Posts by alexei954

99

Golden Rule: Pure Garbage?

by willmarite in

on another thread a poster made the comment that the golden rule was garbage.

she said it was arrogant and made assumptions.. i didn't want to derail that thread so i started another wondering if this is a common thought about this belief on this forum.

i guess i naively thought the value of doing to others as you want them to do to you was generally accepted as positive.. i understand people have different opinions of jesus as a person but i don't want to get into that here.

alexei954

I don't do ad hominem.

Others:

Enough seriousness.

In his paper "Variations on the Golden Rule" (downloadable here), Frank Harary lists a number of variations of the golden rule found throughout the world. Some cool ones are:

A. From a collection of African proverbs, published in 1962:

"When the bee comes to your house, let her have beer; you may want to visit the bee’s house someday."

B. 'The eminent prophet Rabbi Hillel was once asked to summarize the doctrine of Judaism while standing on one foot. Assuming the suggested position he replied,'

"What is hateful to you, avoid doing to others. The rest is commentary."

C. The shortest English version?:

"Tit for tat."

D. The sociopath's version:

"Do unto others what you would not have others do unto you"

E. The cynic's version:

"Do good unto others and they will do evil unto you."

F. No name/source (Sun-Tzu rule?)

" Do good unto others, and they will side with you against your enemy."

G. No name/source (Saddam Hussein rule?)
"Do evil unto others, and they will side with your enemy against you."

99

Golden Rule: Pure Garbage?

by willmarite in

on another thread a poster made the comment that the golden rule was garbage.

she said it was arrogant and made assumptions.. i didn't want to derail that thread so i started another wondering if this is a common thought about this belief on this forum.

i guess i naively thought the value of doing to others as you want them to do to you was generally accepted as positive.. i understand people have different opinions of jesus as a person but i don't want to get into that here.

alexei954

The ~~golden~~ diamond rule, at best, allows for asking that, but it doesn't say to do that. You are adding on to the ~~golden~~ diamond rule to make it work and no amount of pretending the ~~golden~~ diamond rule says something it doesn't will change that.

Look, just because you can't read the ~~golden~~ diamond rule and pretend it says things it doesn't or can't figure out how ~~people like their coffee~~ to ask yourself "would I like this to be done to me?" doesn't mean the rest of us are so [ad hominem deleted]

99

Golden Rule: Pure Garbage?

by willmarite in

on another thread a poster made the comment that the golden rule was garbage.

she said it was arrogant and made assumptions.. i didn't want to derail that thread so i started another wondering if this is a common thought about this belief on this forum.

i guess i naively thought the value of doing to others as you want them to do to you was generally accepted as positive.. i understand people have different opinions of jesus as a person but i don't want to get into that here.

alexei954

The diamond rule says to treat people based on what they want. Its biggest drawback is it gives no guidance whatsoever on how you are to determine what it is "they" want.

The misuse being ascribed to the golden rule is more often the use of the diamond rule. It is the diamond rule that gives zero guidance on how to determine how someone else "wants to be treated". With no guidance, one is free to to use whatever approach one wants in determining how other person/people "want to be treated."

99

Golden Rule: Pure Garbage?

by willmarite in

on another thread a poster made the comment that the golden rule was garbage.

she said it was arrogant and made assumptions.. i didn't want to derail that thread so i started another wondering if this is a common thought about this belief on this forum.

i guess i naively thought the value of doing to others as you want them to do to you was generally accepted as positive.. i understand people have different opinions of jesus as a person but i don't want to get into that here.

alexei954

What you're calling caveats are derived from the GR, specifically from asking oneself "Would I like it if this were done to me?". If it fails that test, then whatever action you're taking is not the Golden Rule.

The Golden Rule is a maxim, it does not attempt to spell out concrete actions. It provides a means of testing potential actions by placing yourself in the other persons shoes and asking "Would I like to be treated this way?"

In this sense, it's similar to "What would (Jesus/Buddha/Dad) do?" that others may use as an aid to help determine some moral question. No concrete action is spelled out, just a litmus test for actions one is considering or perhaps as a suggestive guiding question.

The Golden Rule isn't something you can cherry-pick, deciding what you will follow and what you won't. This isn't my caveat, definition, or interpretation: It derives from my following the Golden: "Would I like someone else to decide to follow the Golden Rule for some things but be inconsiderate towards me if they prefer?"

I my answer is "No." yet I skip such things as respect and empathy for the other person, I am not acting according to the Golden Rule. It's possible I may fail to consider it; the rule is no guarantee against genuine error, but if I am aware of it and skip it anyway, then I'm not treating the other person as I would like to be treated i.e. I'm no longer following the Golden Rule.

