Last week I was taking a walk and passed by some writing that said, "Be the change you want to see in the world." Cliche, but it made me think -- what IS the change I want to see? Well, I would like it if people could leave one another well enough alone, so by not imposing my will on others, I suppose I am working towards that goal, I reasoned.
Then, a young man came down the path going the opposite direction. Rather than avoiding eye contact, he looked right at me and said, "Hello," and I said "Hello" back, and he said, "Have a nice day," and I said, "You too." And it then occurred to me that perhaps that's another reasonable goal to strive for: Being civil, cordial and kind. So, perhaps that's another decent "SHOULD:" "Be civil, cordial and kind."
Yes it does. There are some things we say we are going to do that we do not do, but that aren't necessarily enforceable. Like… I say I am going to show up at 10:00 to help you move, but I don't show.
We did not have a contract, so there is no MUST(NOT) involved. But I still SHOULD have kept my word. So I think this might be a good addition.
I think there are two distinct "threads" here. One is what the law should be -- this should be based upon property rights and the freedom of association. This is a "Rothbardian" tradition. Though Murray Rothbard didn't get everything absolutely correct, I think it's the right approach.
But equally important is to focus on a society's cultural values and norms. Within the sphere of conduct allowed by law, how should we behave towards one another? What cultural norms elevate a society? What impairs it? I like your list (as well as suggestions made by your commenters).
And again, this is a worthy project you're undertaking. Kudos!
You do hit the nail on the head Christopher. "The devil is in the details" and you do get "down to brass tacks" and "the nitty gritty" as the saying goes. Trouble with so many of the "laws" the terrocrats pass is that so many are crafted to be vague enough to sound good while give them a lot of wiggle room to do what they actually intend to do.
It is such a pleasure to read the words from someone intelligent who has obviously put a lot of clear concise, rational thought into a subject. Getting down to shoulds that belong in a sane world. Shoulds that are among the best uses of the freedom we are all seeking, is to make an effort to discover what your purpose is in life. I think we all have one. Most people are so distracted by the craziness and survival issues in this messed up world that they do not spend the time they need to find out what their own real passion is, and and find a purpose that gives meaning in their lives. I would also add the importance of a willingness to break patterns and try different things as a way to get out of the rut that the ptb would like us all to be confined into, as a means to discover this.
I will be interested in what others have to say about this topic while I give it some thought. By the way, just finished reading the second book in the LaNague Federation series which turned out to be one of the most amazing noir detective thrillers in the genre of Chandler or Micky Spillane, set in the world of F. Paul Wilson. I was a big fan of those when I was a young man. Besides having a philosophy that so closely matches my own....This guy can really write!
I know you would chime in with something cool, and you do not disappoint. I especially like this line: "the best uses of the freedom we are all seeking." You should be free to do whatever you want, but the ideal scenario is one in which you put that freedom to the best use. Well said.
It makes me think that "live up to your full potential" or something to that effect might be a good one to add. People who do that tend to also make things better for those around them!
There you go, putting it into a nutshell Christopher. A magnificent "should"and you are right about anything that is truly "good" blesses both the individual and his community.
There are many souls here with life experiences and insights that deserve to be shared which can enrich all our lives. Here are a few more "shoulds" that occurred to me after some thought. Flexible rules that are not enforceable but guides to a better life.
We should do what we can to support those who are having a rough patch in our community who we can see are making an effort to improve their lives and can be helped. Yet we should conserve our resources and avoid invalidating, patronizing, or enabling those who are simply dramatizing helplessness and victimhood. Better to set an example of flourishing and let them know they really deserve better and are much more able than they think.
We should validate and encourage those who are making our world a bit better place. We should avoid making an effort to impress others with false and even irrational "virtues" like showing you are not a racist by refusing to hire that qualified caucasian dude, or proving your are not a sexist by hiring the unqualified female over a qualified male firefighter.
