The Instigator
dairygirl4u2c
Pro (for)
Losing
3 Points
The Contender
MrJosh
Con (against)
Winning
4 Points

the golden rule n application is not clear

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...
MrJosh
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 7/10/2014 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 years ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 558 times Debate No: 58806
Debate Rounds (3)
Comments (3)
Votes (2)

 

dairygirl4u2c

Pro

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

the golden rule is not clear

my thoughts are not very organized. maybe after a few debates they will be better.

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

some intervention v deferrence hypotheticals:
-someone is setting of fireworks close to the road, but it's debatable if it's too close. alternatively, someone is setting off fireworks with people around, but it's debateable if there's too many people around. alternatively, someone is staying too close to the fireworks debateably. some people say these situations are not debateable. so even if it's debateable is debateable, or at least debated.
-someone looks at porn, which at least amongst Christians is usually considered wrong.
-someone doesn't eat meat cause they think it's immoral.
-someone cuts himself for kicks.
-an adult male has man love with a seventeen year old male. greeks had man love with boys and men, and society accepted it. is a one year difference and the cultural phenomenons going on here going to change things?
-what about those who: smoke cigarettes, marijuama, drink, does cocaine.... and then the varying degrees of usage. or those who eat arguably too much.
in which cases does an outsider intervene, and in which cases does the outsider defer to the person? if it's debatable about how to approach the situation, then you have to formulate your own philsophy, which means it'd vary by the person, which ultimately means the rule isn't really that clear.

many people would want themselves deferred to if they are doing something questionable. then they might want intervened against for extreme situations if they are seen as clearly wrong. but how do you know which is which, and what if another person would want to never be intervened against? you couldtake the philosophy that you personally might intervened against despite the fact that the other person doesn't want intervened against..... or you could take the philsophy of complete deferrence to the other's wishes, even though you'd want intervened against. so how is this rule clear if whether or not to act is purely up to the individual?
and how is 'as they would have done unto you' clear, when you could base it on if the other person was you, or if you based on more on the fact that they aren't you?

and sometimes it might be such that i would call it debateable, but another wouldn't. 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?

or, what about selling cars. some might say it's the other persons obligation to find any flaws and sell as is, but another might say a person whould be forthright with the information. do you just base it on your own desire or expectations if ou were in that situation?
MrJosh

Con


I accept this debate. PRO has claimed that the golden rule is not clear, and asks “what are the guiding principles that can determine how to act in accordance with it?” I will argue that the golden rule is clear, a point I will demonstrate. For the purposes of this debate, we will use PRO’s rendering of the Golden Rule:


“[D]o unto others as you'd have them do unto you


Simplicity


The Golden Rule is very simple. It states that whenever we are going to act toward another person, we should act toward them how we would like ourselves to be acted towards if we were in that position. There are no guiding principles, that is all there is. If we are walking down the street, the Golden Rule says that we should not punch the man walking the other way, unless that is how we would have him treat us. Similarly, we should treat people well if we ourselves wish to be treated well.


Complexity


I’m not going to address PRO’s myriad of examples for the simple reason that I have already addressed them generally in the previous section. Also, the Golden Rule doesn’t apply to some of the scenarios outlined by PRO as they aren’t about human interaction. I just felt it would be helpful to illustrate the point with a two of PRO’s own examples.


Fireworks


If I was setting off fireworks too close to people, I would want to be warned so that I would not inadvertently injure someone. Even if the proximity to or quantity of people doesn’t make it a clear hazard, I would like it if I was made aware so that I could reassess the situation and ensure that I will not injure someone. As this is how I would like to be treated, I would warn the individual.


Buying/Selling Cars


If we were selling a car, we should disclose any problems with the car because if we were in the position of buying the car, that is what we would want the seller to do for us.


Final Thoughts


Just as both of the scenarios I outlined above are pretty simple, the overall application of the Golden Rule is simple, as I outlined early in my comments. I look forward to PRO’s thoughts on the matter.


Debate Round No. 1
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

con first argues the golden rule is clear, but he is 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 resolution, it's not clear.

con does a lot of 'it's clear but what you do is ask how you would want to be treated'. it's self evident but doesn't really get into how to choose the right approach of various ones, such as the ones i listed above.

maybe instead of disorganized mess of ideas as i gave in the opening post, i will give a hypothetical.

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 given Bob would want people to respect his wishes on debateable issues?

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.
MrJosh

Con


PRO seems to be overly complicating the issue. The application of the Golden Rule is clear. While I admit there are situations where the exact action is not clear, I liken it to aiming a weapon. The Golden Rule is how you aim, while the action is the ammunition. It is very clear that we treat people as we wish to be treated; this is like aiming a weapon with a laser sight, it is impossible to miss. The question as to exactly what that action is to be taken is akin to the particular type of ammunition chosen for the target. The fact that someone might themselves be conflicted is not a failure of the Golden Rule, but rather a failure of the individual to understand themselves and how they wish to be treated.


Cocaine


To address PRO’s example directly, it is clear that Bob should intervene in John’s drug use, but one he has said his piece, leave John alone. Bob’s feelings that cocaine use is not ok are irrelevant.


My reasoning here is simple: Bob would want someone to intervene, so he should intervene. However, Bob would want his choices respected, so, once he has intervened, if John wants to continue, he should be allowed to do so.


Closing Thoughts


In my opinion, PRO is overly complicating the issue. While it may be difficult to figure out how you yourself would wish to be treated, the actual application of the Golden Rule is clear as crystal.


