The Golden Rule, revised

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
User avatar
Recoil
Posts: 63
Joined: July 10th, 2012, 8:18 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: US

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Recoil » July 10th, 2012, 11:30 pm

I feel this is a somewhat subjective rule, because you're assuming that everyone wants to be treated the same as you. Then again morality is subjective. But there are flaws in this concept, let's say a person that cuts themselves treats others how they want to be treated? I think the overall performance of the execution of the rule would be good though. I just don't see why people can't say "treat others nicely". Lol.

User avatar
chazwyman
Posts: 332
Joined: September 30th, 2011, 5:25 am

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by chazwyman » July 11th, 2012, 9:58 am

Recoil wrote:I feel this is a somewhat subjective rule, because you're assuming that everyone wants to be treated the same as you. Then again morality is subjective. But there are flaws in this concept, let's say a person that cuts themselves treats others how they want to be treated? I think the overall performance of the execution of the rule would be good though. I just don't see why people can't say "treat others nicely". Lol.
The consequence of a person who wants to be cut would be to allow other to be allowed to want to be cut, whether or not they wanted it - they would have the right to be cut. What is wrong with that? The golden rule would prevent someone achieving the right for another to cut them, it would only allow then the right.

You rule is less meaningful - if a person thinks being "nice" is to cut another to pieces, what then? If you apply that to the golden rule, then you would only allow a person who wants to be cut, to be cut should another want to cut them.

User avatar
Misty
Contributor
Posts: 5933
Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
Location: United States of America

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Misty » July 11th, 2012, 10:33 am

The Golden Rule is meant for people of sound mind and understanding. ' Do unto others as you would want done unto you' - implies if you want to be treated well - treat others well. Misapplying it's intent is actually what has been the discussion. People who are not of sound mind by (illness, intentional evil doers) cannot understand or practice the golden rule. Changing the golden rule to mean something different is not discussing the golden rule.
Things are not always as they appear; it's a matter of perception.

The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.

I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.

User avatar
Recoil
Posts: 63
Joined: July 10th, 2012, 8:18 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: US

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Recoil » July 16th, 2012, 1:58 am

chazwyman wrote: The consequence of a person who wants to be cut would be to allow other to be allowed to want to be cut, whether or not they wanted it - they would have the right to be cut. What is wrong with that? The golden rule would prevent someone achieving the right for another to cut them, it would only allow then the right.

You rule is less meaningful - if a person thinks being "nice" is to cut another to pieces, what then? If you apply that to the golden rule, then you would only allow a person who wants to be cut, to be cut should another want to cut them.
No, because nice is an objective meaning. It's not opinionated, like your own personal wants.
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr Seuss

"America's darkest days have always been followed by its finest hours." - Will McAvoy

User avatar
Maldon007
Posts: 396
Joined: June 18th, 2012, 3:57 am

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Maldon007 » July 16th, 2012, 11:42 am

chazwyman wrote:
The consequence of a person who wants to be cut would be to allow other to be allowed to want to be cut, whether or not they wanted it - they would have the right to be cut. What is wrong with that? The golden rule would prevent someone achieving the right for another to cut them, it would only allow then the right.

You rule is less meaningful - if a person thinks being "nice" is to cut another to pieces, what then? If you apply that to the golden rule, then you would only allow a person who wants to be cut, to be cut should another want to cut them.
But if a person wants to be cut by others, wouldn't he cut others?

User avatar
chazwyman
Posts: 332
Joined: September 30th, 2011, 5:25 am

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by chazwyman » July 16th, 2012, 12:56 pm

Misty wrote:The Golden Rule is meant for people of sound mind and understanding. ' Do unto others as you would want done unto you' - implies if you want to be treated well - treat others well. Misapplying it's intent is actually what has been the discussion. People who are not of sound mind by (illness, intentional evil doers) cannot understand or practice the golden rule. Changing the golden rule to mean something different is not discussing the golden rule.
The golden rule as expressed by Kant applies equally to all people, mad or not. It's not about giving people the power to do unto other, but about the power to forebear upon actions that you could not apply generally.

-- Updated Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:57 pm to add the following --
Recoil wrote: No, because nice is an objective meaning. It's not opinionated, like your own personal wants.
"Nice" is not objective. Are your hands clean?? Then.. Be nice and rub my feet!!

-- Updated Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:58 pm to add the following --
Maldon007 wrote:
But if a person wants to be cut by others, wouldn't he cut others?
Only if they wanted to be cut. The general rule is it's okay to cut a person if they want it.

User avatar
Recoil
Posts: 63
Joined: July 10th, 2012, 8:18 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
Location: US

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Recoil » July 16th, 2012, 2:23 pm

chazwyman wrote:

"Nice" is not objective. Are your hands clean?? Then.. Be nice and rub my feet!!
Yes, that would be a nice thing to do. I don't really understand your point here. I'm saying that the Golden Rule is flawed in that everyone takes it differently. If a satanist wants to be treated horribly then this is the perfect opportunity for him to take advantage and manipulate the words to his liking. But he really doesn't even have to manipulate anything.
"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." - Dr Seuss

"America's darkest days have always been followed by its finest hours." - Will McAvoy

User avatar
Maldon007
Posts: 396
Joined: June 18th, 2012, 3:57 am

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Maldon007 » July 16th, 2012, 2:32 pm

I think it's Scott on here who says that feather on the table thing, it's not light/yes it is! Seems like what is happening here, in part.



