The Golden Rule, revised
- Recoil
- Posts: 63
- Joined: July 10th, 2012, 8:18 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
- Location: US
Re: The Golden Rule, revised
- chazwyman
- Posts: 332
- Joined: September 30th, 2011, 5:25 am
Re: The Golden Rule, revised
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.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.
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.
- Misty
- Premium Member
- Posts: 5934
- Joined: August 10th, 2011, 8:13 pm
- Location: United States of America
Re: The Golden Rule, revised
The eyes can only see what the mind has, is, or will be prepared to comprehend.
I am Lion, hear me ROAR! Meow.
- Recoil
- Posts: 63
- Joined: July 10th, 2012, 8:18 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
- Location: US
Re: The Golden Rule, revised
No, because nice is an objective meaning. It's not opinionated, like your own personal wants.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.
"America's darkest days have always been followed by its finest hours." - Will McAvoy
- Maldon007
- Posts: 396
- Joined: June 18th, 2012, 3:57 am
Re: The Golden Rule, revised
But if a person wants to be cut by others, wouldn't he cut others?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.
- chazwyman
- Posts: 332
- Joined: September 30th, 2011, 5:25 am
Re: The Golden Rule, revised
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.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.
-- Updated Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:57 pm to add the following --
"Nice" is not objective. Are your hands clean?? Then.. Be nice and rub my feet!!Recoil wrote: No, because nice is an objective meaning. It's not opinionated, like your own personal wants.
-- Updated Mon Jul 16, 2012 12:58 pm to add the following --
Only if they wanted to be cut. The general rule is it's okay to cut a person if they want it.Maldon007 wrote:
But if a person wants to be cut by others, wouldn't he cut others?
- Recoil
- Posts: 63
- Joined: July 10th, 2012, 8:18 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Bertrand Russell
- Location: US
Re: The Golden Rule, revised
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.chazwyman wrote:
"Nice" is not objective. Are your hands clean?? Then.. Be nice and rub my feet!!
"America's darkest days have always been followed by its finest hours." - Will McAvoy
- Maldon007
- Posts: 396
- Joined: June 18th, 2012, 3:57 am
Re: The Golden Rule, revised
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.
-
- Posts: 49
- Joined: July 26th, 2012, 12:09 am
Re: The Golden Rule, revised
- Gareth
- Posts: 112
- Joined: October 2nd, 2011, 9:25 pm
- Location: Thanet, Kent. UK
Re: The Golden Rule, revised
I'm less worried about the serial killer (killing him before he kills me seems eminently sensible) it's the masochist that bothers me.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.
- Grotto19
- Posts: 866
- Joined: July 26th, 2012, 2:11 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Niagara Falls, N.Y. USA
Re: The Golden Rule, revised
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.
- Ladychristine
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 19
- Joined: January 13th, 2016, 2:45 am
Re: The Golden Rule, revised
-
- Posts: 78
- Joined: November 25th, 2008, 5:00 pm
- Location: London
Re: The Golden Rule, revised
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:GertC wrote:“The Golden Rule”: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
But there seems to be still problem in negative phrasing:Prismatic wrote:[The Golden Rule]: "Do not do unto others as you would [NOT] have them do unto you."
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.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.
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."
-
- Posts: 1500
- Joined: December 22nd, 2013, 4:57 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eric Hoffer
- Location: California, US
Re: The Golden Rule, revised
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.
-
- Posts: 79
- Joined: May 27th, 2016, 5:34 am
Re: The Golden Rule, revised
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023