CDZ The Moral Philosophy Of Donald Trump

[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.

Why?
You would not believe it anyway.

Believe what? There's nothing there to believe or not.

 

[peach174]

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.

Believe what? There's nothing there to believe or not.

You just answered it yourself.

 

[Liminal]

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.

Believe what? There's nothing there to believe or not.

You just answered it yourself.

Exactly, they can't even begin to equate morality with Donald Trump.

 

[Correll]

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.

Believe what? There's nothing there to believe or not.

You just answered it yourself.

Exactly, they can't even begin to equate morality with Donald Trump.

LOL! Is that some more of your "HONESTY"?!!!

 

[Liminal]

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

Why?
You would not believe it anyway.

Believe what? There's nothing there to believe or not.

You just answered it yourself.

Exactly, they can't even begin to equate morality with Donald Trump.

LOL! Is that some more of your "HONESTY"?!!!

Please do go on......articulate the moral principles of Donald Trump as you understand them.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

That may be, but that it be doesn't make it the right direction in which we should allow our society to progress. I'll be damned and dead before I encourage or support moving away from the principle of the Golden Rule. And since this is a thread about moral philosophy, I think that is a relevant to consider for the point of morality is to address and resolve what should be not what is or was.

 

[peach174]

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.

Believe what? There's nothing there to believe or not.

You just answered it yourself.

Exactly, they can't even begin to equate morality with Donald Trump.

I bet you would never find him in the Oval office getting a blow job.

 

[Correll]

Why?
You would not believe it anyway.

Believe what? There's nothing there to believe or not.

You just answered it yourself.

Exactly, they can't even begin to equate morality with Donald Trump.

LOL! Is that some more of your "HONESTY"?!!!

Please do go on......articulate the moral principles of Donald Trump as you understand them.

Back to pretending that you care what other people have to say on the subject?

 

[Liminal]

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

Why?
You would not believe it anyway.

Believe what? There's nothing there to believe or not.

You just answered it yourself.

Exactly, they can't even begin to equate morality with Donald Trump.

I bet you would never find him in the Oval office getting a blow job.

Well you certainly have set a high bar for Mr Trump's behavior.

 

[320 Years of History]

I bet you would never find him in the Oval office getting a blow job.

I don't know that I would care if he did or didn't. So long as his getting one doesn't distract him from doing his job, by all means, have one or several. I don't need my President to cease to have human desires; I only need him/her to defer satisfying their selfish ones until after dealing with the ones that affect the rest of us.

I suspect that even in a President's very busy day, s/he can find a few minutes to get a little play. Now if s/he refuses to "take a call" or respond to something that pertains to running the nation because they were getting that play at the time, I would definitely have a problem with that. I would consider that a dereliction of their duty.

It sucks, but President is a 24/7 job that, much like many other senior executive positions, requires the holder of the job to fit in the other stuff they want to do when they can. If one is unwilling to, perhaps even inexperienced at, doing that, one should not seek the position.

 

[Liminal]

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.

That may be, but that it be doesn't make it the right direction in which we should allow our society to progress. I'll be damned and dead before I encourage or support moving away from the principle of the Golden Rule. And since this is a thread about moral philosophy, I think that is a relevant to consider for the point of morality is to address and resolve what should be not what is or was.

You are a little confused about the Golden Rule. It has nothing to do with respecting other people's rights to destroy each other.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

That may be, but that it be doesn't make it the right direction in which we should allow our society to progress. I'll be damned and dead before I encourage or support moving away from the principle of the Golden Rule. And since this is a thread about moral philosophy, I think that is a relevant to consider for the point of morality is to address and resolve what should be not what is or was.

You are a little confused about the Golden Rule. It has nothing to do with respecting other people's rights to destroy each other.

??? No, I am most definitely not confused about it.

Would you want someone else to destroy you? I am going to assume your answer and everyone else's is "no." Therefore, don't destroy someone other than yourself.

If I am of a mind to destroy someone, I must ask myself, "Would I want them to destroy me?" My answer is "no." Therefore I must refrain from destroying them.

