CDZ The Moral Philosophy Of Donald Trump

[Correll]

To the best of my knowledge, Donald Trump has yet to articulate anything that could be described even ostensibly as a moral philosophy to which he ascribes. I can't identify his even having averred to accepting a model of moral philosophy someone else has developed.

• Moral Reasoning (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  
• Russell's Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  
• Experimental Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
• Kant's Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  
• Moore's Moral Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  
• Nietzsche's Moral and Political Philosophy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  
• Moral Realism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  
• Moral Relativism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
  
• Metaethics (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Moral Relativism would seem closest to describing some aspects of Trump's philosophy. Based on his statements and behavior it might also be reasonable to speculate if Trump could be described as amoral, being somewhat indifferent to questions of right and wrong.

Truly, I don't know if I do or do not agree that Trump is mostly moral relativist. I don't know because I am not convinced I can believe a damn thing that man says.

That I am not convinced of Trump's honestly, integrity, is precisely the problem I have with him. He's not earned my trust. In fact, what he's done quite effectively is show me that he cannot be trusted. Truthfully, I'm more comfortable with someone with whose moral philosophy I disagree than with someone whose moral philosophy is indeterminable to me.

Based on what we know about Donald Trump's character I think it's safe to assume he would sell us all out, betray his country and it's people for a few bucks. Trump doesn't seem like someone who would bother himself about questions of morality, he reduces life to very simple equations.

This, of course was your prearrived at conclusion and you would have/will dismiss all information or argument to the contrary and hold to it no matter what.

You'd be the last person around here to give an honest response.

I am a very honest person.

You are completely DIShonest.

At some level, you know that is true.

Are you claiming that when you opened this thread with a question about the morality of Donald Trump that you did NOT already believe you "knew" the answer,

and that you were open to ANY alternative answer that would not paint Trump in a bad light?


Is that you claim? State it clearly so people can get the full impact of it's hilarity.

 

[Correll]

Here's a nice example of the possible implications of Trump's lack of morality.

Donald Trump says he's open to Japan and South Korea developing their own nukes

Trump and his position:
Well, in spite of my deep disdain for Trump's candidacy, for his character, and for the prospect of his being President, that is one thing he's got right in my mind. That I feel that way, and will say so without qualifying my remarks, reflects the fact that I will always "give the Devil his due." You see, I am well aware that Trump can and will get some things "right;" my issues with Trump are that (1) he doesn't get enough "right," and (2) the most important thing I need him to get "right" -- that he be trustworthy, that he be a man of high integrity -- he does not get "right." Even as I am certain Trump is right on the matter of Japan and South Korea's developing their own nukes, because I don't trust the man at his word, I have no confidence that he'll act in accordance with that statement were he to become President and called to do so.

Why I agree with his currently stated position:
Japan and South Korea are sovereign nations. They have just as much right as any nation does to develop whatever technologies they want just as the U.S. does. Just as I would not have those nations or any other tell the U.S. what it can and cannot do, the U.S. and no other nation has the right to tell them the same. Note, however, that any nation is free to assert what another should or should not do, but that's merely an expression of viewpoint. When parties who assert what another (others) should and should not do is carried to the point of acting to exert their will in that regard, they've gone too far.

Am I keen on the idea of those or any other nation actually developing nuclear weapons? No. But I am a man of principle, and the one principle I have that rises above all others is that I do with regard to others as I would have others do with regard to me. Despite the prospect of devastation nuclear weapons hold, I know that nations/people don't and won't use them for as sources of entertainment, and I know that so long as I conduct all my activities with strict adherence to the Golden Rule, I really don't have a reason to be worried about their nuclear weapons.

That's the stupidest God damned thing I ever heard. The Golden Rule? Who the fuck is going to care about that after the nuclear holocaust?

What nuclear holocaust?

The one going on inside your head right now.

LOL! A weak dodge.

 

[Liminal]

Here's a nice example of the possible implications of Trump's lack of morality.

Donald Trump says he's open to Japan and South Korea developing their own nukes

Trump and his position:
Well, in spite of my deep disdain for Trump's candidacy, for his character, and for the prospect of his being President, that is one thing he's got right in my mind. That I feel that way, and will say so without qualifying my remarks, reflects the fact that I will always "give the Devil his due." You see, I am well aware that Trump can and will get some things "right;" my issues with Trump are that (1) he doesn't get enough "right," and (2) the most important thing I need him to get "right" -- that he be trustworthy, that he be a man of high integrity -- he does not get "right." Even as I am certain Trump is right on the matter of Japan and South Korea's developing their own nukes, because I don't trust the man at his word, I have no confidence that he'll act in accordance with that statement were he to become President and called to do so.