The Golden Rule does not attempt to place you over the other; it is specifically designed to counter that by asking you to place yourself in the shoes of the other person. ("Would I want this done to me?").

Maybe another way some have of looking at it would be more useful: "Would it matter to me which person I was in the interaction"? If you're treating the other person as well as you'd like to be treated, it should make no difference.

> You can't do to them as they'd like to have done if you don't know them

I should have clarified I was speaking of the Platinum rule. I don't think it's as helpful of a maxim because I think it's less intuitive to ask the question: "How would they like to be treated". It does not provide any reference to anything other than possible preconceived ideas inherent in oneself or one's culture. The Golden Rule references back to me and I can ask myself "Would I like to be treated like this?" I think the The Golden Rule is especially more helpful when trying to overcome cultural or personal bias.

As an example, say I lived in the south in the 1920's. Raised in that culture, I may not be aware of having any ingrained disrespect for "Negroes". I may honestly think I treat them well, especially compared to many others who treat them worse. If I ask the question "How would they like to be treated?" I primarily have my culture and tradition to consider as references to answer that question. Due to intimidation, I don't think asking someone would get me an honest answer. I'd probably continue to blindly conclude that I treat them pretty well. On the other hand, if I ask myself "Would I like to be treated like this?", I think it give me more insight. My reference is now to me, not society, the dominant culture or tradition. It would help make me aware of the implicit racism that I hold within me as part of the dominant culture.

99

Golden Rule: Pure Garbage?

by willmarite in

on another thread a poster made the comment that the golden rule was garbage.

she said it was arrogant and made assumptions.. i didn't want to derail that thread so i started another wondering if this is a common thought about this belief on this forum.

i guess i naively thought the value of doing to others as you want them to do to you was generally accepted as positive.. i understand people have different opinions of jesus as a person but i don't want to get into that here.

alexei954

I don't think they're skippable, Vivian. I'd start by asking would I like someone else to skip them for me? (the GR) The Golden Rule serves as a starting point when you know little or nothing about someone. You can't do to them as they'd like to have done if you don't know them, so you start with little knowledge and use the Golden Rule to guide your way forward.The caveats aren't caveats to the rule, they arise by asking "Would I like this done to me"? (the GR)

I'm not sure if you're kidding Splash, but if Gary Ridgway were following the Golden Rule, the first thing he'd have to think of is "Would I like to be brutally assaulted and killed"?

99

Golden Rule: Pure Garbage?

by willmarite in

on another thread a poster made the comment that the golden rule was garbage.

she said it was arrogant and made assumptions.. i didn't want to derail that thread so i started another wondering if this is a common thought about this belief on this forum.

i guess i naively thought the value of doing to others as you want them to do to you was generally accepted as positive.. i understand people have different opinions of jesus as a person but i don't want to get into that here.

alexei954

Not to start with, Vidiot. The GR would start with mutual respect,empathy and an and allowance for differences because you'd hope they'd take that into consideration when dealing with you. (the GR).

You can't just skip these general considerations and go leaping straight for the rope! :)

or to quote Monty Python:

"Why not start her off with a nice kiss? You don't have to go leaping straight for the clitoris like a bull at a gate. Give her a kiss, boy."

99

Golden Rule: Pure Garbage?

by willmarite in

on another thread a poster made the comment that the golden rule was garbage.

she said it was arrogant and made assumptions.. i didn't want to derail that thread so i started another wondering if this is a common thought about this belief on this forum.

i guess i naively thought the value of doing to others as you want them to do to you was generally accepted as positive.. i understand people have different opinions of jesus as a person but i don't want to get into that here.

alexei954

I think the Golden Rule is more of a big-picture starting point for morality and the other rules being discussed are ultimately subsumed within it. It's starting point is a general one of reciprocity in regards to respect and empathy.

Because I would like to be treated as an individual and not as just a member of some group or stereotype, I extend the same to others. (i.e. the Golden Rule)

Because I realize individuals and cultures are different from my own, hence expressions of empathy and respect may be different, I take that into consideration and hope they do the same (i.e. the Golden Rule).

Because mental problems, very young age or mental handicaps exist in all cultures, I would take that into account if I encountered it, and hope others do the same with me. (the Golden Rule).

Because people don't and can't know every person or culture without finding out about them, the Golden Rule is offered as place to start. It has the advantage of being recognized/practiced in some form in most cultures and religions. Once you know a person or people better, you can move into more specifics and treat people in ways they like because that's how you'd like to be treated, as individuals. (the GR again.)