Agnostic.com

14 4

Why the Golden Rule is overrated.
Whenever I write about morality in this forum, or that a society needs something like a social glue, I am always lectured that this is just religious rubbish, and that the Golden Rule is quite sufficient when it comes to morality.

But this is wrong, because the Golden Rule is only a very simple rule of thumb on the personal level, where individuals deal directly with other individuals.

Here are some examples of questions and problems that the Golden Rule is unable to solve.

  • When the interest of individuals collides with the common good: which side is more important and has the right of way, so to speak?
  • Is "hard work" a value in itself (like in the USA), so that hard-working people are eo ipso virtuous ? Or is work in general a burden and nuisance, one should work as much as necessary and otherwise enjoy life (like in France)?
  • Is it acceptable and normal to bribe officials and officer, like in India? Does it depend on the situation, like in Italy or Greece? Or is it totally unacceptable, like in Finland?
  • is higher education a virtue for as many citizens as possible, or should it be reserved for a small elite?
  • Should children be brought up to be well-behaved and obey their parents and teachers, as in Japan; or should their individuality develop as freely as possible, like in France or the USA?
  • Is it acceptable that ordinary citizens can legally own guns?
  • Is pornography acceptable? What about prostitution? Sex with minors? Nudity on the beach?

This is just a small sample of questions that can only be tackled and solved by majority rule, on the societal level, not by some rule of thump on the individual level.

I agree that we do not need organized (traditional) religions to answer questions like these, but we do need some sort of consistent system of values and norms which is accepted and subscribed to by the majority of a society or community. The name of such a system is morality.
In the absence of such a system, the society becomes dysfunctional and will disintegrate sooner or later

Matias 8 June 1
Share

Enjoy being online again!

Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.

Create your free account

14 comments

Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.

0

Okay, I’ve had some time to think about these questions. My response is not totally thought out, since my mind is a bit jumbled at the moment, mixed with some wishful thinking, so it's a SUPER LONG response, sorry!

I still feel that the Golden Rule can be applied, at least abstractly, to some of the questions and problems posed BUT much better when combined with a newer better mythos (and by that I mean a truth) which could help us try to find a BALANCE.

And by mythos, I don’t really mean something new to be invented, but something that is already common but is being ignored, not being used yet for a way to ground us, away from the old myths, which are no longer relevant.

Here are my responses to each of your examples of questions and problems that the Golden Rule is unable to solve and how if combined with a new mythos, we might find a better path forward.

When the interest of individuals collides with the common good: which side is more important and has the right of way, so to speak?

If the mythos demonstrates the need for a BALANCE between what is good for the individual and the common good, that could help. But also empathy for the common good -- if the golden rule is applied to the common good, and the individual contemplates that s/he is part of the common good then that comes down to moral dilemma.

Is "hard work" a value in itself (like in the USA), so that hard-working people are eo ipso virtuous ? Or is work in general a burden and nuisance, one should work as much as necessary and otherwise enjoy life (like in France)?

Hard work itself may not be a value, especially if that hard work is going against the common good. We should do what we can to promote our values, but sometimes doing nothing or just being patient might be wiser. By enjoying life, or being in the absorbing phase, sometimes we are still contributing to the betterment of society, in that we are learning and supporting those who make a living by serving those who are enjoying life. Sometimes I provide the service (and get paid) and sometimes I enjoy the services of others and pay for it. The BALANCE is that I have to serve for the money I receive to pay others service.

Is it acceptable and normal to bribe officials and officer, like in India? Does it depend on the situation, like in Italy or Greece? Or is it totally unacceptable, like in Finland?

No, it’s not acceptable when thinking about the golden rule with the common good in mind, rather than the individual. Question is, will my actions (my expense or acceptance) be hurting someone, and what is best for the whole, including those being hurt? Again it’s a BALANCE that must be considered. Selfishness, such as lawmaker accepting campaign donations in exchange for agreeing to hurt society to line the pockets of themselves and their donors should be unacceptable.

is higher education a virtue for as many citizens as possible, or should it be reserved for a small elite?

There is no such thing as higher education if there is not lower education, and perhaps if the opportunity was available to ALL as a choice, not a privilege, those who really want it can absorb it and (hopefully) make the world a better place... while those who don’t want it can choose not to absorb it and live a happy life without the higher education. I don’t see a problem with opening up higher education to anyone who wants it. There will always be people who don’t want it. The choice creates a BALANCE.