Why I agree with his currently stated position:
Japan and South Korea are sovereign nations. They have just as much right as any nation does to develop whatever technologies they want just as the U.S. does. Just as I would not have those nations or any other tell the U.S. what it can and cannot do, the U.S. and no other nation has the right to tell them the same. Note, however, that any nation is free to assert what another should or should not do, but that's merely an expression of viewpoint. When parties who assert what another (others) should and should not do is carried to the point of acting to exert their will in that regard, they've gone too far.

Am I keen on the idea of those or any other nation actually developing nuclear weapons? No. But I am a man of principle, and the one principle I have that rises above all others is that I do with regard to others as I would have others do with regard to me. Despite the prospect of devastation nuclear weapons hold, I know that nations/people don't and won't use them for as sources of entertainment, and I know that so long as I conduct all my activities with strict adherence to the Golden Rule, I really don't have a reason to be worried about their nuclear weapons.

That's the stupidest God damned thing I ever heard. The Golden Rule? Who the fuck is going to care about that after the nuclear holocaust?

Adherence to the Golden Rule will ensure a nuclear holocaust never happens.

Maybe it hadn't occurred to you that the Golden Rule only works when everyone recognizes it.

 

[Liminal]

Moral Relativism would seem closest to describing some aspects of Trump's philosophy. Based on his statements and behavior it might also be reasonable to speculate if Trump could be described as amoral, being somewhat indifferent to questions of right and wrong.

Truly, I don't know if I do or do not agree that Trump is mostly moral relativist. I don't know because I am not convinced I can believe a damn thing that man says.

That I am not convinced of Trump's honestly, integrity, is precisely the problem I have with him. He's not earned my trust. In fact, what he's done quite effectively is show me that he cannot be trusted. Truthfully, I'm more comfortable with someone with whose moral philosophy I disagree than with someone whose moral philosophy is indeterminable to me.

Based on what we know about Donald Trump's character I think it's safe to assume he would sell us all out, betray his country and it's people for a few bucks. Trump doesn't seem like someone who would bother himself about questions of morality, he reduces life to very simple equations.

This, of course was your prearrived at conclusion and you would have/will dismiss all information or argument to the contrary and hold to it no matter what.

You'd be the last person around here to give an honest response.

I am a very honest person.

You are completely DIShonest.

At some level, you know that is true.

Are you claiming that when you opened this thread with a question about the morality of Donald Trump that you did NOT already believe you "knew" the answer,

and that you were open to ANY alternative answer that would not paint Trump in a bad light?


Is that you claim? State it clearly so people can get the full impact of it's hilarity.

This discussion is way over your head. You have no idea why you believe what you claim to believe; so any discussion with you about morality and ethics would have to be about the same as teaching calculus to my dog.

 

[Correll]

Here's a nice example of the possible implications of Trump's lack of morality.

Donald Trump says he's open to Japan and South Korea developing their own nukes

Trump and his position:
Well, in spite of my deep disdain for Trump's candidacy, for his character, and for the prospect of his being President, that is one thing he's got right in my mind. That I feel that way, and will say so without qualifying my remarks, reflects the fact that I will always "give the Devil his due." You see, I am well aware that Trump can and will get some things "right;" my issues with Trump are that (1) he doesn't get enough "right," and (2) the most important thing I need him to get "right" -- that he be trustworthy, that he be a man of high integrity -- he does not get "right." Even as I am certain Trump is right on the matter of Japan and South Korea's developing their own nukes, because I don't trust the man at his word, I have no confidence that he'll act in accordance with that statement were he to become President and called to do so.

Why I agree with his currently stated position:
Japan and South Korea are sovereign nations. They have just as much right as any nation does to develop whatever technologies they want just as the U.S. does. Just as I would not have those nations or any other tell the U.S. what it can and cannot do, the U.S. and no other nation has the right to tell them the same. Note, however, that any nation is free to assert what another should or should not do, but that's merely an expression of viewpoint. When parties who assert what another (others) should and should not do is carried to the point of acting to exert their will in that regard, they've gone too far.

Am I keen on the idea of those or any other nation actually developing nuclear weapons? No. But I am a man of principle, and the one principle I have that rises above all others is that I do with regard to others as I would have others do with regard to me. Despite the prospect of devastation nuclear weapons hold, I know that nations/people don't and won't use them for as sources of entertainment, and I know that so long as I conduct all my activities with strict adherence to the Golden Rule, I really don't have a reason to be worried about their nuclear weapons.

That's the stupidest God damned thing I ever heard. The Golden Rule? Who the fuck is going to care about that after the nuclear holocaust?

Adherence to the Golden Rule will ensure a nuclear holocaust never happens.

Maybe it hadn't occurred to you that the Golden Rule only works when everyone recognizes it.

Who do you envision nuking who first?

Think China will nuke South Korea at the cost of Beijing?

 

[Correll]

Truly, I don't know if I do or do not agree that Trump is mostly moral relativist. I don't know because I am not convinced I can believe a damn thing that man says.

