The Not So Golden Rule

[Daemon Sophic]

Rousseau says that it would have been better for us had we never left the wilderness at all. In any case, the whole "it's the best we have" argument is a tired one. It was no doubt uttered by the defenders of all previous forms of social organization and is more than enough of a reason for us to consider creating a better form of society, especially when our current one has led to nothing but ruin on a global scale. You had imperialism in previous societies, but nothing to the scale of what capitalist industrialization and globalization has allowed to occur today. Capitalism in modern liberal democracy is nothing but the dictatorship of capital, and people suffer for its sake. It's nothing but a more concentrated and much more dangerous form of oligarchy.

Ah....I believe you are referring to a Plutocracy....
And I agree. The U.S. has become/is consolidating into a Plutocracy.

plu·toc·ra·cy
/plo͞oˈtäkrəsē/
noun

1. government by the wealthy.
   "the attack on the Bank of England was a gesture against the very symbol of plutocracy"
   • a country or society governed by the wealthy.
     plural noun: plutocracies
     "no one can accept public policies which turn a democracy into a plutocracy"
   • an elite or ruling class of people whose power derives from their wealth.
     "officials were drawn from the new plutocracy"

...but we digress from the OP......

 

[Skwim]

.

FWIW

The Golden Rule as announced in the Bible

Matthew 7:12 (ESV)
12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
​

Or In plain English:

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

My suggestion:

"Do unto others as they would have you do unto them"​

.​

 

[sooda]

The "golden rule" has never been a sufficient basis for ethics. This has been commented on at length within the Pagan community with respect to the Wiccan Rede, for example, which is basically a restyled "golden rule."

A better standard is to recognize that humans, being social animals, operate on principles of reciprocity. As far as I'm aware, this is a universal across all cultures studied or encountered across history. Reciprocity, simply put, is about give and take. It means that actions have consequences. Being mindful of how your actions give and take is essential. What subjects a culture deems relevant for consideration varies considerably and is not agreed upon. Animistic cultures for example recognize non-humans as persons so they are ethical subjects included in the reciprocity equation. Nationalistic ones may only recognize their own human citizens as persons where all others are denied status as ethical subjects. There really isn't any right or wrong to this, unless you're one to propose there's such a thing as objective morality. In any case, reciprocity is probably the closest thing we will ever get to a universal "golden rule" as it is already universally practiced... just applied in different ways.

Something to consider.

https://americanhumanist.org/what-is-humanism/reasons-humanists-reject-bible/

 

[whirlingmerc]

If, as I have suggested, we stand in need of a core universal morality upon which we can base liberal democratic social projects, then we would be ill-advised to embrace a counterfeit; for counterfeits notoriously prove unreliable at the crucial moment. Thus the Golden Rule, in either its positive or negative articulations, cannot be the gold standard of moral behavior: it cannot support the things liberal democratic nations need in the 21st Century – like consensus on policy, general standards of justice, and a warrant for human rights. First, it is not universal; but even if it is generally reflected in all majorcultures, the Golden Rule can still hardly be the core of all morality. It offers little resistance to weak, inconsistent or morally-questionable applications, and it fails to reflect our highest moral standards. Thus we should be concerned about the enthusiasm with which some people tend to embrace something like the Golden Rule as a cure-all for the modern problems of value pluralism; and we should wonder what that tendency tells us about our unwillingness to squarely face the fact that cultures have disharmonious moral styles. It is true that if we could find a universal rule of morality – something like the Golden Rule – it would help us resolve a great many serious moral and political problems. But the fact remains that the Golden Rule is very clearly not the core of morality, and yet it has been embraced as such nonetheless.
The Golden Rule: Not So Golden Anymore | Issue 74 | Philosophy Now

Not precisely my view of the Golden rule but it comes close.

In some cases, inequity is necessary for society to function. The individual on occasion has to sacrifice for the greater good. As mentioned in the article, something married will be familiar with.

Also pointed out there are two forms of the golden rule. Negative and positive. Don't do something that you wouldn't want done to you, don't cause harm. And, do to others what you would want done to you. Help others so they will help you in return. This seems a little too self interested for my tastes.

So one, as long as you pretty much ignore the rest of humanity, your good. The other caters to one's own greed.

My moral compass, cause no unnecessary harm. What's necessary/unnecessary is left to my own discretion. Sacrifice as needed to support friends and family. Similar to the negative version of the golden rule but adds inequality and self sacrifice as needed.

Of course the golden rule goes back to God's command to Moses who Jesus quoted "Love your neighbor as yourself"

There is a higher standard A new commandment I give to you that you love one another as I have loved you"

 

[sun rise]

Of course the golden rule goes back to God's command to Moses who Jesus quoted "Love your neighbor as yourself"

It's also present in other religions.

There is a higher standard A new commandment I give to you that you love one another as I have loved you"

The standard of love is higher than the golden rule.

 

[suncowiam]

Do you need the golden rule to keep yourself in check where there are no laws? How about live and let live? I stay out of your business, you stay out of mine? Is there something wrong with your morals/ethics that you need the golden rule to prevent you from wreaking havoc on society?

