/lit/ - Literature

>to spew rules to try to control other people
>to produce academic toilet papers

>>14208348
You should read a bit of it to help you understand why people do things, but you shouldn't have it encapsulate your entire literacy.

>>14208348
Kys faggot

Sage in every field

>>14208348
Because: WHAT is that which you don't want done unto yourself? What should this actually be, or what is it? Are so arrogant that you know perfectly what you are?

Because you may be a masochist. The categorical imperative is the correct answer

>Do not imprison the psychotic serial rape-murderer because you would not want to be imprisoned.
Golden.

I think it's important for others to suffer in order to grow, and that you sometimes have to harm someone in order to help them in the long run. i would also expect someone to act the same to me if they truly want to help me.

Nothing wrong with this I assume, since I follow the Golden Rule.

>>14208401
>Writing 750+ pages only to re-write the golden rule.

Kant was a hack.

>>14208401
hegel BTFO'd the categorical imperative

>>14208348
because not all ethics and morals are solved by the golden rule

>>14208348
I'm an egoist, should I still follow the golden rule ?

>>14208348
Why does the golden rule only apply to humans? Why not ants?

>>14208348
>tfw i want to die so murder is justified

>>14208348
Because reading other people’s opinions on morality is interesting, and it gives you viewpoints with which to contrast your own conception of morality.

>>14208405
Which is the worse crime? Rape or Murder?

>>14208741
It doesn't matter. The Golden rule will follow you. Watch your back.

>>14208405
the golden rule is pretty redundant as it only applies to people who already have a good sense of morality. It’s more of a summary of the rules rather than a rule itself. I believe the best men would actually want to be imprisoned for their crimes, whereas the immoral ones would want to escape justice.

>>14208744
Humans are capable of applying it. Ants are not.

>>14208405
Your proof is pretty obvious because the vast majority of bench judges are murder-rapists.

>>14208979
What about newborns, then? Are the mentally retarded? Or the old and senile? Why should their understanding impact my behavior towards them?

>>14208974
What did you mean by this ?

>>14209000
You have it entirely backwards. Your actions should be impacted by your understanding. Whoever has the understanding of the right and the good inherits the responsibility for it. All those groups mentioned are your fellow humans and are connected by ties of familial bond to other human beings most all of whole would expect and also carry out the Golden Rule. If you want to remove yourself from the realm of men by disregarding your conduct towards other you may do so, or you will be hundred down like the inhuman animal you make yourself into. If you really don't understand the Golden Rule that is fine. If your behavior matches that of an insect or a reptile then you will be treated as such. Maybe be a human?

>>14209029
Disregard the Golden Rule long enough and you will find out.

>>14209056
>familial bond
ah so this is why we are compelled to be good to humans

>>14208348
I'm not others so I don't give a shit about the golden rule

>>14209061
Yes, we protect our genetic lines. Biological imperitive. But most people are too stupid to understand this instinctively.

Some people make other things more important than principles, like money, power, fame, noteriety, intellectual acclaim, whatever. These are the wolves. They elevate personal motives over general well being with blind disregard to the fact that that lowers thier well being to an equally disregarded level. They are the reciprocal of the Golden Rule. Society will do unto them as they would or have done unto society. They are cunning enough to prey on the sheep but too stupid to understand things like the Golden Rule and how it could apply to them.

Most people of course are the sheep. For them the classic Golden rule is more than an axiom, it's self evident truth. The sheep don't like thinking about the wolves. Some are so afraid of what they represent that they pretend there are no wolves at all. These are not wise people in our jaded and shaded and nuanced sense but can reach a level of wisdom akin to Mr. Rogers philosophy. They rely on the Golden Rule as self and societal regulation as a hedge bet to the investment we place in creating offspring as well as emotional investment, as well as just general well being and good being upheld. They don't understand how, but they know it all works out and the good guy wins in the end if we all just do our best and treat each other according to the Golden Rule. They like to think about principles and being devoted to them but really they are sheep. They can grasp the Golden Rule and the rest just follows from that. It helps them to invent religions and codes of conduct and churches to help speed and enforcement of the basic principle. Baaaah.