Should children be brought up to be well-behaved and obey their parents and teachers, as in Japan; or should their individuality develop as freely as possible, like in France or the USA?

This is another case where BALANCE is key... Yes, they should be well behaved and obey well thought out rules for their safety and the safety of others, but they should also be able to develop their individuality in order to give back to society in their own unique way if they choose to.

Is it acceptable that ordinary citizens can legally own guns?

Guns have their uses for hunting, safety and protection, but they are weapons created to cause unnatural destruction. If a mythos was based more on keeping close to nature and reserving guns as a last resort and looking at the big picture, instead of an “us and against them” attitude, then maybe there wouldn’t be such a mentality toward guns as a part of culture. It seems the gun problem in America stems from a lack of balance between the Authoritarian patriarchal mythos and the idea of freedom. Seems that the countries who have less of a gun problem have EITHER a lack of authoritarian rule OR a lack of freedom. America tries to have both, but it’s not meshing. So, maybe the answer is to change out our Authoritarian patriarchal mythos for a more peaceful BALANCE of nature mythos.

Is pornography acceptable? What about prostitution? Sex with minors? Nudity on the beach?

Pornography (in my mind) is not a balanced consensual depiction... It is someone demeaning another for ones sexual gratification. Eroticism on the other hand (in my mind) is a celebration of sexuality willingly shared for the mutual gratification of the person sharing and the person enjoying. I know this is a fine line for some, but to me it is based on BALANCE and pornography seems to be un-balanced.

Prostitution (in my mind) if it’s a decision made by the person to make an equal trade, not out of necessity or from being trafficked/pimped, or in support of an addiction habit, if made legal would carry far more safety protections, than illegal prostitution, so there is that. Many people might argue that voluntary marriage is sometimes prostitution in that one party is agreeing to serve as a sexual partner (and other things) in exchange for financial security. The BALANCE is whether someone is being forced by circumstances or another person to do something against their will -- or if there is a mutually equitable decision made by the parties involved directly, not anything to do with an outside party.

Sex with minors? There are definitely parameters to be decided on what age is appropriate for similar age sexual activity and different age activity, and of course consent has much to do with it, but also cultural maturity. If a 12 year old in biblical times was thought of as fully mature and 40 years old was considered old age, well we are in a different time now. Again, this is something that is often guided by a religion, mythos or society rules. The BALANCE I’ve been talking with in my responses would likely be age difference, maturity level, and what is acceptable in current cultural society.

Nudity on the beach? There is just plain nudity and there is lewdness or acts that mean to cause an "affront" to other beach goers... There is a definite difference between cultures that sexualize bodies because of their mythos and those who understand it's "not the meat, it's the motion" as the song goes. I go to beaches where there is nudity and other that are full of bikinis and speedoes. Most people are just there to enjoy the sun, breeze and the water, not to cause "affront" but in a culture that doesn't have a healthy view of sexuality, some folks get bothered by the nudity, but not the sexy bikinis. So, this is another case of the way a mythos could dictate how people view nudity. A mythos based in nature, I feel, would promote a healthy BALANCE allowing people to understand the difference between modesty vs prudishness, and positive body image vs
exhibitionism. In my state, citations are only given to nude beach goers who are "causing affront" which is why I use that term in my response. Nudity is illegal, but not normally cited by police. Where does one draw the line... toddlers running around splashing int the water, vs senior citizens relaxing and everyone in between. Here, if one is easily offended by the sight of nudity, they just don't go to the beaches that commonly have nudity, and stick to the resort beaches instead.

0

The Golden Rule. Whomever has the gold makes the rules

2

I believe the golden rule is just a simple rule of thumb, not the rule that will solve all life's challenges, but a good start.

I believe the "glue" you mention is whatever mythos is guiding the thoughts of a culture. If we think of a mythos as something that is believed to be true at the time and through that mythos solutions seem clear, kind of like prescription glasses. We need a new prescription.

In my mind, we are between myths, the old myths are crumbling under the weight of our new scientific understanding of how we came to be and the order of things.

I would hope that when the new mythos takes hold, it would not be one that tells people what to think, but how to think.

I get a lot of flack for suggesting a new mythos, but that is what I believe the world needs at this time... By a mythos, I don't mean something made up, but based in what we know as true at this time and willing to adapt as new information becomes available.

