/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18122014]

>"Treat others as you would like others to treat you"

Where were you when all ethics and philosophy cucks were BTFO'd by this simple rule?

[Anonymous No.18122021]

Realizing when nobody else follows it you get screwed over by always giving and never taking.

[Anonymous No.18122039]

>>18122014
All philosophy got BTFO'd by common sense

[Anonymous No.18122042]

What if I want to get raped by hot women?

[Anonymous No.18122046]

>>18122042
Everyone wants to be raped by hot women so OP's point still stands

[Anonymous No.18122050]

>>18122014
when were her videos first posted here? feels like years now

[Anonymous No.18122060]

>>18122014
No reason to follow it. If most other people follow it you can gain the benefits without doing it yourself and thus freely exploit people.

[Anonymous No.18122064]

>>18122039
spbp

[Anonymous No.18122067]

>>18122060
Your observation is completely off the mark

[Anonymous No.18122069]

>>18122067
It isn't. If other people are ethical there's no reason for me to be ethical.

[Anonymous No.18122074]

>>18122014
Up your ass motherfucker

[Anonymous No.18122075]

>>18122014
>>18122039
Correct. Philosophy always arises from personal grudge and insatisfaction, which is the reason why almost all philosophers are miserable.

[Anonymous No.18122078]

>>18122014
There is a difference between the way you'd like to be treated and the way you ought to be treated.

[Anonymous No.18122081]

>>18122067
Actually I'll put it another way. The idea "treat others as you would like to be treated" is ultimately about avoiding negative ethical behavior. If everyone treats everyone ethically, then you will not be the subject of unethical behavior yourself. But, 1) this will never happen, and 2) if other people follow it it means that I don't have to do it myself. I can reap the benefits of the ethical behavior of others while being unethical in turn.

[Anonymous No.18122088]

>>18122069
You're actually heavily retarded. If an ethic rule is an ethic rule it must be followed by everyone.

[Anonymous No.18122094]

>>18122088
1. Why would that be the case? How exactly does this ethical rule obligate me? Are you claiming it has an existence outside of human thought?

2. Even if I grant you that it obligates me, I can simply disobey it anyway. So what?

[Anonymous No.18122098]

>>18122060
one of those rules that works if everyone follows it, but since everyone thinks no one else will follow, no one actually does. something-something prisoner dilemma.

[Anonymous No.18122102]

>>18122088
That guy is smarter than you. We can expand his point into a general criticism of attempts at creating hard and fast ethical rules, instead of enunciating general principles that are to govern the relations between men in their various roles and relationships, while also providing them with the flexibility to exercise their individual judgement in determining how to deal with a specific individual or situation.
Attempts to create hard and fast ethical rules must always fail, is the point here.

[Anonymous No.18122103]

>>18122081
>>18122078
Overthinking is a synonym of scarce intelligence. The rule OP posted means very simply that you, being aware of what is pain – pain of any kind – should not behave in a way that can cause that pain to others. There's nothing to debate about.

[Anonymous No.18122105]

>>18122014
What is Kant

[Anonymous No.18122110]

>>18122042
The If you're a hot woman you can also go around raping other people; but if you're not then you can't

[Anonymous No.18122112]

>>18122094
>here ppl, look at me! i'm the time-consuming goblin! you'll waste yur time by replying to my trickery posts!

[Anonymous No.18122114]

>>18122098
I think it demonstrates a naive understanding of human nature to think that everyone would ever follow such a thing.
>>18122103
Okay, I understand what pain is and I choose to cause it anyway. So what? What is going to happen?

[Anonymous No.18122116]

>>18122014
People are not the same, one person will want you to be straight forward, others want you to be polite. Proper ethic conduct always requires you to personally learn how a person reacts and thinks, only sociopaths, narcists and autistics build a universal value system aound what they themselves think.

[Anonymous No.18122119]

>>18122112
>here ppl, look at me! i'm the amateur philosopher! i'll waste yur time by not being able to answer any of your objections!

[Anonymous No.18122120]

>>18122102
Blah blah blah. Low intelligence post.

