The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Winning
6 Points
The Contender
Astal3
Con (against)
Losing
0 Points

the golden rule in application is unclear

Do you like this debate?NoYes+0
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 2 votes the winner is...
dairygirl4u2c
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/11/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 3 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 502 times Debate No: 58823
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (0)
Votes (2)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

do unto others as you'd have them do unto you.

one might argue the golden rule is clear, but could only referring in that instance that the rule is stated clearly. i agree with that. that's why i said 'in application' in the opening statement, it's not clear.

if it is clear, what are the guiding principles that can determine how to act in accordance with it?

instead of a mess of ideas, given this idea is hard for me to discuss in the abstract, i will give an example.

for example. John is doing cocaine, and only dabbles in it and views it as nondebateably harmless in the bigger picture. Bob thinks any cocaine use is going too far, and is not debatable to say otherwise. Bob personally would want someone to invervene if he was doing cocaine. on the other hand, Bob also would want people to respect his wishes on things he sees as debateably okay or nondebateable.

does Bob intervene, based on the fact that he'd want intervened with on cocaine use, especially given he personally sees it as undebateably not okay? or does he respect John's wishes given John must at least view cocaine use as at least debateably to nondebateably okay and Bob wuldn't want someone else intervening if he views something as debatebable to nondebateble?

all one is really able to say is that the golden rule can provide some very general guiding rules. we first have to assume that we should approach it subjectively, which is debateble, instead of looking for an outside standard.

-do you act based on your own perceptions of what's debateable, or seek some more objective source?
-plus there's objective and subjective things to consider. some people might view certain acts as okay, but society and pretty objectively, their acts are not okay. so when do we defer to their subjective reality, versus the objective nature of the situation?

but after that, so what gives? does Bob intervene or not? if you say yes he should, then he's placing his own view of cocaine over John's, or at least his own view of whether it's debateable over John's. and, Bob is ignoring the prospect that he could ahve deferred to John given John views it as debateable, and Bob would want left along on things he views as debateable.

given it's a tough call, Bob might want some outside standard to help guide him. but given it seem like th golden rule is meant to be subjective, he's left with a decision with no way of knowing hte best way to approach it.

reliance on the golden rule doesn't really direct how to approach it. it admittedly gives you food for thought and directs you in a laudable way in general, but how to respond isn't so clear cut.

------------------

given cocaine use is probably viewed as 'objective' wrong by christians and most people that might taint their view. though even still, there are a lot of libertarian christians and general peoples who view it as wrong personally, but view it as the ight of others to do as they wish.

but do to the objective status of cocaine use, there are less objective examples to think about,that mostly involves jugment calls with no way to know the best way to approach them

-someone doesn't eat meat cause they think it's immoral.
-what about those who: smoke cigarettes, marijuama, drinks, eats food and sometimes too much or bad nutritionally.... and then the varying degrees of usage for each

--someone is setting of fireworks close to the road, but it's debated if it's too close. alternatively, someone is setting off fireworks with people around, but it's debated if there's too many people around. alternatively, someone is staying too close to the fireworks, it's debated. some people say these situations are not debateable in their views of the matters, other say it is debateable. so even if it's debateable is debateable, or at least debated.
Astal3

Con

Alright so I'll start off by saying that I agree with you on many points, but your question was is the golden rule unclear? Unclear in what instance? There are multiple ways any rule can be applied and you are using it as a blanket statement for an infinite number of variables such as religion, society,personal values,family background,situation, etc. So the question is unclear and in a way undebateable due to the lack of a situation to focus on. which allows you to run circles around anything I might say because you have an infinite amount of circumstances to pull from; but I'll end my argument with this, societies application of a golden rule is quite clear as it follows laws and cultural conduct. Personal application of a golden rule can never be clear and varies from person to person.
Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

so con is basically is drawing issue with how i use the word 'unclear'. aside from that though, con basically agrees with me:

"Personal application of a golden rule can never be clear and varies from person to person."

