Happy Atheist Forum

As I recently posted on another thread I believe there is a crucial flaw with the Golden Rule. What do you think?

I used to treat others the way I wanted to be treated (or how I thought I did) but I found out that the Golden Rule has a huge flaw. Not everybody wants to be treated the same way. For example: Most people want others to be social, warm and friendly with them. However, I'm a quiet guy. I just want to be left alone to swim in my head peacefully. So I only use that rule when I know someone well enough to know what they want.

It is flawed.

I use to think of it as "Do not treat others the way you don't want to be treated yourself" as that one does plug the sinkhole to some degree.

Well, "Do no unsolicited, unconsented, unnecessary harm to another where you wouldn't want an equally unpleasant experience inflicted upon yourself," just didn't have the same ring to it.

Asmodean's version does plug the main issue with it though.  Just have to keep an eye out for the masochists.   >_>

My golden rule: "Don't be a douche"

Pretty much covers things for me.

Quote from: "BuckAv"My golden rule: "Don't be a douche"

Pretty much covers things for me.

Word! That's so true. A lot of people would do well to remember not to be a douche. This would solve a lot of world issues.

Quote from: "PipeBox"Asmodean's version does plug the main issue with it though.  Just have to keep an eye out for the masochists.   >_>

Asmodean's a plumber in the spare time   oO(Well, not really, but he ought to be)

Anyways, thought I'd post a link to the golden rule here for those who want to trust the Internet with broadening their horizons

Golden Rule (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-the-golden-rule.htm)

Quote from: "Asmodean"It is flawed.

I use to think of it as "Do not treat others the way you don't want to be treated yourself" as that one does plug the sinkhole to some degree.

Yeah, that does seem to work a little bit better. Although it takes a much more passive approach

Quote from: "BuckAv"My golden rule: "Don't be a douche"

Pretty much covers things for me.

I also believe in a state of douchelessness.  I can't say that I follow it to a T.

(https://www.happyatheistforum.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimages43.fotki.com%2Fv1385%2Fphotos%2F8%2F892548%2F6145789%2Fchickencunt-vi.gif&hash=977911a90f0f6309deb3c1866c8102287359190f)

...too late?

Who answered "no'"....why did you answer no?

Quote from: "Sophus"As I recently posted on another thread I believe there is a crucial flaw with the Golden Rule. What do you think?

In principle no, in practice yes because it assumes everyone adheres to your particular set of standards.

In a given society it does seem to work as long as you don't force unreasonable views in other's faces.

Kyu

Quote from: "laetusatheos"Who answered "no'"....why did you answer no?

Now, I did!

The reason why, is that the golden rule is an excellent tool when combined with Aristotelian ethics. Which is how it was ment to work originally. (For more info check the thread on morality under religion.)
I also happen to think, that it also applies to most explicit atheist ethics like that of Sartre, Heidegger and the like.

However if it stands alone... then of course its flawed. I just don't think it does in practice.

I agree with you on this one Sophus  taken literally, the golden rule is flawed.   We have empathy, this can be scientifically demonstrated and even shown with evidence with the discovery of mirror neurons that help us try to put ourselves into another's shoes, but the reality is that everyone is an individual.  We can't always know how someone wants to be treated based on our own personal experience.  The golden rule is a decent, simple starting point for teaching kids better ways to act, but as they get older they are going to discover the flaws.  A better rule might be to ask other people how they want to be treated and and treat them that way when reasonable and ethical and only if they are willing to do the same for you.  I welcome any corrections of flaws in that rule, of course.

I said no... perhaps I'm not looking too deeply at it but I was taught and I taught my son to not do anything to someone you wouldn't want done to you... i.e., hit, lie, cheat, kill.  It seems pretty simple to me.  Just because it's "biblical" doesn't make it wrong or flawed.

Again, maybe I'm just too simplistic but it works for me.

EDIT TO ADD:
I thought again... and I stick by no.  This is where we, as analytical atheists, get bogged down in the nitty-gritty, nit-picking, literal details of a statement.  We get so used to doing it to Christians that we do it with every little thing we come across.

I don't need Heidigger or Sartre or any other philosopher to tell me that if I show empathy and compassion to my fellow man, I will get the same in return.  Pay it forward, so to speak.  NOT EVERYONE WILL RESPOND.  The world is not perfect and people are basically selfish.  But I have found that good behavior is repaid with good behavior a good percentage of the time.

Okay... flame on.  Please tell me why my logic is flawed.  (This is why I try to stay out of the Philosophy forum.)

An extreme way of saying this is:

If I am suicidal, should I kill everyone?

I like what Lara has to say. Understanding the individual is the first, most important step. Although it obviously won't necessarily help relations with a stranger, but in realationships with those closest to you this method would work.

Quote from: "Sophus"An extreme way of saying this is:

If I am suicidal, should I kill everyone?

I like what Lara has to say. Understanding the individual is the first, most important step. Although it obviously won't necessarily help relations with a stranger, but in realationships with those closest to you this method would work.

The "golden rule" is supposed to mean:  Treat people well.  Period.  It's not intended to apply to every emotion or feeling or thought that a person has at any given time.  I believe that the Rule is supposed to be applied to actions.  It's a way of saying:  BE NICE.

This is interesting to me... you are taking this so literally, just like we accuse the Christians of interpreting their bible literally, when it's just supposed to be simple.

Quote from: "LARA"A better rule might be to ask other people how they want to be treated and and treat them that way when reasonable and ethical and only if they are willing to do the same for you.

I agree with you until the last part.  I don't agree that our behavior should be measured by how we are treated by others.  A classic example for me is every morning when I take my son to school, I go through a very busy school zone with two schools and TONS of people going in and going out of the parking lots.  The speed limit is 20 mph.  I stop EVERY MORNING momentarily to let 1 or 2 cars in and out in order to keep the flow going.  I know others have someplace to go and I don't want kids to be late for school because of traffic.  When I've had to go in there, I usually end up having to wait for 5 minutes for someone to pause and let me in.  That won't stop me from pausing to let people out.  I believe it's the right thing to do and I don't think anyone would hold it against me.  

