How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Age
Posts: 3304
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Age » Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:23 am

gaffo wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:03 am
Age wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:35 am
surreptitious57 wrote:
Fri Feb 01, 2019 7:26 am

The Golden Rule / Silver Rule is the foundation for all morality and is a truly universal rule all should live by
What is that rule?
Golden Rule is to love your enemies and turn your cheek for the next strike from the bully.
First there would HAVE TO BE an "enemy".
gaffo wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:03 am
not my view - but the Golden Rule - the ideal one in an ideal realm.
In the coming Truly Loving Peaceful "world" there is NO enemy.
gaffo wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:03 am
here in the real world, i reject that concept and strive for the Reciprocity Rule.
What exactly is the 'real' world?
gaffo wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:03 am
never start the fight/never offer the first strike - but offer the reply (strike back - in same measure (not more, for to offer more only offer the bully to escalate - add infinitum).
So, if some one kills your brother, then is it okay for you to then kill their brother?

Is this rule more or less what you strive for?

Or, if a child "strikes" you then you strike back in the same measure is all right also?
gaffo wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:03 am
nor do i feel the need to love my enemy.
WHY do you have enemies? What have you done to them?

Of, what have they done, which you are judging them? And, what can you judge them on, exactly?

prof
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by prof » Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:12 am

The Golden Rule, as I understand it, is: Treat others as you would like to be treated (unless you have Sado-masochistic tendencies); and don't do to anyone what you don't want done to yourself.

"Turn the other cheek" today is known as Nonviolent Direct Action. {Less life is lost, over all, than if both sides are violent.} This policy is best when not dealing with sociopaths.

BTW, An example of a sociopath is the current occupant of the House painted white. He cannot feel empathy, lacks the capacity.

He does not know the benefits o living ethically, doesn't know his Ethics, but at times can feign it. He has a criminal mind. Thus he is dangerous.
Now that he has a challenger for his office within his own party, if a fair election were to be held, he would - based upon historical precedent - likely lose - if not the primary, then the general. Due to voter suppression, gerymandering (and voting machines lacking paper-ballot backup) it will be difficult to have a fair election for the highest office.

What say you? Do you know Ethics?

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Logik » Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:32 am

prof wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:12 am
"Turn the other cheek" today is known as Nonviolent Direct Action. {Less life is lost, over all, than if both sides are violent.} This policy is best when not dealing with sociopaths.
Hence your error in reasoning.

According to the laws of natural selection non-violent action against violence is probably a bad idea.
prof wrote:
Wed Apr 17, 2019 9:12 am
BTW, An example of a sociopath is the current occupant of the House painted white. He cannot feel empathy, lacks the capacity.

He does not know the benefits o living ethically, doesn't know his Ethics, but at times can feign it. He has a criminal mind. Thus he is dangerous.
You have grounded ethics on empathy. Paul Bloom makes a convincing argument as to why empathy is not a sufficient, or even desirable foundation for ethics. It leads to over-protectiveness, tribalism and pedophrasty. Such is the limitation as predicted by Dunbar's number

Further. You have committed a Type I error. A false positive. You have equated "absence of empathy" with sociopathy and even criminality.

In doing so you are discriminating against autism.

Dissecting empathy: high levels of psychopathic and autistic traits are characterized by difficulties in different social information processing domains

Your generalization amounts to nothing other than fear-mongering against those who lack the capacity for empathy. And yet some of the most notable scientists of all time have been on the specturm

You pathologise neurodiversity. You are an immoral man, prof.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4973
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Post by henry quirk » Wed Apr 17, 2019 7:14 pm

"The Golden Rule, as I understand it, is: Treat others as you would like to be treated (unless you have Sado-masochistic tendencies); and don't do to anyone what you don't want done to yourself."

My interpretation: mind your own business, keep your hands to yourself, or else.

Primordially ethical, I think.

prof
Posts: 1071
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by prof » Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:02 am

The fact that The Golden Rule (when correctly understood) is completely compatible with the fresh, new paradigm for Ethics, the Hartman/Katz approach, shows that tradition and the latest paradigm can indeed harmonize!

See Chapter 17 here:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/HO ... SFULLY.pdf

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 4973
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

"The Golden Rule (when correctly understood) is completely compatible with the fresh, new paradigm for Ethics..."

Post by henry quirk » Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:08 pm

...and with the very old, very sensible MYOB.

So: I'll go my way, you go yours, yeah?

Too bad (for me): your way won't allow you to leave me be.

