[tpaine]

It was claimed that treating one's neighbor as you would have yourself treated only makes sense if there is something bigger to consider than number one.

I responded: - the premise that a groups "bigger" goal can be gained by treating an unwilling neighbor as a scofflaw makes no sense at all.
Treating one's neighbor as you would have yourself treated [our golden rule] is part of the basic principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights; namely that, - our rights to life, liberty, or property, - shall not be infringed by majority rule.

Upon which moral foundation does the Constitution stand?

The moral foundation based on our golden rule, which I consider common to all rational men.

[D-fendr]

Thanks very much for your reply.

the basic principles of our Constitution and Bill of Rights; namely that, - our rights to life, liberty, or property, - shall not be infringed..

This is still incomplete. What is the source of these rights?

I'm contending that rationalism alone cannot be the sole basis of moral/ethical decisions for humans. If it were we would be frozen in inaction. Rationalism can only be a tool used once the foundational absolute values are determined. Hitler was very rational. It wasn't his reason that was at fault, but his values. His immorality was not due to faulty reasoning. The same with Marx.

Our superiority to these men and systems is not in our reasoning capability, but something that transcends reason.