That I am not convinced of Trump's honestly, integrity, is precisely the problem I have with him. He's not earned my trust. In fact, what he's done quite effectively is show me that he cannot be trusted. Truthfully, I'm more comfortable with someone with whose moral philosophy I disagree than with someone whose moral philosophy is indeterminable to me.

Based on what we know about Donald Trump's character I think it's safe to assume he would sell us all out, betray his country and it's people for a few bucks. Trump doesn't seem like someone who would bother himself about questions of morality, he reduces life to very simple equations.

This, of course was your prearrived at conclusion and you would have/will dismiss all information or argument to the contrary and hold to it no matter what.

You'd be the last person around here to give an honest response.

I am a very honest person.

You are completely DIShonest.

At some level, you know that is true.

Are you claiming that when you opened this thread with a question about the morality of Donald Trump that you did NOT already believe you "knew" the answer,

and that you were open to ANY alternative answer that would not paint Trump in a bad light?


Is that you claim? State it clearly so people can get the full impact of it's hilarity.

This discussion is way over your head. You have no idea why you believe what you claim to believe; so any discussion with you about morality and ethics would have to be about the same as teaching calculus to my dog.

YOur grandiose nonsense does not hide the fact that you did not answer my question.

My rhetorical question.

We both know that you had your "answer" about Trump's morality before you even began your thread, and that you were NOT open to any contrary views or information.

THat makes your implied openness to such an answer, (by asking the question) a lie and a form of propaganda.


YOu claim to be operating on a lever beyond what I can see, when I can see right though you and you are completely unable to understand me.

Fairly normal for a lib.

 

[320 Years of History]

Here's a nice example of the possible implications of Trump's lack of morality.

Donald Trump says he's open to Japan and South Korea developing their own nukes

Trump and his position:
Well, in spite of my deep disdain for Trump's candidacy, for his character, and for the prospect of his being President, that is one thing he's got right in my mind. That I feel that way, and will say so without qualifying my remarks, reflects the fact that I will always "give the Devil his due." You see, I am well aware that Trump can and will get some things "right;" my issues with Trump are that (1) he doesn't get enough "right," and (2) the most important thing I need him to get "right" -- that he be trustworthy, that he be a man of high integrity -- he does not get "right." Even as I am certain Trump is right on the matter of Japan and South Korea's developing their own nukes, because I don't trust the man at his word, I have no confidence that he'll act in accordance with that statement were he to become President and called to do so.

Why I agree with his currently stated position:
Japan and South Korea are sovereign nations. They have just as much right as any nation does to develop whatever technologies they want just as the U.S. does. Just as I would not have those nations or any other tell the U.S. what it can and cannot do, the U.S. and no other nation has the right to tell them the same. Note, however, that any nation is free to assert what another should or should not do, but that's merely an expression of viewpoint. When parties who assert what another (others) should and should not do is carried to the point of acting to exert their will in that regard, they've gone too far.

Am I keen on the idea of those or any other nation actually developing nuclear weapons? No. But I am a man of principle, and the one principle I have that rises above all others is that I do with regard to others as I would have others do with regard to me. Despite the prospect of devastation nuclear weapons hold, I know that nations/people don't and won't use them for as sources of entertainment, and I know that so long as I conduct all my activities with strict adherence to the Golden Rule, I really don't have a reason to be worried about their nuclear weapons.

That's the stupidest God damned thing I ever heard. The Golden Rule? Who the fuck is going to care about that after the nuclear holocaust?

Adherence to the Golden Rule will ensure a nuclear holocaust never happens.

Maybe it hadn't occurred to you that the Golden Rule only works when everyone recognizes it.

Maybe it hasn't occurred to you that people don't seem to observe it because you are looking at their actions not as a response to the acts of others but as independent acts that lack a reference point to earlier deeds.

It's folks who think about what they want and how to get it rather than thinking about how they want to be treated and thus treating others similarly. How can one expect to receive respect if one doesn't willfully and unbidden give it?

Ours does not have to be a quid pro quo world and if you've ever actually tried to live by the Golden Rule, you'll find it's not at all hard to shift from not living by it to living by it. It is a transition that every single human on the planet can make literally in an instant. It is truly the most "Nike" of things one can do. One just does it and instantly the entire tenor of interpersonal interaction changes for the better for everyone involved.

 

[Liminal]

Based on what we know about Donald Trump's character I think it's safe to assume he would sell us all out, betray his country and it's people for a few bucks. Trump doesn't seem like someone who would bother himself about questions of morality, he reduces life to very simple equations.

This, of course was your prearrived at conclusion and you would have/will dismiss all information or argument to the contrary and hold to it no matter what.

You'd be the last person around here to give an honest response.

I am a very honest person.

You are completely DIShonest.

At some level, you know that is true.

Are you claiming that when you opened this thread with a question about the morality of Donald Trump that you did NOT already believe you "knew" the answer,

and that you were open to ANY alternative answer that would not paint Trump in a bad light?


