Flaw with the Golden Rule

[Sophus]

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.

[curiosityandthecat]

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.

[Sophus]

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.

[rlrose328]

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.

[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.

[Titan]

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?

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.

[Martian]

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

[Sophus]

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.  

[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.

[Martian]

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.

[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.

[Martian]

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).

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.

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".

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.

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?

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Martian]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

[curiosityandthecat]

Reminds me of this Cloud Cult song:

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

Specifically,

He 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'