Should I stand there and ask each person if it's okay that I let them out?  No, of course not.

Quote from: "rlrose328"The "golden rule" is supposed to mean:  Treat people well.  Period.  It's not intended to apply to every emotion or feeling or thought that a person has at any given time.  I believe that the Rule is supposed to be applied to actions.  It's a way of saying:  BE NICE.

This is interesting to me... you are taking this so literally, just like we accuse the Christians of interpreting their bible literally, when it's just supposed to be simple.

To preach a message of "being nice" is only part of the rules equation. Of course I know what it's intentions are but it fails to accomplish creating a philosophical rule that can be implied at all times as these preachers of the Golden Rule try to do. If they would wish to change the Golden Rule to "Be nice" then they should do so. It seems it tries to go a step further in depicting how to be nice. As if in any situation we can just ask ourselves "Hmm... how would I like to be treated?" and it will provide us with an answer of how this individual wishes to be treated. However people are different. Would everyone like to be treated "nicely." Sure. But this Rule does not offer a magically solution to coming off as being nice to people as it suggests.

Say some one enjoys receiving complements so they, using the Golden Rule, bombard another with a flourish of them. What if complements make this individual uncomfortable because they are a shy, humble being who hates the spotlight? Intentions were good but you didn't treat them the way they wanted to be treated. You treated them the way you wanted to be treated. It's like purchasing a gift for somebody that they don't fancy but it was on your wish list.

I know my deeper thinking gets obnoxious to some but as someone who has a love for philosophy I cannot respect such an ill conceived rule.

It really depends on which golden rule we are talking about. Some people managed to word it better than others:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm (http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm)

I think Wiccans worded it in a non-flawed manner:

Quote"An it harm no one, do what thou wilt"

Kant did too:

Quote"Act as if the maxim of thy action were to become by thy will a universal law of nature."

Native Americans:

Quote"Do not wrong or hate your neighbor. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself."

The original:

QuoteAncient Egyptian:
"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever written. 3

The "golden rule", at least popular western version, as a rule is flawed since it cannot be universally applied (by, for instance, masochists) but that doesn't make it a bad rule of thumb.

Matthew 7:12.

QuoteSo in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Quote from: "Sophus"Say some one enjoys receiving complements so they, using the Golden Rule, bombard another with a flourish of them. What if complements make this individual uncomfortable because they are a shy, humble being who hates the spotlight? Intentions were good but you didn't treat them the way they wanted to be treated. You treated them the way you wanted to be treated. It's like purchasing a gift for somebody that they don't fancy but it was on your wish list.

Does that mean that the person who is uncomfortable with praise would think badly of the person giving the compliment?  It shouldn't.  Even if praise makes me uncomfortable, I acknowledge that the person doing the praising meant well in wishing me praise.  I can appreciate the kindness they displayed rather than silently condemning them for putting me in the spotlight, and then bow out of the spotlight as graciously as I can.

See... in that instance, it's mutual.  The person receiving the praise acts on the golden rule as well by saying thank you and leaving it at that.  The person praising them might want a big THANK YOU FROM THE BOTTOM OF MY HEART but they won't get that because the reserved person can't do it.  Doesn't man the praise was unappreciated, just that the recipient is not demonstrative.  Should the praiser now be upset that he didn't get a huge thanks for his praise?

This opens an entirely NEW can of worms.

If people would just be appreciative... that even if they get something they didn't want (in a positive manner... not thievery or rape or other crime), they can appreciate that the person doing the giving means well rather than overthinking that the person is rude because they didn't ask first if praise made the other person uncomfortable.

I do know something of this firsthand... my husband is completely uncomfortable with praise.  He HATES it when someone points out how generous or kind he's been.  But he says thank you and goes about his business.  He understands the social mores of contemporary society enough to know that some people are grateful and feel the need to do or say something to acknowledge it whether or not he wants it acknowledged.  He doesn't stop to overthink it and wish they wouldn't praise him since it obviously makes them happy to do so and it doesn't hurt him to accept it with thanks.

Again... should anyone who wants to thank you for something ask if you want to be thanked or praised first?  No, that's not how society works.  I'd be afraid to praise anyone for anything if that were the social more.

Quote from: "Sophus"I know my deeper thinking gets obnoxious to some but as someone who has a love for philosophy I cannot respect such an ill conceived rule.

Until this discussion, I never gave it a second thought.  Do unto others as you'd have them do unto you just means be nice and don't hurt anyone.  Why does it have to mean more?

I really need to stay out of the Philosophy forum.  

I've been torn for some time about what the implications of the golden rule are personally.  I believe if we all truly think deeply about it, everyone wants to be liked/loved/respected.  Some people try to achieve this by attaining power which may be perceived to give them at least respect from others and maybe liked.  On the other hand some (myself included) try to get people to like and respect them by being nice 'unconditionally'.  The truth is whether we tell ourselves we are doing it for the right reasons or not, if you dig far down enough, you will see that it is for selfish reasons.

The funny thing is I realized that my intentions for being nice by watching an episode of "Friends" when Joey and Phoebe debated whether altruism exists or not.  At first, I didn't want to admit that my actions were not selfless.  The more I looked into it, I came to the realization that altruism doesn't exist in my life and doesn't exist elsewhere.  Our society encourages us to be pseudo-altruistic in order to live with less conflict.  Whether that is a result of evolution, social evolution, or both, it exists for our survival.

