the golden rule in application is unclear
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.
You are making a claim. Burden of Proof rests on you.
As such, I’ll simply clarify the things that you are claiming are unclear, as you only seem to be asking questions. However, it is not on me a case for the clarity of the Golden Rule. I must simply show that your arguments fail to show that the Golden Rule is unclear in application.
So, to this example with Bob and John:
This example doesn’t seem at all unclear to me. Rather, you are making it unclear.
So, Bob likes to do cocaine, and finds it absolutely undebatable that a person who wants to do cocaine can do it.
John doesn’t like cocaine, and finds it absolutely undebatable that no person should do cocaine.
If John were to take the cocaine from Bob, he would be asserting his will over Bob. Basically, placing his desires over Bob. Of course, were John in a similar situation, where someone is placing their will over John’s, John surely would not approve. So, if John is to do unto others as he would have them do unto him, he must treat Bob in such a way that Bob’s desires are put first. John could surely talk to Bob and make Bob desire to stop taking cocaine.
However, if Bob is to stay true to the Golden Rule (GR), he cannot do this.
The key is not the facts of the issue, but rather the facts of the action taken in regard to the issue.
For, in order to follow the Golden Rule, we must consider actions (do unto others). Only by taking action can we “do” anything, and only by apply the GR to the action can we examine its effects. Of course, the situation must be examined, which is a complicated matter, but this is far from lack of clarity.
Perhaps your next set of arguments will provide a better case.
As for these questions below the line:
None of these are really arguments. Rather, these all assume that there is some kind of ambiguity as relates to the question. You will have to explore this.
your whole response seems to revolve around how you seem to think you answered the hypo, so i guess i'm just responding that you didn't adequately respond.
You've given no argument as to how my response is inadequete. In what way is it "inadequete"? "your whole response seems to revolve around how you seem to think you answered the hypo". How else is my response supposed to work?
" he could intervene cause he views cocaine as wrong, or could not cause the guy doing it views it as non debateably okay."
His physical intervention is not the problem. Physical intervention is only one way in which someone can intervene. For example, simply talking Bob is intervention, as John would be providing Bob with reasons not to do cocaine, but is still intervening. So, you've given no reasoning or argument as to how this makes the GR unclear in application.
" there is no clear answer to the question about what he should do given both scenarios have things he'd do or not do or have done to him were he doing cocaine and such."
I don't see how this is relevant. You have not explained what you mean by "unclear" and "clear". I can only go based off of the arguments you have provided.
Perhaps you can provide a more adequete argument as to the GR's lack of clear application. You've simply asked "well, what should he do?". This is not an argument by any definition. It is a question. Asking a question is not positing your Burden of Proof.
that is still only one way of intervening. he could not intervene at all based on what i've argued before. or he could intervene a lot, based on what i've argued before. your view could be viewed at best as a 'compromise', but it stll doesnt give clarity that it is the best approach, unless you yourself 'as you'd have them do unto you' would prefer a compromised approach against you.
the lack of knowing what it best is what constitutes 'unclear' in this debate. even if it was the best view to you personally, it doesn't give clarity to everyone else who might not share your views and doesn't know how to respond.
Once again, Burden of Proof is on you to show that the Golden Rule is in fact unclear in application. It is not on me to show that it is clear. The arguments that you have provided do not affirm the resolution.
Your main method of argument has been questioning. This is Shifting the Burden of Proof. You are the claimant. You have BoP, unless we agree otherwise.
Not only that, but you are also giving no real rebuttal against my explanation. You simply call it "inadequete". Once again, Burden of Proof rests on you. You must give the audience a strong case for the affirmation of the resolution. You have not done that here. Rather, you have made this a debate where you make a claim and then ask me to refute it. That is not how debate works.
Audience, if PRO has provided a strong case for the claim that "the golden rule is unclear in application", your obligation as audience members is to vote for PRO.
Vote for CON if you feel that the explanation that I gave serves to weaken the argument to the point that you either believe the claim false or find that you must withhold judgement.
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||0||3|