Now, why is this so? Couldn't we do better than obeying the 'eye for an eye' maxim? After all, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." according to Gandhi who supposedly said it. The there's Martin Luther King who said, "The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind," "It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert." — Posty McPostface
However, in many regards, the golden rule has been brushed aside or not taken into serious consideration in courts of law and su — Posty McPostface
- Mills vs. MeekingThe literal rule of construction, whatever the qualifications with which it is expressed, must give way to a statutory injunction to prefer a construction which would promote the purpose of an Act to one which would not, especially where that purpose is set out in the Act....as a matter of construction to repair the defect, then this must be done. However, if the literal meaning of a provision is to be modified by reference to the purposes of the Act, the modification must be precisely identifiable as that which is necessary to effectuate those purposes and it must be consistent with the wording otherwise adopted by the draftsman. [Section 15AA] requires a court to construe an Act, not to rewrite it, in the light of its purposes.
It sounded like the Amish punishment for rape was not very severe, to say the least. And in a society where you're allowed to kill a relative because you think they've been possessed by an evil spirit, there is no recourse. — Marchesk
Restorative justice could be applied to older offenders and more serious crimes, too, but with more state involvement and likely still involve jail and/or a fine. — Bitter Crank
No!
The question is, what should be done to you, seeing you agree that what you are doing to others should be done to you.
There is no agreement in this case that says you should be forgiven the agreement.
You don’t agree to treat as you would be treated by treating others as you would not be treated. The agreement is to treat as one would be treated. Therefore, one should be treated as one treats others. Once the act is committed you have fulfilled what it is you expected, as in how to be treated.
Forgiveness is not a given, not even under grace. — DPMartin
Perhaps, it is too much to demand from a person that they are full of compassion and self-love to be able to apply the golden rule effectively? After all, the world can be a crummy place, and things do happen that make life less fun or appealing. — Posty McPostface
The 'Golden Rule' avoids taking the meaning of the statutes literally instead allowing judges to consider the purpose of the law. — TimeLine
it was the Word of God that spoke the law of eye for an eye to Moses — DPMartin
It is my understanding that the eye for an eye principle was established before the dates of the old testament. — T Clark
if you are going to use what Jesus says then you must use all of what Jesus says. and according to the bible Jesus is the Word of God made flesh and it was the Word of God that spoke the law of eye for an eye to Moses, and it was also the same source, the Word of God, that spoke the golden rule, isn't it? — DPMartin
So, how does that work in terms of the laws being applied uniformly and fairly? Putting that kind of flexibility in the hands of judges increases the risk of unfairness. It also increases the possibility of punishing people less than lawmakers want. In the US, laws with minimum penalties have been popular because they take the discretion out of the hands of judges. Now that approach is falling out of favor because of the high costs of keeping people in prison. — T Clark
Perhaps, it is too much to demand from a person that they are full of compassion and self-love to be able to apply the golden rule effectively? After all, the world can be a crummy place, and things do happen that make life less fun or appealing. — Posty McPostface
the golden rule has been brushed aside or not taken into serious consideration in courts of law and such. An example would be the death penalty, which is not reconcilable in any way with the golden rule. — Posty McPostface
And (emphasis mine):Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the fruition of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law. — Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, Article IV
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. — The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, Article 19
This literally doesn't even make sense. I'm not the one being stolen from. I am the thief. The argument only makes sense if the person making it *assumes* universal standards for moral behaviour. That is, stealing is wrong whether you do it, or I do it. — antinatalautist
I think you need to make an argument for the value of being a thief without caring about the person or people or the ultimately consequences of this and not the other way around. — TimeLine
Why? You are taking 'universal standards for moral behaviour' as an axiom (as in, what's wrong for you is wrong for me), whereas I am not. — antinatalautist
If you are claiming that you are justified to be this thief, you are making an assertion that such standards of moral behaviour is wrong; explain. — TimeLine
To steal the property of another person could consequently lead to retaliation; do you want to take that risk? —
Why should I not hold others to a population wide standard of moral behavior, while personally opting out of it. I get the best of best worlds. People choose not to steal from me, and yet I choose to steal from them. Is there a god saying we all ought act in x particular way? Is there some sort of mind-independent moral fact that must behavior ought correspond to? No. — antinatalautist
Are you going to stop me? There's millions of people just like me. — antinatalautist
I couldn't care less about the millions like you. If you are the one that stole from me, prepare for some dire consequences. People like you tend to not recognize that one day you're going to wrong someone that you wished you hadn't.To steal the property of another person could consequently lead to retaliation; do you want to take that risk? —
Are you going to stop me? There's millions of people just like me. — antinatalautist
I could say the same thing about murder. What about when you steal from someone who has no quarrel about killing thieves?My explanation is simply that people can universalize their moral standards of behavior all they like. But there's nothing at all irrational in me personally opting out of this. Prove that moral standards for behavior should be universalized. Why should I not hold others to a population wide standard of moral behavior, while personally opting out of it. I get the best of best worlds. People choose not to steal from me, and yet I choose to steal from them. — antinatalautist
Read The Selfish Gene by Dawkins. He shows that cheaters don't make out as well as the non-cheaters in any human society. Humans have a longer memory and are better at making distinctions between individuals allowing them to hold those cheaters responsible and naming them for others so that the rest of us can avoid you or keep an eye on you.Is there some sort of mind-independent moral fact that must behavior ought correspond to? No. — antinatalautist
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.