I put that I do not believe that the Golden Rule is flawed but obviously I'm working from a Christian perspective so my opinion is going to be expressed as such. Treating others is a part of demonstrating love for the person, compassion and empathy. All of which, if truly practiced, must take into account the other person's personality. For instance, would you really argue that you don't believe people should take into account your personality when being kind to you? Of course not, the Golden Rule still applies if you put your own underlying social needs in the framework of the idea as a whole.

Quote from: "Titan"I put that I do not believe that the Golden Rule is flawed but obviously I'm working from a Christian perspective so my opinion is going to be expressed as such. Treating others is a part of demonstrating love for the person, compassion and empathy. All of which, if truly practiced, must take into account the other person's personality. For instance, would you really argue that you don't believe people should take into account your personality when being kind to you? Of course not, the Golden Rule still applies if you put your own underlying social needs in the framework of the idea as a whole.

That does of course work but it is probably one of the few (if not only) instances it does. So why not bypass that altogether and make a much more bullet proof golden rule that say 'Treat other the way they would like to be treated.' But of course there's a flaw with that too as another may have an incredibly enlarged egotism. Basically, you're not going to get a Golden Rule from one line of thought.

Again, Christians are working with a Christian framework (sorry for being obvious) but there are implications that this rule draws from such positions concerning man's nature, redemption and the value of people as individuals.

Quote from: "Titan"Again, Christians are working with a Christian framework (sorry for being obvious) but there are implications that this rule draws from such positions concerning man's nature, redemption and the value of people as individuals.

I view that as mental slavery. You shouldn't let one conviction persuade them all. If you free yourself up to consider it (perhaps you truly are) then you may find you disagree with it.

Finding fault in Christian philosophy would discredit God's all knowing wisdom. Discovering that your moral fiber may naturally have a different loyalty may also reveal that this perfect God's morals do not line up with yours. Odd for him to make someone that way, eh? My point is to discover truth we have to have an open mind and feel free to do so in a relationship with God. I was once a Christian. Could I have semi-regretfully left it and come to atheism with out an open mind?

QuoteFinding fault in Christian philosophy would discredit God's all knowing wisdom.

I disagree with this. Finding fault in Christian philosophy would demonstrate that Christianity is wrong on the question. The problem is that you can't analyze Christian doctrine from an atheistic perspective. You have to see who this rule is meant for.

QuoteCould I have semi-regretfully left it and come to atheism with out an open mind?

Absolutely, that is why I believe that debate is necessary and I hope to answer the questions that turned people away if I can.

I think I understand where you're coming from Titan, in reference to your hope to supply us with answers on the subject of the Christian faith. A noble and respectable intention it is. But keep in mind that it is most likely the things we atheist do understand that hinders grasp of fait rather than the things that we don't. Questions are asked to provoke thinking for you not us. After all how would we prove/disprove any theory: By questioning.

I'm a little confused by your first statement: "Finding fault in Christian philosophy would demonstrate that Christianity is wrong on the question."

Does this mean you ackownledge it could be wrong about one thing? If it could be wrong about one thing why not others? Seems to me if the Bible is God Breathed and God is all knowing his wisdom would be remarkably undisputable.

QuoteI think I understand where you're coming from Titan, in reference to your hope to supply us with answers on the subject of the Christian faith. A noble and respectable intention it is. But keep in mind that it is most likely the things we atheist do understand that hinders grasp of fait rather than the things that we don't. Questions are asked to provoke thinking for you not us. After all how would we prove/disprove any theory: By questioning.

I realize that. But the problem is that you are trying to show a flaw in the golden rule by using an atheistic perspective. Of course you are going to find a flaw in it from an atheistic perspective, but from a Christian perspective it stands against the test of contradiction against the system of value and judgment.

QuoteI'm a little confused by your first statement: "Finding fault in Christian philosophy would demonstrate that Christianity is wrong on the question."

Does this mean you ackownledge it could be wrong about one thing? If it could be wrong about one thing why not others? Seems to me if the Bible is God Breathed and God is all knowing his wisdom would be remarkably undisputable.

Yes, if Christianity (i.e. the Bible) is wrong on ONE THING, as in undeniably wrong, the theory falls apart. I am willing to adamantly admit that the Bible could very well be wrong, but given the evidence, I do not believe so.

Quote from: "myleviathan"

Quote from: "BuckAv"My golden rule: "Don't be a douche"

Pretty much covers things for me.

Word! That's so true. A lot of people would do well to remember not to be a douche. This would solve a lot of world issues.

Haha.

Tell that to all the guys over at www.hotchickswithdouchebags.com (http://www.hotchickswithdouchebags.com)

Thats a funny site.

This is a little out of context in the way i imagine the rule to be. It seems that 'treat others as you'd like to be treated' can be abused too. It can be taken a little too literally.

I use that rule but I don't run around imposing it on others. I think someone who is suicidal is a bad example. I'm sure there are people with suicidal tendencies who aren't homicidal maniacs. To suggest that if you are suicidal means you think that everyone else should die is a little weird. I knew a girl who killed herself. She was the nicest person I knew. She just had very bad issues which made her think she wanted to end her life. She CERTAINLY did not want others to die.

Sophus said: "Say someone enjoys receiving complements so they, using the Golden Rule, bombard another with a flourish of them. What if complements make this individual uncomfortable because they are a shy, humble being who hates the spotlight? Intentions were good but you didn't treat them the way they wanted to be treated. You treated them the way you wanted to be treated. It's like purchasing a gift for somebody that they don't fancy but it was on your wish list."

Oh no!!! Someone bought me a gift I didn't want! What shall I do? Seriously, when in the grand scheme of things is this going to ruin someone's life? If this is the only flaw in the golden rule then that is why it is golden in my opinion. Realistically, people don't like to be bombarded with complements (unless you are an egotistical narcissistic douche bag - someone I don't intentionally associate with) so I think that is also a moot point. If someone started paying me compliment after compliment, I'd either think they were weird or after something. Either way, I'd be slightly weirded out and I'd talk to someone else.

