Flaw with the Golden Rule

[rlrose328]

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.

[rlrose328]

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.

[Sophus]

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.

[Whitney]

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

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

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

Kant did too:

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

Native Americans:

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

The original:

Ancient 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.

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

[rlrose328]

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.

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.  

[DennisK]

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.

[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.

[Sophus]

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.

[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.

[Sophus]

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?

[Titan]

Finding 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.

Could 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.

[Sophus]

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.

[Titan]

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 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'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.

[karadan]

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

Thats a funny site.

[karadan]

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.