I think that people tend to overlook the fact that a new mythos in many ways already exists, in part simply because they assume that it will look like the old mythos, and they fail therefore to see that certain things are in fact a mythos, because they do not look like the old ones.

A mythos has to provide the axioms from which we derive our world view. The bare number of basic unsupported assumptions, based in belief, which we need to start with, to develop a logos. And I would hold that we have at least six modern ones already existing in the world, which are, human rights, the democratic mandate, the rule of law, science and belief in empirical truth, universal welfare, and environmentalism.

They may deviate slightly from the old mythos pattern in that they are not all of them completely unsupported by empirical evidence, and they do not seem to be supernatural. These are the modern beliefs. (You may even call them religions if you wish, but I think that muddies the waters. ) And I think them more than enough for the purpose of constructing a logos. They also have the advantage that they do not conflict with the modern existing logos, and that they are plain and simple without the over complex inherent and often conflicting baggage of the old religions.

@Matias No I think that you are getting confused over terms, the mythos would include all the social glue including beliefs, attitudes, values and norms etc, in so far as they are irrational and not supported by empirical evidence. There is no reason why things like human rights, can not be regarded as exactly same as religions from a social glue point of view.

You have to think outside of the conventional view that religion, to be religion, ( Though I would prefer to call it belief, because of exactly this confusion.) and social glue, must include the supernatural or be something that once included the supernatural. Ideals like human rights and environmentalism, even more the rule of law, are now more than mature enough to be hallowed by tradition, convention, the arts and ritual. You have to remember that it was exactly those things, tradition, convention, the arts and ritual, etc which created the supernatural gods and the religions based on them, in the first place. So that they are more than able to make gods, even gods worthy of worship, out of things like human rights and environmentalism, and it is observable that they are doing so.

To take just environmentalism as one example, it is filled with rituals customs and arts, everything from citizen science, to bird watching, litter picking, collective tree planting, recycling and many more, all of which form rituals and social glue. While it almost certainly now attracts more attention from the arts than all the worlds old religions, and is a major movement within the arts.

3

Yes, but get this, religion can not solve those problems either. Every single one of those problems is unresolved by religion too, nearly every one of those problems gets different answers from different religions.

To solve those problems you need to think, and while the golden rule can not find you an answer, it does give you a good reason to start thinking.

@Matias No the golden rule is perfectly usable at a societal level. See my reply to Julie808 above.

@Matias The golden rule is of course just a starting point, and perhaps not the best one. I think there are far better ones, but as I said the point about the golden rule is that it is a justification for thinking, and that leads to the other rules. Other rules are extentions of the golden rule, and refinements of it, not contraditions if they are well designed. I think that it would be a silly strawman argument to say that people who believe in the golden rule, do not want any others. But it should not also be forgot, that a lot of societies rules are not made for good moral purposes, because there are also bad moral purposes as well, and they perhaps generate more rules, because from the point of view of those wanting to perpetrate bad morals, then complicating things to muddy the waters and hide the true intent is a good thing in itself. Which is why it is always good to look back at first axioms like the golden rule, when judging other rules.

Though as I say the golden rule is not my favourite, and I don't think that it is even a true moral axiom. I think that. "It is preferable to live in a happier world." or "It is better to have social justice at all levels, because I can never know at what level I will be later in my life. " For a couple of examples, and several others are much better starting axioms than the golden rule.

0

The Golden Rule indicates that there must be a simple solution to morality which we are all able to tap into to some degree in order to determine what feels right or wrong in any case we consider. It falls short of providing that complete solution, but the Golden Method resolves the issue entirely:-

In a single-participant system there is no role for morality as everything is just a matter of harm-benefit calculations to work out what's best for that individual.

In a multiple-participant system morality comes into play, but if you consider all the participants to be a single individual who travels repeatedly back in time to live the lives of all the participants in the system in turn, morality is then reduced to the same harm-benefit calculations as in the former case.

So, all we have to do is imagine living all the lives of all the participants in the system in turn and then try to work out what is best for us on that basis, because that will be what's moral. For example, if one person in the system is a slave for the others and has a horrific time while the rest profit from that, it would be better for none of them to exist as the cost is too high.

You talk about values and norms, while others talk about rights, but these are all derived from something more fundamental. In most cases they are derived from imperfect ideas like the Golden Rule and a high tonnage of religious dogma, and they vary due to errors in the design of the approach they're based on. The correct way to derive them though is to use the Golden Method.