There are many social rules in life which we live by but you could be pedantic about all of them. I could hold the door open at work for every person which comes in that day and at the end of the day complain bitterly that I'd had to hold it open ALL DAY!!!111oneone. That, obviously, is taking a little social rule and making a mockery of it.

I stand by my 'treat others as you'd like to be treated' and I'll defy anyone who thinks they can come up with a valid point as to why I shouldn't use it.

Basically, humans like comfort and dislike stuff which is uncomfortable. This applies to all but the most insane. I don't associate with insane people so the golden rule still applies. The empirical evidence I have for the 18 or-so years i've been applying this rule leads me to know i'm right.

Quote from: "karadan"Sophus said: "Say someone enjoys receiving complements so they, using the Golden Rule, bombard another with a flourish of them. What if complements make this individual uncomfortable because they are a shy, humble being who hates the spotlight? Intentions were good but you didn't treat them the way they wanted to be treated. You treated them the way you wanted to be treated. It's like purchasing a gift for somebody that they don't fancy but it was on your wish list."

Oh no!!! Someone bought me a gift I didn't want! What shall I do? Seriously, when in the grand scheme of things is this going to ruin someone's life? If this is the only flaw in the golden rule then that is why it is golden in my opinion. Realistically, people don't like to be bombarded with complements (unless you are an egotistical narcissistic douche bag - someone I don't intentionally associate with) so I think that is also a moot point. If someone started paying me compliment after compliment, I'd either think they were weird or after something. Either way, I'd be slightly weirded out and I'd talk to someone else.

There are many social rules in life which we live by but you could be pedantic about all of them. I could hold the door open at work for every person which comes in that day and at the end of the day complain bitterly that I'd had to hold it open ALL DAY!!!111oneone. That, obviously, is taking a little social rule and making a mockery of it.

Of course most suicidals aren't murdering maniacs because they don't care about themselves. They have no use for such a rule with the intent to bring perfection to society if they don't value life itself. My scenario is depicting what would happen if they did apply the rule.

Well, taking this to an extreme but nonetheless possible, given the person has a psychological disorder of some sort it could potentially pose a threat. Either way the Golden Rule misses it's mark, and while most likely the results will of course not be devastating it is still flawed, and, as we all seem to agree upon, cannot be used in every situation however unlikely it may seem. Thus it isn't perfect, thus something perfect didn't make it.

Quote from: "Titan"I realize that. But the problem is that you are trying to show a flaw in the golden rule by using an atheistic perspective. Of course you are going to find a flaw in it from an atheistic perspective, but from a Christian perspective it stands against the test of contradiction against the system of value and judgment.

I've seen you post a theory along these lines before, a number of times. I'm curious about it, though. You say that one cannot examine or critique the Bible (and, following, Christianity) from an atheistic (secular) perspective. I wonder, though, why this is. Isn't the way we learn about the world dependent upon looking at things from many different angles? When we look at Marxism, we need to look at it through the lens of economics, class, even philosophy, but what's stopping us looking at it through the lens of social justice or feminism? Isn't that how we shed light on concepts?

I just don't buy that we can't examine something made for one purpose (the Bible or a wall urinal) through a different lens (atheism or art, respectively), or that even if we do it somehow becomes less valid.

I agree Curio. I think it best to look at things from multiple perspectives. Only way you'll get an unbiased answer. Needless to say, I have had my fair share, Titan, of looking at things through a Christian perspective.

Titan, you need to understand that many of us have walked in your shoes... or tried to, some of us desperately, before finding our way to atheism.  On this forum, we do find MANY who were raised atheist (and I envy you!), but I was raised in a Christian household by a very pious woman who, as a Lutheran, privately preached bigotry and hatred against anyone who wasn't Christian.  I prayed, I read the bible, I went to bible study, I attended confirmation classes... I tried, and I tried HARD.

I think if anyone is in the position to judge the bible and Christianity, it's someone who has been on both sides, but especially someone who can look at it objectively, the freethinkers among us.  I may not be that person completely, but it IS possible to evaluate the bible and its adherents from an atheist persective.

Quote from: "Sophus"

Quote from: "karadan"Sophus said: "Say someone enjoys receiving complements so they, using the Golden Rule, bombard another with a flourish of them. What if complements make this individual uncomfortable because they are a shy, humble being who hates the spotlight? Intentions were good but you didn't treat them the way they wanted to be treated. You treated them the way you wanted to be treated. It's like purchasing a gift for somebody that they don't fancy but it was on your wish list."

Oh no!!! Someone bought me a gift I didn't want! What shall I do? Seriously, when in the grand scheme of things is this going to ruin someone's life? If this is the only flaw in the golden rule then that is why it is golden in my opinion. Realistically, people don't like to be bombarded with complements (unless you are an egotistical narcissistic douche bag - someone I don't intentionally associate with) so I think that is also a moot point. If someone started paying me compliment after compliment, I'd either think they were weird or after something. Either way, I'd be slightly weirded out and I'd talk to someone else.

There are many social rules in life which we live by but you could be pedantic about all of them. I could hold the door open at work for every person which comes in that day and at the end of the day complain bitterly that I'd had to hold it open ALL DAY!!!111oneone. That, obviously, is taking a little social rule and making a mockery of it.

Of course most suicidals aren't murdering maniacs because they don't care about themselves. They have no use for such a rule with the intent to bring perfection to society if they don't value life itself. My scenario is depicting what would happen if they did apply the rule.

Well, taking this to an extreme but nonetheless possible, given the person has a psychological disorder of some sort it could potentially pose a threat. Either way the Golden Rule misses it's mark, and while most likely the results will of course not be devastating it is still flawed, and, as we all seem to agree upon, cannot be used in every situation however unlikely it may seem. Thus it isn't perfect, thus something perfect didn't make it.

