Announcement: Your votes are in! The January 2019 Philosophy Book of the Month is The Runaway Species: How Human Creativity Remakes the World by David Eagleman and Anthony Brandt.

The Golden Rule, revised

Discuss morality and ethics in this message board.
Featured Article: Philosophical Analysis of Abortion, The Right to Life, and Murder
Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Spectrum » July 4th, 2012, 1:51 am

wanabe wrote:Spectrum,
Spectrum wrote:
The above is too conditional, i.e. upon benefits and any conditions.

Note Kant's universal law that is driven by duty (i.e. unconditional spontaneous impulses).
I understand that benefits and harm are both subjective and temporary, however I don't see how that condition would prevent us from following this system. We can only act based on what we perceive at the time, we can usually go back and remedy any moral mistakes made; or at least do something to make up for a temporary moral short coming.
Definitely your system based on continuous improvement and review is better than one that is not, but it does get to the proximate roots when deliberated at a more refined levels.

Here's a point on what Kant meant by duty via good will;
plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/# ... lMorWorDut
Kant's analysis of commonsense ideas begins with the thought that the only thing good without qualification is a ‘good will’. While the phrases ‘he's good hearted’, ‘she's good natured’ and ‘she means well’ are common, ‘the good will’ as Kant thinks of it is not the same as any of these ordinary notions.
The idea of a good will is closer to the idea of a ‘good person’, or, more archaically, a ‘person of good will’. This use of the term ‘will’ early on in analyzing ordinary moral thought in fact prefigures later and more technical discussions concerning the nature of rational agency. Nevertheless, this idea of a good will is an important commonsense touchstone to which he returns throughout his works. The basic idea is that what makes a good person good is his possession of a will that is in a certain way ‘determined’ by, or makes its decisions on the basis of, the moral law. The idea of a good will is supposed to be the idea of one who only makes decisions that she holds to be morally worthy, taking moral considerations in themselves to be conclusive reasons for guiding her behavior. This sort of disposition or character is something we all highly value. Kant believes we value it without limitation or qualification. By this, I believe, he means primarily two things. ... ...
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
Prismatic
Posts: 514
Joined: April 22nd, 2012, 4:30 pm
Favorite Philosopher: John Stuart Mill

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Prismatic » July 4th, 2012, 10:22 am

wanabe wrote:Prismatic,

Please explain how that(#4) is an escape clause from acting morally. Not doing harm is the negative way to say the positive "promote benefits". If I were to use the more ambiguous version without #4 what would be the problem?
I take it that you are furnishing a rule that is not fixed, but allows violation of the rule in the case it might do harm. That's what I meant by saying it is not a fixed rule and has an escape clause from the rule—not from acting morally.
Everywhere I have sought peace and never found it except in a corner with a book. —Thomas à Kempis

User avatar
Grecorivera5150
Posts: 675
Joined: June 8th, 2012, 1:22 am
Favorite Philosopher: Bruce Lee

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Grecorivera5150 » July 4th, 2012, 5:05 pm

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you until you intuit that they are about to do unto to you harm. Then do unto them with brutal efficiency and all due discretion.

User avatar
wanabe
Posts: 3388
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by wanabe » July 4th, 2012, 6:26 pm

Spectrum,

I understand that Kant at lest made famous the idea of the universality principal. I'm not a follower of Kant, but I know a good idea when I see it. My formulation of the rule is what I explained before: Would it be good if all did the action in question.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Prismatic,
I take it that you are furnishing a rule that is not fixed, but allows violation of the rule in the case it might do harm. That's what I meant by saying it is not a fixed rule and has an escape clause from the rule—not from acting morally.
Fair enough. I am looking for a fixed moral rule though. All the system needs is golden rule and universality. The other parts are to spell out specifics. I think they are very complementary and function near perfection. The problem like so many things is consistent execution, not the rule.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.

User avatar
Prismatic
Posts: 514
Joined: April 22nd, 2012, 4:30 pm
Favorite Philosopher: John Stuart Mill

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Prismatic » July 4th, 2012, 7:08 pm

wanabe wrote: Fair enough. I am looking for a fixed moral rule though. All the system needs is golden rule and universality. The other parts are to spell out specifics. I think they are very complementary and function near perfection. The problem like so many things is consistent execution, not the rule.
To my way of thinking fixed rules are a mistake. What is called for is judgment and compassion.
Everywhere I have sought peace and never found it except in a corner with a book. —Thomas à Kempis

User avatar
wanabe
Posts: 3388
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by wanabe » July 4th, 2012, 8:11 pm

Surly you have some guideline as to how and when to apply those. Experience must have taught you something.