Is that you claim? State it clearly so people can get the full impact of it's hilarity.

This discussion is way over your head. You have no idea why you believe what you claim to believe; so any discussion with you about morality and ethics would have to be about the same as teaching calculus to my dog.

YOur grandiose nonsense does not hide the fact that you did not answer my question.

My rhetorical question.

We both know that you had your "answer" about Trump's morality before you even began your thread, and that you were NOT open to any contrary views or information.

THat makes your implied openness to such an answer, (by asking the question) a lie and a form of propaganda.


YOu claim to be operating on a lever beyond what I can see, when I can see right though you and you are completely unable to understand me.

Fairly normal for a lib.

Oh sure I know what the answer is. But unfortunately your morality and ethical principles are all relative and therefore meaningless........which has a lot to do with you being a Trump follower.

 

[Liminal]

Here's a nice example of the possible implications of Trump's lack of morality.

Donald Trump says he's open to Japan and South Korea developing their own nukes

Trump and his position:
Well, in spite of my deep disdain for Trump's candidacy, for his character, and for the prospect of his being President, that is one thing he's got right in my mind. That I feel that way, and will say so without qualifying my remarks, reflects the fact that I will always "give the Devil his due." You see, I am well aware that Trump can and will get some things "right;" my issues with Trump are that (1) he doesn't get enough "right," and (2) the most important thing I need him to get "right" -- that he be trustworthy, that he be a man of high integrity -- he does not get "right." Even as I am certain Trump is right on the matter of Japan and South Korea's developing their own nukes, because I don't trust the man at his word, I have no confidence that he'll act in accordance with that statement were he to become President and called to do so.

Why I agree with his currently stated position:
Japan and South Korea are sovereign nations. They have just as much right as any nation does to develop whatever technologies they want just as the U.S. does. Just as I would not have those nations or any other tell the U.S. what it can and cannot do, the U.S. and no other nation has the right to tell them the same. Note, however, that any nation is free to assert what another should or should not do, but that's merely an expression of viewpoint. When parties who assert what another (others) should and should not do is carried to the point of acting to exert their will in that regard, they've gone too far.

Am I keen on the idea of those or any other nation actually developing nuclear weapons? No. But I am a man of principle, and the one principle I have that rises above all others is that I do with regard to others as I would have others do with regard to me. Despite the prospect of devastation nuclear weapons hold, I know that nations/people don't and won't use them for as sources of entertainment, and I know that so long as I conduct all my activities with strict adherence to the Golden Rule, I really don't have a reason to be worried about their nuclear weapons.

That's the stupidest God damned thing I ever heard. The Golden Rule? Who the fuck is going to care about that after the nuclear holocaust?

Adherence to the Golden Rule will ensure a nuclear holocaust never happens.

Maybe it hadn't occurred to you that the Golden Rule only works when everyone recognizes it.

Maybe it hasn't occurred to you that people don't seem to observe it because you are looking at their actions not as a response to the acts of others but as independent acts that lack a reference point to earlier deeds.

It's folks who think about what they want and how to get it rather than thinking about how they want to be treated and thus treating others similarly. How can one expect to receive respect if one doesn't willfully and unbidden give it?

Ours does not have to be a quid pro quo world and if you've ever actually tried to live by the Golden Rule, you'll find it's not at all hard to shift from not living by it to living by it. It is a transition that every single human on the planet can make literally in an instant. It is truly the most "Nike" of things one can do. One just does it and instantly the entire tenor of interpersonal interaction changes for the better for everyone involved.

And your entire premise is based on the assumption that everyone else does things for same reasons.

 

[Correll]

This, of course was your prearrived at conclusion and you would have/will dismiss all information or argument to the contrary and hold to it no matter what.

You'd be the last person around here to give an honest response.

I am a very honest person.

You are completely DIShonest.

At some level, you know that is true.

Are you claiming that when you opened this thread with a question about the morality of Donald Trump that you did NOT already believe you "knew" the answer,

and that you were open to ANY alternative answer that would not paint Trump in a bad light?


Is that you claim? State it clearly so people can get the full impact of it's hilarity.

This discussion is way over your head. You have no idea why you believe what you claim to believe; so any discussion with you about morality and ethics would have to be about the same as teaching calculus to my dog.

YOur grandiose nonsense does not hide the fact that you did not answer my question.

My rhetorical question.

We both know that you had your "answer" about Trump's morality before you even began your thread, and that you were NOT open to any contrary views or information.

THat makes your implied openness to such an answer, (by asking the question) a lie and a form of propaganda.


YOu claim to be operating on a lever beyond what I can see, when I can see right though you and you are completely unable to understand me.

Fairly normal for a lib.

Oh sure I know what the answer is. But unfortunately your morality and ethical principles are all relative and therefore meaningless........which has a lot to do with you being a Trump follower.

So you admit that you had a prearrived at conclusion when you asked the question.

As I said.

