An objection to the Golden Rule

[mattfara50]

I'm not sure whether I'm within my rights to say this, but perhaps I am given that I'm the OP: Please don't insult each other. It's a waste of time generally and really has no place on a philosophy forum.

[CIN]

I'm not going to play your silly game...
Your inability to see the vast distinctions are reflections of your own limitations and emotional needs, not rational logic, or that which is being presented.

And I, for my part, am not going to exchange insults with you. That is no way to do philosophy, or indeed conduct oneself as a human being.

Have a nice day.

[CIN]

I used to be a nurse working in a cancer hospital. Since I don't have cancer myself, I don't want to be injected with strong chemotherapy drugs. Following your new golden rule ("Do NOT do to others what you don't want done to you!"), I refused to inject any of the patients with these drugs, on the grounds that I don't want to be injected with them myself.

I have lost my job, and my prosecution for gross medical negligence comes up in court next week.

Over to you.

I hope that you claiming to be a nurse was hyperbole...

In case anyone is seriously worried, I was, of course, merely roleplaying in order to make a point. I have never been a nurse; before I retired, I was an office worker. My example was probably suggested to me because of my experience in looking after my wife, who has had cancer twice and also has a small brain tumour (thankfully inactive). I've noticed that one or two people in this forum can get very worried by philosophical ideas (quite unnecessarily, in my opinion - philosophy really isn't that kind of game, it's all too speculative to be taken that seriously). But apologies if anyone was really disturbed by what I wrote.

[Karpel Tunnel]

The correct translation of the 'Golden Rule' is as follows;
"Do NOT do to others what you don't want done to you!

So if I am allergic to oysters, and I have guests who love oysters and are not allergic to them, I should not serve them oysters simply because I am allergic?

No, you can always take into account the differences between you and others. You don't want things given to you that would harm you. Oysters harm you, but this does not mean you get to give peanuts to one of your friends since you are not allergic to peanuts, just oysters. You understand,even more than others, via your own allergy, what that would be like for you. It is not about the exact specifics of the actions, but the consequences.

Just as with the positive version of the golden rule.

Yes, if I am wakling down the street I do not want someone to tackles me and roll me around on the ground. At least, nearly always. However if I see a man on fire, I am, in Golden Rule terms, allowed to do this, to put the fire out.

[Karpel Tunnel]

The Golden Rule and also Nameless' negative version
are not
action plans. They are not to save you thinking about the specific acts you must and must not perform.
You still need to figure out the specifics IN CONTEXT.
We are not all the same.
Contexts are not all the same.
You still have to think and intuit.
It's the attitude you base your choices on, not a short cut to deciding the specifics of the attitudes.

[CIN]

The Golden Rule and also Nameless' negative version
are not
action plans. They are not to save you thinking about the specific acts you must and must not perform.
You still need to figure out the specifics IN CONTEXT.
We are not all the same.
Contexts are not all the same.
You still have to think and intuit.
It's the attitude you base your choices on, not a short cut to deciding the specifics of the attitudes.

I entirely agree. But what that suggests to me is that the usual formulation of the Golden Rule is so inexact as to be positively misleading. 'Do as you would be done by' is expressed in terms of actions, not attitudes, and this is the main way in which it seems to me to be deficient. We would be better served by a formulation such as 'Give other people's best interests the same importance you would give your own'.

Even then, it can only be a rule of thumb. What about people who have committed serious crimes? Are we to treat their best interests as being as important as everyone else's? You could argue that it is in their best interests to be imprisoned or whatever, but this ignores most people's intuition that criminals don't deserve the same degree of consideration as those who have not committed crimes.

Perhaps the best we can do is something like 'Other things being equal, give other people's best interests at least the same consideration you would give your own'. Not very concise, I'm afraid.

[Belindi]

CIN's thought experiment:

I used to be a nurse working in a cancer hospital. Since I don't have cancer myself, I don't want to be injected with strong chemotherapy drugs. Following your new golden rule ("Do NOT do to others what you don't want done to you!"), I refused to inject any of the patients with these drugs, on the grounds that I don't want to be injected with them myself.

I have lost my job, and my prosecution for gross medical negligence comes up in court next week.

Medical ethics are established in laws, and grey areas are subject to legal process. This apart, a professional medical ethicist looking to new and ethically problematic medical situations will bring reason and compassion to the table.

