<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 18/05/2023 15:17, Brent Allsop
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:mailman.788.1684419455.847.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org">How
does the platinum rule breakdown <i>(sic)(you really mean "break
down". This confused me for a while!)</i> 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?</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
Billw wrote:<br>
"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."<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
"The Wiccan Rede apparently is just a statement of the writings of
John Stuart Mill in 'On Liberty'"<br>
<br>
Yes it is. It's a good, concise summary of probably the most
important idea in there.<br>
<br>
Ben<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</body>
</html>