Harry J Gensler’s logical form: “Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation. More precisely, don’t combine these two: (a) I do something to another, and (b) I am unwilling that this be done to me in the same situation.” (Introduction to Logic, ch11: A formalized ethical theory, Routledge, 2002). As you can see, Gensler’s formulation of the golden rule incorporates the silver rule as just another version. The platinum rule, treat the other as they would want to be treated, is the same as the golden rule, because you would want the other to treat you as you would want to be treated…see how it says the same thing?
What is about to happen below is not what happens in Gensler’s chapter.
Making it about the same situation is making it graded absolutism, so that you’re not talking about “sometimes” but only “always” or “never” (in the given situation, or “given context”).
In the square of opposition, replace “is” with “ought be”. None of this matters (it’s an empty/indefinite term) if there is no Good/God who turns “ought be” to “is”.
S: things self does to other in context
P: things other does to self in context
According to the Golden Rule, “all S ought be P”. “All S ought be P” and “no S ought be P” cannot both be true, though both can be false (contraries). If “all S ought be P,” it must also be true that “some S ought be P” (subalterns) and cannot also be true that “some S ought not be P” (contradictories). That last form is the one Gensler’s formulation avoids by incorporating the silver rule as another version of the Golden Rule.
This is normally formulated in the opposite way; asking how do we turn an “is” into an "ought, such as a knife would IS painful, therefore we OUGHT not to stab people.
The is to ought is a moral judgement.
How does in work in the other direction, except empty post hoc rationalisation, please?
I’m not sure why you think there ought to be symmetry here.
Just because there IS a logical method, does not mean it OUGHT to make sense.
Sorry, just saw this. To turn is into ought is the naturalistic fallacy, or fallacy of reification. The reverse is equally fallacious. OUGHT pain always be avoided? Symmetry is important to avoid double standards on truth.
Justified true belief requires both, separately. One cannot stand in for the other. Good reasons and evidence are nothing if they point to nothing. And even if you have a perfectly good God staring you in the face, how do you define perfectly good (without good reasons & evidence) in order to know it perfectly describes a perfectly good God?
You can’t justify the point into reality, and you can’t just say something is the point w/o giving good reasons & evidence that define how to recognize the REAL point if you did encounter it.
The golden rule… isn’t that somewhat like, “well might I die in a WW3 nuclear blast but at least all those other fuckwads around me will also get incinerated?”
At least there’s that. Golden rule, to you as is done unto me.
Nothing of this sort will happen , need not worry at all
All the religions say that man has done enough sins that his thousands of forthcoming generations have to redeem those .