Meditate. >>18122103

[Anonymous No.18122121]

>>18122060
>>18122081
I think this idea was covered in the selfish gene. A society where everyone works cooperatively usually ends up better off as a whole but is susceptible to one guy trying to take advantage of the system and eventually throwing the whole thing off. Instead of working cooperatively 100% of time, we end up with a slightly worse system where someone who takes advantage of others gets punished severely by the rest of society. I think in animals you see this behaviour in bats and monkeys that don't return favours and are shunned by their group.

I think you're being completely obtuse if you haven't experienced or seen someone shunned by a group/society because they can't play fair. Or in cases of vigilante justice where everyone cheers as a would-be robber gets beaten up by his victim and their friends.

[Anonymous No.18122124]

>>18122014
I'm a masochist. I like when people hurt me

[Anonymous No.18122127]

>>18122114
The golden rule isn't about what is in your self interest, it is a heuristic for determining ethical behavior in any given situation. Obviously if you have no interest in behaving ethically, you will have no reason to follow the golden rule.

[Anonymous No.18122130]

>>18122114
>Okay, I understand what pain is and I choose to cause it anyway. So what? What is going to happen?
>Okay, I'm Noah and I understand the tables of the 10 commandments and I choose not to respect them anyway. So what?
This is your brain on 4chan.

[Anonymous No.18122132]

What if you're gay and I want to make fun of you?

[Anonymous No.18122133]

>>18122124
The high schooler has entered the thread

[Anonymous No.18122139]

>>18122133
More like a hoard of amerimutts have entered the thread

[Anonymous No.18122142]

>>18122116
The fact that apparently I am the first person stating it like this, indicates most people here are mentally ill.

Ill give another example, my dads doesnt mind if I walk inside his house and eat from the fridge, I do mind if he eats from my fridge, but he can walk inside, my little brother hates both. I dont like people eating from my fridge because I dont make much money, my brother is just moody. Should my dad apply the same standard, he would get into a fight with us. This is not difficult to understand.

[Anonymous No.18122145]

>>18122014
Wasn't it said first by some greek philosopher then later appropriated by some local unpopular rabbi?

> Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing - Thales

[Anonymous No.18122146]

>>18122121
It's been my experience that people who "don't play fair" are quite capable of profiting from it rather than being punished.
>>18122127
So I have no actual obligation to follow it then. Thanks for admitting it.
>>18122130
So are you claiming I'll be punished by a god then? Any type of real moral obligation would imply that humans possess a telos, which I think could only be created by a god. This is a consistent position. My objection is more towards the people who are pretending that I can have ethical obligations even though they are not theists.

[Anonymous No.18122149]

>>18122133
You are literally getting blown the fuck out in this thread, and you are too stupid to recognize it.

[Anonymous No.18122169]

The categorical imperative BTFO’d all ethics

[Anonymous No.18122173]

>>18122014
the opposite is much better
don't treat others like you don't want to be treated
where OPs version is ceaseless egomania this more elegant approach would keep anyone off the dark path

[Anonymous No.18122187]

>>18122146
>It's been my experience that people who "don't play fair" are quite capable of profiting from it rather than being punished.
We probably have different definitions of "playing fair". I think from the selfish gene perspective you'd be obligated to attack someone who has attacked you, for the health of society as a whole, in order to stem the anti-social behaviour. You'd also be encouraged to "forgive and forget" afterwards in order to resume the complimentary give and take that benefits society as a whole.

Personally, I think the average person who doesn't understand the value of returning favours, as well as giving them, or maintaining a social circle through "good" behaviour won't be successful within their society long term, though there will be outliers.

[Anonymous No.18122192]

>>18122114
>I think it demonstrates a naive understanding of human nature to think that everyone would ever follow such a thing.
sure enough, we must step up spiritually to voluntarily follow ethic rules that'd make life good for everyone. not happening.

[Anonymous No.18122194]

The problem with the ethic of reciprocity is that in a world of zero-sum games, egoism is actually more rational, at least in the short term.

[Anonymous No.18122207]

>>18122194
One can simply switch between the two whenever it benefits them to do so.