Too bad (for you): leavin' me be is the only option I'm givin' you.

Logik
Posts: 4041
Joined: Tue Dec 04, 2018 12:48 pm

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Logik » Fri Apr 19, 2019 5:20 pm

prof wrote:
Fri Apr 19, 2019 8:02 am
The fact that The Golden Rule (when correctly understood) is completely compatible with the fresh, new paradigm for Ethics, the Hartman/Katz approach
But you don't understand The Golden Rule correctly.

The Golden Rule is about reciprocity.

If you show kindness - I will reciprocate it.
If you show me violence - I will reciprocate that too.

In response to violence you preach pacifism. That goes against reciprocity, and therefore - against the Golden Rule.

gaffo
Posts: 2396
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by gaffo » Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am

Age wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:23 am


So, if some one kills your brother, then is it okay for you to then kill their brother?
no, the brother i do know about - could be a nice guy like me.

if his brother kills me, i will kill him in return.

i have no issue with my killer's brother.

Age wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:23 am
Is this rule more or less what you strive for?
no, I do not advicate killing my enemy's brother.

i affirm Reciprocy,

and yes it is limited by circumstances. like being dead, and so not able to return killing to my killer/etc.

as a general rule it works better than other rules in this realm though.

Age wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:23 am
Or, if a child "strikes" you then you strike back in the same measure is all right also?
no, I take social convention into account, I will never strike a child nor women - even if they deserve it (ideally another child will strike the child, and another women with strike the woman). Me being a man, will just not respond - though would love to strike the kid/and wish i were a kid and so allowed to.


gaffo wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:03 am
nor do i feel the need to love my enemy.
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:23 am
WHY do you have enemies? What have you done to them?

ask them! I'm a just person meriting no enemies, but he/she being a bully has no personal reason to hate/strike me - all needed is a broken soul (self hate), and externalizing of that hate to an unmerited target - ME.

Age wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:23 am
Of, what have they done, which you are judging them? And, what can you judge them on, exactly?

I judge them for striking me for no reason.

i.e. i never gave then cause, they strike me out of their own "brokeness" - and instead of looking inward, to address and fix why they are bullies, instead - like all cowards - strike out.

and the result are assholes to cowardly to look inwards for thier assholiness and fixing it (or hanging themselves if the self hate is so great) - and make the rest of us pay for their psycopahty - you and me - just for being.

so fuck the bully - the bully is coward, too cowardly to be introspective and fix his own brokenness. It takes courage to look inward and address why one self hates and the need to kill their own self to a degree (kill the bully within them) - some do so and i commend them, sadly most do not.

and so why i affirm Reciprocity.

Age
Posts: 3304
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Age » Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:27 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:23 am


So, if some one kills your brother, then is it okay for you to then kill their brother?
no, the brother i do know about - could be a nice guy like me.

if his brother kills me, i will kill him in return.
I hope you are saying that in the highest of jest.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am
I have no issue with my killer's brother.

Age wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:23 am
Is this rule more or less what you strive for?
no, I do not advicate killing my enemy's brother.

i affirm Reciprocy,

and yes it is limited by circumstances. like being dead, and so not able to return killing to my killer/etc.
Okay so you were joking.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am
as a general rule it works better than other rules in this realm though.
I am not quite sure how well it does work when you are already dead, but anyway.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:23 am
Or, if a child "strikes" you then you strike back in the same measure is all right also?
no, I take social convention into account, I will never strike a child nor women - even if they deserve it (ideally another child will strike the child, and another women with strike the woman).
So, from your perspective, some people DESERVE to be striked/attacked, and so think or BELIEVE violence is a perfectly acceptable way to behave in human society, correct?

What happens if another person thinks or BELIEVES that you DESERVE to be striked (or attacked) for some of the things you say and/or do? Is it then okay for "others" to strike you and be violent with you?

You did, after say, say 'children and women DESERVE to be striked' and some people would be horrified and that you deserve some thing yourself for thinking and saying such a thing.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am
Me being a man, will just not respond - though would love to strike the kid/and wish i were a kid and so allowed to.
Now some people would be becoming even more horrified with the way you really do view things.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am
gaffo wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:03 am
nor do i feel the need to love my enemy.
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:23 am
WHY do you have enemies? What have you done to them?

ask them! I'm a just person meriting no enemies, but he/she being a bully has no personal reason to hate/strike me - all needed is a broken soul (self hate), and externalizing of that hate to an unmerited target - ME.
So you see that your LOVE of striking a child and wishing that you could strike children, without any consequences for you, makes you an "unmerited target" correct?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:23 am
Of, what have they done, which you are judging them? And, what can you judge them on, exactly?

