The March Philosophy Book of the Month is Final Notice by Van Fleisher. Discuss Final Notice now.

The April Philosophy Book of the Month is The Unbound Soul by Richard L. Haight. Discuss The Unbound Soul Now

The May Philosophy Book of the Month is Misreading Judas by Robert Wahler.

An objection to the Golden Rule

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Post Reply
mattfara50
Posts: 50
Joined: April 28th, 2018, 4:37 pm

Re: An objection to the Golden Rule

Post by mattfara50 » May 25th, 2018, 9:36 pm

Belindi wrote:
May 25th, 2018, 2:17 pm
The more the power the more the Golden Rule applies.
That may be true, but do you think that its applicability bears on its internal validity? Is the soundness of an argument or mathematical proof diminished by how many people have the capacity to comprehend it?

And is it true? If I am from an oppressed group, am I not free to ask myself how I would want to be treated were I the oppressor? Or even if I were not oppressed at all, but simply less powerful by dint of fortune or choice, is it not the same?

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 691
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: An objection to the Golden Rule

Post by Karpel Tunnel » May 25th, 2018, 9:57 pm

mattfara50 wrote:
May 25th, 2018, 12:59 pm
I agree with everything you said. I'm trying to highlight a particular problem with the GR, namely that it can lead well-intentioned people to do bad things.
It seems to me in your examples the people involved would have done bad things, from a liberal/progressive standpoint anyway. Their choices get past the GR but are not created by it.

I do agree that the GR does not fix everything. It can't, since it takes no moral stands beyond the idea that we should try to incorporate other people's perspectives and experience. It nudges away from solipsism.

And homophobes and authoritarian parents would likely see the GR as a failure in relation to homosexuals and children also on those issues.

Whatever the right overall views are the GR is not a cure. But we have that problem anyway. How do we demonstate objective morals?

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 691
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: An objection to the Golden Rule

Post by Karpel Tunnel » May 25th, 2018, 10:06 pm

ThomasHobbes wrote:
May 17th, 2018, 3:15 pm
mattfara50 wrote:
May 17th, 2018, 12:11 pm
And when the homosexual tells the zealot to "stfu and respect my decisions about my life, and mind your own business', the zealot has to stfu as he would expect others to respect decision about his life too.

Otherwise the zealot is breaking the GR.
How about mentally ill people or people someone thinks are mentally ill?

Or people we care about who we see as being self-destructive who do not want to hear our reactions/judements but do want to be in our lives? Do we get to honestly react to them? or do we have to shut the **** up?

With the children issue...when does one have to give in to the wishes of the child and when not? If I tell my child that homosexuality is a sin is that wrong according to the GR? If I tell my homophobic 12 year old the they should not judge people that way, is that OK according to the GR or not? In both situations I am informing my child about what I consider to be good and moral, which I would want others to tell me were I a child.

mattfara50
Posts: 50
Joined: April 28th, 2018, 4:37 pm

Re: An objection to the Golden Rule

Post by mattfara50 » May 25th, 2018, 10:34 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
May 25th, 2018, 10:06 pm
ThomasHobbes wrote:
May 17th, 2018, 3:15 pm
How about mentally ill people or people someone thinks are mentally ill?

Or people we care about who we see as being self-destructive who do not want to hear our reactions/judements but do want to be in our lives? Do we get to honestly react to them? or do we have to shut the **** up?

With the children issue...when does one have to give in to the wishes of the child and when not? If I tell my child that homosexuality is a sin is that wrong according to the GR? If I tell my homophobic 12 year old the they should not judge people that way, is that OK according to the GR or not? In both situations I am informing my child about what I consider to be good and moral, which I would want others to tell me were I a child.
I can't take responsibility for the eloquence of the stfu line. I think the quoting mechanism is getting a little confused. I can't find the "How about mentally ill people or people someone thinks are mentally ill?" anywhere in a previous post despite it being attributed to Tommy.

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 1965
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: An objection to the Golden Rule

Post by Belindi » May 26th, 2018, 4:12 am

mattfara50 wrote:
May 25th, 2018, 9:36 pm
Belindi wrote:
May 25th, 2018, 2:17 pm
The more the power the more the Golden Rule applies.
That may be true, but do you think that its applicability bears on its internal validity? Is the soundness of an argument or mathematical proof diminished by how many people have the capacity to comprehend it?