"There are multiple ways any rule can be applied [....] for an infinite number of variables such as religion, society,personal values,family background,situation, etc."

notice he even said personal *application* just as i did in the resolution.
Astal3

Con

And as I stated before we pretty much are on the same terms. But also notice that I said in societal application it is very clear what the golden rule is. Your for a statement which simply implies that no matter what circumstance the golden rule in application will always be unclear. And in the end we are arguing the original statement not a circumstance to your statement. What I mean by societal application is take western societal values.. treat others how you wish to be treated. There is no grey area there its pretty straight forward. One of the ten commandments is thou shall not kill. There is no grey area there. You can not kill period. But we all know there are circumstances such as self defence where it is grey. So your original statement before you had your opening statement is wrong. And in a way you've already answered yourself. But you fail to take into account that there is no grey area in societies basic overall application of any rule. That is why they are there. It only becomes uncertain when you break a law down into individual circumstances. So I argue that you are right but for the purpose of debate and the heading at the top of the screen the statement is wrong.
Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

i dont think it's fair to say i think the golden is always unclear, but yes i should have said it often is unclear in appliation.

"But you fail to take into account that there is no grey area in societies basic overall application of any rule."

go back to the hypothetical of bob and john. it is unclear to bob using our own social values, whether or not he should intervene.

i can't really follow how con is now trying to back out with agreeing with me. he says it's unclear in application, then says social rules are clear in application? i don't understand how that follows. social rules just add more layers to the individuals decision making.

i think con just basically agreed with me, then went on to try to unsucessfully reason himself into saying how he doesn't. i say, let's go back to the statement from con that basically reiterated my resolution, thus him conceding and me winning.

"Personal application of a golden rule can never be clear and varies from person to person."
Astal3

Con

I do agree with you on a lot but that doesn't change the fact that from a societal standpoint there are no grey zones. There can't be otherwise there is no basis for basic morality. As with rob and bob. Love the names they have a ring to it. Society demands that he intervenes for the simple fact that drugs are illegal and he could possibly be a threat to others whether directly or indirectly. But it was the individual that was faced with the choice not society. There are a lot of rules etched in rock that are very clear and distinct. But it is up to the individual to apply them in the best moral context they can. Simply trying to twist my words to say your right doesn't prove your right. I have argued and continue to argue the original statement made which is the golden rule in application is unclear. Granted you realized your mistake but that doesn't take away from the fact that the original statement is what we are arguing. Since my opponent took the pro stance she was required to defend her claim in the full. She failed to do this by one. Right off the bat said that it was only true in circumstance. And two isn't truly agreeing with me by arguing that societal application is unclear and must be due to the individual factor. But the societal factor must be clear otherwise the golden rule wouldn't exist. I have provided sufficient logical evidence to why the statement being debated is untrue and my opponent has simply debated why I agree with them on some points which they believe is a default win. They have not provided sufficient evidence to refute my reasoning but instead agree with me by saying our positions are the same. Which in retrospect proves the original statement wrong and therefore I believe I have provided the better argument.
Debate Round No. 3
No comments have been posted on this debate.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by whiteflame 3 years ago
whiteflame
dairygirl4u2cAstal3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: "Personal application of a golden rule can never be clear and varies from person to person." That's really the problematic line here. The rest of your response seems to be questioning the clarity behind Pro's view of what the Golden Rule is, whereas this line outright concedes the point that, in many instances, its application is unclear. Really no way out at this point, even if you do prove that it's not unclear for societies.
Vote Placed by Sagey 3 years ago
Sagey
dairygirl4u2cAstal3Tied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:--Vote Checkmark1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:30 
Reasons for voting decision: Con actually agreed with Pro in the first argument, as Pro does not specify what context the Golden Rule (Originated by Confucius, not Jesus) is applied. To a Masochist, it means flog them as you would have them flog you. It is false to state that there are no grey areas in societies, when in fact, societies have all sorts of individual, some odd, customs, some have rituals that you would not have done to yourself, anthropology has uncovered many alarming customs that societies have followed, Morality is subjective and arrived in its present form through Evolution, not God/Jesus.