0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Professional philosophers around the world have tried to answer this question for thousands of years and failed. Yet, you expect me to answer it in a few sentences. It doesn't sound reasonable does it?
True, but irrelevant. The words are universal, moral, and standard.
Rules are those legal commands which differentiate legal from illegal behavior in a simple and clear way. Standards, however, are general legal criteria which are unclear and fuzzy and require complicated judiciary decision making (Diver, 1983; Kaplow, 1992).A speed limit whose violation leads to a fine of 100 $ is a rule, whereas a norm for car drivers to “drive carefully” whose violation leads to damage compensation is a standard. In the latter case the legal norm leaves open what exactly the level of due care is and how the damage compensation is to be calculated (Ulen, 1999).https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-0-306-47828-4_132#:~:text=Rules%20are%20those%20legal%20commands,1983%3B%20Kaplow%2C%201992).
Rules are statements that comes from the top or the authority and that are meant to guide the behavior and action of all those in a particular environment. Rules govern not just action and behavior but also arrangement and even procedures in institutions. In general, rules play the most important role of guiding our behavior and conduct in a particular situation. Rules are authoritative in nature, and people have to follow them in a particular situation. People know what to do and what not to do in a specific situation.Standards are often published documents that lay down specifications and procedures. These standards ensure that quality of materials and products remain high and consistent. These standards provide a clear understanding of what is required from employees, students, and other people in an environment to maintain quality. Standards also help people in having a clear understanding of what is required of them.https://www.differencebetween.com/difference-between-rules-and-standards/
https://www.jstor.org/stable/1372840
RULES VERSUS STANDARDS: AN ECONOMIC ANALYSIS LouIS KAPLOWt This Article offers an economic analysis of the extent to which legal commands should be promulgated as rules or standards. Two dimensions of the problem are emphasized. First, the choice between rules and standards affects costs: Rules typically are more costly than standards to create, whereas standards tend to be more costly for individuals to interpret when deciding how to act and for an adjudicator to apply to past conduct. Second, when individuals can determine the application of rules to their contemplated acts more cheaply, conduct is more likely to reflect the content of previously promulgated rules than of standards that will be given content only after individuals act. The Article considers how these factors influence the manner in which rules and standards should be designed, and explores the circumstances in which rules or standards are likely to be preferable. The Article also addresses the level of detail with which laws should be formulated and applied, emphasizing how this question concerning the laws' relative simplicity or complexity can be distinguished from that of whether laws are given content ex ante (rules) or ex post (standards). In so doing, it illuminates concerns about the over- and underinclusiveness of rules relative to standards.https://dash.harvard.edu/bitstream/handle/1/10611784/Kaplow_RulesStandards.pdf?sequence=2
Moral standards are supposed to distinguish between good and bad moral rules, and specify what conditions are required to apply or reject them.
Don't kill except in self defence or the defence of your legitimate nation
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 21/11/2022 02:17:32Professional philosophers around the world have tried to answer this question for thousands of years and failed. Yet, you expect me to answer it in a few sentences. It doesn't sound reasonable does it?It is reasonable for you to answer the OP question after 135 pages with the obvious answer which is there is no universal moral standard as far as anyone can determine. Just going on and on and on in circles is just stupid and annoying.
I've uploaded a video about universal terminal goal, which could be the answer to the most important question ever. It's the summary of what I've discussed here.//www.youtube.com/watch?v=e67Z-kezblcThis thread has gone so long, and those who didn't follow it from the start might face difficulties in understanding the core ideas. I hope the video can help.
I will decide whether the nation I inhabit is legitimate. Simply drawing a line around the territory and declaring the right to impose laws within it does not confer legitimacy.
And for the benefit of those who have no time for waffling economists or philosophersA rule (legal) is an instruction that must be obeyed; (scientific) an assertion that appears to be adequately true, though less rigorously tested or over a more limited range than a "law"; (mathematical) a procedure that delivers a provable result (e.g Simpson's rule) or a consistent result (rules for vector arithmetic). The last can also be considered a conventionAn example from navigation. The rules of the air or sea determine for example what track you must follow in order to avoid conflict; the "1 in 60" rule is useful for determining an approximate compass heading or rate of closure required to get from A to B by rhumb line; the rules for vector addition give you the required corrections for wind and tide. A standard is a specified object, quantity or quality against which it is agreed that all others in the same category can be measured or compared.
It sounds like your definition of standard is unrelated to rule.
I've uploaded a video about universal terminal goal,
which could be the answer to the most important question ever.
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 23/11/2022 09:20:46It sounds like your definition of standard is unrelated to rule.Because it is. I work professionally with both, and they are quite separate.
This appears to me to be one persons philosophical/religious opinion and as such is not not science.
I think 'what's for dinner' is a more important question.
What do you use to distinguish between good moral rules and bad moral rules?
Quote from: hamdani yusuf on 24/11/2022 10:05:11What do you use to distinguish between good moral rules and bad moral rules?"Good" means I approve of it. "Bad" means I disapprove. Public debate and the parliamentary process generally distil out those things that the majority consider bad, and make them illegal - the essence of a civilised country. Not sure whether any other rules are necessary or desirable.My moral tests are good.
Morality of a human individual is usually evaluated from the perspective of the society where the individual lives,