Debate Round No. 2
dairygirl4u2c

Pro

"While I admit there are situations where the exact action is not clear"

con seems to be admitting that sometime the golden rule is not clear.

con says it is though more a part of the failure of the person to know who they want to be treated. even if this is the case, as my hypotehtical says.... it still can be a diffiicult road to go down because of so many conflicting inteests. and even if it's the case, the application should still be said to be unclear, given in application one must make the decisions that are hard to make, even i the rule itself at the abstract doesn't complicate nothing.

alsso, on con's approach to the hypothetical, he just chose some random middle ground without saying why that was best. one person could say they think Bob should call the police, cause it's what's best for John. another might say given john views it as not debateabe, that he should be left alone. now, these i pose are different people withthe same ideals coming to different outcomes. but really, it could be said to be one person who chooses one outcome, but could have without much of any difference given his views, picked a diffeent outcome. con's pick of an outcome was pretty arbitrary afterall.
MrJosh

Con

I would like to thank PRO for her arguments this past round.


Clarity


PRO has claimed that I stated the Golden Rule is sometimes not clear. This is untrue. Her quote from my words state that the “action” may not be clear, but the Rule itself is quite simple. As PRO never addressed my analogy, and I think I have thought of a better one, I will present it presently.


The Golden Rule can be thought of as an incredibly simple mathematical equation; y=x, where y is what I would like to have done to me, and x is what I should do. Most of the time, y is equal to something simple like 2, ½, or 9.3. In these cases, there is no problem. However, in some cases, y is something a little more difficult to deal with, such as i, or π. In these cases, the formula is still as simple as ever (i=i or π= π), even thought the action itself may be difficult to determine.


As I have argued from the first round, the Golden Rule is clear, treat others as you wish to be treated. If you don’t know how you wish to be treated, that is not the fault of the Golden Rule


Some Random Middle Ground


PRO has accused me of choosing “some random middle ground” in the hypothetical situation we were discussing, and also of not stating why my choice was best. First of all, this was a hypothetical situation, not real life. The ONLY information I had to work with was that within the situation PRO presented me with, therefore, answer was necessarily going to be simplistic as I was not actually dealing with real life events. However, contrary to PRO’s claim, I did explain my decision when I wrote, “My reasoning here is simple: Bob would want someone to intervene, so he should intervene. However, Bob would want his choices respected, so, once he has intervened, if John wants to continue, he should be allowed to do so.” Finally, I never said it was the best course of action, I said it was the course of action dictated by the Golden Rule.


Final Thoughts


PRO began this debate with the claim, “the golden rule is not clear;” throughout the debate, she has argued not that the rule is unclear, but that the exact course of action dictated by the rule is unclear in some situations. As I have pointed out numerous times, these two things are not the same. To be very clear, the Golden Rule is exceedingly clear; treat others as you wish to be treated. If you don’t know how you wish to be treated, that isn’t the Rule’s fault.

Debate Round No. 3
3 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 3 records.
Posted by Daktoria 2 years ago
Daktoria
I was tempted to not give Con the conduct point since he just repeated himself about simplicity over and over, but Pro's grammar was so bad that I had to.
Posted by SandmanTF131 2 years ago
SandmanTF131
As much as I would like to accept this debate, I simply cannot due to how illegible pro has made their opening argument. I encourage that pro takes a bit more time to really type what it is she is trying to say, instead of spewing whatever comes to mind. You will come off a lot more intelligent in society, as well as this site.
Posted by Domr 2 years ago
Domr
I would like to debate this topic but the first round is very disorganized and I'd rather not.

The point I would make about the Golden Rule is that it is similar to the famous saying "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder"

The same applies to the Golden Rule.
"do unto others as you'd have them do unto you"

You set the guidelines for the rule. If you do not want someone to lie to you, then do not lie to them.

The only downfall being everyone, at some point or another is a hypocrite.
2 votes have been placed for this debate. Showing 1 through 2 records.
Vote Placed by Splenic_Warrior 2 years ago
Splenic_Warrior
dairygirl4u2cMrJoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:--Vote Checkmark3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:02 
Reasons for voting decision: I don't feel that either side really presented their points terribly well here, so I can't award any point for arguments. The spelling and grammar points go to Con for Pro's obvious lack of capitalization. Also, I have awarded Con conduct because of Pro's frustrating lack of structure. She seemed to ramble all over; it was quite difficult to follow her comments.
Vote Placed by Daktoria 2 years ago
Daktoria
dairygirl4u2cMrJoshTied
Agreed with before the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Agreed with after the debate:--Vote Checkmark0 points
Who had better conduct:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Had better spelling and grammar:-Vote Checkmark-1 point
Made more convincing arguments:Vote Checkmark--3 points
Used the most reliable sources:--Vote Checkmark2 points
Total points awarded:32 
Reasons for voting decision: Con never responded to the crux of Pro's argument; "if it's debatable about how to approach the situation, then you have to formulate your own philsophy, which means it'd vary by the person, which ultimately means the rule isn't really that clear... and how is 'as they would have done unto you' clear, when you could base it on if the other person was you, or if you based on more on the fact that they aren't you? and sometimes it might be such that i would call it debateable, but another wouldn't. do you act based on your own perceptions of what's debateable, or seek some more objective source?" In other words, Pro was saying the golden rule ignores how everyone doesn't want to be treated the same way. Con merely explained what he would want or not want others to do to him, so he never really addressed the point. Heck, the notion of clarity runs contradictory to simplicity since that which isn't clear is vague due to oversimplification which confuses multiple points to a single one.