Well yeah, nothing is perfect but i guess the rule is as flawed as the human brain. Some people go insane. When they do, the rule breaks down. I think that is the point we can agree on.

You are making quite a large sweeping statement about suicide again. Have you ever been suicidal? To say they don't value life is an enormous innacuracy. I don't see your point by using it as an example and if i'm honest, it is quite upsetting to read. I've known more than one person commit suicide and i myself have been suicidal in the past. You are truly off the mark in your assumptions.

QuoteI've seen you post a theory along these lines before, a number of times. I'm curious about it, though. You say that one cannot examine or critique the Bible (and, following, Christianity) from an atheistic (secular) perspective. I wonder, though, why this is. Isn't the way we learn about the world dependent upon looking at things from many different angles? When we look at Marxism, we need to look at it through the lens of economics, class, even philosophy, but what's stopping us looking at it through the lens of social justice or feminism? Isn't that how we shed light on concepts?

No that isn't the point of that line of reasoning. It goes more like this: I am arguing for something within the context of the Bible say... Christ as the messiah. Now, in order to show that Christ is the messiah of the old testament I would take the old testament prophecies and show a direct correlation with the figure of Christ. The problem is that an atheistic perspective would say: "Well the Old Testament was fabricated anyway." while that may be your opinion, that isn't what we are discussing. That is what I mean by going from the wrong vantage point. IN order to critique a Christian dogma from a moral, ethical, and Biblical perspective you have to look at it through the lens of Christianity...not accept Christianity. Just not go from an atheistic perspective and say that there is no God in the first place so it doesn't matter what my answer is. If you reject the Christian religion you reject the Golden Rule, but the Golden rule is not self-contradictory within a Christian framework. That is my point.

We should look at things from different perspectives but when a perspective rules out the fundamental aspect of the question, then intellectual discourse on the matter will never be able to take place.

Modified Golden Rule: "treat people the way you would want to be treated if you were those people."

Quote from: "Martian"Modified Golden Rule: "treat people the way you would want to be treated if you were those people."

Now that I like. Martian, I dare say, you are wiser than God.  

I would disagree if I was forced to take the atheists side. That is only true if they CAN do the same thing to you. If you can get away with hurting others for your own gain there is nothing wrong with it. It doesn't matter whether other people don't want to be hurt.

Quote from: "Titan"I would disagree if I was forced to take the atheists side. That is only true if they CAN do the same thing to you. If you can get away with hurting others for your own gain there is nothing wrong with it. It doesn't matter whether other people don't want to be hurt.

You can get to that conclusion as a theist too. In fact, theists (even the christian God) haven't been following the golden rule, even after deep consideration.

Just remember that morality is a matter of preference. There is no "true morality"; "true morality" is an oxymoron. It's not an objective question. Morality is an invention, a creation. Even the Christian God makes up morality. The atheist can come to any conclusion he/she likes, and the same goes for the theist.

Quote from: "Martian"

Quote from: "Titan"I would disagree if I was forced to take the atheists side. That is only true if they CAN do the same thing to you. If you can get away with hurting others for your own gain there is nothing wrong with it. It doesn't matter whether other people don't want to be hurt.

You can get to that conclusion as a theist too. In fact, theists (even the christian God) haven't been following the golden rule, even after deep consideration.

Just remember that morality is a matter of preference. There is no "true morality"; "true morality" is an oxymoron. It's not an objective question. Morality is an invention, a creation. Even the Christian God makes up morality. The atheist can come to any conclusion he/she likes, and the same goes for the theist.

Theists can only come to that conclusion out of an irrational outworking because, for one thing, you NEVER get away with it.  

As for your point on the subjectivity of morality I am forced to pause with some skepticism. You see, if atheists are correct then it is difficult to know whether morality is subjective. Since you are living only within your experiences you have no rational reason to assume that your neighbor has any value in making a moral system. You are all you experience and therefore you are the only thing that matters in the entire universe, therefore other people's wishes and whims take a backseat to your desires and you can no longer argue that morality is subjective because you cannot truly speak as to who your neighbors are. As for the Christian God, the matter is different...you see, the Christian God creates everything and assigns value and purpose to all things, a logical outworking of this is morality. But when there is a Creator God there is no such thing as subjective morals insofar as they are valid.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Martian"

Quote from: "Titan"I would disagree if I was forced to take the atheists side. That is only true if they CAN do the same thing to you. If you can get away with hurting others for your own gain there is nothing wrong with it. It doesn't matter whether other people don't want to be hurt.

You can get to that conclusion as a theist too. In fact, theists (even the christian God) haven't been following the golden rule, even after deep consideration.

Just remember that morality is a matter of preference. There is no "true morality"; "true morality" is an oxymoron. It's not an objective question. Morality is an invention, a creation. Even the Christian God makes up morality. The atheist can come to any conclusion he/she likes, and the same goes for the theist.

Theists can only come to that conclusion out of an irrational outworking because, for one thing, you NEVER get away with it.

How is it irrational? It seems perfectly non-contradictory.

Also, what do you mean by "NEVER get away with it"? According to Christians, many people break God's morality and live perfectly happy lives and even end up in heaven (according to Christians).

QuoteAs for your point on the subjectivity of morality I am forced to pause with some skepticism. You see, if atheists are correct then it is difficult to know whether morality is subjective.

What makes you think that the existence of a God has anything to do with morality? Is it because God holds the biggest, most powerful gun and is making demands? That would be subjective. But I would suppose that you are supporting the idea that God makes demands that coincide with what is objectively moral. Because I'm sure that you would proport that God's commands are good not because he made them. Rather, they are objective. In response to that, I will use an example.

