An objection to the Golden Rule

[nw123]

Being open-minded and listening to someone does not necessarily mean adopting their faith, ideals, morals, etc.... It means putting yourself in the shoes of others, empathizing with their reasons behind what they believe, and in some, if not the majority, disagreeing with those views. In this situation, the GR applies in the treatment of those with opposing views. Even early in the chapter, Matthew 7, it talks about not judging others because that is how you will be judged.

This brings about my next point: context. The context of the verse in the Bible is imperative. The chapter is talking about being generous to those in need and looking inwardly before casting judgement on others. It is in this context, if arguing against the Christian view/use of it, that one should analyze it. It would not be wise for Christians use it for every situation in life, but rather use it in the context of doing good or for moral guidance (such as generosity and not casting judgement).

So in agreement, it is not sufficient to be the ultimate moral guidance and in Biblical context, it does not support that view either. I agree that if it were, it would great an abundance of moral ambiguity and unhealthy control.

[Karpel Tunnel]

... Nameless' negative version...

Don't blame me, I merely offered the correct, rational, translation. *__-

No blame, you expressed it in terms of what not to do. 'Not' being negative, literally, not pejoratively.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Nameless, he already pointed out where you went ad hom but here it is again....
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 94#p310694
It's not an ad hom fallacy but it is ad hom since it is to the man and it is an insult as he first labeled it. In my own experience you call these things observations, but even if generously categorized that way, it offers no argument. And tends to distract from discussion of issues.

[Karpel Tunnel]

As far as which is the right version of the rule. It is true that Jewish and earlier versions of this general idea were in the negative. However the label Golden Rule is Anglican in origin, and it was referring to Jesus' wording in the gospels, which is in the positive. (and just to be clear, again, positive and negative are here not value judgments, but have to do whether the focus is on things NOT to be done or things that should be done.)

the Golden rule is a label for the positive version. Discussions of both versions might be interesting. Each can be abused if you do not take the context and differences between people into account. All the various versions of this idea are trying to get one to shift over to the perspective of the other person. It is not a complete guidebook to how to behave, but rather, I think, trying to get people past NOT taking into account the experiences and wishes of other people-

[Belindi]

How would the zealot escape opposing LGBT rights despite the GR? If they are truly convinced that they are helping the LGBT person by pushing against their "sinful" lifestyle, could the GR make it worse? Make it better?

The Golden Rule is combined with universality in its application. That's to say it applies to everybody regardless. The test of universality is John Rawls's veil of ignorance. As Jesus said "Who is my neighbour"(parable of the Good Samaritan).

'Sins' in the context of religious doctrines are the breaking of commands from a deity who personifies a moral system which values tradition over knowledge.

[Namelesss]

Don't blame me, I merely offered the correct, rational, translation. *__-

No blame, you expressed it in terms of what not to do. 'Not' being negative, literally, not pejoratively.

Whew! *__-

[Namelesss]

Nameless, he already pointed out where you went ad hom but here it is again....
https://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums ... 94#p310694
It's not an ad hom fallacy but it is ad hom since it is to the man and it is an insult as he first labeled it. In my own experience you call these things observations, but even if generously categorized that way, it offers no argument. And tends to distract from discussion of issues.

We'll have to agree to have different Perspectives.
As Knowledge is very 'personal' (we all have our unique experiences), to point out ignorance, in relation to the discussion, is reasonable, and might even help the 'ignorant' if the ego isn't too 'delicate'.
This is 'psychology which is a branch of philosophy.
Mere gainsaying something is NOT a philosophical refutation, illustrated by the (admittedly sarcastic) "as you mote it..." response.
So, moving on.

[ThomasHobbes]

"Do as you would be done by," the concise rephrasing of "Do unto others...," is one of history's great moral heuristics. It seems to have grown independently from several cultural flower beds and has survived to the present day. What bad could come of it? In the absence of careful, objective thought on a moral decision, I'd say "quite a bit." Here's why:

If I want treatment X for myself, I should treat others in kind.

I made a simple diagram of the argument. I try to show that the Golden Rule can justify the control of others.