We should stop worrying so much about what other people think of us and more on what we think of ourselves. We should begin to realize that no one can hurt your tender feelings unless you decide they have. The feelings are inside you and your attitude has everything to do with whether anyone external can hurt them. If what is said is true but painful, that is something to consider and improve, and be grateful that they drew it to your attention. If it is quite invalid and they are just mistaken or being mean out of ignorance why dignify that with any importance? If you stick your legs out into the aisle and someone trips over them and injures them whose fault is that?
Take advantage of opportunities to learn a new skill, examine a new idea, read a book that makes you think and increases your knowledge, and increases your store of life experiences that others have had and learned from.
We should seek out health in all aspect of our life : Physical, Mental, Emotional, Spiritual, and Relational. as the best way to have a better society is to have the people who make up that society be better people. And the best way to be a better person is quite simply be a better person.
My Golden Rule, and the one I am trying to impress upon my children is a negative inversion of the most common construction, viz. Do not do to others that which you would not want them to do to you.
To my mind, this construction fits the "leave each other alone for the most part" theme.
You are in excellent company by describing it as an inversion, and for liking it:
'“King Alfred’s Book of Laws, or Dooms, as set out in the existing laws of Kent, Wessex, and Mercia, attempted to blend the Mosaic code with Christian principles and old Germanic customs. He inverted the Golden Rule. Instead of “Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you”, he adopted the less ambitious principle, “What ye will that other men should not do to you, that do ye not to other men”, with the comment, “By bearing this precept in mind a judge can do justice to all men; he needs no other law-books. Let him think of himself as the plaintiff, and consider what judgment would satisfy him.” The King, in his preamble, explained modestly that “I have not dared to presume to set down in writing many laws of my own, for I cannot tell what will meet with the approval of our successors.” The Laws of Alfred, continually amplified by his successors, grew into that body of customary law administered by the shire and hundred courts which, under the name of the Laws of St Edward (the Confessor), the Norman kings undertook to respect, and out of which, with much manipulation by feudal lawyers, the Common Law was founded.”'
How about something that suggests that unless asking for help or guidance, please do not give it. If someone wants or needs help or guidance, they are free to ask.
Interesting. Maybe this would not be a top-three, since it is a lot more specific and tailored, but as part of an extended list, it seems like a good one!
I was telling Hat Bailey—I think together we actually could write a Book of Kyfho-like collection…
My Laws are the three Laws of Ethic - Natural Law expressed as the MUSTNOTS. My "golden rule" is the Asian version: Do not do unto Others as You would not have done unto You. And I uphold the Betterment Ethic: always look for ways to make things better for Those around You to around the globe and create them.
Reading you essay, as usual, sends me off on a tangent; Should we using force, without their consent lock up crazies, the insane? Should we lock up lock up crazies that will possibly harm themselves? Should we lock up crazies that may do harm to others?
I suspect this has been discussed by libertarians and possibly by Anarcho- capitalists as well but a quick search for such produced no sign of a consensus nor no consistent results.
I always begin by reminding that those same people are out on the streets now, and government isn't fully fixing it. That's not tu quoque; it's just a reminder to all of us not to buy into the brochure-style claim that government is doing it perfectly. Thus, we start out from the notion that this situation will be imperfect and a problem either way.
That having been said, let's see if we can play this out and come up with some ideas.
First, we know that the ethos generally says that no one should be subjected to force (or captivity) who has not first used force against another. So the general ethos would probably play out in that way—
yes, there would be people who are a danger to themselves, but they might still be at large. But we might presume that if they are truly non compos mentis, and the situation were fully free-market, that family members might pay for treatment. And yes, that might be a dilemma that we have to face (they are paying to have that crazy person's right's violated).
One argument, in that regard, is that non compos mentis adults (like young children) are not capable of enjoying full communion with and enjoyment of their rights, because of their mental disability (or youth). So, in an imperfect world, we do our best to solve that question with loving care in a private facility (or the temporary authority of parents, in the case of children).
