I see myself more asa mentor to the young than anything else.
I havegrown, struggled, and been very joyful in my marriage.
The basic ideas behind all these approaches is that people will knowwhat is best or right for themselves by understanding what they themselves(would) desire, and then they will use that knowledge, in one form or other,to do what is best or right for others or for all, or in the case of majorityrule, will do what is right for the most people -- sometimes in the mistakenbelief that what is best for the most (in the sense of a majority) is thebest plan that could have been implemented for all. For example, if wehad five people among whom to divide $300,000, it would clearly not bebest for all five (in a reasonable sense of "best for all") if three ofthe people (that is, the majority of the people) voted to give themselves$100,000 each and the other two, the minority of the people, nothing. Whatis best for all together is not necessarily the same as what is best forthe most (or majority) of them. The phrase "greatest good for the greatestnumber" is ambiguous. One should not therefore believe that majority interestis the same thing as the public interest. (See also, my essays about thissort of thing at and at .)
Afterall we are only here for a short period of time.
In the Golden Rule case, people will treat as others as they would liketo be treated. One then only supposedly needs to know what one wants foroneself in order to know what is right to do to, or for, others.
My of Bjørn Lomborgs had all sorts of people upset.
Matt Rossano's excellent article on handaxes and consciousness. The article (PDF) is . Rossano's publication page is full of material that is relevant to all we have been discussing. Read through it .
Do you really want to delete this prezi?
For other examples of formal procedures that do not yield morally reasonableresults, see also .It is extremely difficult, and I suspect impossible, to develop merelyformal procedures that can totally take the judgment out of morality orof deciding which acts are (morally) right. And trying to do that by equatingmorality with psychology, so that people determine what is right merelyby what they, or a majority of them, individually want, is particularlyprone to mistakes about what is moral or not.