The Golden Rule

[ALifetimeToWaitFor...]

The golden rule isn't structured for scrutiny, just show compassion and you'll be all right.

 

[michel]

The golden rule isn't structured for scrutiny, just show compassion and you'll be all right.

just show compassion

Is that really enough ?
i.e, if I see a severely mentally and physically disabled person, and I deemed it compassionate to end his life, would that be 'O.K' ?

 

[mr.guy]

... just show compassion and you'll be all right.

I agree michel. this might be an entirely seperate rule of its own. I tend to think the golden rule is designed as query into self-interest. If one views benevolence and the well-being as others as critical to one's own self, then one's succecess is linked in the succecess of others. Not to say this is specifically expressed in said rule, but I think it's among it's stronger implications.

 

[Pah]

I gave my version of the Golden Rule earlier and stand by that. However, my comment was his take on labeling of a particular user to be "egocentric" or any other negative character due to their disagreeing with anyone. I made no comment on whether it applied to you or your post: just on the comment I quoted. You are free to twist it in any shape you see fit.

Geez, NetDoc, I asked a question and you have avoided it. Nobody. that I saw, challanged your understanding. The question I asked went to the antithesis of the Golden Rule.

 

[Darkdale]

While it may not be "intellectually dishonest" for you to write both those statements, it certainly is

Let me rephrase it for you then (also, pay attention to context... it helps in understanding what a person is saying).

I want to be treated the way I deserve to be treated. I don't want people treating me the way they want to be treated. If I am going to be considered at all, I want to be considered... The golden rule is not considering others, it is considering "self". Do unto others (no stipulation yet) as you would have them do unto you. Who are you to assume that I want to be treated the way you do?

I understand that it is confusing... you have to get out of that "common" frame of mind and actually think about what you are saying.

You are not reasoning... you are making your decisions based on how you feel, not on how others feel, thus it is egocentric. I treat people the way I think they deserve to be treated, or in the absence of evidence, how I think they want to be treated... not how I want to be treated. Which means, I actually have to think, to reason, about the other person, instead of just mindlessly imposing my own emotional proclivities on everyone else, which is what you seem bent on doing.

Does that help?

 

[Darkdale]

The golden rule isn't structured for scrutiny, just show compassion and you'll be all right.

Compassion isn't always right. Sometimes you have to do things that seem mean or harsh, because it is just or necessary. Saying, "just be compassionate", lacks the same rational quality as the golden rule. People need to be encouraged to think, to have morality based on problem solving and on rational consideration... not fortune cookie wisdom.

 

[Pah]

Let me rephrase it for you then (also, pay attention to context... it helps in understanding what a person is saying).

I want to be treated the way I deserve to be treated. I don't want people treating me the way they want to be treated. If I am going to be considered at all, I want to be considered... The golden rule is not considering others, it is considering "self". Do unto others (no stipulation yet) as you would have them do unto you. Who are you to assume that I want to be treated the way you do?

I understand that it is confusing... you have to get out of that "common" frame of mind and actually think about what you are saying.

You are not reasoning... you are making your decisions based on how you feel, not on how others feel, thus it is egocentric. I treat people the way I think they deserve to be treated, or in the absence of evidence, how I think they want to be treated... not how I want to be treated. Which means, I actually have to think, to reason, about the other person, instead of just mindlessly imposing my own emotional proclivities on everyone else, which is what you seem bent on doing.

Does that help?

Help? Yes, it takes the sting out of your earlier statement, "I want". And the context you established was an attack on humanism. Are you paying attention? You see the "common frame" I had was that you meant what you wrote. Sorry that you didn't.

You would even now benefit to see that I and others have expressed concern about the way the Golden Rule concept was worded. And you still seem to be hung up over that version. Reasoning should be used to get to the basic concept. Further reasoning is then used to see if your behavior or the behavior of others is within that concept and you then react accordingly.

What is that concept you miss behind the Golden Rule? Well, it encompasses Freedom and Justice. It is a social contract aimed at private behavior beneficial to social, reciprocative behavior.. It is defending and establishing the rights and freedoms of others so that your rights are not someday infringed. The benefits are pluralistic and sefl-important - both together. That, and more, is the secular and humanistic application of the Golden Rule - behavioral reciprocity.

The Golden Rule is the conceptual bassis for the rules of RF and, generally, all other associations. It is the underlying concept in John Rawls concept of Justice as Fairness a book that summarizes and extends his seminal book, A Theory of Justice, which discusses the philosophy of governing and establishing governments.

Reasoning will lead you to see there is more to it than you imagine.
.

 

[Darkdale]

Yes... I've never thought about the golden rule within the Marxist egalitarian worldview perspective. lol. I think you guys are really stretching it out beyond anything it is capable of encompassing. I'd love to see the "logic" you use to stretch such a meaningless phrase into a moral foundation for egalitarianism. Jesus. You can call make believe thinking... sure doesn't make it so.

Ok. Let's look at this.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

=

"a social contract aimed at private behavior beneficial to social, reciprocative behavior.. It is defending and establishing the rights and freedoms of others so that your rights are not someday infringed. The benefits are pluralistic and sefl-important - both together. That, and more, is the secular and humanistic application of the Golden Rule - behavioral reciprocity".

