More On the Definition of Wronging Someone

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

Yes. If God exists I am sure he uses my definiton. How could an omiscient being do otherwise?


[/ QUOTE ]

You skate close to the edge sometimes.

[David Sklansky]

"Yes. If God exists I am sure he uses my definiton. How could an omiscient being do otherwise?


You skate close to the edge sometimes."

Actually I don't. Because I am quite sure that if there is a God he would find me amusing. And I am almost as sure that he would be appalled by your erroneous beliefs about him and the harm such beliefs cause. I truly believe that if he exists, you are much more likley to be in for a spanking than I am.

[ QUOTE ]
Nice post.

I hope it wont spoil some positive feedback to mention that a theory that includes the wrongness of an action as a factor, looks so much like high falootin philosophy.


chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Chez,

I've hear the term "high falootin" used on this forum before, but I haven't a clue what it means. I tried the online dictionary and got nothing and the web only turned up lyrics to a Grand Funk Railroad song. I assume it is some kind of euphamism or inside joke. Could you define it for me, I'm dumb. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nice post.

I hope it wont spoil some positive feedback to mention that a theory that includes the wrongness of an action as a factor, looks so much like high falootin philosophy.


chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Chez,

I've hear the term "high falootin" used on this forum before, but I haven't a clue what it means. I tried the online dictionary and got nothing and the web only turned up lyrics to a Grand Funk Railroad song. I assume it is some kind of euphamism or inside joke. Could you define it for me, I'm dumb. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he meant highfalutin, but he is a good poster so we won't hold this misspelling against him. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nice post.

I hope it wont spoil some positive feedback to mention that a theory that includes the wrongness of an action as a factor, looks so much like high falootin philosophy.


chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey Chez,

I've hear the term "high falootin" used on this forum before, but I haven't a clue what it means. I tried the online dictionary and got nothing and the web only turned up lyrics to a Grand Funk Railroad song. I assume it is some kind of euphamism or inside joke. Could you define it for me, I'm dumb. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

I think he meant highfalutin, but he is a good poster so we won't hold this misspelling against him. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Just a weak attempt at humourously pointing out that DS is a philosopher despite his apparant disdain. I take the blame for the weakness of the humour but the spelling is down to DS.

I do think his was a good post and no offense is intended.

chez

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]
Sounds like the "Golden Rule" (which is shared among a vast number of religions and philosophies). I agree, it's very good. Yours is a better version though: "Do unto others, as they would have you do unto them." Still not always applicable... but it's a good rule of thumb. It let's the sadists and masochists get along much better than the Biblical version would. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Masichist; Beat me! Beat me!

Sadist: mmmmmm.....no!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It let's the sadists and masochists get along much better than the Biblical version would. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

Masichist; Beat me! Beat me!

Sadist: mmmmmm.....no!

[/ QUOTE ]

[img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] That's one immoral sadist!

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
My previous definition was incomplete. I said it would be wrong to do something or omit doing something for someone, if you would consider yourself wronged if it was done to you. Walking through your house without taking your shoes off for instance. If you feel wronged when someone does that to you, you are wrong to do it to others. But there are additons and exceptions.

For instance if you know for a fact that the other guy doesn't care, or even prefers that you keep your shoes on, then you should, when you are in his house.

Also, you should not feel wronged if the other guy doesn't know your stance and does what he would want done to himself. Such as coming into your house with shoes.

BUT conversely you or he SHOULD feel wronged if the other guy does to you what he wouldn't want done to himself, as long as he is assuming you feel the same. So in this case if the other guy takes his shoes off to be more comfortable, under the (incorrect) assumption that you are like him and want guests to keep their shoes on, you should feel wronged even though he unwittingly acted in the way you prefer.

The above is not merely a theoretical exercise. It is the standards by which I treat and judge people I know, and should also be the standards that I believe whole coutnries should treat and judge each other by.

And, yes I realize that the concepts could be taken to a third level but I think that's a bit much to deal with.

[/ QUOTE ]

David,

It seems like what you're describing is close to Kant's first formulation of the categorical imperative, namely that:

"Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law."

It seems as though, however, in the past, you've held some disdain for Kant (although surely I'm not intimately familiar with your philosophies, so I may be mistaken) - and certainly, you can find some value in the categorical imperative and not in Kant.

But I'm curious: Have you read much Kant? Do you find much value in deontological ethics? I know I have my own personal problems with deontology, but I find Kant (at least somewhat) compelling.

[Trantor]

[ QUOTE ]

BUT conversely you or he SHOULD feel wronged if the other guy does to you what he wouldn't want done to himself, as long as he is assuming you feel the same.

[/ QUOTE ]

All these moral imperitives! Could you explain where the "SHOULD" comes from (or to be precise, will you). Are you really saying that it is wrong to not feel wronged? Why isn't it acceptable for someone be laid back about someone intentially trying to wrong them and just not givadam?

[bearly]

re the final sentence in your post. 1) who said it wasn't? 2)who are the implied 'to whom'? as in :it is not acceptable________.