As to those who might harm others through their craziness…well, I've talked enough. Play out a few market-based ideas of your own, and then I will reply…
Market based ideas; Work houses, crazies making license plates, whatever, paying for their own keep. Coventry, ignore them, completely until they starve or move on and are some else's problem. Neither of which adequately address initial use of force, or not.
Other than that, I got nothing. I figured though that such a basic problem had been addressed by card carrying Libertarians.
"Mr. Costello, Hero" by Theodore Sturgeon 1956, he payed a bit with with something close to the Kyfho concept therein the nut in the end is in the nuthouse and can leave any time he wants. However he'd need agree to a mental makeover before exit.
I had a college professor kind of ruin Sturgeon for me. Maybe I will give him another chance someday.
Libertarian thinkers have thought through these things, but I like to try it myself (and with others) before going straight to them.
Basically, you raised two issues: people who are a danger to themselves and people who are a danger to others. And if they have rights, then how do we react to the problems they pose without violating those rights.
I think what I laid out above is pretty good for the former. They are free to do what they will. Family members/loved ones may seek private care for their own. We can feel reasonably good about the solution of family members paying for their fully non compos mentis family members's care on the grounds that a) they are incapable of fully discharging their rights and b) there is no perfect solution anyway. The tough cases are on the margins—IS person A fully non compos mentis? What if they say they want to be out, but they really are a danger to themselves? Who makes that determination?
Since I favor market anarchism as the best (the least imperfect) solution, I would say it would involve decisions that would have to go to the private court system. And I would trust market forces to produce a better outcome than monopoly government courts.
For people who are a danger to others, we would use those same private courts, plus people's aggression-insurance agencies (as Hoppe calls them) or whatever. So, if someone hasn't hurt anyone, they really cannot be incarcerated. If they have hurt someone, then they will be, or punished in some other way. Just like now, except with an ecosystem of private agencies harmonizing into a common approach for inter-agency cases, as opposed to the monopoly government system we have now.
Also, in a proper anarchist system, evildoers are far more likely to get capped in the commission of evil by well-armed people.
A problem with philosophizing dissent is the 'yea buts' and the 'what ifs' soon detract and distract. Also answers in the abstract may or may not survive practical impact.
Since there's not much new under the sun I wonder if practical responses to such problems can be found within the mores of past dissenters, Gypsies, Irish Travelers, Carnies, Circus Folk, etc. Folks with at least a dash of anarchy distancing themselves from or excluded from established social constructs, they most probably developed practical answers to many such 'yea buts & what ifs'.
Yes to all of that. Yes, there are tons of answers. Perhaps we can also attract some people withy expertise/knowledge to help.
And as to the distraction and detraction…you certainly have a point. We must think these things through, and one of the best ways is challenges and trying to respond to those. But we also must not let endless philosophical discourse prevent us from acting! Somehow, we must find the right balance.
Totally. Problem is, it is mentioned in the Bible (Matthew, right?), so some Christians take offense at questioning it. Present company excluded, of course!
Note, though, that the greatest commandment calls a person to first orient him/herself properly to the divine, and then that will illuminate how you treat others. Christians who skip right to the "golden rule" are avoiding the most important part!
In Luke's account, the conversation continues into the Parable of the Good Samaritan (29-37 -- https://bible.usccb.org/bible/luke/10?29 ) to further illustrate how the proper moral hierarchy works.
It should work, if people are oriented toward human dignity and what you and I understand to be natural human rights.
Might-makes-right can also be a kind of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," but I wouldn't endorse might-makes-right behavior.
The key flaw in the Golden Rule, if it's isolated, is it turns "These are MY preferences" into "These should be EVERYONE'S preferences." It's a kind of fake empathy. Rather than being an answer to the question, it simply pushes the question deeper to "How did you arrive at YOUR preferences?"
Saying something like "Respect everyone's natural human rights" rests on understanding natural human rights, while the Golden Rule, by itself, doesn't rest on anything other than subjectivism.
Doing a little *typing out loud* here, so maybe I missed something.
There is a subtle variance with the phrase 'shall' and 'should'. The former being maditory (or else). Such as laws imposed by a dictator or contractual obligation. On the other hand, "should" implies more of a guideline or recommendations. The earliest example can be found in religious dogma with the 10 commandments- with the proverbial finger shaking "you shall" or "shall not". This is a pervted version of a much earlier text, taken from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, where the 'shall' and 'shall nots' were stateted as 'I will' or 'will nots'.
Yes, this is an essential distinction. MUST/SHALL(NOT) = Mandatory or else. SHOULD is, as you say, a guideline. It is essential to maintain a clear distinction.
Welfare, for example, is a violation of that distinction. Government uses force on you to make you pay for something that you probably should do, but that is certainly not mandatory, or any even remotely proper concern of government's.
Last week I was taking a walk and passed by some writing that said, "Be the change you want to see in the world." Cliche, but it made me think -- what IS the change I want to see? Well, I would like it if people could leave one another well enough alone, so by not imposing my will on others, I suppose I am working towards that goal, I reasoned.
Then, a young man came down the path going the opposite direction. Rather than avoiding eye contact, he looked right at me and said, "Hello," and I said "Hello" back, and he said, "Have a nice day," and I said, "You too." And it then occurred to me that perhaps that's another reasonable goal to strive for: Being civil, cordial and kind. So, perhaps that's another decent "SHOULD:" "Be civil, cordial and kind."
Yes! Referencing something like "civility" seems an essential component and any proper standard of benevolence!
"Be civil, cordial and kind" is pretty darned good wording, too.
Thank you! :) It just came to me as I was typing it, haha
Writing is sooooooooooo clarifying.
a should and a should not:
Do all that you say you will do.
Do not trespass.
We've got the trespass one among our must nots: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/protocols-natural-law
But "Do all that you say you will do" is a pretty good should!
It seems to go with fulfillment of responsibility
Yes it does. There are some things we say we are going to do that we do not do, but that aren't necessarily enforceable. Like… I say I am going to show up at 10:00 to help you move, but I don't show.
We did not have a contract, so there is no MUST(NOT) involved. But I still SHOULD have kept my word. So I think this might be a good addition.
You are engaged in a worthy endeavor!
I think there are two distinct "threads" here. One is what the law should be -- this should be based upon property rights and the freedom of association. This is a "Rothbardian" tradition. Though Murray Rothbard didn't get everything absolutely correct, I think it's the right approach.
But equally important is to focus on a society's cultural values and norms. Within the sphere of conduct allowed by law, how should we behave towards one another? What cultural norms elevate a society? What impairs it? I like your list (as well as suggestions made by your commenters).
And again, this is a worthy project you're undertaking. Kudos!
Thank you, and very much agreed on all counts.
If you have any more thoughts or ideas on specific cultural norms to elevate, please do not hesitate to add them anytime.
You do hit the nail on the head Christopher. "The devil is in the details" and you do get "down to brass tacks" and "the nitty gritty" as the saying goes. Trouble with so many of the "laws" the terrocrats pass is that so many are crafted to be vague enough to sound good while give them a lot of wiggle room to do what they actually intend to do.
It is such a pleasure to read the words from someone intelligent who has obviously put a lot of clear concise, rational thought into a subject. Getting down to shoulds that belong in a sane world. Shoulds that are among the best uses of the freedom we are all seeking, is to make an effort to discover what your purpose is in life. I think we all have one. Most people are so distracted by the craziness and survival issues in this messed up world that they do not spend the time they need to find out what their own real passion is, and and find a purpose that gives meaning in their lives. I would also add the importance of a willingness to break patterns and try different things as a way to get out of the rut that the ptb would like us all to be confined into, as a means to discover this.
I will be interested in what others have to say about this topic while I give it some thought. By the way, just finished reading the second book in the LaNague Federation series which turned out to be one of the most amazing noir detective thrillers in the genre of Chandler or Micky Spillane, set in the world of F. Paul Wilson. I was a big fan of those when I was a young man. Besides having a philosophy that so closely matches my own....This guy can really write!
I know you would chime in with something cool, and you do not disappoint. I especially like this line: "the best uses of the freedom we are all seeking." You should be free to do whatever you want, but the ideal scenario is one in which you put that freedom to the best use. Well said.
It makes me think that "live up to your full potential" or something to that effect might be a good one to add. People who do that tend to also make things better for those around them!
There you go, putting it into a nutshell Christopher. A magnificent "should"and you are right about anything that is truly "good" blesses both the individual and his community.
Maybe all of us put together really could create a Book of Kyfho…
There are many souls here with life experiences and insights that deserve to be shared which can enrich all our lives. Here are a few more "shoulds" that occurred to me after some thought. Flexible rules that are not enforceable but guides to a better life.
We should do what we can to support those who are having a rough patch in our community who we can see are making an effort to improve their lives and can be helped. Yet we should conserve our resources and avoid invalidating, patronizing, or enabling those who are simply dramatizing helplessness and victimhood. Better to set an example of flourishing and let them know they really deserve better and are much more able than they think.
We should validate and encourage those who are making our world a bit better place. We should avoid making an effort to impress others with false and even irrational "virtues" like showing you are not a racist by refusing to hire that qualified caucasian dude, or proving your are not a sexist by hiring the unqualified female over a qualified male firefighter.
We should stop worrying so much about what other people think of us and more on what we think of ourselves. We should begin to realize that no one can hurt your tender feelings unless you decide they have. The feelings are inside you and your attitude has everything to do with whether anyone external can hurt them. If what is said is true but painful, that is something to consider and improve, and be grateful that they drew it to your attention. If it is quite invalid and they are just mistaken or being mean out of ignorance why dignify that with any importance? If you stick your legs out into the aisle and someone trips over them and injures them whose fault is that?
Take advantage of opportunities to learn a new skill, examine a new idea, read a book that makes you think and increases your knowledge, and increases your store of life experiences that others have had and learned from.
These are excellent. I think we have got the beginning of a seriously good idea here…
The 42 ideals of Ma'at would add some worthy shoulds: Honor thy word, be trustworthy, Respect another's property, maintain integrity....
I am sure there is some mining to be done there. I think we could come up with something good here.
We should seek out health in all aspect of our life : Physical, Mental, Emotional, Spiritual, and Relational. as the best way to have a better society is to have the people who make up that society be better people. And the best way to be a better person is quite simply be a better person.
Others are making this point too, and I am loving it. This is an important direction!!
My Golden Rule, and the one I am trying to impress upon my children is a negative inversion of the most common construction, viz. Do not do to others that which you would not want them to do to you.
To my mind, this construction fits the "leave each other alone for the most part" theme.
You are in excellent company by describing it as an inversion, and for liking it:
'“King Alfred’s Book of Laws, or Dooms, as set out in the existing laws of Kent, Wessex, and Mercia, attempted to blend the Mosaic code with Christian principles and old Germanic customs. He inverted the Golden Rule. Instead of “Do unto others as you would that they should do unto you”, he adopted the less ambitious principle, “What ye will that other men should not do to you, that do ye not to other men”, with the comment, “By bearing this precept in mind a judge can do justice to all men; he needs no other law-books. Let him think of himself as the plaintiff, and consider what judgment would satisfy him.” The King, in his preamble, explained modestly that “I have not dared to presume to set down in writing many laws of my own, for I cannot tell what will meet with the approval of our successors.” The Laws of Alfred, continually amplified by his successors, grew into that body of customary law administered by the shire and hundred courts which, under the name of the Laws of St Edward (the Confessor), the Norman kings undertook to respect, and out of which, with much manipulation by feudal lawyers, the Common Law was founded.”'
― Winston S. Churchill, The Birth of Britain
I wrote about the superiority of this inversion (sometimes called the silver rule) a while back, and for similar reasons as those you cite: https://christophercook.substack.com/p/the-golden-rule-is-dangerous
Many thanks for that interesting exposition.
How about something that suggests that unless asking for help or guidance, please do not give it. If someone wants or needs help or guidance, they are free to ask.
Interesting. Maybe this would not be a top-three, since it is a lot more specific and tailored, but as part of an extended list, it seems like a good one!
I was telling Hat Bailey—I think together we actually could write a Book of Kyfho-like collection…
Would be a nice little reminder thing to carry around.
That is a really good idea…
My Laws are the three Laws of Ethic - Natural Law expressed as the MUSTNOTS. My "golden rule" is the Asian version: Do not do unto Others as You would not have done unto You. And I uphold the Betterment Ethic: always look for ways to make things better for Those around You to around the globe and create them.
The Betterment Ethic vs. the Slave’s Creed (article): https://odysee.com/@amaterasusolar:8/The-Betterment-Ethic-vs-the-Slaves-Creed:d
Love always!
Yeah, the betterment ethic is pretty solid. I put a version of that as my first one.
🤗 💜 🤗
Reading you essay, as usual, sends me off on a tangent; Should we using force, without their consent lock up crazies, the insane? Should we lock up lock up crazies that will possibly harm themselves? Should we lock up crazies that may do harm to others?
I suspect this has been discussed by libertarians and possibly by Anarcho- capitalists as well but a quick search for such produced no sign of a consensus nor no consistent results.
I always begin by reminding that those same people are out on the streets now, and government isn't fully fixing it. That's not tu quoque; it's just a reminder to all of us not to buy into the brochure-style claim that government is doing it perfectly. Thus, we start out from the notion that this situation will be imperfect and a problem either way.
That having been said, let's see if we can play this out and come up with some ideas.
First, we know that the ethos generally says that no one should be subjected to force (or captivity) who has not first used force against another. So the general ethos would probably play out in that way—
yes, there would be people who are a danger to themselves, but they might still be at large. But we might presume that if they are truly non compos mentis, and the situation were fully free-market, that family members might pay for treatment. And yes, that might be a dilemma that we have to face (they are paying to have that crazy person's right's violated).
One argument, in that regard, is that non compos mentis adults (like young children) are not capable of enjoying full communion with and enjoyment of their rights, because of their mental disability (or youth). So, in an imperfect world, we do our best to solve that question with loving care in a private facility (or the temporary authority of parents, in the case of children).
As to those who might harm others through their craziness…well, I've talked enough. Play out a few market-based ideas of your own, and then I will reply…
Market based ideas; Work houses, crazies making license plates, whatever, paying for their own keep. Coventry, ignore them, completely until they starve or move on and are some else's problem. Neither of which adequately address initial use of force, or not.
Other than that, I got nothing. I figured though that such a basic problem had been addressed by card carrying Libertarians.
"Mr. Costello, Hero" by Theodore Sturgeon 1956, he payed a bit with with something close to the Kyfho concept therein the nut in the end is in the nuthouse and can leave any time he wants. However he'd need agree to a mental makeover before exit.
I had a college professor kind of ruin Sturgeon for me. Maybe I will give him another chance someday.
Libertarian thinkers have thought through these things, but I like to try it myself (and with others) before going straight to them.
Basically, you raised two issues: people who are a danger to themselves and people who are a danger to others. And if they have rights, then how do we react to the problems they pose without violating those rights.
I think what I laid out above is pretty good for the former. They are free to do what they will. Family members/loved ones may seek private care for their own. We can feel reasonably good about the solution of family members paying for their fully non compos mentis family members's care on the grounds that a) they are incapable of fully discharging their rights and b) there is no perfect solution anyway. The tough cases are on the margins—IS person A fully non compos mentis? What if they say they want to be out, but they really are a danger to themselves? Who makes that determination?
Since I favor market anarchism as the best (the least imperfect) solution, I would say it would involve decisions that would have to go to the private court system. And I would trust market forces to produce a better outcome than monopoly government courts.
For people who are a danger to others, we would use those same private courts, plus people's aggression-insurance agencies (as Hoppe calls them) or whatever. So, if someone hasn't hurt anyone, they really cannot be incarcerated. If they have hurt someone, then they will be, or punished in some other way. Just like now, except with an ecosystem of private agencies harmonizing into a common approach for inter-agency cases, as opposed to the monopoly government system we have now.
Also, in a proper anarchist system, evildoers are far more likely to get capped in the commission of evil by well-armed people.
How's that so far?
Lookin' good.
A problem with philosophizing dissent is the 'yea buts' and the 'what ifs' soon detract and distract. Also answers in the abstract may or may not survive practical impact.
Since there's not much new under the sun I wonder if practical responses to such problems can be found within the mores of past dissenters, Gypsies, Irish Travelers, Carnies, Circus Folk, etc. Folks with at least a dash of anarchy distancing themselves from or excluded from established social constructs, they most probably developed practical answers to many such 'yea buts & what ifs'.
Just a thought and
HEY RUBE!
LOL!
Yes to all of that. Yes, there are tons of answers. Perhaps we can also attract some people withy expertise/knowledge to help.
And as to the distraction and detraction…you certainly have a point. We must think these things through, and one of the best ways is challenges and trying to respond to those. But we also must not let endless philosophical discourse prevent us from acting! Somehow, we must find the right balance.
I'm glad you criticize the Golden Rule. It always seemed dull, shallow, and frankly flawed.
Totally. Problem is, it is mentioned in the Bible (Matthew, right?), so some Christians take offense at questioning it. Present company excluded, of course!
Yes! The full "greatest commandment" is in all three synoptic Gospels:
Matthew 22:34-40 -- https://bible.usccb.org/bible/matthew/22?34
Mark 12:28-34 -- https://bible.usccb.org/bible/mark/12?28
Luke 10:25-28 -- https://bible.usccb.org/bible/luke/10?25
Note, though, that the greatest commandment calls a person to first orient him/herself properly to the divine, and then that will illuminate how you treat others. Christians who skip right to the "golden rule" are avoiding the most important part!
In Luke's account, the conversation continues into the Parable of the Good Samaritan (29-37 -- https://bible.usccb.org/bible/luke/10?29 ) to further illustrate how the proper moral hierarchy works.
"Love your neighbor as yourself" seems like it should work in most cases. (Except maybe for people who hate themselves.)
But this all raises another issue: We aren't trying to create a religion here. And we do not want to step on the toes of anyone's……
It should work, if people are oriented toward human dignity and what you and I understand to be natural human rights.
Might-makes-right can also be a kind of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you," but I wouldn't endorse might-makes-right behavior.
The key flaw in the Golden Rule, if it's isolated, is it turns "These are MY preferences" into "These should be EVERYONE'S preferences." It's a kind of fake empathy. Rather than being an answer to the question, it simply pushes the question deeper to "How did you arrive at YOUR preferences?"
Saying something like "Respect everyone's natural human rights" rests on understanding natural human rights, while the Golden Rule, by itself, doesn't rest on anything other than subjectivism.
Doing a little *typing out loud* here, so maybe I missed something.
It has long rung a bit hollow to me, and you just put a lot of that feeling into words quite well!
There is a subtle variance with the phrase 'shall' and 'should'. The former being maditory (or else). Such as laws imposed by a dictator or contractual obligation. On the other hand, "should" implies more of a guideline or recommendations. The earliest example can be found in religious dogma with the 10 commandments- with the proverbial finger shaking "you shall" or "shall not". This is a pervted version of a much earlier text, taken from the Egyptian Book of the Dead, where the 'shall' and 'shall nots' were stateted as 'I will' or 'will nots'.
Yes, this is an essential distinction. MUST/SHALL(NOT) = Mandatory or else. SHOULD is, as you say, a guideline. It is essential to maintain a clear distinction.
Welfare, for example, is a violation of that distinction. Government uses force on you to make you pay for something that you probably should do, but that is certainly not mandatory, or any even remotely proper concern of government's.
This is a very good starting point Christopher. Boy you look so studious!
🤣