Is it really that difficult to see that the rule applies to every action quite easily? All the reasons why I might initially conceive to destroy another don't matter. What does matter is the act I want to commit, destroying them. All the reasons why my answer is "no" don't matter. What matters is that my answer is "no."

Why is it really just that simple? Because all those reasons -- the reasons why I want to destroy another and reasons why I don't want to be destroyed by another -- can change, but the act itself, every act in fact, once performed cannot be unperformed. One may be able to make restitution for having performed it, but act, once done, is done; it is at that instant a fact of history. When someone figures out how to reverse the flow of time itself I will almost surely have to reconsider the value of the Golden Rule. For now, however, nobody has accomplished that.

 

[Liminal]

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.

That may be, but that it be doesn't make it the right direction in which we should allow our society to progress. I'll be damned and dead before I encourage or support moving away from the principle of the Golden Rule. And since this is a thread about moral philosophy, I think that is a relevant to consider for the point of morality is to address and resolve what should be not what is or was.

You are a little confused about the Golden Rule. It has nothing to do with respecting other people's rights to destroy each other.

??? No, I am most definitely not confused about it.

Would you want someone else to destroy you? I am going to assume your answer and everyone else's is "no." Therefore, don't destroy someone other than yourself.

If I am of a mind to destroy someone, I must ask myself, "Would I want them to destroy me?" My answer is "no." Therefore I must refrain from destroying them.

Is it really that difficult to see that the rule applies to every action quite easily? All the reasons why I might initially conceive to destroy another don't matter. What does matter is the act I want to commit, destroying them. All the reasons why my answer is "no" don't matter. What matters is that my answer is "no."

Why is it really just that simple? Because all those reasons -- the reasons why I want to destroy another and reasons why I don't want to be destroyed by another -- can change, but the act itself, every act in fact, once performed cannot be unperformed. One may be able to make restitution for having performed it, but act, once done, is done; it is at that instant a fact of history. When someone figures out how to reverse the flow of time itself I will almost surely have to reconsider the value of the Golden Rule. For now, however, nobody has accomplished that.

Your position is completely immoral due to the obvious fact that more nuclear armed nations means greatly increasing the number of variables and possibilities, thereby multiplying the odds for the inevitability of nuclear war.

 

[320 Years of History]

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.

That may be, but that it be doesn't make it the right direction in which we should allow our society to progress. I'll be damned and dead before I encourage or support moving away from the principle of the Golden Rule. And since this is a thread about moral philosophy, I think that is a relevant to consider for the point of morality is to address and resolve what should be not what is or was.

You are a little confused about the Golden Rule. It has nothing to do with respecting other people's rights to destroy each other.

??? No, I am most definitely not confused about it.

Would you want someone else to destroy you? I am going to assume your answer and everyone else's is "no." Therefore, don't destroy someone other than yourself.

If I am of a mind to destroy someone, I must ask myself, "Would I want them to destroy me?" My answer is "no." Therefore I must refrain from destroying them.

Is it really that difficult to see that the rule applies to every action quite easily? All the reasons why I might initially conceive to destroy another don't matter. What does matter is the act I want to commit, destroying them. All the reasons why my answer is "no" don't matter. What matters is that my answer is "no."

Why is it really just that simple? Because all those reasons -- the reasons why I want to destroy another and reasons why I don't want to be destroyed by another -- can change, but the act itself, every act in fact, once performed cannot be unperformed. One may be able to make restitution for having performed it, but act, once done, is done; it is at that instant a fact of history. When someone figures out how to reverse the flow of time itself I will almost surely have to reconsider the value of the Golden Rule. For now, however, nobody has accomplished that.

Your position is completely immoral due to the obvious fact that more nuclear armed nations means greatly increasing the number of variables and possibilities, thereby multiplying the odds for the inevitability of nuclear war.

Applying the principle I've advocated is not immoral at all unless one considers spending money on nuclear weapons immoral as a use of resources.