If a rule works in all cases to solve a problem then it's not a mistake, there are all kinds of rules in math. I know we are not talking math, but people are objects after all surly there are rules that we follow, or at least can choose to follow, to get desired outcomes.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Spectrum » July 5th, 2012, 1:24 am

wanabe wrote:Spectrum,
I understand that Kant at lest made famous the idea of the universality principal. I'm not a follower of Kant, but I know a good idea when I see it. My formulation of the rule is what I explained before: Would it be good if all did the action in question.
It is not very difficult to set out the ideal idea of the universal principal.
As an example, note the 'Perfect Market' in Economics.
In economics, a perfect market is defined by several conditions, collectively called perfect competition. Among these conditions are
Perfect market information
No participant with market power to set prices
No barriers to entry or exit
Equal access to production technology

The mathematical theory is called general equilibrium theory. On the assumption of Perfect Competition, and some technical assumptions about the shapes of supply and demand curves, it is possible to prove that a market will reach an equilibrium in which supply for every product or service, including labor, equals demand at the current price. This equilibrium will be a Pareto optimum, meaning that nobody can be made better off by exchange without making someone else worse off.

Share and foreign exchange markets are commonly said to be the most similar to the perfect market.
Everyone familiar with Economics know the 'Perfect Market' is just an ideal and no one would think they can attain it. Rather the ideal is just to be taken as a guide or lighthouse.

The additional factor that Kant introduced is his own concept of "duty" that will enable one to align closely (with no expectation of achieving) the ideal.

Kant ethics is just a theoretical exposition of what is ethics, there is a lot more to be more ethical spontaneously, not by theistic fiats and commandments which you dogmatically support btw.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
wanabe
Posts: 3388
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by wanabe » July 5th, 2012, 11:43 am

Spectrum,

As I said to Prismatic: "The problem like so many things is consistent execution, not the rule.".
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.

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

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by chazwyman » July 5th, 2012, 1:47 pm

Prismatic wrote:I believe it was Oscar Wilde who said, "Do not do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Their tastes may be different."
Was he talking about sex?

-- Updated Thu Jul 05, 2012 1:50 pm to add the following --
GertC wrote:Hello everyone! I was looking for a place where I could get some feedback on this thing I wrote, hope I'm posting it in the right place. Enjoy!


“The Golden Rule”: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.

This concept describes a "reciprocal" or "two-way" relationship between one's self and others that involves both sides equally and in a mutual fashion. This concept can be explained from the perspective of psychology, philosophy, sociology, religion, etc.: Psychologically it involves a person empathizing with others. Philosophically it involves a person perceiving their neighbor as also "an I" or "self." Sociologically, this principle is applicable between individuals, between groups, and between individuals and groups. (For example, a person living by this rule treats all people with consideration, not just members of his or her in-group.) Religion is an integral part of the history of this concept. (source: Wikipedia)


This rule has since long been considered a standard of moral behavior, and is shared by every religion in some way.]
That is quite a major claim, and seems to contradict the practice of most religions I know. Can you justify it?

Kant goes further. His Categorical Imperative", goes further than the "group".
"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law."

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Spectrum » July 6th, 2012, 1:06 am

wanabe wrote:Spectrum,
As I said to Prismatic: "The problem like so many things is consistent execution, not the rule.".
What I was saying was, your theory need more refinements. In addition, you did not extent your theory to the 'how', i.e. on what principles and basis can you put you theory into effective actions that will align (not achieve) with the ideal.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
wanabe
Posts: 3388
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by wanabe » July 6th, 2012, 1:21 am

Spectrum,
Spectrum wrote:What I was saying was, your theory need more refinements. In addition, you did not extent your theory to the 'how', i.e. on what principles and basis can you put you theory into effective actions that will align (not achieve) with the ideal.
Refinements, such as?

