More On the Definition of Wronging Someone

[David Sklansky]

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.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

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.


[/ QUOTE ]

Somebody once said "Do unto others..."

Who was that?

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 ]
Somebody once said "Do unto others..."

Who was that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Buddha, Confuscious, Zoroaster, Socrates... et. al.

[ 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. 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Stick to poker. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img]

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]



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 ]

So if I think she thinks I think my shoes should stay on, then I should leave them on even if I would normally take them off?? [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]

The whole thing is much more confusing than just trying to be a good person and respecting everbody else.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
So if I think she thinks I think my shoes should stay on, then I should leave them on even if I would normally take them off??[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]


[/ QUOTE ]

You can avoid all such issues by employing the simple expedient of always entering a friend's home with one shoe on and one shoe off. That way you'll always be half-wrong but never entirely wrong. And of course you'll always be half-right too. This is known as the wisdom of taking the Middle Path.

[mosquito]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So if I think she thinks I think my shoes should stay on, then I should leave them on even if I would normally take them off??[img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img] [img]/images/graemlins/confused.gif[/img]


[/ QUOTE ]

You can avoid all such issues by employing the simple expedient of always entering a friend's home with one shoe on and one shoe off. That way you'll always be half-wrong but never entirely wrong. And of course you'll always be half-right too. This is known as the wisdom of taking the Middle Path.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hmm... sounds like a half baked solution. Or wa that half assed? I have half a mind to reply in a positive or negative manner. Could you spare half a buck for a poor man? Arrg, now I'm half deranged. They will put me in the halfway house!

[chezlaw]

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

[David Sklansky]

"Somebody once said "Do unto others..."

Who was that?"

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