(1) When the interest of individuals collides with the common good: which side is more important and has the right of way, so to speak?

If you imagine living the lives of all the people in that system, you can then see how much leeway should be allowed and how much should not be. The Golden Method resolves this completely, but the Golden Rule can handle it too if you apply it the right way. It would help if you provided examples because if I have to do that for you I could choose ones that don't cover the point you have in mind, but let's take the issue of helping people end their lives early when they've had enough and want to go. They want to leave it until after the point when they can't kill themselves so as not to die sooner than they want to, but once they've reached the point where they're ready to go, they've lost the ability to take themselves out. They may then suffer mental torture for years as a result, while other people are banned from helping them die in order to protect other people who might be bumped off against their wishes by people wanting to inherit money from them or who might feel like a burden and want to die to avoid getting in the way. In a situation like this, it may be impossible to determine which case you're dealing with as you can't tell from the outside if the person really wants to go or not, so you have to weigh up the harm done by helping them die and taking out some of the wrong ones versus the harm done by not helping them out and allowing all that suffering to take place instead. Whichever is worse determines which should be avoided, so all we can do is try to measure the harm done each way, though there will be individual cases where we can determine that the person really does or doesn't want to go, in which case we can go against the normal rule when dealing with them because the normal rule applies to the cases where we can't determine what the person actually wants. Both the Golden Method and Golden Rule can handle this because we're trying to do the right thing for each person in that situation, but we have difficulty knowing what is actually best for them.

(2) Is "hard work" a value in itself (like in the USA), so that hard-working people are eo ipso virtuous ? Or is work in general a burden and nuisance, one should work as much as necessary and otherwise enjoy life (like in France)?

Hard work where that work wastes resources and merely redistributes wealth which could be distributed more sensibly without that work being done is a bad thing because it makes everyone poorer. You have to weigh up the benefits and costs of it to see how moral it is. We have more and more people doing pointless work today just to earn their share of the resources that are gathered and manufactured by machines and where we would all be better off if we were just given the same share without any of the pointless work being done. Again, both the Golden Method and Golden Rule can handle this, because hard work that brings that makes people better off is good, while hard work that makes people worse off is bad for them and we don't want to harm them.

(3) Is it acceptable and normal to bribe officials and officer, like in India? Does it depend on the situation, like in Italy or Greece? Or is it totally unacceptable, like in Finland?

Where bad systems are in place, bribery and giving expected tips become an essential part of those bad systems to make up for their defects as the base wage is too low. Where the system is fair without the need to bribe anyone, it becomes immoral to offer and accept bribes as it is parasitic on people who aren't behaving that way, just as cheating and theft are.

(4) Is higher education a virtue for as many citizens as possible, or should it be reserved for a small elite?

Education has costs, and when it's done intensively for a long time with high pressure and massive debt accumulating, it does actual damage which can leave people burned out and struggling for the rest of their life. How much of it you need depends on balancing the benefits against the costs, but there's also a moral imperative to make it less costly instead of treating it as a money-making industry, which is what it has become today - people are being fleeced for vast sums of money in order to obtain useless qualifications as they become experts in shite which won't lead to a job and which leaves them selling hamburgers.

(5) Should children be brought up to be well-behaved and obey their parents and teachers, as in Japan; or should their individuality develop as freely as possible, like in France or the USA?

It's a mixture of both: they should be brought up to obey moral rules and to rebel against immoral and stupid rules so that they collectively fix the rules for future generations.

(6) Is it acceptable that ordinary citizens can legally own guns?

It would be fine for the right people to have them, but the wrong people should not be allowed to have them. Mathematics determines which people are which. The ones who are immoral, reckless and stupid should not have them because they will shoot the wrong targets. The ones who are moral, responsible and intelligent will not shoot illegitimate targets other than by mistake, so they can effectively become part of the policing system without actually doing that for a living. That may provide a superior outcome to banning guns and only having criminals with them, but you'd have to do the experiment properly to find out, though I suspect the bans work best because people can go off the rails and turn dangerous due to mental problems, but again it all comes down to statistics to see what leads to the minimum harm being done - everything should be dictated by those numbers rather than by simplistic principles which are typically only vague approximations of good ideas.

Morality is mathematical and needs to be done with precision.