And is it true? If I am from an oppressed group, am I not free to ask myself how I would want to be treated were I the oppressor? Or even if I were not oppressed at all, but simply less powerful by dint of fortune or choice, is it not the same?
The Golden Rule applies to power, not vice versa. Most living individuals have some power although the degree of power varies very much. Human groups such as exploited labourers eventually got power from uniting.
Jesus Christ who was from a people oppressed by Roman militaristic occupiers of Palestine was, at the last, psychologically empowered by endurance. Similarly Gandhi whose endurance included passive resistance.

I too am from an oppressed group. You and I, Mattfara, are not however oppressed individuals as we are freed by our abilities to reason. Fortune ascribes; and some, including myself,argue that fortune achieves. Whatever, you have achieved power despite your ascribed status however low degree that may be.

The degree of your power of imagination or empathy is akin to reason and frees you to ask how you would want to be treated were you the oppressor. My optimism is such that I guess your being the oppressor would be an unstable state because you are an imaginative reasoner.

mattfara50
Posts: 50
Joined: April 28th, 2018, 4:37 pm

Re: An objection to the Golden Rule

Post by mattfara50 » May 26th, 2018, 7:37 am

Belindi wrote:
May 26th, 2018, 4:12 am

The Golden Rule applies to power, not vice versa. Most living individuals have some power although the degree of power varies very much. Human groups such as exploited labourers eventually got power from uniting.
Jesus Christ who was from a people oppressed by Roman militaristic occupiers of Palestine was, at the last, psychologically empowered by endurance. Similarly Gandhi whose endurance included passive resistance.

I too am from an oppressed group. You and I, Mattfara, are not however oppressed individuals as we are freed by our abilities to reason. Fortune ascribes; and some, including myself,argue that fortune achieves. Whatever, you have achieved power despite your ascribed status however low degree that may be.

The degree of your power of imagination or empathy is akin to reason and frees you to ask how you would want to be treated were you the oppressor. My optimism is such that I guess your being the oppressor would be an unstable state because you are an imaginative reasoner.
I interpret you're saying that to enact the GR, one must have the necessary cognitive tools, eg imagination, empathy, reason. This goes to the usability of the tool. But I suppose this would apply to any moral instrument. Or musical instrument, financial instrument, etc. So while true, it doesn't seem quite on topic.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 691
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: An objection to the Golden Rule

Post by Karpel Tunnel » May 26th, 2018, 9:49 am

The GR cannot resolve the abortion issue, though I would guess some on each side would think it can be resolved by the GR.

Humans have different moral values and the GR cannot resolve them, though it might help some people resolve some of them. It might make some people more nuanced and complex in how they discuss and think about moral and behavior. It might increase empathy since those who follow it would at least try to come into the perspective of other people.

mattfara50
Posts: 50
Joined: April 28th, 2018, 4:37 pm

Re: An objection to the Golden Rule

Post by mattfara50 » May 26th, 2018, 12:59 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
May 26th, 2018, 9:49 am
The GR cannot resolve the abortion issue, though I would guess some on each side would think it can be resolved by the GR.

Humans have different moral values and the GR cannot resolve them, though it might help some people resolve some of them. It might make some people more nuanced and complex in how they discuss and think about moral and behavior. It might increase empathy since those who follow it would at least try to come into the perspective of other people.
I think more modularity would help. The GR pieces together too many thoughts and actions. Were we to strip out all but 'empathize before acting,' we'd probably be better off. Let another heuristic pick up after the empathy piece is done. We need a chain of rules, each carefully crafted in isolation before being joined, and then only joined according to circumstance.

More broadly, I think the GR only works, despite the objections we've raised, if one is in possession of objective moral standpoints and plans of action. This jives with its religious origins. But given the greater skepticism of the age, the GR must be taken very lightly.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 691
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: An objection to the Golden Rule

Post by Karpel Tunnel » May 27th, 2018, 3:49 am

mattfara50 wrote:
May 26th, 2018, 12:59 pm
Karpel Tunnel wrote:
May 26th, 2018, 9:49 am
The GR cannot resolve the abortion issue, though I would guess some on each side would think it can be resolved by the GR.

Humans have different moral values and the GR cannot resolve them, though it might help some people resolve some of them. It might make some people more nuanced and complex in how they discuss and think about moral and behavior. It might increase empathy since those who follow it would at least try to come into the perspective of other people.
I think more modularity would help. The GR pieces together too many thoughts and actions. Were we to strip out all but 'empathize before acting,' we'd probably be better off. Let another heuristic pick up after the empathy piece is done. We need a chain of rules, each carefully crafted in isolation before being joined, and then only joined according to circumstance.

