The Updated Golden Rule

[74x12]

If you do something that isn't right but that you would want done to you then you are in the right per the golden rule, because you'd want it done to you. That's not abusing it, that is working well within it.

It's the laws of man that are rigid, imperfect. The law of Medes and Persians that can't be altered. (Daniel 6:8) But what Jesus said is the word of wisdom. Spirit and life. (John 6:63)

Because the letter kills, but the Spirit gives life. (2 Corinthians 3:6)

And what that means by the "letter" kills is it means the written word. So there is a higher law than anything ever written down on paper which is the law of liberty.

According to the book of wisdom; the spirit of wisdom has less viscosity than any liquid. My point is that it shouldn't be restricted by legalese. It must be allowed to flow unrestricted or it loses itself. It must have a special conduit for it to retain it's purity and beauty. Otherwise it loses it's force. Because it should flow through anything and nothing can hold it or else it isn't really wisdom. So God uses proverbs and wise sayings to express it rather than rigid laws.

Book of Wisdom chapter 7:24-29
For wisdom is more moving than any motion: she passeth and goeth through all things by reason of her pureness.
For she is the breath of the power of God, and a pure influence flowing from the glory of the Almighty: therefore can no defiled thing fall into her.
For she is the brightness of the everlasting light, the unspotted mirror of the power of God, and the image of his goodness.
And being but one, she can do all things: and remaining in herself, she maketh all things new: and in all ages entering into holy souls, she maketh them friends of God, and prophets.
For God loveth none but him that dwelleth with wisdom.
For she is more beautiful than the sun, and above all the order of stars: being compared with the light, she is found before it.​

That's why the book of Proverbs stresses the need for understanding.
Proverbs 1:2
Proverbs 1:6
Proverbs 4:5
etc.

 

[dybmh]

Not everyone hates hugs.
I do.
Other people can hug all they want.
If I don't know you and am not very close to you, do not hug me.

And that's why I, as a hugger, shouldn't hug you, if I know you hate it.

Don't do to others what they hate.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

And that's why I, as a hugger, shouldn't hug you, if I know you hate it.

Don't do to others what they hate.

But, of you're not the type to ask because you assume everyone likes them, you won't know until I'm leaping backwards like a cat.
We have to begin first with considering other people. As imperfect and ultimately futile as that effort is to perfect, what "I" want or don't want is very open for abuse. If for no other reason it puts yourself first. And while that it isn't necessarily or inherently anti-social, it isn't pro-social. We have to try to understand the perspective of others first. And admit, often times, we don't know.
This leads us to the conclusion we should ask before hugging, because, regardless whether or not we personally love it or hate it, it can potentially make others uncomfortable.

 

[Heyo]

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.

Also known as the Platinum Rule.

There are different formulation to the Golden Rule (sometime referred to by other precious metal names) as the Silver Rule:

Don't do to others what you don't want done to you.

the Golden Rule:

Do onto others as you want done to you.

the Platinum Rule:

Don't do to others what they don't want done to them.

and positive formulation of the Platinum Rule (I don't know if this has a metal attributed to it):

Do to others as they want done to them.

I like Kant's Categorical Imperative best:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

All these formulation have slight flaws and one can invent scenarios where they lead to unfavourable outcomes. Maybe we should stick to the most basic rule:

Don't be a dick.

 

[Samael_Khan]

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.

But then, what of a child hates eating healthy food? Should the parent only feed them junk, knowing that it will be to their detriment?

Can a proper golden rule even be summed up only in one sentence?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Also known as the Platinum Rule.

There are different formulation to the Golden Rule (sometime referred to by other precious metal names) as the Silver Rule:

Don't do to others what you don't want done to you.

the Golden Rule:

Do onto others as you want done to you.

the Platinum Rule:

Don't do to others what they don't want done to them.

and positive formulation of the Platinum Rule (I don't know if this has a metal attributed to it):

Do to others as they want done to them.

I like Kant's Categorical Imperative best:

Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law.

All these formulation have slight flaws and one can invent scenarios where they lead to unfavourable outcomes. Maybe we should stick to the most basic rule:

Don't be a dick.

I'm glad someone mentioned Kant at last - as in, don't propose rules that one might not follow oneself or not want to see as general rules for all others.

 

[ChristineM]

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 am not religious but do consider "do unto others what they would do unto you... only do it first " to be an important guide

 

[stvdv]

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.

"Don't do to others what they hate"

IMO:

Difficult to say if it would have less potential for conflict, so I just give one conflict

Not Golden (IF Golden means "idiot proof" or if it means "always applicable")

For example: IF a doctor needs to cut you open (for your own good), BUT you hate it to be cut open

 

[SalixIncendium]

If something "may" happen, is that causation?