[Anonymous No.18122224]

>>18122146
It's very simple, champ. I'm sure you can grasp it. Come close and listen carefully:
If there is to be a universal ethic rule – and OP is proposing one – then such rule must be respected by all the individuals. If the rule is established and yet you don't want to respect it, you will be punished by the relevant authority.
Does this rule come from God or from Man? It doesn't matter for the purpose of the thread. This thread is proposing what the rule is. If you don't like it, you will be punished in the hypotethical world where this rule is applied.
Now, about the rule. What does it say? It says that if you belong to the human species you know what pain is for the individuals of said species, and therefore you shall not cause that pain in other individuals. Period.
You think no rule can be established because there can't be a universal rule? Therefore your thought is invalid, because if there can not be a universal ethic rule (by necessity based on philosophy) then your philosophy is also invalid.
Is it in your interest to live in a world where no idea is valid and no rule is applied? No. Therefore you will accept and respect the rule.
The thread of OP proposes what that rule should be.

Have a good day.

[Anonymous No.18122226]

>>18122021
You do realize the golden rule is the fancy sounding equivalent of the tit-for-tat game theory strategy right?
I give you the benefit of the doubt on the first round, if you screw me over then on the second round I'll return the favor. If you helped me out, then I'll help you out on the second round.
Basically you do what the other person did on the previous round always. This either ends up in a virtuous circle or a vicious cycle, depending on the OTHER person.
It's also been proven to be the optimal long-term strategy too.

[Anonymous No.18122231]

>>18122014
the problem is im a weirdo and things that dont bother me at all bother other people quite a lot.
what do i do with this?

[Anonymous No.18122235]

>>18122014
>>18122046

How would that work?
I want to fuck her in the ass but I don't want to get my ass fucked.
That's a retarded take.

[Anonymous No.18122242]

>>18122224
>you will be punished by the relevant authority.
So ultimately this is a utilitarian calculation about my own well-being. "If I don't do as you say we will hurt you." But who will punish me? The police? What if they don't catch me? What if the thing that I'm doing isn't illegal? Even if you can demonstrate such a rule exists, and that it obligates me personally, it doesn't actually mean anything.

[Anonymous No.18122243]

>>18122014
Milk and WHAT???

[Anonymous No.18122250]

>>18122231
This lmao. People are so goddamn sensitive to things that don't matter at all.

[Anonymous No.18122265]

>>18122146
>I only do things when I am forced to or when I personally benefit from them
pretty cringe desu

[Anonymous No.18122266]

>>18122235
You're just retarded as fuck.

When she expresses the will not to be fucked in the ass, she isn't expressing a universal will, because there might be people who want to be fucked in the ass; she is simply expressing the desire of not being caused pain and degradation, and that is what all people want. This higher common desire is what the rule refers to.

No one wants to get shot, but if a friend of mine asks me to kill him (assisted suicide) I might consider to do it. But this is clearly an exception and does not interefere with the universality of the rule that OP suggested.

[Anonymous No.18122269]

>>18122243

You don't want to read it.

[Anonymous No.18122270]

>>18122142
shouldn't you look at the effect instead of the cause?

[Anonymous No.18122286]

>>18122265
That seems to be the only reason that anyone can give for any this, such as >>18122224 which reduces to this same calculation. Would you like to present something else?

[Anonymous No.18122328]

Ah the golden rule. Let's apply it to Catholicism, it's largest propagator.

Father William was molested as an altar boy, an experience that led him, in error, into believing that he was somehow 'sacred' his duty in life not to pursue what he, as a result he suppresses desire, his sexual desires, for that of a higher calling - that of the priesthood. He then finds himself in a position to perpetrate the same crime committed against him.

"While the act was wrong" He thinks to himself "The unintended consequence, that I became a priest, was good. Therefore, in retrospect I am not angry that it happened, its happening made me into the 'sacred' man that I am today." He thusly concludes that his own act of immorality, an exact replica of the immorality of the man before him, can be committed against a new generation without violating the golden rule. "I am doing unto others as I would have them do unto me."