As far as "how": It's really up to individuals to behave morally; the law can only go so far.
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Spectrum » July 6th, 2012, 1:40 am

wanabe wrote:Spectrum,
Spectrum wrote:What I was saying was, your theory need more refinements. In addition, you did not extent your theory to the 'how', i.e. on what principles and basis can you put you theory into effective actions that will align (not achieve) with the ideal.

Refinements, such as?
As far as "how": It's really up to individuals to behave morally; the law can only go so far.
My main point was, Kant went further to discuss the concept of "duty" (the what and how) to support his ideal moral law, i.e. the category imperative and you did not. That was my only point.

A side point, the law can enforce. What is to be enforced must be start from the ideal and optimized to the current conditions.
In addition, the individual my comply, but there must also be processes to facilitate the individuals to improve incrementally towards a higher level of morality naturally and spontaneously rather than based on enforced compliance.

For example, your idol, Gandhi was seemingly an ordinary/conventional guy with his usual brush with immorality in his early life. The question is what did he do or what happened in his brain in the later part of his life, that made him almost saint-liked.

I have my own views on the 'how', but that is another point and issue.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

User avatar
wanabe
Posts: 3388
Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
Location: UBIQUITY
Contact:

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by wanabe » July 6th, 2012, 2:00 am

Spectrum,

I don't think people have a duty to be moral necessarily. I think it's highly beneficial to society on any level, but not imperative for survival of specific individuals.

I don't disagree that "the law can enforce" some laws, I said "the law can only go so far". As in: the law(police, judges, etc.) can't be everywhere all the time to enforce the law.
For example, your idol, Gandhi was seemingly an ordinary/conventional guy with his usual brush with immorality in his early life. The question is what did he do or what happened in his brain in the later part of his life, that made him almost saint-liked.
It's quite a simple "how" as I said before "It's really up to individuals to behave morally" as much as they can. As Gandhi would say: "...be the change you wish to see in the world.".
Secret To Eternal Life: Live Life To The Fullest, Help All Others To Do So.Meaning of Life Is Choice. Increase choice through direct perception. Golden rule+universality principal+Promote benefits-harm+logical consistency=morality.BeTheChange.

Spectrum
Posts: 5160
Joined: December 21st, 2010, 1:25 am
Favorite Philosopher: Eclectic -Various

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by Spectrum » July 6th, 2012, 3:44 am

wanabe wrote:Spectrum,
I don't think people have a duty to be moral necessarily. I think it's highly beneficial to society on any level, but not imperative for survival of specific individuals.
Btw, Kant's 'duty' is not the same (totally different) as the conventional meaning of 'duty'.

If I were to reconcile Kant's 'duty' in Gandhi's Hinduism, it would be equivalent to its 'Dharma', the spontaneous act in alignment with the best that is to done in the circumstances. Note the Gita's 'Be without the three gunas' and 'do not be attached to the fruits of action while in action'.
Not-a-theist. Religion is a critical necessity for humanity now, but not the FUTURE.

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

Re: The Golden Rule, revised

Post by chazwyman » July 6th, 2012, 6:37 am

Spectrum wrote:
wanabe wrote:Spectrum,
I don't think people have a duty to be moral necessarily. I think it's highly beneficial to society on any level, but not imperative for survival of specific individuals.
Btw, Kant's 'duty' is not the same (totally different) as the conventional meaning of 'duty'.

If I were to reconcile Kant's 'duty' in Gandhi's Hinduism, it would be equivalent to its 'Dharma', the spontaneous act in alignment with the best that is to done in the circumstances. Note the Gita's 'Be without the three gunas' and 'do not be attached to the fruits of action while in action'.
Can you begin to support this assertion about Kant's deontology?

-- Updated Fri Jul 06, 2012 6:43 am to add the following --
Spectrum wrote:
wanabe wrote:Spectrum,

Refinements, such as?
As far as "how": It's really up to individuals to behave morally; the law can only go so far.
My main point was, Kant went further to discuss the concept of "duty" (the what and how) to support his ideal moral law, i.e. the category imperative and you did not. That was my only point.

you mean Categorical Imperative.
Spectrum wrote: A side point, the law can enforce. What is to be enforced must be start from the ideal and optimized to the current conditions.
It seems to me that Optimising, is exactly what Kant rejects. Such utilitarianism is what Kant means to jettison. Kant exhorts us to do that which we would find acceptable to us and to others in general. This, despite optimal conditions, protects minority positions.

Post Reply