Would you want to have another nation explode a nuclear device on your home/homeland? If not, don't explode one on another's home/homeland. Since that thought process informs you that you won't explode a nuclear device on someone else's home/homeland, one has to ask oneself, :"Why invest the resources to build one or several nuclear devices to begin with?"

If one just wants to spend the money for the sake of doing so, well, okay, but knowing one won't use the thing, that makes expenditures much like climbing a mountain, it's something one does merely because one can. Well, okay. Have at it because you can. I suspect that if in spending that money one thus cannot use it to do something else that is clearly needed, it is an immoral use of resources to have build the device.

 

[Correll]

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.

That may be, but that it be doesn't make it the right direction in which we should allow our society to progress. I'll be damned and dead before I encourage or support moving away from the principle of the Golden Rule. And since this is a thread about moral philosophy, I think that is a relevant to consider for the point of morality is to address and resolve what should be not what is or was.

You are a little confused about the Golden Rule. It has nothing to do with respecting other people's rights to destroy each other.

??? No, I am most definitely not confused about it.

Would you want someone else to destroy you? I am going to assume your answer and everyone else's is "no." Therefore, don't destroy someone other than yourself.

If I am of a mind to destroy someone, I must ask myself, "Would I want them to destroy me?" My answer is "no." Therefore I must refrain from destroying them.

Is it really that difficult to see that the rule applies to every action quite easily? All the reasons why I might initially conceive to destroy another don't matter. What does matter is the act I want to commit, destroying them. All the reasons why my answer is "no" don't matter. What matters is that my answer is "no."

Why is it really just that simple? Because all those reasons -- the reasons why I want to destroy another and reasons why I don't want to be destroyed by another -- can change, but the act itself, every act in fact, once performed cannot be unperformed. One may be able to make restitution for having performed it, but act, once done, is done; it is at that instant a fact of history. When someone figures out how to reverse the flow of time itself I will almost surely have to reconsider the value of the Golden Rule. For now, however, nobody has accomplished that.

Your position is completely immoral due to the obvious fact that more nuclear armed nations means greatly increasing the number of variables and possibilities, thereby multiplying the odds for the inevitability of nuclear war.

Applying the principle I've advocated is not immoral at all unless one considers spending money on nuclear weapons immoral as a use of resources.

Would you want to have another nation explode a nuclear device on your home/homeland? If not, don't explode one on another's home/homeland. Since that thought process informs you that you won't explode a nuclear device on someone else's home/homeland, one has to ask oneself, :"Why invest the resources to build one or several nuclear devices to begin with?"

If one just wants to spend the money for the sake of doing so, well, okay, but knowing one won't use the thing, that makes expenditures much like climbing a mountain, it's something one does merely because one can. Well, okay. Have at it because you can. I suspect that if in spending that money one thus cannot use it to do something else that is clearly needed, it is an immoral use of resources to have build the device.

In the case of South Korean and Japan the obvious use is to deter potential aggression from China.


Deterring war does not strike me as immoral.

 

[320 Years of History]

That may be, but that it be doesn't make it the right direction in which we should allow our society to progress. I'll be damned and dead before I encourage or support moving away from the principle of the Golden Rule. And since this is a thread about moral philosophy, I think that is a relevant to consider for the point of morality is to address and resolve what should be not what is or was.

You are a little confused about the Golden Rule. It has nothing to do with respecting other people's rights to destroy each other.

??? No, I am most definitely not confused about it.

Would you want someone else to destroy you? I am going to assume your answer and everyone else's is "no." Therefore, don't destroy someone other than yourself.

If I am of a mind to destroy someone, I must ask myself, "Would I want them to destroy me?" My answer is "no." Therefore I must refrain from destroying them.

Is it really that difficult to see that the rule applies to every action quite easily? All the reasons why I might initially conceive to destroy another don't matter. What does matter is the act I want to commit, destroying them. All the reasons why my answer is "no" don't matter. What matters is that my answer is "no."