[Anonymous No.18122334]

己所不欲,勿施于人

[Anonymous No.18122346]

>>18122328
This is completely stupid. The Golden Rule is not a part of Catholicism. Please refrain from making such posts in the future.

[Anonymous No.18122359]

>>18122328
Damn, I am now convinced that Catholicism is evil and will unbaptise myself. Thanks for showing me the light!

[Anonymous No.18122361]

>>18122334
What book and what section is this from?

[Anonymous No.18122367]

>>18122346
>Golden Rule
It’s found throughout the New Testament

[Anonymous No.18122368]

>>18122021
youre just undisciplined and too lazy to be a good person

[Anonymous No.18122371]

>>18122014
I'd treat her nice

[Anonymous No.18122373]

>>18122346
Matthew 7:12 " And Jesus said unto them: So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets."

>completely stupid
Do you not realize the source of the golden rule is the Latin translation of the new testament?
Have you even taken a theology or moral philosophy course?
Do you even read?

[Anonymous No.18122374]

>>18122242
You're just further and further proving you're utterly stupid. A universal ethic rule is a rule which the whole collectivity, as a single body, agrees upon. There is no possibility of saying "but what if I don't want to". No one will ever say that. The universal rule is not imposed by any police, because everyone wants it. This is what we can *idealistically* say. (And a universal rule is idealistic by nature).

The most you can have is an authority with the task to make people respect the rule on the long term (for example, the Church was created for this). Of course that civilizations change, humans change, time changes, but that is an entirely different question. And the reason why we are debating over this is exactly that we are in a period of change, and what was once is not respected anymore. But however much you tear your brain on it, a universal divine law (natura law) exists and will always be there, and it also happens to be recognized by ALL jurisdictions of the world.

Your behavior of making everything relative ("But what if", "but what if I don't", "but what if I think", "but who decides that", "but who establishes" etc.) is exactly the behavior that the universal rule (ideally wanted by all individuals) aims to neutralize. You might have that relativistic behavior, but the universal rule that has to be found seeks to convince you too, as any other individual.

Now we can discuss as long as we want whether OP's rule might be the perfect universal rule or not, but the thing we will keep not grasping is that the universal rule is already written. And that is natural law, which – by coincidence – happens to be very similar to OP's rule, because it says that you must not cause pain to other people, kill other people, steal from other people and so on. Basically, God's 10 commandments.

Now if you're a dumb american kid with shit in place of a brain, you will reply "But what if I don't want to respect that natural law?" and I, of course, will not reply anymore.

[Anonymous No.18122377]

>>18122361
it's from the Analects

[Anonymous No.18122383]

>>18122359
Not my intent, though I find Catholics to be the most tedious of the religious sects when it comes to moral grandstanding you could just as easily apply the example to any Religious organization that relies on moral exceptionalism to justify odious behavior.

[Anonymous No.18122391]

>>18122373
>>18122367
Catholic doctrine is not based solely on Scripture, and it is certainly not based on isolated fragments of this sort. The Golden Rule is not a part of Catholicism, particularly not in the pseudo-Kantian expression it receives in our society.

[Anonymous No.18122400]

>>18122374
>Now if you're a dumb american kid with shit in place of a brain, you will reply "But what if I don't want to respect that natural law?" and I, of course, will not reply anymore.
Because there's no answer to it. It's nothing more than a guideline you're asking people to follow.

[Anonymous No.18122401]

>>18122377
Obviously, but what section?
>>18122374
You should really insult people less, particularly when you are in the wrong.

[Anonymous No.18122408]

>>18122383
I don't disagree with that though, look at the most known scandals and acts of Catholicism and read the Bible and you'll find yourself looking at different things.
I just found your post to be Steven Fry would say when he talks about the good of God and a child having cancer.

[Anonymous No.18122414]

>>18122014
What happens when you live in a mentally ill society where normies hate themselves and want to harm themselves the most?

[Anonymous No.18122415]

>>18122374
>Bro what if there were some universally agreed upon thing, which doesn't exist, but say there was, then like, there'd be people to enforce it so, uh, you have to follow it because I said so
woah...

