A Moral Question For Gath...

[seer]

A Ghandi tries to follow the golden rule,he ends up poor and is shot to death - his death being untimely. A JP Getty volates the golden rule at evey corner and crushes his enemies. He lives a long life in wealth and power and two generations after him are still living in great wealth and power. And this greath wealth will most likely extend to a number of future generations of his offspring.

Now why would a JP Getty want to follow the golden rule?

[garthoverman]

Was it really necessary to start another thread that only fragments our discussion further? This is not a new topic, its a continuation of our still ongoing discussion. There's no reason it couldn't have been addressed in that post.



Today @ 08:42 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=158946#post158946)
seer:

A Ghandi tries to follow the golden rule,he ends up poor and is shot to death - his death being untimely. A JP Getty volates the golden rule at evey corner and crushes his enemies. He lives a long life in wealth and power and two generations after him are still living in great wealth and power. And this greath wealth will most likely extend to a number of future generations of his offspring.

Now why would a JP Getty want to follow the golden rule?
Because his greedy wealth and power do not fulfill him.

Your scenario carries with it the hidden assumption that wealth and power are always fulfilling, to which I do not agree. There's no reason to believe that Ghandi didn't have a more fulfilling life than Getty. You are projecting your own ideals onto the scenario.

Seems to be a little trend I've noticed...

Yours,
Garth

[seer]

Because his greedy wealth and power do not fulfill him.

First, how do you know this? From what I understand he died fat and happy!


Your scenario carries with it the hidden assumption that wealth and power are always fulfilling, to which I do not agree. There's no reason to believe that Ghandi didn't have a more fulfilling life than Getty. You are projecting your own ideals onto the scenario.

But you are projecting your own ideals - that Getty was not fulfilled. How silly! Again Garth, you have no objective basis for your assumptions.

[BeHereNow]

seer:

Again Garth, you have no objective basis for your assumptions.

*cough*

Seer, the answer to your question lies in Ecclesiastes. Look there to sate your doting quandary.

Ecclesiastes is not a religious book (and thus could answer your question). It is an old man giving advice to a young person on how the world is. Sometimes life doesn't seem fair; sometimes things don't work out how we wanted, no matter how hard we try. Sometimes there's war, sometimes there's peace.

Read Ecc. and you will understand more fully the irony of the human religious and moral experience.

[seer]

Today @ 01:15 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=160436#post160436)
BeHereNow:



*cough*

Seer, the answer to your question lies in Ecclesiastes. Look there to sate your doting quandary.

Ecclesiastes is not a religious book (and thus could answer your question). It is an old man giving advice to a young person on how the world is. Sometimes life doesn't seem fair; sometimes things don't work out how we wanted, no matter how hard we try. Sometimes there's war, sometimes there's peace.

Read Ecc. and you will understand more fully the irony of the human religious and moral experience.

It does my heart good seeing you reference Scripture BHN. Of course I have read the book dozens of times.

And what was the author's conclusion?

Ecclesiastes 12:13,14

"Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. For God shall bring every work into judgment, with every secret thing, whether it be good, or whether it be evil."

[garthoverman]

Yesterday @ 09:38 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=160140#post160140)
seer:



First, how do you know this? From what I understand he died fat and happy!
I don't know this for certain, and neither do you. You asked why would a Getty regret his choices, and I gave you a valid reason. I didn't state that that was the reason in actuality, because your post was a hypothetical. Now you've made an unwarranted jump from "a Getty" to the Getty. If you want to talk about the actual persons of Ghandi and Getty and compare their relative fulfillment in relation to one another, you will have quite a task in demonstrating that Getty was in fact more fulfilled than Ghandi without your ad hoc assumptions that power and wealth are necessarily the only measure of fulfillment.



But you are projecting your own ideals - that Getty was not fulfilled. How silly!
No, I'm not. I gave you a reason why "a Getty" would want to follow the Golden Rule, which was a perfectly valid reason. I made no statements about the actual situation with the Getty. What's silly is your inability to tell the difference between a hypothetical (of your own creation, no less!) and an actual.