I judge them for striking me for no reason.

i.e. i never gave then cause, they strike me out of their own "brokeness" - and instead of looking inward, to address and fix why they are bullies, instead - like all cowards - strike out.
But when you WISH to strike out it is completely justified, right?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am
and the result are assholes to cowardly to look inwards for thier assholiness and fixing it (or hanging themselves if the self hate is so great) - and make the rest of us pay for their psycopahty - you and me - just for being.

so fuck the bully - the bully is coward, too cowardly to be introspective and fix his own brokenness. It takes courage to look inward and address why one self hates and the need to kill their own self to a degree (kill the bully within them) - some do so and i commend them, sadly most do not.

and so why i affirm Reciprocity.
Some might suggest to you that your love and desire to strike women and children is a form of bully, which is within you that you have not yet recognised yourself. And, your attempts at TRYING TO "explain" reciprocity as some form of "justification" for your own bulliness is just you NOT looking inward yourself

gaffo
Posts: 2396
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by gaffo » Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:25 am

Age wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:27 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:23 am


So, if some one kills your brother, then is it okay for you to then kill their brother?
no, the brother i do know about - could be a nice guy like me.

if his brother kills me, i will kill him in return.
I hope you are saying that in the highest of jest.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am
I have no issue with my killer's brother.

Age wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:23 am
Is this rule more or less what you strive for?
no, I do not advicate killing my enemy's brother.

i affirm Reciprocy,

and yes it is limited by circumstances. like being dead, and so not able to return killing to my killer/etc.
Okay so you were joking.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am
as a general rule it works better than other rules in this realm though.
I am not quite sure how well it does work when you are already dead, but anyway.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:23 am
Or, if a child "strikes" you then you strike back in the same measure is all right also?
no, I take social convention into account, I will never strike a child nor women - even if they deserve it (ideally another child will strike the child, and another women with strike the woman).
So, from your perspective, some people DESERVE to be striked/attacked, and so think or BELIEVE violence is a perfectly acceptable way to behave in human society, correct?

What happens if another person thinks or BELIEVES that you DESERVE to be striked (or attacked) for some of the things you say and/or do? Is it then okay for "others" to strike you and be violent with you?

You did, after say, say 'children and women DESERVE to be striked' and some people would be horrified and that you deserve some thing yourself for thinking and saying such a thing.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am
Me being a man, will just not respond - though would love to strike the kid/and wish i were a kid and so allowed to.
Now some people would be becoming even more horrified with the way you really do view things.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am
gaffo wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 1:03 am
nor do i feel the need to love my enemy.
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:23 am
WHY do you have enemies? What have you done to them?

ask them! I'm a just person meriting no enemies, but he/she being a bully has no personal reason to hate/strike me - all needed is a broken soul (self hate), and externalizing of that hate to an unmerited target - ME.
So you see that your LOVE of striking a child and wishing that you could strike children, without any consequences for you, makes you an "unmerited target" correct?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am
Age wrote:
Mon Apr 15, 2019 8:23 am
Of, what have they done, which you are judging them? And, what can you judge them on, exactly?

I judge them for striking me for no reason.

i.e. i never gave then cause, they strike me out of their own "brokeness" - and instead of looking inward, to address and fix why they are bullies, instead - like all cowards - strike out.
But when you WISH to strike out it is completely justified, right?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am
and the result are assholes to cowardly to look inwards for thier assholiness and fixing it (or hanging themselves if the self hate is so great) - and make the rest of us pay for their psycopahty - you and me - just for being.

so fuck the bully - the bully is coward, too cowardly to be introspective and fix his own brokenness. It takes courage to look inward and address why one self hates and the need to kill their own self to a degree (kill the bully within them) - some do so and i commend them, sadly most do not.

and so why i affirm Reciprocity.
Some might suggest to you that your love and desire to strike women and children is a form of bully, which is within you that you have not yet recognised yourself. And, your attempts at TRYING TO "explain" reciprocity as some form of "justification" for your own bulliness is just you NOT looking inward yourself
are you a Troll?

its no rocket science bubba.

