--- On Wed. June 21, Aristo X writes: > > Hi Santosh, > > I do not think that the Golden rule is Absolute > (crudely coined as "Rock Solid" by some) as > claimed. Masochists could perceive it differently, > for example. There is another competitor to the > Golden Rule, a teaching of Satya Sai Baba that > goes "Help ever, Hurt never". While one may argue > that again the word "hurt" is not absolute, it is > certainly more "rock solid" than the golden rule. > Again, this rule may seem too constricted, as in a > secular democracy, people's sentiments are bound to > get "hurt" one time or the other. > On Tue, June 27, Aristo writes: > > Lets say, hypothetically, if there was an > attractive guy who would love to be raped by an > attractive woman (god forbid!), the Golden rule > would give him to moral right to rape an attractive > woman!! In addition, as has been pointed out on > Goanet before, Rape is not included in the 10 > commandments either. > Mario observes: > Aristo, > "God forbid"??? :-)) I'm glad to hear you believe in God :-)) > So, let me get this straight. According to your keen analyses, the Golden Rule is useless because a masochist may get his kicks by harming others, and a rapist may preemptively rape a woman he would like to be raped by? > Since rape is a crime of violence, not lust, does it make a difference whether these people are "attractive"??? But I digress. > Based on your logic, which illogically assumes that masochism and violence against women are normal conditions, is a rock-solid rule invalidated because a psychologically deranged person or a sociopath rapist may turn it on it's head? > Then what happens to Sai Baba's "Help ever, hurt never", when the very same masochist you are concerned about may harm someone, by our standards, because he truly believes he is helping him or her, by his standards? Or the rapist may run around raping women by pretending he is "helping" them by giving them pleasure? > On what logical basis did you conclude that Sai Baba's "masochist/rapist conundrum" was more valid than the Golden Rule's "masochist/rapist conundrum"? > To get back to the rational debate we were having before Aristo burst on the scene, if organized religions and other groups, like the atheist Jains and the Buddhists, have microscopic loopholes that masochists and rapists can orgasmically squeeze through, then how does Aristo know what truck-sized loopholes may exist in the home-made moral codes that unorganized individual atheists may open for themselves, any time they choose to? > My only point has been that when people formally sign on to a moral code formed by centuries of accumulated wisdom and experience, there are far more checks and balances on their conduct, not to mention consequences beyond the law, when compared with an unorganized individual atheist's recent and home-made moral code, which may be excellent, but may also not be, and according to one learned Goanetter, may also be "provisional":-)) > >
_______________________________________________ Goanet mailing list [email protected] http://lists.goanet.org/listinfo.cgi/goanet-goanet.org