The last group which would likely include many people here are the Shephard's. These people do think about the wolves. From time to time they let themselves become wolves. They understand the Golden Rule and it's obverse and how to apply them. They treat the sheep as they would like to be treated with as much kindness and compassion as they can muster. They treat the wolves exactly as the wolves would treat them. By smashing thier necks with a club or breaking thier back with an ax. The Shepherds know the Golden Rule isn't some kind of hard coded objective fact of the universe (expect in the biological instinct part) and so they do find it tempting to disregard when inconvenienced. They know it's all about societal preservation when applied in the larger sense. So they tend to focus on one field or principle and dedicate themselves to that exclusively. But most importantly, unlike the sheep they are not only afraid of the wolves, they detest them. Not for thier "evil" or thier "cunning" or even that they make life harder. They detest them because they are too stupid to understand what they are doing. And so, because there is no reasoning with them they must be killed. They reject the Golden rule and this it's reverse is applicable

>>14209174
Nigga why can't you spell 'their'? Also I hate these vague generalizations. "And so, some people are like this, others are like that." fuck you're annoying.

>>14209224
Homeschooled, I had to teach my self spelling and everything else.

>>14208348

>police aren't allowed to shoot a schoolshooter if they do not themselves want to get shot

>>14209224
if you identify with the character in your pic you must be one of the most insufferable people alive. I've never talked to anyone who didn't easily understand that he was a ridiculous self-insert for the writer of a self-righteous hero character in a show in which every other character is heavily flawed in realistic ways

>>14209224
>Can't handle any vagueness or critical thinking
>Needs everything spelled out for him (correctly)
Public school brain detected.

>>14208700
Explain please, I don’t know anything about Hegel’s ethics.

>>14209059
Real life isn't a movie anon.

>I want to be fucked in the ass; therefore, I will fuck others in the ass...

Works for me.

>>14209319
Neither are books of philosophy. All works of man are just that. Self reflective works of himself and his reality as he perceived it.

Your argument was trash. Try again.

>>14208348
Masochist

>>14209279
I only identified with him when i read that fucking shitpost.
>>14209285
Vagueness and critical thinking have little in common.

>>14209384
There's no need to argue with someone who says "just experience it man, you'll see I'm right and you're wrong."

Philosophy is partially a social tool to control the behaviour of others, and partially a codification of the emergent biological ethic of social animals.

Law is basically applied philosophy, and is the only form of philosophy that matters.

>>14208348
Read Kant and Nietzsche and reevaluate the golden rule.

>>14208348
But anon don't you want to try to learn exactly WHY it's solved by the golden rule?

>>14209615
t.guy that knows literally nothing about philosophy

>>14208436
>sometimes have to harm someone in order to help them in the long run.
Statistical regression to the mean makes this principle seem much more helpful than it is. This is the reason that coaches & managers who deal the least in the drama of scorn and shame against players in a slump, and trust that they are acting in good faith to excel, and as guides to problem-solving and partners in victory, are the vituosi of their kind, finest among the alphas. Even in ethology there are hints of how that works, where the troops who enjoy the best general health are those reigned by most subtle and least thuggish types of them.

>>14208348

The relation between you and an other might not be what you think it is.

>>14208356
>>14208388
these two posts together are the answer

what happens when treating someone like you would like to be treated is not the right thing to do?

>>14209615
T. Actual underaged brainlet.

>>14209305
basically he said that the categorical imperative doesn't really tell us what we should do because it has empty content. he gives the example of property: it is possible to universalize both having property and not recognizing property (as, say, in communism). neither creates a contradiction. so the categorical imperative doesn't actually tell us if property is desirable or not, since both being in favor of property as well refusing to recognize property rights is universalizable

hegel criticizing the CI shouldn't surprise you since the CI is based upon the law of non-contradiction, which hegel thinks is merely trivially true