Why is it really just that simple? Because all those reasons -- the reasons why I want to destroy another and reasons why I don't want to be destroyed by another -- can change, but the act itself, every act in fact, once performed cannot be unperformed. One may be able to make restitution for having performed it, but act, once done, is done; it is at that instant a fact of history. When someone figures out how to reverse the flow of time itself I will almost surely have to reconsider the value of the Golden Rule. For now, however, nobody has accomplished that.

Your position is completely immoral due to the obvious fact that more nuclear armed nations means greatly increasing the number of variables and possibilities, thereby multiplying the odds for the inevitability of nuclear war.

Applying the principle I've advocated is not immoral at all unless one considers spending money on nuclear weapons immoral as a use of resources.

Would you want to have another nation explode a nuclear device on your home/homeland? If not, don't explode one on another's home/homeland. Since that thought process informs you that you won't explode a nuclear device on someone else's home/homeland, one has to ask oneself, :"Why invest the resources to build one or several nuclear devices to begin with?"

If one just wants to spend the money for the sake of doing so, well, okay, but knowing one won't use the thing, that makes expenditures much like climbing a mountain, it's something one does merely because one can. Well, okay. Have at it because you can. I suspect that if in spending that money one thus cannot use it to do something else that is clearly needed, it is an immoral use of resources to have build the device.

In the case of South Korean and Japan the obvious use is to deter potential aggression from China.


Deterring war does not strike me as immoral.

I don't have a problem with deterring war.

Would I want someone else to deter war as it pertains to me? Yes. Therefore I should deter it as well as it pertains to them.

Move to a later act in the overall process -- using the weapon -- and ask the same question. Would I want someone else to use it on me? No. Therefore I should/will not use it on them.

Upon coming to that realization, what really are the weapons deterring? Nothing seeing as I'm not going to actually use them because I cannot answer "yes" when asked if I'd want them used on me.

As I said, all one need do is ask themselves that one simple question with regard to any or every action one can conceive of performing or wanting to perform.

• Would I like it for you to cut in front of me in line?
• Would I like it for you to think of me kindly?
• Would I like it for you to insult me?
• Would I like it for you to mow my lawn when I cannot?
• Would I like it for you to feed me if I'm without food?
• Would I like it for you to keep your mouth shut in X situation?
• Would I like it for you to speak up in Y situation?

There is no limit to when the rule does not apply. The action about which one need ask oneself can be as simple or as complex as one can make it.

 

[Liminal]

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.

That may be, but that it be doesn't make it the right direction in which we should allow our society to progress. I'll be damned and dead before I encourage or support moving away from the principle of the Golden Rule. And since this is a thread about moral philosophy, I think that is a relevant to consider for the point of morality is to address and resolve what should be not what is or was.

You are a little confused about the Golden Rule. It has nothing to do with respecting other people's rights to destroy each other.

??? No, I am most definitely not confused about it.

Would you want someone else to destroy you? I am going to assume your answer and everyone else's is "no." Therefore, don't destroy someone other than yourself.

If I am of a mind to destroy someone, I must ask myself, "Would I want them to destroy me?" My answer is "no." Therefore I must refrain from destroying them.

Is it really that difficult to see that the rule applies to every action quite easily? All the reasons why I might initially conceive to destroy another don't matter. What does matter is the act I want to commit, destroying them. All the reasons why my answer is "no" don't matter. What matters is that my answer is "no."

Why is it really just that simple? Because all those reasons -- the reasons why I want to destroy another and reasons why I don't want to be destroyed by another -- can change, but the act itself, every act in fact, once performed cannot be unperformed. One may be able to make restitution for having performed it, but act, once done, is done; it is at that instant a fact of history. When someone figures out how to reverse the flow of time itself I will almost surely have to reconsider the value of the Golden Rule. For now, however, nobody has accomplished that.

Your position is completely immoral due to the obvious fact that more nuclear armed nations means greatly increasing the number of variables and possibilities, thereby multiplying the odds for the inevitability of nuclear war.

Applying the principle I've advocated is not immoral at all unless one considers spending money on nuclear weapons immoral as a use of resources.