Reciprocity is all about never striking the first blow, but returning it in kind if resieving said blow.

and no, if i strike the fist blow i'm the bully and forfet the moral ground to reply(or cry) to the blow i need coming to me. i.e me being the instigator i must stand there and take the blow. if i return the blow with a harder blow, then the target has the moral right (since i started it) with returning the harder blow....until either one of us is dead, or i back down being the instigator.

what is it you do not understand? - this is kids stuff Bubba.

Age
Posts: 3304
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Age » Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:36 am

gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:25 am
Age wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:27 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am


no, the brother i do know about - could be a nice guy like me.

if his brother kills me, i will kill him in return.
I hope you are saying that in the highest of jest.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am
I have no issue with my killer's brother.




no, I do not advicate killing my enemy's brother.

i affirm Reciprocy,

and yes it is limited by circumstances. like being dead, and so not able to return killing to my killer/etc.
Okay so you were joking.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am
as a general rule it works better than other rules in this realm though.
I am not quite sure how well it does work when you are already dead, but anyway.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am

no, I take social convention into account, I will never strike a child nor women - even if they deserve it (ideally another child will strike the child, and another women with strike the woman).
So, from your perspective, some people DESERVE to be striked/attacked, and so think or BELIEVE violence is a perfectly acceptable way to behave in human society, correct?

What happens if another person thinks or BELIEVES that you DESERVE to be striked (or attacked) for some of the things you say and/or do? Is it then okay for "others" to strike you and be violent with you?

You did, after say, say 'children and women DESERVE to be striked' and some people would be horrified and that you deserve some thing yourself for thinking and saying such a thing.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am
Me being a man, will just not respond - though would love to strike the kid/and wish i were a kid and so allowed to.
Now some people would be becoming even more horrified with the way you really do view things.
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am



ask them! I'm a just person meriting no enemies, but he/she being a bully has no personal reason to hate/strike me - all needed is a broken soul (self hate), and externalizing of that hate to an unmerited target - ME.
So you see that your LOVE of striking a child and wishing that you could strike children, without any consequences for you, makes you an "unmerited target" correct?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am


I judge them for striking me for no reason.

i.e. i never gave then cause, they strike me out of their own "brokeness" - and instead of looking inward, to address and fix why they are bullies, instead - like all cowards - strike out.
But when you WISH to strike out it is completely justified, right?
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 12:04 am
and the result are assholes to cowardly to look inwards for thier assholiness and fixing it (or hanging themselves if the self hate is so great) - and make the rest of us pay for their psycopahty - you and me - just for being.

so fuck the bully - the bully is coward, too cowardly to be introspective and fix his own brokenness. It takes courage to look inward and address why one self hates and the need to kill their own self to a degree (kill the bully within them) - some do so and i commend them, sadly most do not.

and so why i affirm Reciprocity.
Some might suggest to you that your love and desire to strike women and children is a form of bully, which is within you that you have not yet recognised yourself. And, your attempts at TRYING TO "explain" reciprocity as some form of "justification" for your own bulliness is just you NOT looking inward yourself
are you a Troll?

its no rocket science bubba.

Reciprocity is all about never striking the first blow, but returning it in kind if resieving said blow.

and no, if i strike the fist blow i'm the bully and forfet the moral ground to reply(or cry) to the blow i need coming to me. i.e me being the instigator i must stand there and take the blow. if i return the blow with a harder blow, then the target has the moral right (since i started it) with returning the harder blow....until either one of us is dead, or i back down being the instigator.

what is it you do not understand? - this is kids stuff Bubba.
What i do understand is WHY you keep your view that children and women DESERVE to be striked, WHY you have your love to strike children, and WHY you wish that you were allowed to strike children. I understand WHY you think this way because I also understand exactly HOW you came to have all of these types of views. Although I understand all of this i certainly do NOT agree with any of your views here.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 4984
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Apr 24, 2019 12:00 am

prof wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 11:39 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:55 pm
The question of "constructing" an ethical system is in itself an ethical question that ends in a loop.
Back up this claim with some reasons! Why is it an "ethical" question?

Because the system of ethics one inherently believes in, even a strict "objectivity", effectively acts as the groundworking for the subject perspective in which the system is formed. All systems are developed from a position of subjectivity; hence are not limited to a strict set of laws and require an inherent dualism of irrationality and rationality.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Sat Mar 30, 2019 3:55 pm
The Golden Rule is a self-referential universal ethical system the [sic] constructs itself.
Yes. And back in 2017 I devoted a chapter to it with the title "A Golden Principle." See pp. 66-68 here:
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/HO ... SFULLY.pdf

How about that?!!

