The Golden Rule

[Jaymes]

Given the amount of "sand-n*****" hating I've heard down in the south, I can't say I think some Christians are a shining example of what Jesus taught, either.

As for the history of the Golden Rule... Wikipedia enlightens us:

• ~1970-1640 BCE "Do for one who may do for you, / That you may cause him thus to do." - The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant 109-110, Ancient Egypt, tr. R.B. Parkinson.
• ~1280 BCE "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD." - Tanakh, new JPS translation, Leviticus 19:18, Judaism.
• ~700 BCE "That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self." - Dadistan-i-Dinik 94:5, Zoroastrianism.
• ? BCE "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." - Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29, Zoroastrianism.
• ~500 BCE "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." - Udana-Varga 5:18, Buddhism.

 

[joeboonda]

Given the amount of "sand-n*****" hating I've heard down in the south, I can't say I think some Christians are a shining example of what Jesus taught, either.

As for the history of the Golden Rule... Wikipedia enlightens us:

• ~1970-1640 BCE "Do for one who may do for you, / That you may cause him thus to do." - The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant 109-110, Ancient Egypt, tr. R.B. Parkinson.
• ~1280 BCE "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen. Love your fellow as yourself: I am the LORD." - Tanakh, new JPS translation, Leviticus 19:18, Judaism.
• ~700 BCE "That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self." - Dadistan-i-Dinik 94:5, Zoroastrianism.
• ? BCE "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." - Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29, Zoroastrianism.
• ~500 BCE "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." - Udana-Varga 5:18, Buddhism.

I hope the southern sand***** hating christian was not aimed at me, I was born in Pittsburgh, Pa, my sister is married to an arab, and my brother is married to a jew.

That first quote of the egyptians, is close to what Jesus said, but not quite. It is almost manipulative in fact, saying do to someone, so that by doing that, they may feel obligated to do something for you. Jesus added no conditions to his rule, you do to others, even enemies, acts from nothing but love, expecting nothing in return. Still a far cry above all wisdom I have heard.

 

[Jaymes]

It wasn't aimed at you at all. It's just something I hear a lot in my day-to-day life... usually from my father.

How is the Zoraostrian one different? Or the Buddhist one? It may not have the exact same phrasing, but the intent is the same. And those certainly aren't all of them; I just copied the first few. You can read the article to find others.

 

[joeboonda]

Well, a lot of them put a negative spin to it is all I was saying. Like do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you. I understand this is a saying that others have said besides Jesus, I just think in his teachings, that he took it to an even higher level, that's all. Then again, I am a christian so I kind of favor Him.

 

[Scuba Pete]

I would have to have proof of that, even so Christ said love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you, and the Egyptians, weren't quite so nice as that.

And you support war? WHY??? What about "turn the other cheek" does not apply here? Please, if you are going to argue in SUPPORT of doing no harm to others, PLEASE believe in what you are saying!!! Maybe you wear that rubber band around your arm with WWJB?

 

[spacemonkey]

WWJB? What would Jesus BUY? lol

 

[Scuba Pete]

Not quite...

WWJB = Who Would Jesus Bomb?

Think about it! I want one!

 

[spacemonkey]

I think either is appropriate. It would be up for your own interpratation.

 

[Darkdale]

I have no idea what you consider an "actual" philosophy but I am slighted when you fail to recognize humanistic principle.

The Golden Rule is thoughtless... a humanistic principle? bah. I've seen "love" and "kindness" do a great deal of unpleasant things... and the arrogance of it all... please. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Are you the measure of my desires? Obviously not. Are you the measure of goodness? Of course not. Not for me, nor I for you. I don't want people treating me the way they want to be treated. I want people treating me the way I wanted to be treated.... and in this world, believe me, I do not want what the mob wants, lol.

The Golden Rule is a Mob Morality, a morality amongst slaves. It just annoys me... and more so because everyone seems to buy into it... most likely because it requires no thought. You just say it and feign moral intelligence.

 

[standing_on_one_foot]

The Golden Rule is thoughtless... a humanistic principle? bah. I've seen "love" and "kindness" do a great deal of unpleasant things... and the arrogance of it all... please. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Are you the measure of my desires? Obviously not. Are you the measure of goodness? Of course not. Not for me, nor I for you. I don't want people treating me the way they want to be treated. I want people treating me the way I wanted to be treated.... and in this world, believe me, I do not want what the mob wants, lol.