[Anonymous No.18122426]

>>18122415
The rule exists, this is the point. OP's rule is just the everyman's version of it.

[Anonymous No.18122427]

>>18122401
12.2

[Anonymous No.18122430]

>>18122391
A quote from Pope Francis:

“Our world is facing a refugee crisis of a magnitude not seen since the Second World War. This presents us with great challenges and many hard decisions. On this continent, too, thousands of persons are led to travel north in search of a better life for themselves and for their loved ones, in search of greater opportunities. Is this not what we want for our own children? We must not be taken aback by their numbers, but rather view them as persons, seeing their faces and listening to their stories, trying to respond as best we can to their situation. To respond in a way which is always humane, just and fraternal. We need to avoid a common temptation nowadays: to discard whatever proves troublesome. Let us remember the Golden Rule: 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.

“This Rule points us in a clear direction. Let us treat others with the same passion and compassion with which we want to be treated. Let us seek for others the same possibilities which we seek for ourselves. Let us help others to grow, as we would like to be helped ourselves. In a word, if we want security, let us give security; if we want life, let us give life; if we want opportunities, let us provide opportunities. The yardstick we use for others will be the yardstick which time will use for us. The Golden Rule also reminds us of our responsibility to protect and defend human life at every stage of its development.”

Like it or not, the Pope is the head of the Catholic Faith, speaker for God on Earth and Heir to St. Peter the Rock on which the Catholic Church was built.

Who are you?

t. not even catholic, just not a luddite.

[Anonymous No.18122436]

>>18122426
And? So what? What does it matter that it exists?

[Anonymous No.18122444]

>>18122436
It matters because you have to comprehend and respect it. Otherwise you will be eliminated.

[Anonymous No.18122452]

>>18122430
Are you sure you understand what Pope Francis means by that? Pope Francis has consistently proven himself to be one of the most wily men in politics today. His words and deeds confound both believers and atheists like myself. Tell me if you can find any explicit policy vis-a-vis refugees in those words. I certainly can't.
Also, and what is more important, was he speaking ex cathedra when he made this statement? Statements made to the media are not authoritative, and the Pope can effectively tell them whatever he wants, so long as he does not lie or expressly contradict doctrine.

[Anonymous No.18122456]

>>18122391
Yes it is

[Anonymous No.18122463]

>>18122444
>It matters because you have to comprehend and respect it. Otherwise you will be eliminated.
That sounds like a violation of the rule to me. How do you derive this from the rule itself?

[Anonymous No.18122472]

>>18122014
>reading rupi kaur
waste of a woman

[Anonymous No.18122476]

>>18122444
Eliminated by whom? Are you saying this is ultimately a utilitarian issue? That I need to behave based on what will personally benefit me the most?

[Anonymous No.18122479]

>>18122463
Do you think that if you start killing people like terrorists do you will not be eliminated? This is the self-legitimating and self-empowering mechanism of the rule itself, and the reason why it can't be refuted.

[Anonymous No.18122484]

>>18122042
Then you are safe in this thread

[Anonymous No.18122485]

>>18122479
People get away with crimes all the time, so your example is meaningless. Also the rule would prohibit all sorts of unethical behavior that is not illegal which people get away with constantly.

[Anonymous No.18122493]

>>18122479
>Do you think that if you start killing people like terrorists do you will not be eliminated?
At this point you have left the realm of the ethical rule and begun to speak of the realities of human behavior. You cannot have it both ways. Which will it be: the rule, or natural human behavior?

[Anonymous No.18122494]

>>18122479
>This is UNIVERSAL ETHICAL LAW...!!! If you do not follow it............. .......... ...... the police will arrest you.
This is all you have, isn't it?

[Anonymous No.18122502]

>>18122485
Okay, again: Natural Law exists and it has always been implemented by all jurisdictions of all time in all the world. If you want to kill people, you are the exception that doesn't even scratch the rule. You're like tickle for it.

[Anonymous No.18122505]

>>18122502
>Pseudo-Kantian ethical imperatives
>Natural Law
Dude, you can't have it both ways.

