Totally irrelevant and ridiculous given your context, thought it might have some qualities to recommend it.Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Sun Sep 29, 2019 4:11 amNot ridiculous but striving for optimal pragmatism.Sculptor wrote: ↑Sat Sep 28, 2019 9:56 pmYou are just being ridiculous.
There is no objective reason for the golden rule. The golden rule is NOT a matter of fact.
The Golden Rule is abstracted from facts, thus grounded on facts, i.e. "is".
But I take your Golden Rule and raise you utilitarianism.
Both OUGHTS; neither ISes
What follows from you is not relevant to the thread.
PLONKNote this [Wiki].
Thus the Golden Rule is grounded on empathy.
- Trying to live according to the Golden Rule means trying to empathise with other people, including those who may be very different from us.
Empathy is at the root of kindness, compassion, understanding and respect – qualities that we all appreciate being shown, whoever we are, whatever we think and wherever we come from.
And although it isn’t possible to know what it really feels like to be a different person or live in different circumstances and have different life experiences, it isn’t difficult for most of us to imagine what would cause us suffering and to try to avoid causing suffering to others.
For this reason many people find the Golden Rule’s corollary – "do not treat people in a way you would not wish to be treated yourself" – more pragmatic.
— Maria MacLachlan, Think Humanism
Empathy is grounded on mirror neurons i.e. neurosciences and neuro-psychological.
What do you mean by objective reason?
What is objective is merely intersubjective consensus.
The most objective knowledge we have are Scientific theories.
Scientific theories according to Popper are merely polished conjectures [hypothesis] and grounded on intersubjective consensus of the relevant scientists and their peers.
How I am trying to ground the above is based on the Scientific Method, thus potentially objective.
At present the above are indications and leads based on facts.
Whilst we do not have conclusive evidences yet, it would be dumb to dismiss it totally.