The Golden Rule is imprecise but it is reasonable as far as it goes and it is compassionate in intention.

[David Cooper]

The Golden Rule can be adapted into many forms which attempt to debug it. "Never do to anyone anything they don't want done to them" gets around the problem of different likes and dislikes for different people, but even then there's a problem with people not always knowing what's best for them, and you don't want to be banned from punishing criminals either.

The Golden Rule is close to the truth, but not quite there, and attempts to tinker with its wording soon destroy its simplicity. A better approach (possibly the best one) to morality is to imagine that you are all the participants in a scenario (meaning that you'll have to live all their lives in turn) and to work out how they should behave so that you'll have the best overall time. Where a small amount of happiness for one person depends on causing a greater amount of unhappiness for another person, that would be a bad decision from which you would automatically lose out. This method appears to be compatible with utilitarianism. I think it's the subconscious way that most of us judge morality, and also that it inspired the Golden Rule which was an attempt to express the idea concisely.

[Namelesss]

I'm not going to play your silly game...
Your inability to see the vast distinctions are reflections of your own limitations and emotional needs, not rational logic, or that which is being presented.

And I, for my part, am not going to exchange insults with you. That is no way to do philosophy, or indeed conduct oneself as a human being.

Have a nice day.

I see (nor intended) no insult.
I posted a valid, rational observation!
Any perceived criticism sends you running?
That seems far from anything considered philosophical discourse, to me.

(Have a 'nice day' to you, too! But if you want a 'nice day', philosophers are no one to hang with; "Philosophers are mind sharks!")

[Namelesss]

... Nameless' negative version...

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

[Belindi]

The Golden Rule can be adapted into many forms which attempt to debug it. "Never do to anyone anything they don't want done to them" gets around the problem of different likes and dislikes for different people, but even then there's a problem with people not always knowing what's best for them, and you don't want to be banned from punishing criminals either.

The Golden Rule is close to the truth, but not quite there, and attempts to tinker with its wording soon destroy its simplicity. A better approach (possibly the best one) to morality is to imagine that you are all the participants in a scenario (meaning that you'll have to live all their lives in turn) and to work out how they should behave so that you'll have the best overall time. Where a small amount of happiness for one person depends on causing a greater amount of unhappiness for another person, that would be a bad decision from which you would automatically lose out. This method appears to be compatible with utilitarianism. I think it's the subconscious way that most of us judge morality, and also that it inspired the Golden Rule which was an attempt to express the idea concisely.

That good method is compatible with utilitarianism because utilitarianism is the political manifestation of the subconscious urge to fairness.

[CIN]

And I, for my part, am not going to exchange insults with you. That is no way to do philosophy, or indeed conduct oneself as a human being.

Have a nice day.

I see (nor intended) no insult.
I posted a valid, rational observation!
Any perceived criticism sends you running?
That seems far from anything considered philosophical discourse, to me.

(Have a 'nice day' to you, too! But if you want a 'nice day', philosophers are no one to hang with; "Philosophers are mind sharks!")

Isn't the reason why you have falsely denied launching an ad hominem attack against me precisely so that you can have a nice day?

[LuckyR]

The GR is not a menu from which to select (I like chocolate cake, does he like chocolate cake, or perhaps angel food? Hhmmm...) rather a guide to motivation. I would like to eat my preferred food ingredients prepared as well as the preparer can make them. I will give my dinner guests the same courtesy, regardless if they like food A or food B and my preferences don't even enter into the equation.

[mattfara50]

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?

[Namelesss]

I see (nor intended) no insult.
I posted a valid, rational observation!
Any perceived criticism sends you running?
That seems far from anything considered philosophical discourse, to me.

(Have a 'nice day' to you, too! But if you want a 'nice day', philosophers are no one to hang with; "Philosophers are mind sharks!")

Isn't the reason why you have falsely denied launching an ad hominem attack against me precisely so that you can have a nice day?

This is precisely the 'games', the emo games, that I refuse to waste my time playing with you. If you can have a real focused discussion, on the topic (rather than getting your panties all a'twist), then have at it.
If you feel capable of pointing out, exactly, what you consider an ad-hom fallacy that I offered, then do it!!
If you can stay on topic, then do that, too.
(This is a philosophy site, not a juvenile therapy session for delicate egos.)