Controlling another person is sometimes justified. Stopping a child from sprinting into traffic or persuading a friend not to make a purchase that would be financially detrimental are examples. The justification lies in the wisdom of the controller: inasmuch as a factual or moral truth can be derived from the circumstances at hand, one should control another such that the factual or moral truth is enacted.

I believe that even very complex situations can be, at least in principle, analyzed as such. Unfortunately, many people tend not to challenge their own assumptions and moral beliefs. Many people do tend, on the other hand, to impute motives in their opposition that are inaccurate. Taken together, these tendencies render such an analysis impossible.

Here is a common example: I see that some evangelical Christians are violently opposed to LGBT equality. I then conclude that evangelical Christians are violent and hateful, committing the fallacy of composition. Communication between myself and that community at large ceases, since giving their ideas airtime seems counterproductive to me. This drives me even further into my own set of beliefs about LGBT - total equality for these people is unimpeachable, has no potential down sides, and I may even react negatively to people advancing non-violent, well-reasoned counterarguments, whether they are evangelicals or not. I thus cease to communicate rationally on this subject with others (and even with myself).

Then take the evangelical Christian: Perhaps she genuinely believes that same sex marriage is sinful, and she appreciates times in the past when others have pushed her from an unwitting sin. Thus she feels justified, with the Golden Rule in her front pocket, vying against people and legislation that favor LGBT marriage equality. Unfortunately, her faith in the divine authorship of the Bible is almost certainly unwarranted.

The Golden Rule is moral fast food.

So you are saying that as long as I believe that white, blond and blue eyed people are the future of the planet, the Golden Rule would imply that everyone who is not white, blond and blue eyed has the no right to live, and that rule applies goldenly to any person on the planet?
In the same way that as a right wing christian I would deny myself LGBT rights equally with all others?

[mattfara50]

So you are saying that as long as I believe that white, blond and blue eyed people are the future of the planet, the Golden Rule would imply that everyone who is not white, blond and blue eyed has the no right to live, and that rule applies goldenly to any person on the planet?
In the same way that as a right wing christian I would deny myself LGBT rights equally with all others?

Yes to both questions. That's the problem I'm pointing to: the GR is too subjective to be useful. It does not check moral defects that spring from an individual or group which believes that it is doing something good from its own perspective. And since most people believe that their choices and beliefs are right (at least before they've honestly questioned their own beliefs and the opposing beliefs), the GR justifies most controlling behavior, such as the two examples you provide. Thank you for helping me think that through and state my case more clearly.

[mattfara50]

The Golden Rule is combined with universality in its application. That's to say it applies to everybody regardless. The test of universality is John Rawls's veil of ignorance. As Jesus said "Who is my neighbour"(parable of the Good Samaritan).

'Sins' in the context of religious doctrines are the breaking of commands from a deity who personifies a moral system which values tradition over knowledge.

Ok. Thank you for this addition.

Let me write out the thought process of the zealot applying the GR as if it were my own:

I believe that homosexual activity is inherently, universally sinful when performed by humans. I imagine a hypothetical: I am an LGBT person who desires homosexual activity. In that case, I would be less sinful if other people suppressed my urges. I am grateful for their help in protecting my immortal soul. Now that the hypothetical is finished, I feel justified, by the lights of the GR, to suppress LGBT interests. The veil of ignorance is no defense in this case, unless it presupposes some prior moral standard.

Moreover, merely labeling a religious doctrine a traditional moral system does nothing to show, objectively, that it is missing the moral mark. A moral system is not flawed by virtue of its being traditional (though the probability is much, much higher in my opinion).

[mattfara50]

So you are saying that as long as I believe that white, blond and blue eyed people are the future of the planet, the Golden Rule would imply that everyone who is not white, blond and blue eyed has the no right to live, and that rule applies goldenly to any person on the planet?

Actually, now that I've considered your examples more carefully, the one above hinting at Nazis is a more difficult case. In general, I think that the defect in the GR I'm elaborating requires the Oppressor to think that the Victim is victimizing themselves, and thus when the Oppressor stops them from victimizing themselves, the Oppressor is doing something good (in line with the GR).