@Matias - Not so. The Golden Method was originally designed specifically for use in impartial AGI systems to compute morality where they apply morality through mathematics, so it is not subjective. A person can apply it pretty well too if they can decentre sufficiently well so as to avoid biasing it towards their own likes and dislikes in their current life, but the method actively helps them do that. If, for example, you have to live a million lives as rats and one life as a human who abuses those rats, a person who hates rats might ordinarily be so stupid as to think it's fine for those rats to suffer, but if they really think through the method and realise that they'll be on the receiving end of all that abuse, they'll start to see things from the point of view of the rats and will do their best to protect them from unnecessary harm, and indeed it will help them to work out what unnecessary harm is.

"If morality were mathematical and could be done with precision, someone would already have invented an algorithm to calculate all the costs and benefits."

Someone had to come up with it at a time before anyone else had already done so. That person happened to be me.

"To do that, you need a set of Meta-Values that must not be questioned."

On the contrary, they must be under continual revision: you do the best you can to get those values right and you keep aiming for greater accuracy. The better you do this, the more moral the system becomes, while to give up on the basis that you're never quite reaching perfection is to do something less moral.

For more detail, see my answer on It's not a perfect rule, but it's as close as we've gotten. (currently the fourth answer from the top).

0

For the first question, I think it would really depend on the exact situation. "Interests of individuals" and "common good" are a bit vague and could mean quite a lot of things.

Hard work has value. Relaxation has value. Neither are virtues. I can work hard every day to make myself richer at the expense of thousands of struggling people. There is no virtue in that. The work being done can have virtue though. I'd consider the work of a doctor or nurse to have more virtue than the work of a banker or a stock broker.

It's absolutely not acceptable to bribe officials. That's circumventing the law.

Education is valuable but not a virtue. Higher education should be available to everyone but everyone does not need a masters degree or a doctorate. Some jobs require talent more than education.

I have no children and child-rearing is a subject I know too little about so I'll pass on this one.

Though personally I am in favor of MUCH MUCH MUCH stricter gun laws I am not yet in favor of a complete ban on guns. I'd be in favor of allowing the ownership of up to two firerams and only certain types of guns and a strict limit on the quantity of bullets that can be owned. This would be in addition to much stricter background checks and restrictions on certain people from owning guns at all (those with a history of violence, violent crimes, or severe mental illness).

But majority rule isn't always the answer. The majority of people are not gay nor black nor handicapped but we need laws to protect and help minorities because history has already shown that without protective laws that these people will be taken advantage of and harmed and discriminated against.

0

So treating others how you want to be treated is wrong? I treat people how I want to be treated.

@Matias I think a better term is well being.

0

Many of your examples are not moral issues. Additionally I don't know why you think U.S.A. parents believe their children should develop "as freely as possible". No parents I know or knew subscribed to that idea.

1
  1. Not a question of morality.
  2. Not a question of morality.
  3. Apparently it is subjective based on the culture as it should be.
  4. Not a question of morality.
  5. Not a question of morality.
  6. Not a question of morality.

Humanity doesn't need a "consistent system of values and norms", it needs the intelligence to evolve socially as the world changes. As one constant in the universe and social dynamics is change. Coming up with a "consistent system" assumes a static state of reality to apply it and that is kind of naive.

@Matias Why would you claim my "notion of morality is obviously quite impoverished and atrophied" without demonstrating it in the least? Sounds defensively pompous. Regardless, Matt Dillahunty of the Atheist Experience says that "morality means doing what helps people have well-being". I shall use that as my metric as I agree with it.

  1. If the individual interest collides with the "common good" it depends on how it is manifest. The comment is to ambiguous to assign any specific grouping. What are the "individuals" interests? You leave it just ambiguous enough to be meaningless. If the individuals personal interest is that they prefer dry cereal with milk instead of eggs and bacon, it's a totally moot point. If their "personal interest" is that they are superior to others and thus have a right to make decisions about others life, that's obviously problematic especially for those parts of the "common good" judged less than.

  2. The term "hard work" is another term that is just ambiguous enough to be meaningless in the context of morality. Define how hard work manifests and it's relationship to morality as opposed to some kind of material benefit.

  3. Already answered

  4. The term "higher education" is also a term that is to ambiguous to apply moral metrics. Higher education to what end? What does the education consist of? Education on what subject? I'm more in favor of developing mental and learning skills giving people the ability to analyze the relevance or value of the education being provided.