Were you open AT ALL to any contrary point of view or information on the subject when you asked the question?

 

[Liminal]

You'd be the last person around here to give an honest response.

I am a very honest person.

You are completely DIShonest.

At some level, you know that is true.

Are you claiming that when you opened this thread with a question about the morality of Donald Trump that you did NOT already believe you "knew" the answer,

and that you were open to ANY alternative answer that would not paint Trump in a bad light?


Is that you claim? State it clearly so people can get the full impact of it's hilarity.

This discussion is way over your head. You have no idea why you believe what you claim to believe; so any discussion with you about morality and ethics would have to be about the same as teaching calculus to my dog.

YOur grandiose nonsense does not hide the fact that you did not answer my question.

My rhetorical question.

We both know that you had your "answer" about Trump's morality before you even began your thread, and that you were NOT open to any contrary views or information.

THat makes your implied openness to such an answer, (by asking the question) a lie and a form of propaganda.


YOu claim to be operating on a lever beyond what I can see, when I can see right though you and you are completely unable to understand me.

Fairly normal for a lib.

Oh sure I know what the answer is. But unfortunately your morality and ethical principles are all relative and therefore meaningless........which has a lot to do with you being a Trump follower.

So you admit that you had a prearrived at conclusion when you asked the question.

As I said.

Were you open AT ALL to any contrary point of view or information on the subject when you asked the question?

Of course I have a conclusion in mind, so do you. So what?

 

[Correll]

I am a very honest person.

You are completely DIShonest.

At some level, you know that is true.

Are you claiming that when you opened this thread with a question about the morality of Donald Trump that you did NOT already believe you "knew" the answer,

and that you were open to ANY alternative answer that would not paint Trump in a bad light?


Is that you claim? State it clearly so people can get the full impact of it's hilarity.

This discussion is way over your head. You have no idea why you believe what you claim to believe; so any discussion with you about morality and ethics would have to be about the same as teaching calculus to my dog.

YOur grandiose nonsense does not hide the fact that you did not answer my question.

My rhetorical question.

We both know that you had your "answer" about Trump's morality before you even began your thread, and that you were NOT open to any contrary views or information.

THat makes your implied openness to such an answer, (by asking the question) a lie and a form of propaganda.


YOu claim to be operating on a lever beyond what I can see, when I can see right though you and you are completely unable to understand me.

Fairly normal for a lib.

Oh sure I know what the answer is. But unfortunately your morality and ethical principles are all relative and therefore meaningless........which has a lot to do with you being a Trump follower.

So you admit that you had a prearrived at conclusion when you asked the question.

As I said.

Were you open AT ALL to any contrary point of view or information on the subject when you asked the question?

Of course I have a conclusion in mind, so do you. So what?

Yes, we already covered that.

Now the second half of what I called you on.

Were you open AT ALL to any contrary point of view or information on the subject when you asked the question?

That is also a rhetorical question. We both know the answer is no.

Thus, your op is dishonest. YOur pretense that this thread was to question and discuss what Trump's morality was is revealed to be a lie.

YOu are dishonest and this thread was meant to be a propaganda smear and nothing more.


Well, maybe a little bit of lib circle jerking, but mostly propaganda.

And you are the dishonest person who is accusing ME of being dishonest? LOL!!

 

[320 Years of History]

Trump and his position:
Well, in spite of my deep disdain for Trump's candidacy, for his character, and for the prospect of his being President, that is one thing he's got right in my mind. That I feel that way, and will say so without qualifying my remarks, reflects the fact that I will always "give the Devil his due." You see, I am well aware that Trump can and will get some things "right;" my issues with Trump are that (1) he doesn't get enough "right," and (2) the most important thing I need him to get "right" -- that he be trustworthy, that he be a man of high integrity -- he does not get "right." Even as I am certain Trump is right on the matter of Japan and South Korea's developing their own nukes, because I don't trust the man at his word, I have no confidence that he'll act in accordance with that statement were he to become President and called to do so.

Why I agree with his currently stated position:
Japan and South Korea are sovereign nations. They have just as much right as any nation does to develop whatever technologies they want just as the U.S. does. Just as I would not have those nations or any other tell the U.S. what it can and cannot do, the U.S. and no other nation has the right to tell them the same. Note, however, that any nation is free to assert what another should or should not do, but that's merely an expression of viewpoint. When parties who assert what another (others) should and should not do is carried to the point of acting to exert their will in that regard, they've gone too far.

Am I keen on the idea of those or any other nation actually developing nuclear weapons? No. But I am a man of principle, and the one principle I have that rises above all others is that I do with regard to others as I would have others do with regard to me. Despite the prospect of devastation nuclear weapons hold, I know that nations/people don't and won't use them for as sources of entertainment, and I know that so long as I conduct all my activities with strict adherence to the Golden Rule, I really don't have a reason to be worried about their nuclear weapons.