I disagree. I believe it's thoughtless if your morality ends there, it's a reasonable starting point. I mean, that's the second part of the quote from the story I get my username from. After Hillel says his golden rule bit, he adds, "Go and study it." It's important.

And I prefer the "That which is hateful to you, do not do to any person" as opposed to "Do unto, etc" in part for the reasons you mention. Again though, just a starting point.

 

[Pah]

The Golden Rule is thoughtless... a humanistic principle? bah. I've seen "love" and "kindness" do a great deal of unpleasant things... and the arrogance of it all... please. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Are you the measure of my desires? Obviously not. Are you the measure of goodness? Of course not. Not for me, nor I for you. I don't want people treating me the way they want to be treated. I want people treating me the way I wanted to be treated.... and in this world, believe me, I do not want what the mob wants, lol.

The Golden Rule is a Mob Morality, a morality amongst slaves. It just annoys me... and more so because everyone seems to buy into it... most likely because it requires no thought. You just say it and feign moral intelligence.

A throw-back to the rule of kings, selfish, tending to tyrantical rule, greedy, hedonistic, anti-evolutional in it's practise, loveless in practise, perhaps the grandest of all anti-social disorders for it has a "normal" face. I can't imagine how it can be thought of as "good" when so many negative attributes fall into it's meaning. It is above all a failure of moral reasoning as it reflects the wants and "give me,give me" of a child arrrested in development. Such is egocenticism.

 

[michel]

A throw-back to the rule of kings, selfish, tending to tyrantical rule, greedy, hedonistic, anti-evolutional in it's practise, loveless in practise, perhaps the grandest of all anti-social disorders for it has a "norma"l face. I can't imagine how it can be thought of as "good" when so many negative attributes fall into it's meaning. It is above all a failure of moral reasoning as it reflects the wants and "give me,give me" of a child arrrested in development. Such is egocenticism.

Pah, do please put my mind at rest; you are joking, are you not ?

 

[joeboonda]

And you support war? WHY??? What about "turn the other cheek" does not apply here? Please, if you are going to argue in SUPPORT of doing no harm to others, PLEASE believe in what you are saying!!! Maybe you wear that rubber band around your arm with WWJB?

Please let me clarify if I can. In ecclesiastes, Solomon says there is a time for war and a time for peace. I do NOT want or like war. But to obey the Golden Rule, it can be necessary. For example if I see you being beat to a pulp and robbed and raped by a gang of evil-doers, and I do not go physicaly help you or get a police officer to help you then I am not obeying that rule. If the US were to ignore (which it did for a while) the attempt to take over the world, and the holocaust of the Jews by Hitler, and did not step in and help them, we would not be obeying that rule. So because of evil-doers, we must sometimes fight to help those in need. I believe it is wrong to sit idly by while good people are being opressed, tortured, raped, etc. I believe that is not wrong to believe that way.

 

[Pah]

Pah, do please put my mind at rest; you are joking, are you not ?

Well, yeah - I DID exaggerate when I said the "grandest of all anti-social disorders". It's probably only in the top ten.

 

[Darkdale]

A throw-back to the rule of kings, selfish, tending to tyrantical rule, greedy, hedonistic, anti-evolutional in it's practise, loveless in practise, perhaps the grandest of all anti-social disorders for it has a "normal" face. I can't imagine how it can be thought of as "good" when so many negative attributes fall into it's meaning. It is above all a failure of moral reasoning as it reflects the wants and "give me,give me" of a child arrrested in development. Such is egocenticism.

It is intellectually dishonest to pretend as if there is some necessary dilemma between the Golden Rule and egocentrism... as if these are our only choices. It goes to show the lack of thought behind such a proposition when all you can do to argue on it's behalf is accuse everyone that doesn't agree with you of being an egocentric *******. Certainly you've discovered that there are many sides to a cube, as to an issue; that things are not black and white in the moral world... or have you missed that? Is this that pretentiousness as I was pointing last month... that your sensitive morality is good and anyone who disagrees with you is evil and stupid? Could be.

"Do unto others as your would have them do unto you" is in it's very construction an egocentric statement in the first place. You are using yourself as the measure of your moral action toward others, instead of using your reason to decern the appropriate action given unique circumstances. Instead of reasoning, you fall back upon a pleasant sounding maxim, bred not of deep moral insight, but of idealism.