[Anonymous No.18122509]

>>18122494
>>18122493
What's your suggestion then? You are only criticizing. Do you think a man who kills should be left free and unpunished?

[Anonymous No.18122519]

>>18122505
Nonsense post. The rule in OP is the everyman's version of natural law. It is correct even for the sole fact that you don't want others to kill or beat you.

[Anonymous No.18122524]

>>18122509
How about, instead of attempting to formulate hard and fast ethical laws, we lay out a set of general principles, establish a telos for man to reach toward, and leave it to each individual to exercise their individual judgement in how to best implement these general principles in any given situation?

[Anonymous No.18122532]

>>18122502
It seems to me that plenty of people want to kill people. People kill people every day all over the world continually. I don't, but that's besides the point.
>>18122509
Whether a person is legally punished for something has no relation to whether that action was ethical. Anything can be made into a legal statute. It's completely arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.18122571]

>>18122014
This is the golden rule of natural law and said like fifteen times in the bible. Then this faggot Kant came around with it again and now apparently some teenage girl, what a waste of time

[Anonymous No.18122575]

>>18122519
correct

[Anonymous No.18122605]

>>18122014
My leftist friends sperg out whenever someone posts that saying or references the golden rule. They argue that it is privileged and self centered because I you are imposing how you want to be treated on another person. They argue for the platinum rule which is “treat others how they would like to be treated”

[Anonymous No.18122628]

>>18122524
>lay out a set of general principles
That would be possible in a world with a thousand people in total. They would gather, discuss those principles and find a joint agreement based on consensus. Since such a thing is not possible (or it isn't anymore) what is left to us is common sense, which appeals directly to natural law.
>establish a telos for man to reach toward
I have been critical of the relative behavior til now, but in front of this statement I have to be critical myself. What telos? Is there anyone who knows what that telos should be? To find God maybe? That's noble, but it's in no way a common telos, a telos for the collectivity. Someone will seek God and someone else will not. It doesn't make much sense to think about a "telos" when we are discussing what should the ethical order in which men are better off to live.

>>18122532
>It seems to me that plenty of people want to kill people. People kill people every day all over the world continually. I don't, but that's besides the point.
It doesn't matter. They are a tear in the ocean and they are not respecting natural law. Your observation is completely pointless.

>Anything can be made into a legal statute. It's completely arbitrary.
No, it's not. No individual in the world wants to die or to be killed. This is an obvious objective basis from which you begin to build the universal rule. Again, the OP's sentence refers to this.
You are most likely an angry young individual who likes to challenge and cast doubt upon everything. This doesn't change the fact that you don't want to be murdered, and from here derives that other people are kind enough to teach you that you should not kill other people as well.

>But...
Yes, but, but. It doesn't matter.

[Anonymous No.18122630]

>>18122605
Hi, slumlord here. Tell your leftist friends I want my boots licked.

[Anonymous No.18122644]

>>18122628
>I have been critical of the relative behavior til now, but in front of this statement I have to be critical myself.
*I have been critical of the relativistic behavior til now, but in front of this statement I have to be relativistic myself.

fixed

[Anonymous No.18122653]

>>18122628
>No individual in the world wants to die or to be killed.
If there were true no one would commit suicide. People also commit suicide by provoking others to murder them, you know? E.g. suicide by cop. But I guess you'll dismiss this fact just like the other one I brought up since it's inconvenient for your narrative.
>You are most likely an angry young individual who likes to challenge and cast doubt upon everything.
You are most like someone who has never thought through your own beliefs and thus cannot provide any coherent answer when challenged on them.

[Anonymous No.18122680]

>>18122605
holly shit i didnt know leftists were this insane
>>18122014
that is peak cringe and a justification for sjws. i think kant made it up. my rule is "onyl do what you think is right"

[Anonymous No.18122689]

>>18122014
>Cute haircut
>Nice clothes
>Beautiful background
>Awful makeup
>Ugly face.
I wish things were different but I gotta be honest, this how things are in my opinion. Sorry mate.