That's the stupidest God damned thing I ever heard. The Golden Rule? Who the fuck is going to care about that after the nuclear holocaust?

Adherence to the Golden Rule will ensure a nuclear holocaust never happens.

Maybe it hadn't occurred to you that the Golden Rule only works when everyone recognizes it.

Maybe it hasn't occurred to you that people don't seem to observe it because you are looking at their actions not as a response to the acts of others but as independent acts that lack a reference point to earlier deeds.

It's folks who think about what they want and how to get it rather than thinking about how they want to be treated and thus treating others similarly. How can one expect to receive respect if one doesn't willfully and unbidden give it?

Ours does not have to be a quid pro quo world and if you've ever actually tried to live by the Golden Rule, you'll find it's not at all hard to shift from not living by it to living by it. It is a transition that every single human on the planet can make literally in an instant. It is truly the most "Nike" of things one can do. One just does it and instantly the entire tenor of interpersonal interaction changes for the better for everyone involved.

And your entire premise is based on the assumption that everyone else does things for same reasons.

At the end of the day, they do. Human nature is consistent among humans. Adhering to the Golden Rule is the only thing one need do to overcome the downsides of human nature. It is the only thing one need do to rise above one's base instincts.

What you are not recognizing is that what folks are willing to do and what folks want to have done to/for them are not the same things. It's very easy for me to be willing to do X or Y to you, but when I consider whether I want you to do X or Y to me, I can equally easily determine in the blink of an eye whether I want that to occur were the shoe on the other foot. In that very same instant, I know that I must not do X or Y to you because I don't want you to do that to me.

You see, the Golden Rule changes the paradigm by which we measure what be the worth of deeds themselves in terms of their human cost, not in terms of what carrying out the deed will do for the one who performs them. It places the humans and humanity above all else. I think that's as it should be.

 

[Liminal]

This discussion is way over your head. You have no idea why you believe what you claim to believe; so any discussion with you about morality and ethics would have to be about the same as teaching calculus to my dog.

YOur grandiose nonsense does not hide the fact that you did not answer my question.

My rhetorical question.

We both know that you had your "answer" about Trump's morality before you even began your thread, and that you were NOT open to any contrary views or information.

THat makes your implied openness to such an answer, (by asking the question) a lie and a form of propaganda.


YOu claim to be operating on a lever beyond what I can see, when I can see right though you and you are completely unable to understand me.

Fairly normal for a lib.

Oh sure I know what the answer is. But unfortunately your morality and ethical principles are all relative and therefore meaningless........which has a lot to do with you being a Trump follower.

So you admit that you had a prearrived at conclusion when you asked the question.

As I said.

Were you open AT ALL to any contrary point of view or information on the subject when you asked the question?

Of course I have a conclusion in mind, so do you. So what?

Yes, we already covered that.

Now the second half of what I called you on.

Were you open AT ALL to any contrary point of view or information on the subject when you asked the question?

That is also a rhetorical question. We both know the answer is no.

Thus, your op is dishonest. YOur pretense that this thread was to question and discuss what Trump's morality was is revealed to be a lie.

YOu are dishonest and this thread was meant to be a propaganda smear and nothing more.


Well, maybe a little bit of lib circle jerking, but mostly propaganda.

And you are the dishonest person who is accusing ME of being dishonest? LOL!!

Feel free to elaborate on the moral principles Donald Trump most emulates.

 

[Liminal]

That's the stupidest God damned thing I ever heard. The Golden Rule? Who the fuck is going to care about that after the nuclear holocaust?

Adherence to the Golden Rule will ensure a nuclear holocaust never happens.

Maybe it hadn't occurred to you that the Golden Rule only works when everyone recognizes it.

Maybe it hasn't occurred to you that people don't seem to observe it because you are looking at their actions not as a response to the acts of others but as independent acts that lack a reference point to earlier deeds.

It's folks who think about what they want and how to get it rather than thinking about how they want to be treated and thus treating others similarly. How can one expect to receive respect if one doesn't willfully and unbidden give it?

Ours does not have to be a quid pro quo world and if you've ever actually tried to live by the Golden Rule, you'll find it's not at all hard to shift from not living by it to living by it. It is a transition that every single human on the planet can make literally in an instant. It is truly the most "Nike" of things one can do. One just does it and instantly the entire tenor of interpersonal interaction changes for the better for everyone involved.

And your entire premise is based on the assumption that everyone else does things for same reasons.

At the end of the day, they do. Human nature is consistent among humans. Adhering to the Golden Rule is the only thing one need do to overcome the downsides of human nature. It is the only thing one need do to rise above one's base instincts.

What you are not recognizing is that what folks are willing to do and what folks want to have done to/for them are not the same things. It's very easy for me to be willing to do X or Y to you, but when I consider whether I want you to do X or Y to me, I can equally easily determine in the blink of an eye whether I want that to occur were the shoe on the other foot. In that very same instant, I know that I must not do X or Y to you because I don't want you to do that to me.

