Yep, that all tracks for me, is there anything underneath the golden rule, a more base rule, if you will.
Like what about people who have different lines over what would trigger a physical response to hostility? One guy might only respond to direct physical attacks, and another will respond to verbal threats of physical attacks. Who's right?
I start with my ideal, which is "I want the most amount of people to be as content as possible for as long as possible."
Then I build a heirarchy of groups in relation to the ideal, and it comes out in stepped groups, starting with me, immediate family, social group (further family, friends, colleagues), local community, government, humanity. This set allows me to target my focus, if Im content and safe, I can focus on helping my family be the same, and each level builds up to and allows for the next.
Now I can identify where to focus i need rules on how to act, i know what my goals is, but i need to make sure my actions arent counter to goal in some way, a set of rules like commandments (that can only be divined through experience) mitigate the possibility. Christianity does a good job of picking out the things that are counter to my ideal as it is, so mine are basically modelled after that.
No killing
No stealing
Dont lie
Dont covet
No adultery (though I'd say this covers breaking any agreement/commitment made)
There's probably a couple more I've missed but I'm short on time
And for it to be fair for me to expect anyone else to follow the rules, i must first, this is the connection between rights and responsibilities If I want to claim a right, it is my responsibility to ensure others receives that right.
So basically I know if I follow that schedule, I really cant consciously do any wrong and can sleep right knowing I mad the best decision.
Let mek now if Im being incoherent anywhere, happy to discuss whatever.
Well if we follow that to its conclusion I may as well delete the thread and try not to think about it.