"Treat others how you want to be treated" This is seen as the golden rule, and it is most of the time. -morganI think this is a adequate rule of the thumb, like you shown can it be vague. The more precise of an action the ethic has to describe/guide the more difficulty it gets to define it. Thats why I prefer to leave the ethical definition in a main goal and don't formulate every little bit, so it can apply to a broather range with ease.
In my opinion something like: enshure the continuing existence/survival of the human race at a whole without inflicting unnessesery suffering. The precise interpretation in individual cases are open for interpretaion. But something like random murder, rape,“unnessesery suffering” etc. would be unnessecery to enshure human survival and therefore not approved.
In the end it depends what you want your main goal to be. This(enshuring human survival) is only a suggestion.
Yes, you do have a knowledge gap for even Jewish people could see the similarities between the Orange creature (dotard) and Hitler. -mriana@mriana Although I don't question what you told. I think we slightly disagree concerning the difference in severity between massive active persecution, active industrialised mass-extermination and semi active "not even caring" "letting it happen". But for me differences of opinion are fine.
To be clear and not getting missunderstood: I don’t argue about what maybe would have happend in “another past/future” I don’t know the potential of “the wig”/“dotard” as well as you do. And I don’t argue what did happen. My point is how active and direct the acts were ordered/executed, and what kind of acts that were.