You see, the Golden Rule changes the paradigm by which we measure what be the worth of deeds themselves in terms of their human cost, not in terms of what carrying out the deed will do for the one who performs them. It places the humans and humanity above all else. I think that's as it should be.

You are assuming potential adversaries share your moral sensibilities. No doubt we can all trust our survival to the good wishes of others.

 

[Correll]

YOur grandiose nonsense does not hide the fact that you did not answer my question.

My rhetorical question.

We both know that you had your "answer" about Trump's morality before you even began your thread, and that you were NOT open to any contrary views or information.

THat makes your implied openness to such an answer, (by asking the question) a lie and a form of propaganda.


YOu claim to be operating on a lever beyond what I can see, when I can see right though you and you are completely unable to understand me.

Fairly normal for a lib.

Oh sure I know what the answer is. But unfortunately your morality and ethical principles are all relative and therefore meaningless........which has a lot to do with you being a Trump follower.

So you admit that you had a prearrived at conclusion when you asked the question.

As I said.

Were you open AT ALL to any contrary point of view or information on the subject when you asked the question?

Of course I have a conclusion in mind, so do you. So what?

Yes, we already covered that.

Now the second half of what I called you on.

Were you open AT ALL to any contrary point of view or information on the subject when you asked the question?

That is also a rhetorical question. We both know the answer is no.

Thus, your op is dishonest. YOur pretense that this thread was to question and discuss what Trump's morality was is revealed to be a lie.

YOu are dishonest and this thread was meant to be a propaganda smear and nothing more.


Well, maybe a little bit of lib circle jerking, but mostly propaganda.

And you are the dishonest person who is accusing ME of being dishonest? LOL!!

Feel free to elaborate on the moral principles Donald Trump most emulates.

Lets pretend that I did, and you dismissed it without thinking about it at all, and then employed dishonest rhetorical devices when I tried to make my case or at least get you to seriously respond to my points, and your just got more and more dishonest and purposefully obtuse for page after page after page,

AND then I got tired of your being a dick and finally dismissed you as an asshole.

There, just saved both of us three days.

 

[320 Years of History]

Adherence to the Golden Rule will ensure a nuclear holocaust never happens.

Maybe it hadn't occurred to you that the Golden Rule only works when everyone recognizes it.

Maybe it hasn't occurred to you that people don't seem to observe it because you are looking at their actions not as a response to the acts of others but as independent acts that lack a reference point to earlier deeds.

It's folks who think about what they want and how to get it rather than thinking about how they want to be treated and thus treating others similarly. How can one expect to receive respect if one doesn't willfully and unbidden give it?

Ours does not have to be a quid pro quo world and if you've ever actually tried to live by the Golden Rule, you'll find it's not at all hard to shift from not living by it to living by it. It is a transition that every single human on the planet can make literally in an instant. It is truly the most "Nike" of things one can do. One just does it and instantly the entire tenor of interpersonal interaction changes for the better for everyone involved.

And your entire premise is based on the assumption that everyone else does things for same reasons.

At the end of the day, they do. Human nature is consistent among humans. Adhering to the Golden Rule is the only thing one need do to overcome the downsides of human nature. It is the only thing one need do to rise above one's base instincts.

What you are not recognizing is that what folks are willing to do and what folks want to have done to/for them are not the same things. It's very easy for me to be willing to do X or Y to you, but when I consider whether I want you to do X or Y to me, I can equally easily determine in the blink of an eye whether I want that to occur were the shoe on the other foot. In that very same instant, I know that I must not do X or Y to you because I don't want you to do that to me.

You see, the Golden Rule changes the paradigm by which we measure what be the worth of deeds themselves in terms of their human cost, not in terms of what carrying out the deed will do for the one who performs them. It places the humans and humanity above all else. I think that's as it should be.

You are assuming potential adversaries share your moral sensibilities. No doubt we can all trust our survival to the good wishes of others.

As I said, the way you are thinking about it is by trying to overlay what I'm saying onto the current paradigm by which we exist. That will not work. I am proposing a different paradigm, and one that is instantly implementable.

There's no need to trust to the good wishes of others. One need only rely on the fact that every one of us knows exactly what we do and don't want to befall us. Those things do not differ from person to person. Pick any action you can think of performing and apply the Golden Rule. You'll know immediately whether you'd be okay if someone did the same thing to you. If you won't be okay with them doing it to you, don't perform that action yourself. It's really quite simple and you don't have to be particularly smart to get it right over and over again.

 

[Liminal]

Oh sure I know what the answer is. But unfortunately your morality and ethical principles are all relative and therefore meaningless........which has a lot to do with you being a Trump follower.

So you admit that you had a prearrived at conclusion when you asked the question.

As I said.

Were you open AT ALL to any contrary point of view or information on the subject when you asked the question?

Of course I have a conclusion in mind, so do you. So what?

