Flaw with the Golden Rule

[Sophus]

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.

[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.

[PipeBox]

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.   >_>

[BuckAv]

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

Pretty much covers things for me.

[myleviathan]

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.

[Asmodean]

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

[Sophus]

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

[DennisK]

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.

[curiosityandthecat]

...too late?

[Whitney]

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

[Kyuuketsuki]

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

[Zarathustra]

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.

[LARA]

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.

[rlrose328]

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.)

[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.