It doesn't.
But we use the yardstick to measure equality, do we not? We could restate the Golden Rule, "Make the first term equal the second term." "Your treatment of others should be equivalent to the way that you yourself would like to be treated."Good_Egg wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 6:43 pmI would say that one is the yardstick by which we judge the other. In the way that the known gives us a handle on the unknown.Leontiskos wrote: ↑April 27th, 2022, 6:18 pm There are two terms. The first term is, "Our treatment of others." The second term is, "The way we would like others to treat us." My claim is that the Golden Rule asserts a relation of equality between the two terms. If you disagree, then what relation do you believe the Golden Rule asserts between the two terms?
I don't understand why you think I am referencing equality between persons. Several times throughout the thread I have clarified that I do not mean that, and at one point I even said that I agree with your critique of Egalitarianism. In my OP I specifically spoke about "some form of equality." Is there some place in the thread where I have said something that led you to conclude that I am talking about equality between persons?Good_Egg wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 6:43 pmBut my issue is less an objection to equality between two terms or quantities, and more to the way that by abbreviating this to "equality" you appear to reference equality between persons. If I ask people if equality is a good thing, how many will say Yes ? And how many will say that equality between two quantities is an empirical fact with no inherent moral significance ? This is the equivocation, the ambiguity that I'm looking to pin down.
Well, we have been referencing a number of different aspects of justice, and I spoke about the way that the Golden Rule relates to retribution, and retribution to justice, in <this post> (which is also related to restitution and punishment). That is probably the clearest place that this has been discussed so far.Good_Egg wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 6:43 pmThe title of the thread is about justice and equality, and you introduced the Golden Rule as a third entity, so we're discussing the relationships between all 3.Leontiskos wrote: ↑April 27th, 2022, 6:18 pm I argued in some detail that your formulation of the Golden Rule which sees it as being about equal rights is mistaken.
I don't think you've said what you see as the relationship between justice and the Golden Rule.
Very well, but it will be important to distinguish between rights as the correlative of duty, and rights as the enumerated list of human rights. The former is much broader than the latter, for I have many more duties than any list of enumerated "human rights" will reflect.Good_Egg wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 6:43 pmI'd suggest a strong connection between justice and rights. Justice is about what is due to each person, which is to say what they have a moral right to. Rights are related to duties (if I have a duty to give you something then you have a right to receive it from me). And "due" and "duty" clearly have the same root.
I think you can. Consider Matthew 18:31-35. In such a case the servant's hypocrisy is unjust, which is why he is punished. The Golden Rule is quite similar to this, for in the first place it opposes the injustice of hypocrisy. The unmerciful person who expects mercy is a hypocrite, and is thereby unjust. This is a more subtle form of justice: it is not legal justice, but it is nevertheless justice.Good_Egg wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 6:43 pmThe Golden Rule clearly goes beyond or wider than justice. It says you should be merciful to others (treat them better than their due) in those circumstances in which you would seek mercy from them.
But mercy is gracious; you cannot have a duty to be merciful.
Rather, in both cases I am rejecting an unduly particularized interpretation. The reason the universalizations are not contradictory is because what is good for daughters or mothers is also good for human beings, for daughters and mothers are both human beings. The beauty of the Golden Rule lies precisely in its ability to respond to such nuance.Good_Egg wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 6:43 pmThat's a different emphasis from your post a couple of days ago, when you were telling us that the Golden Rule is about the wants that are common to all humans, and not wants that are idiosyncratic.Leontiskos wrote: ↑April 27th, 2022, 6:18 pmI can apply the Golden Rule to my mother and to my daughter, but this will not require me to treat them both in the exact same way. Instead I should treat my mother the way I would want to be treated if I were a mother, and I should treat my daughter the way I would want to be treated if I were a daughter.
For my part I would not want to hold that the road belongs solely to the drivers and that the road belongs solely to the pedestrians, because that would involve me in a contradiction. Nor would I want to waffle between these two positions each time I enter or exit a car. For me the basic problem is thus resolved by recognizing that the road belongs to both pedestrians and drivers, and that my treatment of both should reflect this fact.Good_Egg wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 6:43 pmBoth are applications of the Golden Rule; what varies is the level of abstraction or particularity in the way you apply it.
You think that your way of applying the golden rule is a better way than some other ways of applying it. I agree - I'm not keen on hazelnut ice cream either. But I naturally think that my way of applying it is better still.
I see conflicts of interest arising naturally. Between buyer and seller, between landlord and tenant, between driver and pedestrian - you can think of others. How does the golden rule apply ? We can approach such conflicts with courtesy and understanding and good humour (as we would wish others to).
But some would apply the golden rule in a way that means that as a pedestrian you should treat the street as belonging to the drivers (because that's how you'd want other pedestrians to treat you when you're driving) and as a driver you should treat the street as belonging to the pedestrians (because that's how you'd want drivers to treat you).
Which instead of promoting a fair and transparent system where everyone knows the rules of the road, tends to deprive moral people of all assertiveness and has them giving way to others all the time.
Regarding assertiveness, I personally do not like to be treated in a way that lacks all assertiveness, and therefore I do not treat others that way (as you have probably noticed ). As I said earlier, I think there is an absolute aspect of the Golden Rule alongside the relative aspect. The relative aspect deals primarily with hypocrisy, but the absolute aspect is going to be rooted in beliefs about what is good for human beings. Feel free to press me on this absolute aspect, for that is clearly where your views are represented within my thinking.
It has been awhile since I have compared Kant's Categorical Imperative to the Golden Rule. They are very similar, especially at first glance. To skirt that question, I would just agree that the situation you set up is problematic, but I don't see it as flowing from the Golden Rule. I think it is associated with another incorrect interpretation of the Golden Rule that is indeed prevalent in our contemporary society, "Treat others better than you would like to be treated." Only when we follow that rule does your conundrum arise. Like the "Platinum Rule," this other rule rings true at more superficial levels, but falls apart at deeper levels and under scrutiny.Good_Egg wrote: ↑April 28th, 2022, 6:43 pmSo I prefer Kant - the notion that one should act in a way that one can will to be a universal rule. In this case rules of the road that I can will everyone to follow whether I happen to be a driver or a pedestrian at this moment.
Not sure whether you'd consider that an application of the golden rule at a different level of abstraction, or a replacement of golden rule thinking with Categorical Imperative thinking...