The golden rule is very ambiguous and maybe it needs to be because as you say or ethics and morals are not necessarily the same. I don't live by the golden rule and I don't see doing so as a necessity.

I'm not always going to work towards mutual benefit, not always going to do unto others as I'd have them do unto me, not always going to not cause harm. I think this is true of most people if we're being honest. Hard to see it as a rule when it is so often broken.

I'm not sure what to make of your comment and how it relates to the Golden rule.

Live and let live? That is the Golden rule applied, don't you think?

The Golden rule is not at all ambiguous. It's defined by each individual.

Sorry, but I'm not sure if your truly understand the Golden rule. If people are breaking it then they are not applying it then are they? So your argument is about people not following the Golden rule when they should?

Concerning harm since you've brought it up often. It's simple, if you don't want to be harmed then don't harm others. It's a natural to not want to be harmed. It's built into our biology and we have evolved mechanisms to be fearful and evasive of harm.

 

[viole]

If, as I have suggested, we stand in need of a core universal morality upon which we can base liberal democratic social projects, then we would be ill-advised to embrace a counterfeit; for counterfeits notoriously prove unreliable at the crucial moment. Thus the Golden Rule, in either its positive or negative articulations, cannot be the gold standard of moral behavior: it cannot support the things liberal democratic nations need in the 21st Century – like consensus on policy, general standards of justice, and a warrant for human rights. First, it is not universal; but even if it is generally reflected in all majorcultures, the Golden Rule can still hardly be the core of all morality. It offers little resistance to weak, inconsistent or morally-questionable applications, and it fails to reflect our highest moral standards. Thus we should be concerned about the enthusiasm with which some people tend to embrace something like the Golden Rule as a cure-all for the modern problems of value pluralism; and we should wonder what that tendency tells us about our unwillingness to squarely face the fact that cultures have disharmonious moral styles. It is true that if we could find a universal rule of morality – something like the Golden Rule – it would help us resolve a great many serious moral and political problems. But the fact remains that the Golden Rule is very clearly not the core of morality, and yet it has been embraced as such nonetheless.
The Golden Rule: Not So Golden Anymore | Issue 74 | Philosophy Now

Not precisely my view of the Golden rule but it comes close.

In some cases, inequity is necessary for society to function. The individual on occasion has to sacrifice for the greater good. As mentioned in the article, something married will be familiar with.

Also pointed out there are two forms of the golden rule. Negative and positive. Don't do something that you wouldn't want done to you, don't cause harm. And, do to others what you would want done to you. Help others so they will help you in return. This seems a little too self interested for my tastes.

So one, as long as you pretty much ignore the rest of humanity, your good. The other caters to one's own greed.

My moral compass, cause no unnecessary harm. What's necessary/unnecessary is left to my own discretion. Sacrifice as needed to support friends and family. Similar to the negative version of the golden rule but adds inequality and self sacrifice as needed.

What can I say? I agree. I doubt the golden rule would lead to stable situations in a population of intelligent agents under the theory of games.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Nakosis]

I'm not sure what to make of your comment and how it relates to the Golden rule.

Live and let live? That is the Golden rule applied, don't you think?

The Golden rule is not at all ambiguous. It's defined by each individual.

There's two versions, live and let live and treat others how you want to be treated. I see both as a weak concept of morality. if that is the best one can do, fine but they wouldn't meet/fit my moral standard.

Sorry, but I'm not sure if your truly understand the Golden rule. If people are breaking it then they are not applying it then are they? So your argument is about people not following the Golden rule when they should?

My argument is that is doesn't work well as a rule when folks don't follow it anyway. It's more a device to try and get other folks to act in a way someone feels appropriate.

So say it's no ambiguous but then say it's define by each individual.

Ok, so you define it according how you feel other people should act. It a control mechanism.

Concerning harm since you've brought it up often. It's simple, if you don't want to be harmed then don't harm others. It's a natural to not want to be harmed. It's built into our biology and we have evolved mechanisms to be fearful and evasive of harm.

That's not true for every one, at least as an exception example there are sadomasochistic relationship. I see harm as a catalyst for evolution, for improvement. Harm is a challenge to overcome. Harm doesn't bother me as much as my inability to mitigate that harm.

My morality is not based on the action of others. IMO it is an unnecessary part of the moral equation.

 

[Nakosis]

Of course the golden rule goes back to God's command to Moses who Jesus quoted "Love your neighbor as yourself"

There is a higher standard A new commandment I give to you that you love one another as I have loved you"

So, do you love your neighbor as yourself? Do you go out and make sure your neighbor is as well feed as you? Has as nice of car, job, spouse?

That's IMO is a stupid unrealistic commandment. It's just dumb. Nobody does that. Here's a commandment that nobody can meet, great, thanks a lot God. Have you heard the phrase being setup to fail. God is not your friend.

 

[Vee]

So one, as long as you pretty much ignore the rest of humanity, your good. The other caters to one's own greed.

Te golden rule is about love and empathy, not greed.