Would you want to have another nation explode a nuclear device on your home/homeland? If not, don't explode one on another's home/homeland. Since that thought process informs you that you won't explode a nuclear device on someone else's home/homeland, one has to ask oneself, :"Why invest the resources to build one or several nuclear devices to begin with?"

If one just wants to spend the money for the sake of doing so, well, okay, but knowing one won't use the thing, that makes expenditures much like climbing a mountain, it's something one does merely because one can. Well, okay. Have at it because you can. I suspect that if in spending that money one thus cannot use it to do something else that is clearly needed, it is an immoral use of resources to have build the device.

Well then in principle what's good for one must be good for others as well......I see. Why not see if we can encourage Mexico to become a nuclear armed nation? Or how about Brazil or maybe Saudi Arabia.........does that sound good to you?

 

[ABikerSailor]

You know, one of the things that Trump said that kinda makes me nervous is the fact that he's said he wants to bring all of our military out of Japan and S. Korea.

Considering that the only think keeping S. Korea from being attacked by N. Korea is the presence of the U.S. Military, I think bringing all our military assets out of that area could only serve to destabilize the area.

 

[Liminal]

You know, one of the things that Trump said that kinda makes me nervous is the fact that he's said he wants to bring all of our military out of Japan and S. Korea.

Considering that the only think keeping S. Korea from being attacked by N. Korea is the presence of the U.S. Military, I think bringing all our military assets out of that area could only serve to destabilize the area.

Trump is as ignorant as he is amoral.......as if he has the power to single handedly abrogate international treaties and defense agreements. Perhaps he isn't ignorant so much as disingenuous.......another moral failing.

 

[Liminal]

That may be, but that it be doesn't make it the right direction in which we should allow our society to progress. I'll be damned and dead before I encourage or support moving away from the principle of the Golden Rule. And since this is a thread about moral philosophy, I think that is a relevant to consider for the point of morality is to address and resolve what should be not what is or was.

You are a little confused about the Golden Rule. It has nothing to do with respecting other people's rights to destroy each other.

??? No, I am most definitely not confused about it.

Would you want someone else to destroy you? I am going to assume your answer and everyone else's is "no." Therefore, don't destroy someone other than yourself.

If I am of a mind to destroy someone, I must ask myself, "Would I want them to destroy me?" My answer is "no." Therefore I must refrain from destroying them.

Is it really that difficult to see that the rule applies to every action quite easily? All the reasons why I might initially conceive to destroy another don't matter. What does matter is the act I want to commit, destroying them. All the reasons why my answer is "no" don't matter. What matters is that my answer is "no."

Why is it really just that simple? Because all those reasons -- the reasons why I want to destroy another and reasons why I don't want to be destroyed by another -- can change, but the act itself, every act in fact, once performed cannot be unperformed. One may be able to make restitution for having performed it, but act, once done, is done; it is at that instant a fact of history. When someone figures out how to reverse the flow of time itself I will almost surely have to reconsider the value of the Golden Rule. For now, however, nobody has accomplished that.

Your position is completely immoral due to the obvious fact that more nuclear armed nations means greatly increasing the number of variables and possibilities, thereby multiplying the odds for the inevitability of nuclear war.

Applying the principle I've advocated is not immoral at all unless one considers spending money on nuclear weapons immoral as a use of resources.

Would you want to have another nation explode a nuclear device on your home/homeland? If not, don't explode one on another's home/homeland. Since that thought process informs you that you won't explode a nuclear device on someone else's home/homeland, one has to ask oneself, :"Why invest the resources to build one or several nuclear devices to begin with?"

If one just wants to spend the money for the sake of doing so, well, okay, but knowing one won't use the thing, that makes expenditures much like climbing a mountain, it's something one does merely because one can. Well, okay. Have at it because you can. I suspect that if in spending that money one thus cannot use it to do something else that is clearly needed, it is an immoral use of resources to have build the device.

In the case of South Korean and Japan the obvious use is to deter potential aggression from China.


Deterring war does not strike me as immoral.

That way the United States can have even less influence over global events.........brilliant!