The Not So Golden Rule

[Nakosis]

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.

 

[suncowiam]

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.

You suggest the golden rule is based on the principle of greed. I disagree.

Both forms suggest persons' beliefs and will. It simply conveys a rule not to contradict oneself.

 

[sealchan]

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.

I'm not sure I understand what the critique of the Golden Rule is here. We want to be treated fairly and I think that in all fairness we can willingly take on suffering if we are honest. Certainly the Golden Rule is a dynamic enough basis for basing a whole set of rules meant to include just what it means to achieve a sense of fairness and equality under the law.

In a lot of ways the question of morality is a systemic one which must take measure of the degree to which individuals are treated unjustly in either individual choices or systemic biases.

In my mind the Golden Rule says as much as "let's decide together what is fair and live according to that rule".

 

[Komori]

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.

Perhaps the author should consider how this may not be as much of a reflection of the inadequacy of the Golden Rule as it is a reflection of the inadequacy of liberal democracy.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm not sure I understand what the critique of the Golden Rule is here. We want to be treated fairly and I think that in all fairness we can willingly take on suffering if we are honest. Certainly the Golden Rule is a dynamic enough basis for basing a whole set of rules meant to include just what it means to achieve a sense of fairness and equality under the law.

In a lot of ways the question of morality is a systemic one which must take measure of the degree to which individuals are treated unjustly in either individual choices or systemic biases.

In my mind the Golden Rule says as much as "let's decide together what is fair and live according to that rule".

I'd imagine, especially as groups become larger, it would become more difficult to decide amongst ourselves to decide what is fair. I think this is pretty much the situation the world is in now. Different folks having different ideas about what is fair.

I'm not trying to say that the golden rules has no value as a moral compass just that it is limited by it's ambiguousness.

Unjustly? Again we have a problem on agreeing what is just. Is the death penalty just? Some believe so.

From me, and this is my personal view, which I don't require agreement with, the golden rule, in it's various versions is sufficient for some. For me it is neither sufficient nor necessary. So my argument is really against it's universality.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

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.

I think that @suncowiam has it in post #2.
More to the point, the article, in my opinion, is classic philosophy major over-thinking what is a simple (and in no way ever meant to be all encompassing) suggestion to the reader to “Hey. Be nice.”

A far as application to national governments, integrating traditions and religious backgrounds.
Dude. Chill. That’s why civilizations have laws.
You want to come in from the wilderness? Then you obey the laws, just like everyone else.

Perhaps the author should consider how this may not be as much of a reflection of the inadequacy of the Golden Rule as it is a reflection of the inadequacy of liberal democracy.

It’s far far better than the alternatives.....which generally take the form of “You want to come in from the wilderness? Then you obey whatever whims pop into the head(s) of that guy (in a dictatorship), or those guys (in an oligarchy or theocracy).”

 

[Quintessence]

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.

 

[ACEofALLaces]

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.

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."

The Golden Rule as I see it, is about as "counterfeit" and it can be.

 

[Nakosis]

I think that @suncowiam has it in post #2.
More to the point, the article, in my opinion, is classic philosophy major over-thinking what is a simple (and in no way ever meant to be all encompassing) suggestion to the reader to “Hey. Be nice.”

A far as application to national governments, integrating traditions and religious backgrounds.
Dude. Chill. That’s why civilizations have laws.
You want to come in from the wilderness? Then you obey the laws, just like everyone else.
It’s far far better than the alternatives.....which generally take the form of “You want to come in from the wilderness? Then you obey whatever whims pop into the head(s) of that guy (in a dictatorship), or those guys (in an oligarchy or theocracy).”

However it doesn't really say be nice does it. Don't you find it a bit interesting that you need to rephrase it? "Be nice", great, it works for you. Pick whatever moral compass that you feel comfortable with, but it's not the golden rule.

 

[Nakosis]

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.

Reciprocity, looking it up it say to act in mutual benefit. Sure, as long as we each decide to work towards our mutual individual benefit it hard to argue there's a problem there. You get what benefits you and I get what benefits me. May not benefit someone else who's not part of the arrangement but too bad.

 

[suncowiam]

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.

The golden rule is sufficient to suggest the ethics of an individual. It is not sufficient to suggest the ethics of a society.

It's where you would draw a circle. My ethics and morals are different than yours. The golden rule suggests a simple test to ensure I'm bounded to my own ethics and morals. It's simple and it works. Of course, it's a unioned approach between societal laws and the golden rule. Laws usually supercedes what the golden rule would allow, but if there are no laws, then simply follow the golden rule.

 

[Nakosis]

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."

The Golden Rule as I see it, is about as "counterfeit" and it can be.

I guess my point is it's a false idea that the golden rule could lead to some form of universal morality.

Maybe that's a strawman, maybe it's not supposed to. Maybe it is just a religious idea with limited application.

@Daemon Sophic said be nice, so I'd suppose that would likely rule out smacking someone upside the head with a 2x4.

 

[Daemon Sophic]

However it doesn't really say be nice does it. Don't you find it a bit interesting that you need to rephrase it? "Be nice", great, it works for you. Pick whatever moral compass that you feel comfortable with, but it's not the golden rule.