Let's say God demands: "Do not kill." How can we analyze this command to see if it's true? Where do we look? You can search the outer reaches of space, and you can look at components of atoms, but there is no way to show that that command is true. This is because a command is not something that is objective. Sure the fact that someone made a command is objective, but the command itself does not just exist in the universe. Ergo, there is no universal command. There are merely commanders making their own commands or promoting/adopting the commands of others.

So, with that, I hope you can see, and join me in concluding that there is no objective morality and that atheists and theists both share the same "problem of morality".

QuoteSince you are living only within your experiences you have no rational reason to assume that your neighbor has any value in making a moral system.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by, "...your neighbor has [strike:2e9s3w6o]any[/strike:2e9s3w6o] value in making a moral system." Valuing is a subjective affair. What is the thing being or not being valued, and who is the valuer? Is the valuer the hypothetical atheist or is it the neighbor? What is being valued, the neighbor or the neighbor's moral system or the neighbor making the moral system? And also, why must the valuer value a certain object in the way you described?

QuoteYou are all you experience and therefore you are the only thing that matters in the entire universe, therefore other people's wishes and whims take a backseat to your desires and you can no longer argue that morality is subjective because you cannot truly speak as to who your neighbors are.

I'm not sure what "you cannot truly speak as to who your neighbors are" means. As far as I can tell you are making a logical leap here.

I would like to point out that "mattering" is not an objective thing. It is a subjective thing between object and person, and can (and more than likely will) differ between people.

QuoteAs for the Christian God, the matter is different...you see, the Christian God creates everything and assigns value and purpose to all things, a logical outworking of this is morality. But when there is a Creator God there is no such thing as subjective morals insofar as they are valid.

How did God assign value and purpose? Those things (value and purpose) are subjective by definition, because they only exist as the feelings that one person independently feels. As I went over before, we cannot discover value or purpose in the universe. Rather we create it for ourselves based upon what we want or what we are told to want. And by no means can we conclude that morality is objective, because in the case where God does exist, it is merely his preferences that we would be following.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Martian"

Quote from: "Titan"I would disagree if I was forced to take the atheists side. That is only true if they CAN do the same thing to you. If you can get away with hurting others for your own gain there is nothing wrong with it. It doesn't matter whether other people don't want to be hurt.

You can get to that conclusion as a theist too. In fact, theists (even the christian God) haven't been following the golden rule, even after deep consideration.

Just remember that morality is a matter of preference. There is no "true morality"; "true morality" is an oxymoron. It's not an objective question. Morality is an invention, a creation. Even the Christian God makes up morality. The atheist can come to any conclusion he/she likes, and the same goes for the theist.

Theists can only come to that conclusion out of an irrational outworking because, for one thing, you NEVER get away with it.

How is it irrational? It seems perfectly non-contradictory.

Also, what do you mean by "NEVER get away with it"? According to Christians, many people break God's morality and live perfectly happy lives and even end up in heaven (according to Christians).[/quote]
It is contradictory in that they are not following the Bible if they do the crimes.
As for people breaking God's moral code there are two elements to that 1) There is the salvation aspect in which yes God doesn't hold it against you but there is also 2) That phrase "well done my good and faithful servant" which you will never heard. There is no crime that goes unnoticed and God is the ultimate judge.

Quote

QuoteAs for your point on the subjectivity of morality I am forced to pause with some skepticism. You see, if atheists are correct then it is difficult to know whether morality is subjective.

What makes you think that the existence of a God has anything to do with morality? Is it because God holds the biggest, most powerful gun and is making demands? That would be subjective. But I would suppose that you are supporting the idea that God makes demands that coincide with what is objectively moral. Because I'm sure that you would proport that God's commands are good not because he made them. Rather, they are objective. In response to that, I will use an example.

Let's say God demands: "Do not kill." How can we analyze this command to see if it's true? Where do we look? You can search the outer reaches of space, and you can look at components of atoms, but there is no way to show that that command is true. This is because a command is not something that is objective. Sure the fact that someone made a command is objective, but the command itself does not just exist in the universe. Ergo, there is no universal command. There are merely commanders making their own commands or promoting/adopting the commands of others.

So, with that, I hope you can see, and join me in concluding that there is no objective morality and that atheists and theists both share the same "problem of morality".

Your first problem is that you are STILL looking at Christian morality from an atheistic perspective. You are assuming God's only role in the universe is an arbitrary law maker who makes rules for no reason. That is not the case. God gives value to all things because he creates all things. Killing something is wrong because that thing belongs to God, that life belongs to God and only he can take it. Destroying atoms are wrong if God's purpose for them is other than your intent. That is why the universal command applies if God is real.

Quote

QuoteSince you are living only within your experiences you have no rational reason to assume that your neighbor has any value in making a moral system.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by, "...your neighbor has [strike:2pa1vp0a]any[/strike:2pa1vp0a] value in making a moral system." Valuing is a subjective affair. What is the thing being or not being valued, and who is the valuer? Is the valuer the hypothetical atheist or is it the neighbor? What is being valued, the neighbor or the neighbor's moral system or the neighbor making the moral system? And also, why must the valuer value a certain object in the way you described?

I was pointing out that from a personal vantage point the neighbor holds no real value. You cannot experience the neighbor's life, you cannot attest to him feeling anything or thinking anything. You are all you know for sure. Therefore, if you believe that there is no God and all of nature is transitory then all else is subjective to your interpretation of value. Regardless of whether that includes rape, genocide or slavery.

Quote

QuoteYou are all you experience and therefore you are the only thing that matters in the entire universe, therefore other people's wishes and whims take a backseat to your desires and you can no longer argue that morality is subjective because you cannot truly speak as to who your neighbors are.

I'm not sure what "you cannot truly speak as to who your neighbors are" means. As far as I can tell you are making a logical leap here.

I would like to point out that "mattering" is not an objective thing. It is a subjective thing between object and person, and can (and more than likely will) differ between people.