Yes, we already covered that.

Now the second half of what I called you on.

Were you open AT ALL to any contrary point of view or information on the subject when you asked the question?

That is also a rhetorical question. We both know the answer is no.

Thus, your op is dishonest. YOur pretense that this thread was to question and discuss what Trump's morality was is revealed to be a lie.

YOu are dishonest and this thread was meant to be a propaganda smear and nothing more.


Well, maybe a little bit of lib circle jerking, but mostly propaganda.

And you are the dishonest person who is accusing ME of being dishonest? LOL!!

Feel free to elaborate on the moral principles Donald Trump most emulates.

Lets pretend that I did, and you dismissed it without thinking about it at all, and then employed dishonest rhetorical devices when I tried to make my case or at least get you to seriously respond to my points, and your just got more and more dishonest and purposefully obtuse for page after page after page,

AND then I got tired of your being a dick and finally dismissed you as an asshole.

There, just saved both of us three days.

Pretending seems to be all you can manage.

 

[Liminal]

Maybe it hadn't occurred to you that the Golden Rule only works when everyone recognizes it.

Maybe it hasn't occurred to you that people don't seem to observe it because you are looking at their actions not as a response to the acts of others but as independent acts that lack a reference point to earlier deeds.

It's folks who think about what they want and how to get it rather than thinking about how they want to be treated and thus treating others similarly. How can one expect to receive respect if one doesn't willfully and unbidden give it?

Ours does not have to be a quid pro quo world and if you've ever actually tried to live by the Golden Rule, you'll find it's not at all hard to shift from not living by it to living by it. It is a transition that every single human on the planet can make literally in an instant. It is truly the most "Nike" of things one can do. One just does it and instantly the entire tenor of interpersonal interaction changes for the better for everyone involved.

And your entire premise is based on the assumption that everyone else does things for same reasons.

At the end of the day, they do. Human nature is consistent among humans. Adhering to the Golden Rule is the only thing one need do to overcome the downsides of human nature. It is the only thing one need do to rise above one's base instincts.

What you are not recognizing is that what folks are willing to do and what folks want to have done to/for them are not the same things. It's very easy for me to be willing to do X or Y to you, but when I consider whether I want you to do X or Y to me, I can equally easily determine in the blink of an eye whether I want that to occur were the shoe on the other foot. In that very same instant, I know that I must not do X or Y to you because I don't want you to do that to me.

You see, the Golden Rule changes the paradigm by which we measure what be the worth of deeds themselves in terms of their human cost, not in terms of what carrying out the deed will do for the one who performs them. It places the humans and humanity above all else. I think that's as it should be.

You are assuming potential adversaries share your moral sensibilities. No doubt we can all trust our survival to the good wishes of others.

As I said, the way you are thinking about it is by trying to overlay what I'm saying onto the current paradigm by which we exist. That will not work. I am proposing a different paradigm, and one that is instantly implementable.

There's no need to trust to the good wishes of others. One need only rely on the fact that every one of us knows exactly what we do and don't want to befall us. Those things do not differ from person to person. Pick any action you can think of performing and apply the Golden Rule. You'll know immediately whether you'd be okay if someone did the same thing to you. If you won't be okay with them doing it to you, don't perform that action yourself. It's really quite simple and you don't have to be particularly smart to get it right over and over again.

That's all very interesting. I would suggest that the general trend is going in the opposite direction of the Golden Rule.....as evidenced by the Trump candidacy.

 

[peach174]

YOur grandiose nonsense does not hide the fact that you did not answer my question.

My rhetorical question.

We both know that you had your "answer" about Trump's morality before you even began your thread, and that you were NOT open to any contrary views or information.

THat makes your implied openness to such an answer, (by asking the question) a lie and a form of propaganda.


YOu claim to be operating on a lever beyond what I can see, when I can see right though you and you are completely unable to understand me.

Fairly normal for a lib.

Oh sure I know what the answer is. But unfortunately your morality and ethical principles are all relative and therefore meaningless........which has a lot to do with you being a Trump follower.

So you admit that you had a prearrived at conclusion when you asked the question.

As I said.

Were you open AT ALL to any contrary point of view or information on the subject when you asked the question?

Of course I have a conclusion in mind, so do you. So what?

Yes, we already covered that.

Now the second half of what I called you on.

Were you open AT ALL to any contrary point of view or information on the subject when you asked the question?

That is also a rhetorical question. We both know the answer is no.

Thus, your op is dishonest. YOur pretense that this thread was to question and discuss what Trump's morality was is revealed to be a lie.

YOu are dishonest and this thread was meant to be a propaganda smear and nothing more.


Well, maybe a little bit of lib circle jerking, but mostly propaganda.

And you are the dishonest person who is accusing ME of being dishonest? LOL!!

Feel free to elaborate on the moral principles Donald Trump most emulates.

Why?
You would not believe it anyway.