The_Metatron wrote:
I don't know this silver rule to which you keep referring.

At the beginning of the thread someone posted a link to the Silver and Golden Rule.

Silver Rule - don't do to others what you don't want done to you. - or words to that effect.

Thus, when one pays someone a low wage they are breaking the rule.

As a consequence, this rule cannot be used as an objective standard for the basic level of morality to which we should all ascribe to.

therefore, Morality = whatever my ego allows me to justify!

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:
I don't know this silver rule to which you keep referring.

At the beginning of the thread someone posted a link to the Silver and Golden Rule.

Silver Rule - don't do to others what you don't want done to you. - or words to that effect.

Thus, when one pays someone a low wage they are breaking the rule.

As a consequence, this rule cannot be used as an objective standard for the basic level of morality to which we should all ascribe to.

therefore, Morality = whatever my ego allows me to justify!

Wow you really went off the deep end there, didn't you?

First of all, they are only breaking the Silver Rule if they would not like to be offered low paid work when they cannot find better paying work anywhere. You have not demonstrated this, you haven't even made an attempt.
Secondly, who said anything about it being an objective standard? I can't imagine a more subjective rule.

Lastly, your non sequitur of "therefore, Morality = whatever my ego allows me to justify!" is just plain nonsense.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:
I don't know this silver rule to which you keep referring.

At the beginning of the thread someone posted a link to the Silver and Golden Rule.

Silver Rule - don't do to others what you don't want done to you. - or words to that effect.

Thus, when one pays someone a low wage they are breaking the rule.

Bullshit. Go back and review. Your wage was all that job was worth.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:As a consequence, this rule cannot be used as an objective standard for the basic level of morality to which we should all ascribe to.

therefore, Morality = whatever my ego allows me to justify!

All that rubbish was based on the false premise that the low paying job you accepted was somehow worth more than what you got paid.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:
I don't know this silver rule to which you keep referring.

At the beginning of the thread someone posted a link to the Silver and Golden Rule.

Silver Rule - don't do to others what you don't want done to you. - or words to that effect.

Thus, when one pays someone a low wage they are breaking the rule.

And yet I've explained to you precisely why this is erroneous with respect to that rule.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:As a consequence, this rule cannot be used as an objective standard for the basic level of morality to which we should all ascribe to.

Again, that's just a poor conclusion because its drawn from erroneous notions.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:therefore, Morality = whatever my ego allows me to justify!

Which is what you've been saying from the start, so really you're not interested in what anyone else has to say, and we might as well forget discussing it with you.

Adios.

The_Metatron wrote:
All that rubbish was based on the false premise that the low paying job you accepted was somehow worth more than what you got paid.

Ok, so why doesn't the employer work for this rate then?

my guess is that it is because he does not want to.

But he is happy for someone else to do so.

So, it is a one-way rule.

Self-interest reigns supreme!

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:

The_Metatron wrote:
All that rubbish was based on the false premise that the low paying job you accepted was somehow worth more than what you got paid.

Ok, so why doesn't the employer work for this rate then?

my guess is that it is because he does not want to.

But he is happy for someone else to do so.

So, it is a one-way rule.

Self-interest reigns supreme!

Read the replies instead of repeating yourself?

The Silver Rule is not broken if he would work for that wage if he was under the same economic conditions.

No ifs, no buts. That's the simple fact.

says who - yourself?

Are you the creator of that rule - can't you see the self-interest at work here.

You choose to interpret the rule so as to suit your own interests.

Do you really think anyone would choose to be exploited to the extent that they had to work for $1/day?

and when the exploiter comes along and offers them a slave wage, you really think that is a form of help?

This is a classic case of 'Let them eat cake!'

If I had a slave would I still be abiding by the Rule because I am feeding him?

well, according to your logic then yes - so as I've said already, self-interest reigns supreme.

This rule is just a smokescreen to hide behind.

You still blatantly can't grasp what the rule says, so I'm hardly going to take your arbitration of what I am doing with the rule.

It's actually a classic case of poor reasoning skills as evinced by the continuing logical fallacies and red herrings.

I'd call it just a difference of opinion.

and it's a very vague rule to say the least.

You might enjoy reading up on the last couple of centuries of sociology instead of telling complete strangers that your failings are their failings.

May I suggest Rawls Veil of Ignorance as an interesting notion with respect to social justice and the Silver Rule:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Veil_of_ignorance

The veil of ignorance and the original position are concepts introduced by John Harsanyi[1][2] and later appropriated by John Rawls in A Theory of Justice.[3][4] It is a method of determining the morality of a certain issue (e.g. slavery) based upon the following thought experiment: parties to the original position know nothing about their particular abilities, tastes, and position within the social order of society. The veil of ignorance blocks off this knowledge, such that one does not know what burdens and benefits of social cooperation might fall to him/her once the veil is lifted. With this knowledge blocked, parties to the original position must decide on principles for the distribution of rights, positions and resources in their society. As Rawls put it, "...no one knows his place in society, his class position or social status; nor does he know his fortune in the distribution of natural assets and abilities, his intelligence and strength, and the like."[5] The idea then, is to render moot those personal considerations that are morally irrelevant to the justice or injustice of principles meant to allocate the benefits of social cooperation.

For example, in the imaginary society, one might or might not be intelligent, rich, or born into a preferred class. Since one may occupy any position in the society once the veil is lifted, the device forces the parties to consider society from the perspective of the worst-off members.

Kenneth-Kaunda wrote:
and it's a very vague rule to say the least.

It's perfectly clear to me.

The Golden Rule is pretty much impractical and potentially downright naive.

But the Silver Rule is sufficient to allow for societies to function reasonably equitably. Of course there are going to be people who exploit the system - that's where the justice system comes in.

The question is pointless. What do you mean by "should"? To submit or not to submit to a rule someone wants to impose on you is your decision. I don't understand this "we should" type of rhetorics at all.

Essentially, morality is a set of rules which you follow regardless of its usefulness to you. In that respect, there are two tendencies that counteract each other.
On the one hand, all living organisms are genetically programmed to act in a way that is beneficial to the spreading of their genes.
On the other hand, higher animals, most of all humans, have the ability to submit to external rules that are not beneficial to the spreading of their own genes.
Simple logic says that the altruistic tendencies should be eliminated in the natural selection. The reality is, though, that they obviously exist and influence humans' behaviour very strongly. So there must be some reasonable explanation to that seeming paradox.

One explanation is being offered by the game theory. There are many scientific works explaining how seemingly altruistic behaviour can be beneficial under certain circumstances.

Another thing is that egoists thrive at the altruists' cost. Therefore every egoist is naturally interested in making the other people as altruistic as possible. Therefore, it's unsurprising that virtually all people in the world urge the others to act "morally", that is, to follow certain rules, no matter if it's in their interests.

I am very curious to learn why the "ability of altruism", as I call it (doesn't sound too good in English), emerged in the evolution in the first place. It must be because it has some evolutionary advantages, but I've just begun to research that subject.

In any case, nobody "should" anything. You can choose what you want to do, considering all consequences of one or another choice. And surely one very effective tool of influencing other people is to tell them how they "should" do what you want because it's "moral".