My argument is that man isn't the measure of all things. You are proving atheistic dogma with atheistic dogma, circular reasoning. IF there is a God (again, if) then there is no subjectivity in value. Man does not create man or matter and therefore has no claim to control over it accept what the Creator gives him.

Quote

QuoteAs for the Christian God, the matter is different...you see, the Christian God creates everything and assigns value and purpose to all things, a logical outworking of this is morality. But when there is a Creator God there is no such thing as subjective morals insofar as they are valid.

How did God assign value and purpose? Those things (value and purpose) are subjective by definition, because they only exist as the feelings that one person independently feels. As I went over before, we cannot discover value or purpose in the universe. Rather we create it for ourselves based upon what we want or what we are told to want. And by no means can we conclude that morality is objective, because in the case where God does exist, it is merely his preferences that we would be following.

Again, you are still basing all of existence (even in your mock theistic universe) on atheistic dogma. That Abraham Lincoln quote: "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four, just because you call a tail a leg doesn't make it one." If there is an objective definition of the value of things, and that value would come from God creating it and giving it value as he sees fit, then it doesn't matter what we feel, it only matters what God "feels." Second, your last statement denies the definition of subjectivity and objectivity. If morality is based on what God wants and that that moral definition applies to everybody, that is an objective definition. Just as it would be an objective moral code if I decided what was right and wrong for everyone. Subjectivity is everyone making their own definition up.

Quote from: "Titan"It is contradictory in that they are not following the Bible if they do the crimes.

As for people breaking God's moral code there are two elements to that 1) There is the salvation aspect in which yes God doesn't hold it against you but there is also 2) That phrase "well done my good and faithful servant" which you will never heard. There is no crime that goes unnoticed and God is the ultimate judge.

Your first statement is not true. A person can believe in God (be a theist) and not follow the bible.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Martian"What makes you think that the existence of a God has anything to do with morality? Is it because God holds the biggest, most powerful gun and is making demands? That would be subjective. But I would suppose that you are supporting the idea that God makes demands that coincide with what is objectively moral. Because I'm sure that you would proport that God's commands are good not because he made them. Rather, they are objective. In response to that, I will use an example.

Let's say God demands: "Do not kill." How can we analyze this command to see if it's true? Where do we look? You can search the outer reaches of space, and you can look at components of atoms, but there is no way to show that that command is true. This is because a command is not something that is objective. Sure the fact that someone made a command is objective, but the command itself does not just exist in the universe. Ergo, there is no universal command. There are merely commanders making their own commands or promoting/adopting the commands of others.

So, with that, I hope you can see, and join me in concluding that there is no objective morality and that atheists and theists both share the same "problem of morality".

*Your first problem is that you are STILL looking at Christian morality from an atheistic perspective. **You are assuming God's only role in the universe is an arbitrary law maker who makes rules for no reason. That is not the case. ***God gives value to all things because he creates all things. ****Killing something is wrong because that thing belongs to God, that life belongs to God and only he can take it. Destroying atoms are wrong if God's purpose for them is other than your intent. *****That is why the universal command applies if God is real.

*) Atheist perspective? An atheist does not believe in a God, that is the atheist perspective. When I was talking, I made the assumption that God existed. So, I was actually working from a theistic perspective.
**) I made no such statement limiting God's actions to those of enforcing his demands. Nor did I say that his demands are arbitrary.
***) "Giving value" really means that one is making value for himself/herself. The value does not somehow go into the object being valued, it's created up in the mind. The only thing you could possibly be saying is that God made some values for himself. Actually GIVING values to objects makes no sense.
****) That is a matter of definition of morality, right, and wrong.
*****) When used the term "universal command" I was refering to the rule that God wants to be followed, that are encoded into the UNIVERSE. And that, I'm sure you would agree, is just impossible. There needs to be someone issuing a command. And obviously that command will stem from that person's preferences.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Martian"I'm not quite sure what you mean by, "...your neighbor has [strike:3im0j7go]any[/strike:3im0j7go] value in making a moral system." Valuing is a subjective affair. What is the thing being or not being valued, and who is the valuer? Is the valuer the hypothetical atheist or is it the neighbor? What is being valued, the neighbor or the neighbor's moral system or the neighbor making the moral system? And also, why must the valuer value a certain object in the way you described?

I was pointing out that from a personal vantage point the neighbor holds no real value. You cannot experience the neighbor's life, you cannot attest to him feeling anything or thinking anything. You are all you know for sure. Therefore, if you believe that there is no God and all of nature is transitory then all else is subjective to your interpretation of value. Regardless of whether that includes rape, genocide or slavery.

Actually, from my personal vantage point, I can see that my neighbor is similar to me. I don't know about you, but the similarities are so many that they point to that person having a mind and feelings as I have. You are going to extreme skepticism when you approach solipsism.

Quote from: "titan"

Quote from: "Martian"

Quote from: "titan"You are all you experience and therefore you are the only thing that matters in the entire universe, therefore other people's wishes and whims take a backseat to your desires and you can no longer argue that morality is subjective because you cannot truly speak as to who your neighbors are.

I'm not sure what "you cannot truly speak as to who your neighbors are" means. As far as I can tell you are making a logical leap here.

I would like to point out that "mattering" is not an objective thing. It is a subjective thing between object and person, and can (and more than likely will) differ between people.

*My argument is that man isn't the measure of all things. **You are proving atheistic dogma with atheistic dogma, circular reasoning. ***IF there is a God (again, if) then there is no subjectivity in value. ****Man does not create man or matter and therefore has no claim to control over it accept what the Creator gives him.