Do you believe that that one moral principle is sufficient to cope with most every issue that arises in the field of Ethics?
Speak up, folks. Is that one 'rule' adequate?
Won't the word "rule" scare off lots of people today?

What do you think?

Yes and that system is dependent upon an inherent metaphysics or religion/science to determine it as the proper manner of "being" considering the nature of morality is a question of "being" itself. A strict morality requires a strict interprepation of the nature of "being" and as such requires interpretation as not just an essential property of "being" itself but inherently within the nature of morality itself; hence we are left with a recourse not just back to hegelian dialectic, the rhetoric/dialectic dualism the socractics address, or "the word" in western judeo-christian interpretation but effectively "symbolism" as a from of language itself observed within all "mythos" but reflecting to the form/formless dichotomy of taoism (considering all "forms" are the foundations of symbols regardless of the western platonic nature that reflects some eastern thought especially with the pyrhonist movements where all is "image"...hence form considering image is the replication of forms).

Thus we are left with morality being grounded in a dialectic of forms that exists through the "word" but is not strictly limited to it considering the nature of communication as the relation of symbols reflects itself within the empirical nature of reality that exists as a form of symbolism itself. Because this nature of symbolism, which is the grounding of all metaphysics indirectly or directly (ie being que being observing the vary nature of replication that gives the grounding to image as form), is fundamentally an a center point to further images we can observing all being as a means to further being and as such effectively observing a unified nature of a point of origin that sets the grounds for "the one" (considering all being as a means observings all being effectively observing 1 constant underlying nature of connection because of this nature).

The nature of morality is grounding in not just a movement towards "the one" but effectively requires an underlying constant unity where all relations are grounded in a "moral symmetry" where not just time and place but acting in accords to a natural law sets the foundation for all parts working in place. This working in place, where morality is determined fundamentally by making the correct action in the correct time, sets the foundation for "symmetry" being the foundation for morality thus allowing for a classical objective stance of reason as well as a romantic classical notion of beauty to be inherent within the rational and intuitive nature of conscious where "law" itself is grounded in a strict objective rationality but also a subjective intuitive base.

In these respects the grounding of all moral systems cannot be limited to a strict...well anything...but rather a metaphysics based around the "one" which is both strict in the respect of a localized definition but formless in the respect of requiring a grounding in "infinity".

If any of this makes sense I will continue.



gaffo
Posts: 2396
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by gaffo » Thu Apr 25, 2019 2:21 am

Age wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 7:36 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:25 am
Age wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 2:27 am


I hope you are saying that in the highest of jest.



Okay so you were joking.



I am not quite sure how well it does work when you are already dead, but anyway.



So, from your perspective, some people DESERVE to be striked/attacked, and so think or BELIEVE violence is a perfectly acceptable way to behave in human society, correct?

What happens if another person thinks or BELIEVES that you DESERVE to be striked (or attacked) for some of the things you say and/or do? Is it then okay for "others" to strike you and be violent with you?

You did, after say, say 'children and women DESERVE to be striked' and some people would be horrified and that you deserve some thing yourself for thinking and saying such a thing.



Now some people would be becoming even more horrified with the way you really do view things.



So you see that your LOVE of striking a child and wishing that you could strike children, without any consequences for you, makes you an "unmerited target" correct?



But when you WISH to strike out it is completely justified, right?



Some might suggest to you that your love and desire to strike women and children is a form of bully, which is within you that you have not yet recognised yourself. And, your attempts at TRYING TO "explain" reciprocity as some form of "justification" for your own bulliness is just you NOT looking inward yourself
are you a Troll?

as i thought, thanks for answering my inquiry

Age
Posts: 3304
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by Age » Thu Apr 25, 2019 4:42 am

gaffo wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 2:21 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:25 am


are you a Troll?

as i thought, thanks for answering my inquiry
I do NOT know what answer you "got", and do NOT really care.

But anyway what is a 'troll', to you?

gaffo
Posts: 2396
Joined: Mon Nov 27, 2017 3:15 am

Re: How construct a sound Ethical Theory?

Post by gaffo » Thu Apr 25, 2019 4:52 am

Age wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 4:42 am
gaffo wrote:
Thu Apr 25, 2019 2:21 am
gaffo wrote:
Sun Apr 21, 2019 6:25 am


are you a Troll?

as i thought, thanks for answering my inquiry
I do NOT know what answer you "got", and do NOT really care.

But anyway what is a 'troll', to you?
you

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests