[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
OK so your principle is basically the golden rule isn't it? As opposed to either acting to the benefit of total selfish interest or for one's tribe perhaps. Is that a correct understanding?

[/ QUOTE ]

It may be correlated well to the golden rule, but is not necessarily the case.

[/ QUOTE ]


Why do you feel it necessary to engage in sophistry here? Either make an argument it isn't very well correlated or agree that it is, and that for purposes of this discussion we can call your principle by that name.

[/ QUOTE ]

I did say it may be well correlated, but may not be an exact identity. There is no need to exhaust every implication of assuming an exact identity to a vague principle. (Oh, and isn't the point of your thread here to explicitly engage in sophistry, such as your need to pin me down on a definition to a vague principle?)

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Now as to the subjectivity of that rule, would you agree that most philosophical and religious belief systems throughout history have advocated that golden rule in one form or another? Or is that rule only believed in by a minority now and in history?

[/ QUOTE ]

Irrelevant to the question of subjectivity. Most Americans prefer pizza to eating grass, but that doesn't mean pizza is therefore an objective standard or a basis for "rights". Preference for pizza is still a subjective choice even if 99.999% of people choose it.

[/ QUOTE ]


So if there isn't any kind of inherent morality, however minimal, that all men share, then you can't really advocate that a murderer should be punished either by society or the victim's family can you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I can advocate punishment. Are you having a reading comprehension problem? See my principle above. Where do you see a condition that states every human must sharemy principle before I act on it?

[ QUOTE ]
If your principle is one sided, as in solely being used in the hope others respond similarly in a game theoretic strategy, rather than a right you and others have to be treated in a certain manner, then when someone declines to play in a game theoretically cooperative manner neither you nor others should seek to punish him for same, but only seek to persuade him regarding future actions, isn't that right?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have already stated that I will use force to impose my will if I deem it necessary (based on my principle above). And using force to punish (or deter) murderers is entirely consistent with how I want society to act. Nowhere does my principle state that I only advocate non-violent persuasion over force.

Are you really this incapable of thinking about this subject rationally that you must continuously invent aspects of my position that are never stated and are in fact completely contrary to what I have stated?