Nah. Again, like the author, you’re over-thinking it.
“Do unto others as you would have done unto you.”. - Where in that is “Strike first! Strike hard! No mercy!”?
It’s really simple. Just take a deep breath.
- You’re walking in a crowd. Do you want a stranger to gut you with a large rusty knife? No? Then don’t stab random people.

- Your little girl has anemia and needs a transfusion. Aren’t you thankful that good people donated blood? It would be good for you to donate too.

- You lose you job and burn through your savings, selling your home along the way. Do you want people who thought ahead and built shelters and food kitchens for the needy? Or do you want to people to spit on your little girl and yourself while you live in a cardboard box until you can find a new job? Based on that and consider how you’re going to treat the next homeless person you see.


Bottom line. Be nice.
Simple right? No multi-page, intercultural run-down by some guy who theoretically got a “higher education” in analyzing human societal constructs necessary. Just be as nice to others as you would like them to be to you.

Now step away from your keyboard, have some herbal tea, and go to bed. Good night.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

In some cases, inequity is necessary for society to function.

Not intending to start a debate about this, but to me this is a fundamental moral assumption that needs to be considered. What kind of inequity might be necessary, and why? Would everyone agree to this or that particular interpretation? Just to think about....

As for the statement:

The individual on occasion has to sacrifice for the greater good.

I think it would be easy enough to bring self-sacrifice into the equation...sacrifice yourself for the greater good of society when you would expect others to do so, too, for example...

 

[Nakosis]

The golden rule is sufficient to suggest the ethics of an individual. It is not sufficient to suggest the ethics of a society.

It's where you would draw a circle. My ethics and morals are different than yours. The golden rule suggests a simple test to ensure I'm bounded to my own ethics and morals. It's simple and it works. Of course, it's a unioned approach between societal laws and the golden rule. Laws usually supercedes what the golden rule would allow, but if there are no laws, then simply follow the golden rule.

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.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

In my mind the Golden Rule says as much as "let's decide together what is fair and live according to that rule".

I take a very different viewpoint on that. I have no interest in living my life according to some "rule" that I've agreed on with my neighbours. My neighbours are different people than I am, with different desires, interests, concerns, lifestyles.

In my view, which is essentially classical liberalism, the only rule is that everyone ought to be at liberty to live their life according to their own lights, with the simple proviso that they do not harm others while doing so. Notice, by the way, that does NOT imply that anyone must necessarily help those in need, although I think for the most part people want to, and also that I think that, if we can we ought to.

I don't mind living in a world in which most people want to marry the opposite sex, have children, and so on. I just don't want them to tell me that I have to do that, or that I cannot marry the partner of my choice, without even any intention of having children. What sorts of rules do you think can be formulated to make "what is fair" for everybody?

 

[Nakosis]

Not intending to start a debate about this, but to me this is a fundamental moral assumption that needs to be considered. What kind of inequity might be necessary, and why? Would everyone agree to this or that particular interpretation? Just to think about....

Sometimes one has to sacrifice for their spouse, family, friends, country etc... Something there is no reciprocity for. In marriage it's sometimes necessary for the relationship to work out.

As for the statement:

I think it would be easy enough to bring self-sacrifice into the equation...sacrifice yourself for the greater good of society when you would expect others to do so, too, for example...

Personally I've no expectation of others. They do what they feel is best for them to do. IOW, I'll do what I see is right without placing any obligation on others. What others choose to do, or may do doesn't affect my view of what is right for me to do.

 

[Nakosis]

Nah. Again, like the author, you’re over-thinking it.
“Do unto others as you would have done unto you.”. - Where in that is “Strike first! Strike hard! No mercy!”?
It’s really simple. Just take a deep breath.
- You’re walking in a crowd. Do you want a stranger to gut you with a large rusty knife? No? Then don’t stab random people.

- Your little girl has anemia and needs a transfusion. Aren’t you thankful that good people donated blood? It would be good for you to donate too.

- You lose you job and burn through your savings, selling your home along the way. Do you want people who thought ahead and built shelters and food kitchens for the needy? Or do you want to people to spit on your little girl and yourself while you live in a cardboard box until you can find a new job? Based on that and consider how you’re going to treat the next homeless person you see.


Bottom line. Be nice.
Simple right. No multi-page, intercultural run-down by some guy who theoretically got a “higher education” in analyzing human societal constructs necessary. Just be as nice to others as you would like them to be to you.

Now step away from your keyboard, have some herbal tea, and go to bed. Good night.

I'm not stressing, it's just a discussing. To me this is more relaxing than herbal tea.

 

[Nakosis]

Perhaps the author should consider how this may not be as much of a reflection of the inadequacy of the Golden Rule as it is a reflection of the inadequacy of liberal democracy.

Ok, that's possible, but this it was more a platform for me to disagree with the concept of the golden rule. And, I thought it interesting that they broke it down to show a distinct difference between the two versions of the golden rule to show the concept is not even really universal amongst religion.

 

[Komori]

It’s far far better than the alternatives.....which generally take the form of “You want to come in from the wilderness? Then you obey whatever whims pop into the head(s) of that guy (in a dictatorship), or those guys (in an oligarchy or theocracy).”

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.