[Anonymous No.18122696]

>>18122653
>But I guess you'll dismiss this fact just like the other one I brought up since it's inconvenient for your narrative
No, I won't. I have already talked about that matter in this post >>18122266

>You are most like someone who has never thought through your own beliefs and thus cannot provide any coherent answer when challenged on them.
The real problem is that YOU can't provide any general statement, thus appearing as a nihilist retard who thinks there no meaning anywhere. You are only able to say "but", presenting obvious exceptions to a general golden rule which was stated in the Bible thousands of years ago and thereafter adopted by ANY government and jurisdiction in the world. It's like I was talking about the fact that water is composed by hydrogen and oxygen and you were trying to debunk this by recurring to an hypothetical physical law of another universe which would constitute exception. I am the one who should say "So what?", not you.

[Anonymous No.18122700]

>>18122605
>They argue for the platinum rule which is “treat others how they would like to be treated”

Even though the lamentation of "self centered" as being inherently-bad is already wrong, wouldn't this rule, in complete irony, imbibe the "self centered" wishes of someone else? Since it puts the onus on how they wish to be treated, making themselves the arbiter of morality.

[Anonymous No.18122732]

>>18122689
she's just an average Ukrainian girl
westerners have been beauty-starved for eternity so they consider this a 9-10/10

[Anonymous No.18122742]

>>18122700
>wouldn't this rule, in complete irony, imbibe the "self centered" wishes of someone else?
Yes, it does. It's just the reversal of the original rule. Actually the obvious correct comprehension of the rule requires that you apply both the principles, because they are interrelated and complementary.

[Anonymous No.18122758]

>>18122696
>No, I won't. I have already talked about that matter in this post
I see. It's a circular argument. The will is "universal" but anything contrary to it does not count because it is not in accord with the "universal" despite the fact that it disproves the existence of a universal. You're talking about a majority, nothing more.
>The real problem is that YOU can't provide any general statement, thus appearing as a nihilist retard who thinks there no meaning anywhere.
Because that's what I think. If I'm wrong you should be able to refute me.
>You are only able to say "but", presenting obvious exceptions to a general golden rule which was stated in the Bible thousands of years ago
Oh boy the Bible said it. Bringing out the big guns, I see.
>It's like I was talking about the fact that water is composed by hydrogen and oxygen and you were trying to debunk this by recurring to an hypothetical physical law of another universe which would constitute exception.
I'm bringing up things that actually exist. People want to die, people want to be killed, people want to kill others, people want to do every manner of "evil" you can possibly conceive. That's the world you actually live in, not some other dimension.

[Anonymous No.18122764]

>>18122689
>ugly face
Your brain is broken anon

[Anonymous No.18122835]

>>18122758
>I'm bringing up things that actually exist. People want to die, people want to be killed, people want to kill others, people want to do every manner of "evil" you can possibly conceive. That's the world you actually live in, not some other dimension.
But this does not refute or disprove anything. The fact that someone wants to die does not allow you to kill someone who doesn't want to die.

You are basically Rupert from Hitchcock's Rope. Watch it. The funny thing about nihilists like you is that whenever the occasion arises, you are always ready to deny and renounce your principles. Nietzsche, Napoleon, you're all like this. Literal clowns.

[Anonymous No.18122853]

>>18122014
I'm not other people though, you ought to treat people in a manner that suits their circumstances, I don't think the supposed golden rule ever really went against that notion though

[Anonymous No.18122856]

>>18122484
Kek

[Anonymous No.18122873]

>>18122764
She's not particularly nice.

[Anonymous No.18122874]

>>18122835
>The fact that someone wants to die does not allow you to kill someone who doesn't want to die.
Do you think there are things that do allow it? Or are you a pacifist?
>The funny thing about nihilists like you is that whenever the occasion arises, you are always ready to deny and renounce your principles.
I don't have any principles to renounce. If I need to say something contrary to what I believe then I'll do so. Doesn't matter to me.

[Anonymous No.18122906]

>>18122075
Be gone, sophist. All of mankind is generally miserable!