admit, the platinum rule does assume that people are responsible 
for themselves, and have the ability to decide if what they say they 
want is what they truly want, is what is best for them, etc.

Too many formulations of morality seem to take the attitude that people 
should be 'made' to be happy, etc., that this is something that is 
imposed on them from outside.

The case of a masochist is a good example of this. Who are you to judge 
that a masochist doesn't or 'shouldn't' want to be a masochist? That's 
up to them. The platinum rule doesn't break down for masochism, it holds 
up extremely well, in fact it highlights the essential difference 
between it and the golden rule.

Using the golden rule is no better than basing your morality on what 
someone says that some god/s say/s, with the assumption that said god/s 
know/s what's best for everyone, regardless of what the individuals that 
make up 'everyone' think or want. It is, quite simply, tyranny.

To me, morality should be something that comes from you, not from 
someone else. So it's not about 'making people' happy, or whatever, it's 
about letting them be happy (or whatever they want to be).

The point is that the golden rule is about how you think you should 
treat people, the platinum rule is about how they think they should be 
treated (or, more importantly, how they think they should not be 
treated). As I said before, this has it's limits. I can't claim that you 
are being immoral because you refuse to give me all your money if that's 
what I want. That's why I combine it with the Wiccan Rede. I can claim 
you are being immoral if you lock me up in a cellar and beat me 'for my 
own good' for being gay, or ginger or a vegetarian or whatever else 
might be contrary to your values.

Billw wrote:
"So you are saying that to be moral, I have to find out what other 
people want and give it to them. Nope. Won't work."

No, it's not up to you to find out what other people want (unless you 
want to, or you want to give them something that they'll like. 
Naturally, in that case, some research is warranted).

It's up to you to do whatever you want to do, only checking first that 
it won't harm anyone else (and by harm, I mean actually harm, not offend 
or hurt their feelings. This is not an excuse to prevent people from 
telling Irish jokes).

In order for people to follow a moral code, they first have to be 
capable of taking responsibility for their own feelings and other mental 
states. You have the right to be offended, but you don't have the right 
to demand that nobody offends you. You have the right to be upset that 
someone doesn't respect you, but you don't have the right to demand 
respect (which is something that has to be earned).

The platinum rule, unlike the golden rule, just means that you don't 
impose your own values on other people. When Jesus decides to do 
something nice for Mo, and cook him dinner, then yes, he should first 
find out whether Mo likes corned beef hash (as that is what Jesus wants 
to cook). That just makes sense. The golden rule leads you to buying 
your wife a bowling ball for an anniversary present.

"The Wiccan Rede apparently is just a statement of the writings of John 
Stuart Mill in 'On Liberty'"

Yes it is. It's a good, concise summary of probably the most important 
idea in there.

Ben


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20230518/fd94a5bc/attachment-0001.htm>