* What does "man is the measure of all things" even mean in the first place?
** "God does not exist" is the atheist dogma. I don't know what else you're talking about in this sentence.
*** This statement does NOT follow. God made the world. He has his values. I have my values. You have your values. That does make any of mentioned valuer's values objective. Each one subjectively values. In fact, saying "subjectively value" is redundent. Values are SUBJECTIVE BY DEFINITION.
**** Just because someone didn't create something doesn't mean they can't have it. Your rule that one cannot take what God made is something you made up.

Quote from: "Titan"

Quote from: "Martian"

Quote from: "Titan"As for the Christian God, the matter is different...you see, the Christian God creates everything and assigns value and purpose to all things, a logical outworking of this is morality. But when there is a Creator God there is no such thing as subjective morals insofar as they are valid.

How did God assign value and purpose? Those things (value and purpose) are subjective by definition, because they only exist as the feelings that one person independently feels. As I went over before, we cannot discover value or purpose in the universe. Rather we create it for ourselves based upon what we want or what we are told to want. And by no means can we conclude that morality is objective, because in the case where God does exist, it is merely his preferences that we would be following.

Again, you are still basing all of existence (even in your mock theistic universe) on atheistic dogma. That Abraham Lincoln quote: "How many legs does a dog have if you call a tail a leg? Four, just because you call a tail a leg doesn't make it one." If there is an objective definition of the value of things, and that value would come from God creating it and giving it value as he sees fit, then it doesn't matter what we feel, it only matters what God "feels." Second, your last statement denies the definition of subjectivity and objectivity. If morality is based on what God wants and that that moral definition applies to everybody, that is an objective definition. Just as it would be an objective moral code if I decided what was right and wrong for everyone. Subjectivity is everyone making their own definition up.

1) I don't understand why you keep on refering to morality as though it is something that can exist in the world.
2) Would say that God raping everybody and slaughtering little children is immoral, even though God wants to do it?
3) Morality is whatever God wants. Morality is whatever I want. Morality is whatever you want. A dog has five legs...

Reminds me of this Cloud Cult song:

[youtube:x089qd5x]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRqZ93rPc04[/youtube:x089qd5x]

Specifically,

QuoteHe said, "Do unto yourself
As you do unto your neighbor
It's not an eye for an eye
It's a favor for a favor

"And it's okay if this world
Had a billion saviors
'Cause there's so many things to be saved'

I hesitate to enter this debate. I am steamrollered by Titan's massive certainty most of the time, but I have to ask why deists think atheists have no sense of or concern for what is right. I am an atheist in part because most versions of god portray an unfair, petty, barbarically violent dictator. If he exists, he is a dick, and I want none of it. Come on...human sacrifice? blood atonement? sin all you want...if you come to christ you get a "get out of jail free" card? no matter how much suffering you alleviate or how much good you do, if you can't wrap your brain around the seriously internally flawed document we inherited from some supposedly divinely inspired catholic dudes, you burn eternally?  ETERNAL HELL?

I consider myself a secular humanist. If this is all we get, then it is imperative that we make life the best it can be for each person. I have so many more reasons to be a better person now than I did when I was all hung up on my eternal soul. I have the freedom to feel empathy for anyone...not just other christians. I have the freedom to consider my actions based on reason and my own good conscience (yes, Titan, atheists have them, too). I want to do what is right because I choose to be a force for good. If I steal, I am a thief. No god is going to erase my nature for me, so I must be the best person I can be. I don't need no stupid god to tell me right from wrong, and I don't need the threat of hell to make me choose constructive over destructive behavior.

Also, Titan, you seem to think that Christians value others more because God assigned them value and will kick your deist ass if you break his rules. Atheists don't value others because somehow our lack of faith in god equals us valuing nothing but ourselves. I beg to differ. Most of my deist friends are way more hung up on being sure they are right with god than on being sure they are right with their fellow man. Although I cannot speak for all atheists. I value nature, and life itself very highly. I value many things more than I value my own hide...god just isn't one of them.

Someone get me off this soapbox before I hurt myself!

I wanted to add that when deists assume that with no god there is no reason to be good, I can't help but picture them as children with an imaginary parent. He promises them eternal bliss if they are good and the boogey man is gonna get them forever if they're bad. I wonder what they'd do if their god just vanished. Would they have orgies in the street? That seems to be what they think we do despite the obvious lack of copulating atheists on most streets.

When I grew up and left home, I had to evaluate my reasons for continuing to do the right thing. It wasn't that I was tempted to go bad. I just needed to understand and own my moral compass. I studied philosophy and psychology and religion. There are many logical reasons to be good, the simplest of which is, if you want civil society, behave civilly. It was always important to me to do good in the world, though, even without logical or religious reasons. I have been a volunteer for many causes over the years, including the Special Olympics, Meals on Wheels, Hospice, and many others. Right now I volunteer for the American Lung Association of Washington and also at my children's schools. I do good because I like how it makes me feel about myself and about the world. It gives me a sense of interconnectedness, purpose, and peace. It keeps my compassion healthy and real. I avoid doing bad things, as much as possible, because doing bad things makes me feel bad. Conscience is independent of faith.

We're veering slightly from the topic but this is a good point. Many theists act on morals out of obligation while atheists do so from the heart. If you have to love someone because Big Brother tells you to then it's not really love at all.

I think the mark of a mature person is when they have the integrity to do the right thing when nobody is looking. Or for that matter when they think someone (a certain omnipotent hypocrite) is constantly judging them.

By the way... to clarify any possible confusing, my critique of the Golden Rule is not to disown morality but improve upon it.

Thanks, Sophus, and sorry for veering. I had noticed that the style on this board seem to be to defend atheism with logic and rhetoric and, if you'll forgive me, sophism. I felt like I had to step in and defend our camp against this attack on our collective character with a few words from the heart. I think it is ironic that christians think they are the most generous, selfless people in the world when their primary concern is not for the suffering all around them, but for the chance that they might cash in on the ultimate jackpot upon death or rapture.