Not that either group of statements are good, in my mind, but I'm not quite certain how you can jump from one to the other. I assume you are allowing for morality to encompass social, political and economic activity (I'm not sure I'd agree with this, but fine. I can at least work with it). Good Action unto others is defined by what is good for the whole; (as defined by what an individual egalitarian thinks is good for themselves). Those not falling into the socialist, egalitarian worldview are not considered at all in your idealistic society. Interesting that my way of dealing with people can both accommodate egalitarian and non-egalitarian perspectives by addressing individuals in their environment, instead of addressing individuals as if they we wrapped in my own non-existent idealistic utopia. hmm

You use the golden rule to obligate individual & collective to reciprocal benefit, which I suppose is where your stretch occurs... as the Golden Rule is literally a rule between individuals (which doesn't make it any less inane). The more I think about it, the more I can see why you desperately need to protect the Golden Rule. You need a morality that "common" people will believe in, so that you can use it to enslave individuals to the idealistic, egalitarian collective you liberals so desire to create.

I take it back. This isn't stupid. It's dangerous.

 

[Pah]

Yes... I've never thought about the golden rule within the Marxist egalitarian worldview perspective. lol.

Show that this is true

I think you guys are really stretching it out beyond anything it is capable of encompassing. I'd love to see the "logic" you use to stretch such a meaningless phrase into a moral foundation for egalitarianism. Jesus. You can call make believe thinking... sure doesn't make it so.

You haven't shown egalitarianism yet.

...."Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

Still hung up on the version many have spoken against? With that deficiency, with a defiecient understanding of the concept, the rest of your post is illogical.

 

[Darkdale]

Still hung up on the version many have spoken against? With that deficiency, with a defiecient understanding of the concept, the rest of your post is illogical.

Which is why I reinterpreted in within the context of your own perspective. Go back, try again.

 

[Pah]

Which is why I reinterpreted in within the context of your own perspective. Go back, try again.

You're wasting my time with something I've opposed. You have the next step. Show us the connection, in your scant understanding of the concept, with elegantariansism. But that should also require you to reason out the concept. I won't hold my breath

 

[Darkdale]

You're wasting my time with something I've opposed. You have the next step. Show us the connection, in your scant understanding of the concept, with elegantariansism. But that should also require you to reason out the concept. I won't hold my breath

and you are wasting everybody's time. I've already shown the connection, either accept it or argue against it... ignoring it isn't a legitimate form debate. Either your position does intend to obligate the individual to the collective, or it does not. If it does not, then explain how,

a social contract aimed at private behavior beneficial to social, reciprocative behavior.. It is defending and establishing the rights and freedoms of others so that your rights are not someday infringed. The benefits are pluralistic and sefl-important - both together. That, and more, is the secular and humanistic application of the Golden Rule - behavioral reciprocity.

in the context of the golden rule, is in fact NOT a leap from an individual to individual maxim, to a individual to the collective maxim.

If your position, however far it deviates from the original meaning of the golden rule, is in fact advocating an individual to a collective maxim, then it is obvious, at least to me, that it is a reinterpretation of the golden rule within an egalitarian perspective. If it is being reinterpreted differently, within what context is it being reinterpreted?

You pointed out that I was stuck on its' original meaning and thus was missing the context within which you were explaining it... so I tried to show, however poorly, that I understood your reinterpretation as being strictly egalitarian. Now, if you don't like that or you can't deal with that... fine, but it makes my evaluation of your position no less reasonable. Now please, either deal with the argument at hand or just bow out of the discussion. There is no reason for me to waste my time if you aren't going to take the debate seriously.

 

[Pah]

You have not shown what elegantarianism is. You used the label and now assigned the label to me. It's poor debate.

You have yet to acknowledge the alternate wording. If you will not or can not find the concept underlying all the versions (they are NOT re-interpretations of the concept) then you must address all, and each individually, of those presented. You have no arguement to the thread otherwise. I will not be bound by your shortsightedness. If you can not, then, indeed, it is a waste of your time and only serves to reduce remaining bandwidth.

 

[Darkdale]

You have not shown what elegantarianism is..

If you can not, then, indeed, it is a waste of your time and only serves to reduce remaining bandwidth.

First of all, it is Egalitarianism . Secondly, I'm shocked that you don't know what it is. Lastly, you are right... this debate is a horrible waste of my time. I'm not going to get anything meaningful out of it anyway.

 

[Pah]

First of all, it is Egalitarianism . Secondly, I'm shocked that you don't know what it is. Lastly, you are right... this debate is a horrible waste of my time. I'm not going to get anything meaningful out of it anyway.

Apparently you understood, hehehe. Don't you just love it when the concept of the word comes through loudly and clearly? There really is no need for grammar police in RF.

It's not lack of knowlege about elleggentrearism - I was curious what definition you abused to include Atheism. It wasn't addressed in your reference nor here http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/egalitarianism/ nor here http://www.importanceofphilosophy.com/Evil_Egalitarianism.html nor even where
elleggentrearism is sophmorically disparaged http://www.techcentralstation.com/041204B.html

But I do agree you wasted your time and opportunity. I'm not even an elleggentrearist

 

[Darkdale]

what?

 

[SPLogan]

I think that "doing unto others as you would have them do to you" includes "doing unto" them as a unique individual, not as a generic person who you assume is exactly like yourself. You would not want others to assume that you are just like them.

As far as I know, everyone wants to be respected. That's a good place to start.

 

[kreeden]

I wonder ... do they call it the " Golden Rule " because like gold , it is so pliable ? Likely not ??? I agree with SPLogan . Respect is a good place to start .