The fact is that Ghandi may very well have lead a much more fulfilling life than Getty, the possibility of which refutes your point.


Again Garth, you have no objective basis for your assumptions.
What assumptions?

Yours,
Garth

[seer]

Garth you said: "Because his greedy wealth and power do not fulfill him.

But you do not know this. Certainly Ghandi may have lived a fulfilling life, or he may not have. And Getty may have lived a fulfilling life - after all he spent his entire life building this wealth and power so he must have really wanted it for him and his offspring or else he would have been wasting his time.

You subjective appeal to the golden rule has nothing to say to Getty. And there is no logical reason for him to follow it - especially if power and wealth were the things that gave him pleasure.


The fact is that Ghandi may very well have lead a much more fulfilling life than Getty, the possibility of which refutes your point.

And Getty may have lived a more fulfilled life than Ghandi - and?

[garthoverman]

Yesterday @ 01:25 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=160573#post160573)
seer:

Garth you said: "Because his greedy wealth and power do not fulfill him.

But you do not know this.
So? You don't know differently either. That's the point, you're projecting your own values onto his life. My statement was a statement of possibility -- not necessity.


Certainly Ghandi may have lived a fulfilling life, or he may not have. And Getty may have lived a fulfilling life - after all he spent his entire life building this wealth and power so he must have really wanted it for him and his offspring or else he would have been wasting his time.
The last part doesn't necessarily follow. Just that he did some set of actions does not guarantee us that that set of actions was fulfilling to him. Some people in Getty's situation may find the life unfulfilling -- which was why the distinction between "a Getty" and "the Getty" was significant (and I noticed that you didn't address it).


You subjective appeal to the golden rule has nothing to say to Getty. And there is no logical reason for him to follow it - especially if power and wealth were the things that gave him pleasure.
And if not, then not. So? Are you telling us that you can read his mind? I gave you a perfectly valid reason why "a Getty" would want to follow the Golden Rule. I am not so naive as to believe that I can state for a fact the particular contents of a specific individual's psyche -- let alone a dead one that I've never met personally.


And Getty may have lived a more fulfilled life than Ghandi - and?
And your whole little hypothetical is pointless because there's no way to be certain that it was actually one way or the other in reality.

Yours,
Garth
...incidentally, Getty was a famous philanthropist... even earned himself a knighthood for his charity...

[seer]

And if not, then not. So? Are you telling us that you can read his mind? I gave you a perfectly valid reason why "a Getty" would want to follow the Golden Rule. I am not so naive as to believe that I can state for a fact the particular contents of a specific individual's psyche -- let alone a dead one that I've never met personally.

No Garth you did not give a good reason what The Getty, or A Getty might want to follow the golden rule - you gave a reason why you might want to follow said rule.

So if a Getty or a Bill Gates,or whoever (I could give a personal example if you wish) said to you that gaining power and wealth was fulfilling to them. And that leaving their offspring this wealth and power (no matter how they came by it) was what they desired most in life - what would you say to them? How does the golden rule carry any weight?

[garthoverman]

Today @ 07:31 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=161608#post161608)
seer:

No Garth you did not give a good reason what The Getty, or A Getty might want to follow the golden rule - you gave a reason why you might want to follow said rule.
So? You asked why a Getty would want something. People want fulfilling things, which is why my statement is perfectly valid. If you don't think that finding fulfillment in something is a "good reason" to want it, that's your problem.


So if a Getty or a Bill Gates,or whoever (I could give a personal example if you wish) said to you that gaining power and wealth was fulfilling to them. And that leaving their offspring this wealth and power (no matter how they came by it) was what they desired most in life - what would you say to them? How does the golden rule carry any weight?
It depends on the means that they were using to acheive the power and wealth, your wish to disregard them notwithstanding. Power and wealth are not bad in and of themselves, nor is finding fulfillment in them, nor is it impossible to acquire power and wealth while still adhering to the Golden Rule.