So for your Nazi example, the Nazi would have to believe that the Victim is oppressing itself by merely existing, and the Nazi would have to wholeheartedly believe that suicide would be the best option were the Nazi a Victim.

So that's an interesting case you have for me. Thank you!

[ThomasHobbes]

So you are saying that as long as I believe that white, blond and blue eyed people are the future of the planet, the Golden Rule would imply that everyone who is not white, blond and blue eyed has the no right to live, and that rule applies goldenly to any person on the planet?

Actually, now that I've considered your examples more carefully, the one above hinting at Nazis is a more difficult case. In general, I think that the defect in the GR I'm elaborating requires the Oppressor to think that the Victim is victimizing themselves, and thus when the Oppressor stops them from victimizing themselves, the Oppressor is doing something good (in line with the GR).

So for your Nazi example, the Nazi would have to believe that the Victim is oppressing itself by merely existing, and the Nazi would have to wholeheartedly believe that suicide would be the best option were the Nazi a Victim.

So that's an interesting case you have for me. Thank you!

I think the two examples are effectively symmetrical, though consequently differential. That is why I juxtaposed them.
However - since the Nazi case is incoherent with the most basic reading of the GR, so is the LGBT example.
The fact is they are both incompatible with the GR since they both stand on generalised beliefs about the primacy of the characteristic of inherently divisive ideologies.
The GR is self referent. That means the subject is not qualified to apply any judgement upon others, lest they do the same.
So I do not think your objection is valid.

[mattfara50]

I think the two examples are effectively symmetrical, though consequently differential.

I'm not sure what you mean. Please clarify


....both incompatible with the GR since they both stand on generalised beliefs about the primacy of the characteristic of inherently divisive ideologies.

Please restate this in clearer verbiage.


....the subject is not qualified to apply any judgement upon others, lest they do the same.

I don't agree. Suppose that the Subject believes he has the moral high ground when judging the Other. In that case, the Subject has no reason to fear judgment. The Subject may even feel that being judged is good, assuming that the judge is using what the Subject considers valid criteria. This is because it helps the Subject see his own flaws and therefore correct them. Criticism can be constructive, especially if the recipient has a positive attitude toward the criticism. Thus, the GR can be used to justify judgment.

Lastly, do you think that disciplining children violates the GR? If not, then when a parent judges the behavior of a child and then attempts to shape the child's behavior, what criteria permit this kind of judgment? How does it differ from the Christian who, putatively motivated by love and compassion, acts in opposition to LGBT people?

[mattfara50]

Being open-minded and listening to someone does not necessarily mean adopting their faith, ideals, morals, etc.... It means putting yourself in the shoes of others, empathizing with their reasons behind what they believe, and in some, if not the majority, disagreeing with those views. In this situation, the GR applies in the treatment of those with opposing views. Even early in the chapter, Matthew 7, it talks about not judging others because that is how you will be judged.



This brings about my next point: context. The context of the verse in the Bible is imperative. The chapter is talking about being generous to those in need and looking inwardly before casting judgement on others. It is in this context, if arguing against the Christian view/use of it, that one should analyze it. It would not be wise for Christians use it for every situation in life, but rather use it in the context of doing good or for moral guidance (such as generosity and not casting judgement).

So in agreement, it is not sufficient to be the ultimate moral guidance and in Biblical context, it does not support that view either. I agree that if it were, it would great an abundance of moral ambiguity and unhealthy control.

Thanks for this interesting response. Please let me know of other contextual passages you suggest I read to better understand the Biblical rendition of the GR.

[ThomasHobbes]

I think the two examples are effectively symmetrical, though consequently differential.

I'm not sure what you mean. Please clarify


....both incompatible with the GR since they both stand on generalised beliefs about the primacy of the characteristic of inherently divisive ideologies.

Please restate this in clearer verbiage.


....the subject is not qualified to apply any judgement upon others, lest they do the same.

I don't agree. Suppose that the Subject believes he has the moral high ground when judging the Other.

You disagree, obviously.
What the subject believes about OTHER people is not relevant to the GR. That is the whole point.The GR could just as easily append 'judge not lest you be judged', and this is perfectly concomitant with the GR.