  5. More ambiguity. Define "well-behaved". What are the benefits of "obeying" parents regardless of the family circumstances over being taught to analyze your environment and improve your circumstances?

  6. A legal issue.

  7. Legal issues.

1

Like most questions of morality and rights it is never completely a black and white issue, but in my opinion there must be a general basic premise that personal human rights and morality can never under any circumstances be allowed to trump the collective good of the majority.

For a society to work well and for people to follow any rules-based system, it needs three things…1) consent of the majority - 2) an understanding that the rules are made for the common good and no one person’s rights trump that of any other, or indeed, that of the common good. - and - 3) free elections, representation, and an ability to air grievances.

I don’t believe we need religion to organise ourselves into a rules based moral entity, many co-operatives are based on this very principle, and a few good governments.

Many of the things you list as questions, asking how acceptable we find them, depend on a perspective which we owe entirely to where in the world we live and the type of society we have had the fortune/misfortune to be born into. Conditioning from birth if you like, in much the same way that most people are assimilated into religion as children which we adopt without thinking, we also adopt cultural norms. Because I’m British and West European…my societal norms would make me tend to side with the French on life balance and the Finns who find it unacceptable to bribe officials under any circumstances, and when it comes to the question of ordinary citizens being armed like the USA…that to me is a complete anathema!

Rights and morality ARE good for the majority and can never be subject to currrent whims. Central American Indians thought human sacrifice was good for the majority. Did that make it right?

Tell me when rape fillowed by murder of the rape victim can ever be considered anything except immoral?

@Alienbeing Why do you think anything I wrote indicates I’d condone rape or nor believe it not to be immoral? I find your response to me aggressive and incomprehensible!

@Marionville I'll tell yu why. You said "Like most questions of morality and rights it is never a black and white issue, but in my opinion there must be a general basic premise that personal human rights and morality can never under any circumstances be allowed to trump the collective good of the majority."

There have been Societies where rape/murder was not only acceptable but publically practiced as human sacrifices for the good of the whole. They were not correct were they?

@Alienbeing We are alive in the 21st century not in some earlier time, and I’m assuming the questioner is referring to current social mores in modern society as they affect us today and not to some remote Amazonian tribe where rape and sacrifice was considered the norm, possibly even moral or for the collective good. I’m afraid my imagination just doesn’t allow me to factor in such irrelevant possibilities when I’m having a discussion about the current world we live in right now in 2022. You seem intent on an argument, but I’m afraid I am going to disappoint …so bugger off and challenge someone else!

@Marionville What is currently acceptable can change. By referencing current issues you are saying morals are subject to social acceptability. I am saying that irrespective of social acceptability murder/rape is always immoral.

0

Matias, you could have started your second paragrah with, “But in my opinion this is wrong.”

You didn’t. You started it as my old world German father-is-god, authoritarian grandfather would have.

I see the news from today’s Germany and think, “The bomb-caused destruction Germans suffered during WW2 might also have destroyed their need to obey autocratic leaders.”

Or it might not have.

2

"Always do more of the same unto others as they have done unto you. If we all behaved that way we do do nothing but nice things for one another, right?" Arnold Arnold.

2

Morality is a wholly subjective concept.

Humanity has proven that repeatedly.

Morality is not subjective and humanity has only proven that social acceptability changes.

Tell me, irrespective of any period in time or current time when rape followed by murder of the victim can be anything other than immoral.

@Alienbeing So your saying morality is objective?

@xenoview No, I am saying there are actually very few moral issues, but those that exist, such as murder/rape are absolute.

@Alienbeing I'll give you that rape is always unacceptable and immoral.
Murder, not so much.

@KKGator When I use the word murder, I am using it in the strick legal sense, i.e. premeditated killing of another human, where self defense was not an issue.

@Matias Sex with children is the same as rape. It's just more vile.
Both are immoral.

@Alienbeing Still too many variables.

@Matias I said it was the same as rape.

There was no ambiguity.

@KKGator Name one.

4

The glue you speak of is called law. It only works, however, if everyone is held to it. We, Americans, live in a semi-Oligarchical nation in which scary powerful figures no longer are (crime does pay) so the system is losing cohesion.

You nailed it!

Write Comment
You can include a link to this post in your posts and comments by including the text q:669312
Agnostic does not evaluate or guarantee the accuracy of any content. Read full disclaimer.