Yours,
Garth

[seer]

It depends on the means that they were using to acheive the power and wealth, your wish to disregard them notwithstanding. Power and wealth are not bad in and of themselves, nor is finding fulfillment in them, nor is it impossible to acquire power and wealth while still adhering to the Golden Rule.

It's like pulling teeth! Sheesh... Let's say a man harms other men (in various way) to gather this power and wealth. And is quite happy with the process as long as he get's his desires: power and wealth for himself and his offspring - what does the golden rule have to say to him...

[garthoverman]

Yesterday @ 03:14 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=161847#post161847)
seer:



It's like pulling teeth! Sheesh...
What is?


Let's say a man harms other men (in various way) to gather this power and wealth. And is quite happy with the process as long as he get's his desires: power and wealth for himself and his offspring - what does the golden rule have to say to him...
Does he think that the means to his ends are harmful? That is to say, would he feel wronged to have his own actions revisted upon him?

Yours,
Garth

[seer]

That is to say, would he feel wronged to have his own actions revisted upon him?

Let's say yes. But so what? Harm may, and does, come to men that try to do good.

[garthoverman]

07-31-2003 @ 07:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=164197#post164197)
seer:

Let's say yes. But so what? Harm may, and does, come to men that try to do good.
The fact that he knows his actions are wrong is sufficient to deduce that he does not take pleasure in doing them. If he truly approved of his own actions, he would prefer them to be revisited on him.

Yours,
Garth

[seer]

The fact that he knows his actions are wrong is sufficient to deduce that he does not take pleasure in doing them. If he truly approved of his own actions, he would prefer them to be revisited on him.

You made an illogical leap there Garth. Knowing that he would not want the same done to him does not mean that he thinks it's WRONG to do it to others.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 04:38 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=167363#post167363)
seer:

Knowing that he would not want the same done to him does not mean that he thinks it's WRONG to do it to others.
Sure it does. It means he thinks the acts are themselves wrong. Certainly, the constant reinforcement of exclusivism and separationalism that has predominated in western culture at the hands of Judeo-Christian religions obscures the recognition of that fact, but it doesn't change it. That's precisely the problem with Orthodox Christianity and the like: it perpetuates divisionalistic fantasies that end up distorting individual conceptions of reality and creates the illusion that doing unto others is at all different than doing unto one's self. There are no divisions in objective reality. There is no discontinuity. All categories are imaginative fabrications and basically arbitrary.

Yours,
Garth

[seer]

Sure it does. It means he thinks the acts are themselves wrong.

Nonsense Garth. He only thinks the acts are wrong if focused on him. And who are you to define his morality.


That's precisely the problem with Orthodox Christianity and the like: it perpetuates divisionalistic fantasies that end up distorting individual conceptions of reality and creates the illusion that doing unto others is at all different than doing unto one's self.

First,the golden rule is not highly practiced in non-christian cultures - see secular cultures like China,Asia in general, Africa,North Korea,et al. Second, Christ taught the golden rule. If men reject it they are NOT orthodox Christians.


There are no divisions in objective reality.

Of course there is. I am not you, and you are not my dog, and my dog is not the moon. Objective reality is division and diversity.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 05:01 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=168289#post168289)
seer:



Nonsense Garth. He only thinks the acts are wrong if focused on him. And who are you to define his morality.
I didn't define his morality -- YOU did when you stated that he would view the actions as wrong.




First,the golden rule is not highly practiced in non-christian cultures - see secular cultures like China,Asia in general, Africa,North Korea,et al.
That is a bald assertion that lacks any evidentiary support.


Second, Christ taught the golden rule. If men reject it they are NOT orthodox Christians.
What does that have to do with anything? FYI - Siddharta Guatama Buddha preached the Golden Rule some 500 years before Christ.