Ah, found it-
...two people are sitting at a table with a feather on it, and one is adamantly screaming, "This feather is light!" and the other person is screaming, "This feather is NOT light!" We can imagine each person is convinced he is right and is stunned by the other person's refusal to accept the obvious truth, or what have you. But we may find out that the first person actually means to say that the feather is not heavy and the other person means to say the feather is darkly colored. They probably don't even disagree at all.

Elubas
Posts: 49
Joined: July 26th, 2012, 12:09 am

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Elubas » July 31st, 2012, 11:22 pm

Lol, the OP is just being fastidious; I highly doubt that he doesn't know the intentions of the Golden Rule. By the way, the problem with treating someone the way "they need" is that you what you think they need, and what they think they need, could be totally different. Treating someone the way you think they want, on the other hand, is showing respect for the treatment they personally enjoy. You might think insulting someone is what they need, but that's your opinion; it's more respectful to give in to what they want, within reason of course. It shows that it's not all about what you think; most likely, treating them how they want will make them more satisfied. Obviously, when it comes to children, you need to make some adjustments.

User avatar
Gareth
Posts: 112
Joined: October 2nd, 2011, 9:25 pm
Location: Thanet, Kent. UK

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Gareth » August 27th, 2012, 11:47 pm

Jinxy wrote:I've only been a member here for about a week, and I'm - twice - finding myself suggesting that a poster is thinking too much. LOL. Perhaps I'm in the wrong forum. When a person picks at every word and nuance, they often lose the general gist of a sentiment. And I believe that's the case here. I mean no disrespect, Gert, but I think its a golden rule because of its simplicity - treat others as you'd like to have them treat you. Yes, there will be individuals (perhaps serial killers) who would not like to be treated as they have or will treat others - but as a general rule for a society, I think it stands well.
I'm less worried about the serial killer (killing him before he kills me seems eminently sensible) it's the masochist that bothers me.
The difference between Truth and Falsity is not a question of volume.

User avatar
Grotto19
Posts: 866
Joined: July 26th, 2012, 2:11 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
Location: Niagara Falls, N.Y. USA

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Grotto19 » September 23rd, 2012, 8:17 pm

I think it is of little point to argue about special cases where the rule wont fit, because in these cases no other rule would fit either. The sociopath or the psychopath are not going to apply any rule you provide regarding morality. This fact does not discredit the foundation nor the utility of the rule itself for that very reason. Universality is likely not an option when dealing with morality.

I think a re wording of the golden rule would be in order to make it less confusing in the case of punishment. Something along the lines of "do not hold yourself nor any other individual in higher esteem then the rest of humanity" this phrasing I think allows for self defense and general punishment.

User avatar
Ladychristine
New Trial Member
Posts: 19
Joined: January 13th, 2016, 2:45 am

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Ladychristine » January 14th, 2016, 2:33 am

“Our job on earth isn't to criticize, reject, or judge. Our purpose is to offer a helping hand, compassion, and mercy. We are to do unto others as we hope they would do unto us.”

pekin
Posts: 78
Joined: November 25th, 2008, 5:00 pm
Location: London

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by pekin » June 10th, 2016, 4:45 pm

GertC wrote:“The Golden Rule”: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
I think positive phrasing of the Golden Rule may have absurd consequences. In order to avoid it we need to use the negative phrasing like in the quotation below:
Prismatic wrote:[The Golden Rule]: "Do not do unto others as you would [NOT] have them do unto you."
But there seems to be still problem in negative phrasing:
Prismatic wrote:Any fixed rule for morality—including the so-called Golden Rule—is capable of causing mistakes.

For example, I would not want to be resuscitated outside of a hospital. However, it would not do for me to make a decision not to resuscitate some one else on the basis of my own wishes.
Perhaps this example is not a problem since a medic, doctor or a qualified first aid volunteer ought to know when and how to resuscitate a person - they do not have a moral choice to do or not to do.

Anyway, we should avoid trivializing this important ethical maxim as it is also very similar to Kant's Categorical Imperative or Sartre's "[Man] choosing for himself he chooses for all men." or J.S.Mill's words: "When Kant propounds as the fundamental principle of morals, "So act, that thy rule of conduct might be adopted as a law by all rational beings" he virtually acknowledges that the interest of mankind collectively, or at least of mankind indiscriminately, must be in the mind of the agent when conscientiously deciding on the morality of the act."

Wilson
Posts: 1499
Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
Location: California, US

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Wilson » June 10th, 2016, 7:56 pm

Here's my improvement for the golden rule: Be nice to others.

The truth is that we make our decisions on how to act without consulting a rule book. We know instinctively whether something is moral or not, according to our standards. It's based on empathy (which varies from person to person), the greater good for the most people, our own self-interest, and so on. It is good (according to my moral tendencies) to ask how I would feel if I were in that person's shoes, but our moral judgments are emotionally driven and the answers aren't the same for everyone. The golden rule is a pretty decent attempt to specify how empathetic people arrive at their moral decisions, but it's only a rough approximation.

Blake 789
Posts: 79
Joined: May 27th, 2016, 5:34 am

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Blake 789 » June 11th, 2016, 4:42 pm

Try to treat people a little bit better than they how they would treat you is a decent revision if you want something you can apply practically.

Post Reply