 

[suncowiam]

There's two versions, live and let live and treat others how you want to be treated. I see both as a weak concept of morality. if that is the best one can do, fine but they wouldn't meet/fit my moral standard.



My argument is that is doesn't work well as a rule when folks don't follow it anyway. It's more a device to try and get other folks to act in a way someone feels appropriate.

So say it's no ambiguous but then say it's define by each individual.

Ok, so you define it according how you feel other people should act. It a control mechanism.



That's not true for every one, at least as an exception example there are sadomasochistic relationship. I see harm as a catalyst for evolution, for improvement. Harm is a challenge to overcome. Harm doesn't bother me as much as my inability to mitigate that harm.

My morality is not based on the action of others. IMO it is an unnecessary part of the moral equation.

I don't see us converging on this and it's just that we haven't agreed on various premises concerning the golden rule.

It appears to me that you hope to achieve a perfect philosophy to build ethics and morals among individuals and then use the same philosophy to build ethics and morals to a community. That's impossible. There will always be conflicts between some individuals and society. As I've said before, the Golden rule is great for individuals if you drew a circle around the individual. However, it's not good for groups of people because the Golden rule will not achieve the same actions between different people.

 

[A Vestigial Mote]

My own personal objection to the "Golden Rule" is the fact that not only is there a positive and a negative 'side' to it.....it itself is a double-entendre....

To wit: "If I want you to smack me upside my head with a 2X4, I should smack you upside your head with a 2X4 first."

This is a bit misconstruing the reality that would be had if someone truly wanted to be smacked upside their head with a 2X4, in that such a person should feel it just fine and dandy being the first to be smacked. The moment you say you feel that we should all be smacking each other upside our heads with 2X4's but aren't willing to be first is the moment that the spirit of "The Golden Rule" just outed you as a liar and hypocrite.

And that, I think, is more its application. Weeding out the hypocrites from those with more forthright dispositions, and unmasking the morons who are surprised when their mistreatment of others leads to they themselves being mistreated at the hands of others.

 

[Quintessence]

That's IMO is a stupid unrealistic commandment. It's just dumb. Nobody does that.

I'm sorry that you've never known anybody who does that. I have. It's only stupid and unrealistic if you decide it is so. People can and do aspire to uphold it with no small measure of success. I am so sorry you've never known any of these kind and generous souls. My life has been much brighter for knowing them. I hope that one of them finds you.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm sorry that you've never known anybody who does that. I have. It's only stupid and unrealistic if you decide it is so. People can and do aspire to uphold it with no small measure of success. I am so sorry you've never known any of these kind and generous souls. My life has been much brighter for knowing them. I hope that one of them finds you.

I'm fine with people as they are without expectation of them living up to some arbitrary standard I set for them. I prefer to accept people as they are, not some idealistic concept of what I think they should be.

In my experience, we all get along a lot better that way.

 

[Nakosis]

.

FWIW

The Golden Rule as announced in the Bible

Matthew 7:12 (ESV)
12 “So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
​

Or In plain English:

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

My suggestion:

"Do unto others as they would have you do unto them"​

.​

Sure, it that works for you, but I'll pass.

I'll deal with people in the manner I see as right without regard for any reciprocity.

Do unto others what's right.

 

[1213]

...
My moral compass, cause no unnecessary harm. What's necessary/unnecessary is left to my own discretion. Sacrifice as needed to support friends and family. Similar to the negative version of the golden rule but adds inequality and self sacrifice as needed.

“Unnecessary” harm seems to be quite subjective opinion. I think your moral compass is not good, if it says sacrifice is needed.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Sure, it that works for you, but I'll pass.

I'll deal with people in the manner I see as right without regard for any reciprocity.

Do unto others what's right.

That is the golden rule. You pass on it and then accept it with a statement that is the intent of the rule.

To give good without thought of reward.

The good we are to give is much higher than self motivated actions.

Regards Tony

 

[Nakosis]

That is the golden rule. You pass on it and then accept it with a statement that is the intent of the rule.

To give good without thought of reward.

The good we are to give is much higher than self motivated actions.

Regards Tony

If that was what the golden rule said in the Bible, I'd be fine with it. Anybody willing to correct God's concept of the golden rule? Maybe we should encourage the Pope, since the Catholics created the Bible in the first place, to rewrite it for a more modern morality.

 

[Nakosis]

“Unnecessary” harm seems to be quite subjective opinion. I think your moral compass is not good, if it says sacrifice is needed.

That's fine, you follow your moral compass, I'll follow mine. I really have no expectation of you meeting my moral standards.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

If that was what the golden rule said in the Bible, I'd be fine with it. Anybody willing to correct God's concept of the golden rule? Maybe we should encourage the Pope, since the Catholics created the Bible in the first place, to rewrite it for a more modern morality.

It is what the golden rule is telling us. To give to everybody what you would want for your own self, to be selfless.

Few people can live to this high ideal, as this world makes us selfish in many ways, in ways we are yet to consider. It is a long hard journey to rid oneself from selfish motive.

RegardsTony