Of course there is. I am not you, and you are not my dog, and my dog is not the moon.
Each and all of those are categories that are associated with certain patterns of energy. Categories do not exist in objective reality. They exist in the mind. The divsions appear because of the categorization and compartmentalization of your thoughts. There is no gap between myself and another individual. The space bewteen us in continuous and never void.


Objective reality is division and diversity.
No. Objective reality just is. Period. The divisions exist your mind.

Yours,
Garth

[seer]

Nonsense Garth. He only thinks the acts are wrong if focused on him. And who are you to define his morality. ”


I didn't define his morality -- YOU did when you stated that he would view the actions as wrong.

It doesn't matter Garth what I said. If the man thinks it's right for him to harm others and wrong for others to harm him. That is his moral definition - sweet dreams are made of these, who are we to disagree...


First,the golden rule is not highly practiced in non-christian cultures - see secular cultures like China,Asia in general, Africa,North Korea,et al. ”


That is a bald assertion that lacks any evidentiary support.

Garth have you lived a sheltered life? I have traveled over a good part of this old earth and living the golden rule is not high on most people's list.


Second, Christ taught the golden rule. If men reject it they are NOT orthodox Christians. ”


What does that have to do with anything? FYI - Siddharta Guatama Buddha preached the Golden Rule some 500 years before Christ.

Actually no Buddha did not teach it,not like Christ. If you think he did please produce the manuscript evidence. But you were blaming christianity for violating this rule - weren't you?

[garthoverman]

Today @ 02:34 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=170073#post170073)
seer:

It doesn't matter Garth what I said. If the man thinks it's right for him to harm others and wrong for others to harm him.
If he thinks its "right," then he doesn't think its harmful by definition.



Garth have you lived a sheltered life? I have traveled over a good part of this old earth and living the golden rule is not high on most people's list.
More bald assertions. You're good at those.



Actually no Buddha did not teach it,not like Christ. If you think he did please produce the manuscript evidence.
Here ya go:
http://www.truthlover.com/sacredtexts/index.cfm?fromframed=true#



But you were blaming christianity for violating this rule - weren't you?
Where did I say that?

Yours,
Garth

[seer]

It doesn't matter Garth what I said. If the man thinks it's right for him to harm others and wrong for others to harm him. ”


If he thinks its "right," then he doesn't think its harmful by definition.

That is just silly. If I beat you and steal your money I know I am harming you (and helping my self).


Actually no Buddha did not teach it,not like Christ. If you think he did please produce the manuscript evidence. ”


Here ya go:
http://www.truthlover.com/sacredtex...romframed=true#

First, I see no manuscript evidence in your link that Buddha said that. Second, it is in the negative:

"Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."

Christ puts it in the postive DO unto others... Buddha is DON'T Do...

a world of difference...


But you were blaming christianity for violating this rule - weren't you? ”


Where did I say that?

Right here:




That's precisely the problem with Orthodox Christianity and the like: it perpetuates divisionalistic fantasies that end up distorting individual conceptions of reality and creates the illusion that doing unto others is at all different than doing unto one's self.

Our faith seeks to unite not divide.

[garthoverman]

Today @ 06:42 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=170769#post170769)
seer:



That is just silly. If I beat you and steal your money I know I am harming you (and helping my self).
Then you don't think its right. Its that simple.




First, I see no manuscript evidence in your link that Buddha said that. Second, it is in the negative:
If you didn't see the evidence, how could you quote it? What rediculous idiocy...


"Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."

Christ puts it in the postive DO unto others... Buddha is DON'T Do...

a world of difference...
Bull-o-knee. The negation implies the affirmative.




Right here:

That's precisely the problem with Orthodox Christianity and the like: it perpetuates divisionalistic fantasies that end up distorting individual conceptions of reality and creates the illusion that doing unto others is at all different than doing unto one's self.Our faith seeks to unite not divide.
Where did I say anything about a rule violation as you claimed I asserted?

Yours,
Garth