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

I used the word 'may' not to say something will happen or it won't. I used it as that specific result was a possibility, or it could be something entirely different. But yes, that is causality.

Going back and rereading, I see I didn't address your question about whether it's instantaneous or obvious. Apologies for that.

It may or may not be. The consequence could be immediate, like playing carelessly with a hammer, dropping it on your foot, and feeling pain, or it could be delayed and obscure, such as if one abuses their children, one could be an abused child in a subsequent lifetime.

 

[Sunstone]

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.

That's a better rule, in my opinion, so far as such things go.

It's something Confucius use to say way back before he changed his name from a Chinese to a Latin name in order to graciously accommodate a request that the Jesuits had politely made. They also asked permission to translate one of his Chinese terms as "God", and he was good with that too.

Then the Jesuits went a step further and asked to designate his rule as "The Silver Rule", so that everyone would understand they themselves had the good fortune to have a better rule than his.

Confucius, who had always been passionate about the 'rectification of names' problem in Chinese philosophy, readily consented even to that. After all, how could someone passionate about sticking to the right name for each thing which could be named in the first place, refuse to allow his rule to be given the right name?

Or so the story is told.

At least, now it's told that way.

 

[Erebus]

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.

Any rule of this sort is going to run into issues simply because of the ambiguities and Catch-22s life tends to throw our way. "Do to others as you would have them do to you," has the problem you outlined in that what I like isn't necessarily what others like.

"Don't do to others what they hate," stumbles when it comes to preventing harm. A child might hate going to the dentist even if going would prevent future problems for them.

As a very general guideline for day to day living though, I would say "Don't do to others what they hate" is the better of those two rules. So long as you're a bit flexible and understand that it isn't going to apply to every situation, you could do a lot worse.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Not everyone hates hugs.
I do.
Other people can hug all they want.
If I don't know you and am not very close to you, do not hug me.

The argument is sophomoric. If you honestly believe you have somehow repudiated the verse then so be it.

 

[SalixIncendium]

The argument is sophomoric. If you honestly believe you have somehow repudiated the verse then so be it.

Is it, though? How can one know what another hates? Hugs are a perfect example. I would guess that the majority of people like being hugged. So one might assume that someone likes to be hugged because they do.

Perhaps the new suggested golden rule should be "Don't do to others that we know they hate, and if we don't know whether or not they might hate it, ask."

 

[Fool]

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.

we hold other people responsible to the law; even when they don't like it.

why do you think there are incarcerated people?


a law cannot be discriminatory and be acceptable when referring to a need vs some want.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Is it, though? How can one know what another hates? Hugs are a perfect example. ...

Good grief. Did I mention sophomoric?

@Shadow Wolf doesn't like hugs. It is true that, not knowing this, I might have erred and hugged her. It is also irrelevant.

But, once informed, I should respect that information if only because I would hate to have my personal taboos violated. Is this truly so hard to understand?

 

[SalixIncendium]

Good grief. Did I mention sophomoric?

Yes, you did. Quite condescendingly, I might add.

@Shadow Wolf doesn't like hugs. It is true that, not knowing this, I might have erred and hugged her. It is also irrelevant.

But, once informed, I should respect that information if only because I would hate to have my personal taboos violated. Is this truly so hard to understand?

.Just because you miss the point of an argument doesn't render it sophomoric.

How does one become informed about what another hates? Do they wait until they make an error and then correct it? Do they ask?

The updated golden rule and your Tobit verse miss this important tidbit. At least the original golden rule ensured one was better informed, as one already knows how they would like to be treated.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

How does one become informed about what another hates? Do they wait until they make an error and then correct it?

Sometimes.

Do they ask?

Sometimes.

At least the original golden rule [*] ensured one was better informed, as one already knows how they would like to be treated.

How so? How do I know if "what iI would have others do unto me" is acceptable to you? Do I wait until I make an error and then correct it? Do I ask?

* Original?

 

[Quintessence]

Without being a mind reader, how would one know what someone hates?

Never been a fan of the "golden rule" and its iterations. Too simplistic. Built my own code. There's no expectation that others follow it. That's what I recommend everyone do. With a guide, build your own code. Hold to it. Be who you are, be true to yourself. If you have any relationships at all - and you will, always - conflict and cooperation are both inevitable. The code should be providing tools to navigate that.

 

[SalixIncendium]

How so? How do I know if "what iI would have others do unto me" is acceptable to you? Do I wait until I make an error and then correct it? Do I ask?

I ask. Rarely will I just assume what another finds to be acceptable.

* Original?

Unfortunate choice of words. I should have said "generally accepted" or "better known." But clearly you knew what I meant.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

I ask. Rarely will I just assume what another finds to be acceptable.

As do I.

Unfortunate choice of words. I should have said "generally accepted" or "better known." But clearly you knew what I meant.

Perhaps a sophomoric response on my part?