More broadly, I think the GR only works, despite the objections we've raised, if one is in possession of objective moral standpoints and plans of action. This jives with its religious origins. But given the greater skepticism of the age, the GR must be taken very lightly.
If one does not believe in objective morals, it doesnt really matter. It is neither light nor heavy, since their could be no profound or heavy or more serious moral heuristics possible.

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 1965
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: An objection to the Golden Rule

Post by Belindi » May 27th, 2018, 3:54 am

The Golden Rule solves the abortion issue in the same way it solves the parenting issue. The foetus even less than the born child is able to decide for itself.

Mattfara wrote:
I interpret you're saying that to enact the GR, one must have the necessary cognitive tools, eg imagination, empathy, reason. This goes to the usability of the tool. But I suppose this would apply to any moral instrument. Or musical instrument, financial instrument, etc. So while true, it doesn't seem quite on topic.
Reason points to the Golden Rule i.e. universalisability as a higher level moral "tool" or criterion. Musical ability, and financial ability are similar. musical ability and financial ability are not devoid of feelings and ethics. All of those require reasoning judgement. A man who has had a frontal lobotomy will be less able to love people, play the piano , or enact financial affairs because his judgement regarding other people will be affected by the brain lesion.
I agree with your list of cognitive tools although I'd say that there are different levels of them. Imagination, empathy ,and reason can be taught and learned and these are in fact taught and learned within what we popularly call a "civilised" society.
The Golden Rule which is an adjunct of empathy, imagination, and reason isn't like a tool that you can pick up and use and then put back on the shelf. Neither is personal power dispensible. Power and reason are a priori and are integral with nature. It follows then that the strong and powerful man who lacks reason cannot in nature maintain power.

User avatar
ThomasHobbes
Posts: 1122
Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm

Re: An objection to the Golden Rule

Post by ThomasHobbes » May 27th, 2018, 1:41 pm

I'd like to congratulate Ireland for it's successful vote to repeal the abortion ban.
I suggest that every one voting YES are consistent with the GR, whilst those voting no are voting to control the bodies of women.
Yes does not mean anyone HAS to have an abortion. Voting NO means imposing your own personal moral code on the rest of society.

mattfara50
Posts: 50
Joined: April 28th, 2018, 4:37 pm

Re: An objection to the Golden Rule

Post by mattfara50 » May 27th, 2018, 3:14 pm

Karpel Tunnel wrote:
May 27th, 2018, 3:49 am
If one does not believe in objective morals, it doesnt really matter. It is neither light nor heavy, since their could be no profound or heavy or more serious moral heuristics possible.
Agreed

mattfara50
Posts: 50
Joined: April 28th, 2018, 4:37 pm

Re: An objection to the Golden Rule

Post by mattfara50 » May 27th, 2018, 3:23 pm

Belindi wrote:
May 27th, 2018, 3:54 am

Reason points to the Golden Rule i.e. universalisability as a higher level moral "tool" or criterion. Musical ability, and financial ability are similar. musical ability and financial ability are not devoid of feelings and ethics. All of those require reasoning judgement. A man who has had a frontal lobotomy will be less able to love people, play the piano , or enact financial affairs because his judgement regarding other people will be affected by the brain lesion.
I agree with your list of cognitive tools although I'd say that there are different levels of them. Imagination, empathy ,and reason can be taught and learned and these are in fact taught and learned within what we popularly call a "civilised" society.
The Golden Rule which is an adjunct of empathy, imagination, and reason isn't like a tool that you can pick up and use and then put back on the shelf. Neither is personal power dispensible. Power and reason are a priori and are integral with nature. It follows then that the strong and powerful man who lacks reason cannot in nature maintain power.
Unreasonable, powerful men often do maintain their power by employing reasonable men, though, don't you think?.

The GR is dependent on those cognitive tools, I agree, but how does that bear on the GR itself? By extension, the GR depends on power too, but how does that bear on the internal rule set of the GR itself? I'm failing to see the relevance of most of what you've written in the past few days. Please clarify for me, keeping in mind that I'm not versed in any of the Marxist thought you are espousing.

Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 1965
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: An objection to the Golden Rule

Post by Belindi » May 28th, 2018, 4:46 am

mattfara50 wrote:
May 27th, 2018, 3:23 pm
Belindi wrote:
May 27th, 2018, 3:54 am

Reason points to the Golden Rule i.e. universalisability as a higher level moral "tool" or criterion. Musical ability, and financial ability are similar. musical ability and financial ability are not devoid of feelings and ethics. All of those require reasoning judgement. A man who has had a frontal lobotomy will be less able to love people, play the piano , or enact financial affairs because his judgement regarding other people will be affected by the brain lesion.
I agree with your list of cognitive tools although I'd say that there are different levels of them. Imagination, empathy ,and reason can be taught and learned and these are in fact taught and learned within what we popularly call a "civilised" society.
The Golden Rule which is an adjunct of empathy, imagination, and reason isn't like a tool that you can pick up and use and then put back on the shelf. Neither is personal power dispensible. Power and reason are a priori and are integral with nature. It follows then that the strong and powerful man who lacks reason cannot in nature maintain power.
Unreasonable, powerful men often do maintain their power by employing reasonable men, though, don't you think?.
(Belindi replied)Yes. However those intelligent and reasoning acolytes are insufficiently intelligent and reasoning or else they would know that they should , in the interest of truth and reason alone, if not freedom itself, not be acolytes to a tyrant.

(Mattfara)The GR is dependent on those cognitive tools, I agree, but how does that bear on the GR itself?
(Belindi replied)Those cognitive tools bear on the GR by means of reality itself and in itself. Stupidity and lack of reason in a species that exists by means of inductive reasoning is less than possible maximum reasoning and maximum knowledge. I must suppose that that my claim depends upon an ontological proof of ultimate good i.e. to exist is better than not to exist.

(Mattfara)By extension, the GR depends on power too, but how does that bear on the internal rule set of the GR itself? I'm failing to see the relevance of most of what you've written in the past few days. Please clarify for me, keeping in mind that I'm not versed in any of the Marxist thought you are espousing.

(Belindi replied) I try to align Spinoza's philosophy and the ontological and ethical idea of the Golden Rule.
I don't understand how you reckon that I am Marxist although you may be right for all I know of Marxism. Do you refer to my tendency to refer to nature as the basis of right ethics? I do prefer naturalistic ontology. Also true, I , and so my arguments, am ethically and politically socialist ,and so is the tenor of Spinoza's Ethics.

Karpel Tunnel
Posts: 691
Joined: February 16th, 2018, 11:28 am

Re: An objection to the Golden Rule

Post by Karpel Tunnel » May 28th, 2018, 5:15 am

ThomasHobbes wrote:
May 27th, 2018, 1:41 pm
I'd like to congratulate Ireland for it's successful vote to repeal the abortion ban.
I suggest that every one voting YES are consistent with the GR, whilst those voting no are voting to control the bodies of women.
Yes does not mean anyone HAS to have an abortion. Voting NO means imposing your own personal moral code on the rest of society.
And they may argue that are using the GR to take into account the fetus. You may then say, that it is not yet a person, so the GR does not apply. At exactly what point it becomes a person or is one is not easy to prove. There are a number of reasons for this. Our ability to keep alive younger and younger fetuses - right now the record is around 4 months and this will likely be beaten via technology down to fertilization. The fact that in other species fertilization can take place externally and we would consider it an organism at that point, or at least have philosophical problems saying when it becomes one. In humans it happens internally but this does not mean there is some clear point where it becomes an entity, and mothers will often grieve a miscarriage, and not just in the abstract because they won't be mothers, even at very early stages of pregnancy. IOW it is built into human reactions to consider that there is a being, a specific one, from very early on. This also gives them a way to use the GR in relation to the mothers.

They could also use the GR on larger scales. If I was doing something that made society take sex, conception less in a way that did not honor the....etc...and this would lead to wider decadence I would want someone to intervene and stop me or legislate to prevent me doing this.

You may think that is not the case, but it will get very hard to prove, given that effects are often very hard to track. AND evaluating those facts will include value judgments.

I am glad the Irish voted the way they did, but I cannot use the GR to prove this is right.

This comes into play in all sorts of cross cultural situations. The spartans would likely look at our parenting practices as damaging to everyone. We might argue GR wise that we, as a child, wanted to be treated X. They would point out that we don't always do what children want either and then use the GR the other way and say, that if they would children, they would want whatever parenting led to them being great, disciplined and not afraid, even if this seemed brutal at the time.

Value judgments affect how the GR is applied and since I may not share your value judgments, I may treat you in ways that you do not want to be treated, and you men, perhaps especially if you are a child.

There have been cultures were dying in battle is highly prioritized. A Quaker and a Viking might both use the GR and come to different conclusions.

Post Reply