The Updated Golden Rule

[dybmh]

In a recent thread the golden rule, 'do to others as you would have them do to you' was shown to be inadaquate. The rule as stated above implies that other people share your own priorities and values.

Would the following updated golden rule have less potential for conflict?

Don't do to others what they hate.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Tobit 4:15

 

[epronovost]

Would the following updated golden rule have less potential for conflict?

Don't do to others what they hate.

That's Confucius formulation of the golden rule and I would say it's indeed superior for its potential to reduce harm.

 

[SalixIncendium]

In a recent thread the golden rule, 'do to others as you would have them do to you' was shown to be inadaquate. The rule as stated above implies that other people share your own priorities and values.

Would the following updated golden rule have less potential for conflict?

Don't do to others what they hate.

I always favored reciprocity through causality. No need for any golden rule there. Any action you take is reflected back upon you.

 

[dybmh]

I always favored reciprocity through causality. No need for any golden rule there. Any action you take is reflected back upon you.

This still seems to have the same problem as the original golden rule. Your values of what's welcome are imposed on me.

If I'm a hugger, should I hug people because I'd like the hug in return? What if the other person doesn't want one?

 

[SalixIncendium]

This still seems to have the same problem as the original golden rule. Your values of what's welcome are imposed on me.

Not at all. That's the beauty of it. My values have nothing to do with you. What you do comes back to you. Not to anyone else.

If I'm a hugger, should I hug people because I'd like the hug in return? What if the other person doesn't want one?

I don't want one. Stay away from me.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Don't do to others what they hate

Impossible. And still dependent upon value assumptions. Such as, some people hate that gay people are out of the closet amd don't keep it entirely and completely to themselves. Prohibiting discrimination and doing away with racial segregation forced many white people to deal with something they hated. But the poor treatment and segregation was hated by black people.
Amd, indeed there will be many conflicts of interest if we try to avoid doing something another will hate. It's unavoidable at times, even.
The best we can do, under normal circumstances, is to try to understand the views of others and try our hardest to not cause harm to them.

 

[dybmh]

That's Confucius formulation of the golden rule and I would say it's indeed superior for its potential to reduce harm.

Can you find a quote? What I found on wikipedia is the exact same as the commonly known golden rule.

Zi gong (a disciple of Confucius) asked: "Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?"
The Master replied: "How about 'shu' [reciprocity]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?"

Golden Rule - Wikipedia.​

 

[JustGeorge]

In a recent thread the golden rule, 'do to others as you would have them do to you' was shown to be inadaquate. The rule as stated above implies that other people share your own priorities and values.

Would the following updated golden rule have less potential for conflict?

Don't do to others what they hate.

It would be complicated. Sometimes we have to do to someone what they hate, in order to better serve them. It might be forcing a child to take medicine, or having a difficult conversation with a friend that perhaps they don't want to have(but need to).

I say just try not to be a jerk. Sometimes a person may interpret your actions wrong, but if your intents were good, you can at least rest easy you did your best in the situation.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

In a recent thread the golden rule, 'do to others as you would have them do to you' was shown to be inadaquate. The rule as stated above implies that other people share your own priorities and values.

I guess a problem might be that it allows you to 'game' them, right? If you consider life to be a game board, as many might in a capitalistic society, then you consider it all fair game, you just want to be the winning piece

Would the following updated golden rule have less potential for conflict?

Don't do to others what they hate.

How do you know what they hate?

 

[dybmh]

Not at all. That's the beauty of it. My values have nothing to do with you. What you do comes back to you. Not to anyone else.

OK. So if I hug you, and you don't want one, then I'm punished for it... I get it.

Is this punishment instantanteous and/or obvious?

 

[dybmh]

It would be complicated. Sometimes we have to do to someone what they hate, in order to better serve them. It might be forcing a child to take medicine, or having a difficult conversation with a friend that perhaps they don't want to have(but need to).

I say just try not to be a jerk. Sometimes a person may interpret your actions wrong, but if your intents were good, you can at least rest easy you did your best in the situation.

Maybe you're right in some situations. But as a general rule, do you think the updated version is better or worse than the original?

 

[amorphous_constellation]

Tobit 4:15

it seems to be saying that you should be realistic with other people, and not butter them up, I guess

 

[SalixIncendium]

OK. So if I hug you, and you don't want one, then I'm punished for it... I get it.

Is this punishment instantanteous and/or obvious?

I don't think there's any punishment. Perhaps it would help to step away from the view that any action another doesn't appreciate results in punishment.

Perhaps if you project something another dislikes, something you dislike may be projected unto you.

 

[VoidCat]

I like the medical ethic idea of First do no harm. Obviously a nurse would have to do things like use needles and a doctor may have to cut someone up but all in all the goal is to do as little harm as possible. This could also be applied outside the medical field. Try your best to cause as little harm as possible. Even if it does cause some hurt.

 

[epronovost]

Can you find a quote? What I found on wikipedia is the exact same as the commonly known golden rule.

Zi gong (a disciple of Confucius) asked: "Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?"
The Master replied: "How about 'shu' [reciprocity]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?"

Golden Rule - Wikipedia.​

That's precisely what you said in your OP, don't do to others what you hate, only worded slightly differently. The idea is not to act upon others.

 

[icehorse]

In a recent thread the golden rule, 'do to others as you would have them do to you' was shown to be inadaquate. The rule as stated above implies that other people share your own priorities and values.

Would the following updated golden rule have less potential for conflict?

Don't do to others what they hate.

There's more to this than meets the eye! Cool !

It seems to me that - apart from those pesky relativists - we could construct a huge Venn diagram of various belief systems, and determine a sort of "universally held set of core values". Then we could say something like:

"Don't act in opposition to universal core values"

??

maybe?

 

[dybmh]

That's precisely what you said in your OP, don't do to others what you hate, only worded slightly differently.

Don't do to others what they hate.

The idea is not to act upon others.

I'm not reading it that way. The Confucius version is: "never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?"

 

[McBell]

In a recent thread the golden rule, 'do to others as you would have them do to you' was shown to be inadaquate. The rule as stated above implies that other people share your own priorities and values.

Would the following updated golden rule have less potential for conflict?

Don't do to others what they hate.

Do unto others what they would want done to them

 

[dybmh]

if you project something another dislikes, something you dislike may be projected unto you.

If something "may" happen, is that causation?

( Sorry if I'm reading your reply too literally. )