It is not egocentric to consider the objective circumstances in a moral context; in fact, I am not placing more weight on how I would want to be treated, but on how a person deserves to be treated. Action should follow reason and reason is a deliberative event. It doesn't rely on fortune cookie wisdom.

 

[Scuba Pete]

that your sensitive morality is good and anyone who disagrees with you is evil and stupid? Could be.

On this we fully agree... what an awesome point. Too often we villify those who merely disagree with us as being "stupid", "evil", "egocentric" or worse. We can't all agree, but we can be civil.

 

[Pah]

It is intellectually dishonest ... I am not placing more weight on how I would want to be treated, ...

I want people treating me the way I wanted to be treated

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

On this we fully agree... what an awesome point. Too often we villify those who merely disagree with us as being "stupid", "evil", "egocentric" or worse. We can't all agree, but we can be civil.

So, NetDoc you agree that "egocentric" is negative but you think that "I want people treating me the way I wanted to be treated" is not? :tsk:

Just so we have a ground for discussion - from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/egocentric defines egocentric

1. Holding the view that the ego is the center, object, and norm of all experience.

2.
a. Confined in attitude or interest to one's own needs or affairs.
b. Caring only about oneself; selfish.

3. Philosophy
a. Viewed or perceived from one's own mind as a center.
b. Taking one's own self as the starting point in a philosophical system.

From http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=+egocentric&x=0&y=0 Merriam-Websters definition of egocentric

Main Entry: ego·cen·tric

Function: adjective
1 : concerned with the individual rather than society
2 : taking the ego as the starting point in philosophy
3 a : limited in outlook or concern to one's own activities or needs
b : Self-centered, selfish

That seems to be the antithesis of the Golden Rule concept.

 

[michel]

"Do unto others as your would have them do unto you" is in it's very construction an egocentric statement in the first place. You are using yourself as the measure of your moral action toward others, instead of using your reason to decern the appropriate action given unique circumstances. Instead of reasoning, you fall back upon a pleasant sounding maxim, bred not of deep moral insight, but of idealism.

It is not egocentric to consider the objective circumstances in a moral context; in fact, I am not placing more weight on how I would want to be treated, but on how a person deserves to be treated. Action should follow reason and reason is a deliberative event. It doesn't rely on fortune cookie wisdom.

For the first time on this forum, Darkdale, you have surprized me.

"Do unto others as your would have them do unto you" is my Maxim. I only wish for health, wealth, hapiness, justice, acceptance, equality, friendship, a satisfied mind (conscience ?), having enough to eat and drink, either for myself, or others.

In no way can I interpret that as agocentric. I would hope to be wished those qualities and gifts by others, and I think that (with occasional lapses for which there is no excuse) that is how I wish the rest of the world to be blessed.

How is that egocentric ?

 

[mr.guy]

It is intellectually dishonest to pretend as if there is some necessary dilemma between the Golden Rule and egocentrism...

Not at all. The golden rule is an appeal to egocentrism.

"Do unto others as your would have them do unto you" is in it's very construction an egocentric statement in the first place.

I believe you've confused egoism (to maximize self pleasure before the pleasure of others) with egocentrism (to maximize pleasure, be it at the expense of others).

You are using yourself as the measure of your moral action toward others, instead of using your reason to decern the appropriate action given unique circumstances.

How does one distiguish if they consider their moral foundation to be perfectly fashioned reason?

It is not egocentric to consider the objective circumstances in a moral context; in fact, I am not placing more weight on how I would want to be treated, but on how a person deserves to be treated.

You're in part correct. What doesn't hold here is your assumption that you can "objectively" deduce how one deserves to be treated without some point of self-reference. A value assignment is an egoists game, after all.

Action should follow reason and reason is a deliberative event.

Pretty self-serving aggrandizement. To take the golden rule to extremes, which is to say that everyone's self-interest must perfectly mirror one's own makes it functionally useless, i agree. But it is helpful in illustrating that self-interest is fundemental and universal; to say that it removes reason because it lacks specific mechanics is false. Reason can and frequently does operate on a sliding scale.

 

[Scuba Pete]

So, NetDoc you agree that "egocentric" is negative but you think that "I want people treating me the way I wanted to be treated" is not? :tsk:

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.