So how is that better? So guy doesn’t make unwanted sexual remarks to girl because that’s not how she wants to be treated. Does that mean she should make sexual remarks to him because he likes it?
I repeat, Oversimplifying the golden rule is justification rather than following it. The golden rule includes respect and consideration of others. So, guy who would like to hear sexual talk still wants respect and consideration. That means he doesn’t make unwanted and unwelcome remarks to others.
Some people are cruel and tactless in their communication and defend themselves by saying they’re just being honest. It’s BS, honesty doesn’t require that we express our opinion without tact or consideration.
You are not seeing the wood for the trees. Your inherent sense of fairness which causes you to say “you’re going to choose to pay … 20% regardless” is an embodiment of the rule. Why not just vote for 20% tax and then not pay it yourself (assuming you can get away with it)? Answer: because you inherently think of that as grossly unfair, because it offends the golden rule.
The golden rule is one so ingrained that most of us apply it without any conscious decision to apply it.
As I said above, the golden rule is not a rule useful for resolving every complex moral or ethical dilemma. It is a rule that underlies the basic thinking of people who are not assholes.
It is superfluous like breathing is superfluous. You don’t need to think about the rule, and you don’t need to think about breathing. But you’ll sure as hell notice if you stop.
You’re applying the rule wrong. The question, once again, is not whether I believe that the annoyance I cause is as nothing compared to the joy that will eventually result. The correct question is whether I would want you to stop, even if you believed that the annoyance you are causing is as nothing to the joy that will eventually result. Since I would, I should stop.
Right. But in this case, the two aren’t in conflict.
But people are willing to accept different amounts of those things. If you had a hideous pair of trousers, for example, would you prefer I tell you they’re awful or would you prefer I keep that to myself? The answer’s going to be different for different people. Likewise, belittlement may be appropriate if fair criticism doesn’t get through. While most people can agree on generalities, it falls down in application.
But what if you don’t both what that? You’re right, if both parties feel the same way, there’s no problem and the rule is a good one. But they don’t. Some people would put truth above temporary annoyance. Some people think choice is more important than pushing someone.
But now you’re adding stuff. The Golden Rule alone is what i’m arguing against.
I don’t think that’s unfair. It might be hypocritical. But no, I wouldn’t consider it unfair. What I do for others has no bearing on what others do for me, unless we have some kind of contract, and I don’t believe in universal ones like that. If, for example, I paid a huge amount in taxes and then having fallen on bad times myself end up recieving nothing because no-one gives - well, then i’m pretty out of luck, but I wouldn’t consider it unfair. I have no right to expect the golden rule.
Well, I might be an asshole, but I suppose I tend to take slight offense at that. Besides, look at it this way; if the only reason people do good is by imagining themselves in the shoes of others, by getting as close as is possible mentally to being in that situation themselves without actually being in it, then I would tend to say that could be assholish, too. It’s a system based around justifying that which you give by hijacking selfishness.
Apparently my name is more apt than i’d planned, then.
The question is, which *you * am I supposed to treat as I would like to be? The one who vehemently disagrees, who’s annoyed by what I do? Or the one who may end up a happier and fulfilled person if they accept what i’m saying?
If I believe the potential good outweighs the potential bad, why is it that I must ignore the second you and focus only on the first? Is it the case in all situations that I must take the other person’s immediate wants into account, while ignoring their long-term ones?
I’m not for a moment suggesting that you are an asshole. Your answer above suggests precisely that you are not.
But answer me this: above you said in relation to my tax example: “You’re going to choose to pay (or vote to pay, anyway) 20% regardless of whether you followed the rule or not.”
Why are you going to choose to pay the 20%? Purely because if you don’t you’ll get punished, or for some other reason? If so, what?
Really? If she did it to me, I would have liked it? Hmmm…
Let’s say Herman, the pervy boy from accounting, is always making innuendos and comments around the ladies. He walks up to a fresh new data entry person who happens to be HOT and starts voraciously hitting on her. If (read “when”) she complains to HR Herman’s defense is “I was just following the golden rule, if she did it to me I would have liked it.” The HR person decides this is fair enough and drops the investigation.
Two weeks later Herman is sitting at his desk when Spike, the 6’8" former UFC champion (regional) and well known walking tripod comes up and says “You look mighty pretty in them jeans boy, and you got a pretty mouth too.”
Do you suppose Herman appreciates these complements? Is this not what he said was fair earlier with the HR person? Certainly Spike would have liked it and was just following the Golden Rule.
IMHO (there are a lot of those in this post and I certainly respect each even when I disagree) the Golden Rule is about respect. Not only respect for other people but respect for yourself. Sure, I could treat someone the way I want to be treated and try to justify it as all inclusive but that’s not realistic or fair to either party. With the Golden Rule comes the need for wisdom: “Is there any other situation where this action would be undesirable to me?” and compassion: “Is this truly being respectful of the other person?”
For most of us this comes from our conscience, the little signals our brains send us to help determine right from wrong. Again for many these signals are ignored. It is easy to justify our actions and shift blame and responsibility to others and ignore the signals. Even something as innocuous as the Golden Rule can be misapplied to fit our selfish needs.
In order to apply the Golden Rule correctly all of these factors must be in place first. There must be self and communal respect, there must be wisdom, there must be compassion and there absolutely must be self accountability and the ability to hear the signals that our brain sends us to help know right from wrong. When all of this is considered the Golden Rule stands alone at the top of the page and is perfectly adequate as a moralistic value.
Disclaimer - Please note that I do not wish to criticize suranyi’s post only to use it as an opening talking point to respond to the OP. Also please note that some exception is made for the truly pathologic and psychotic although from my experience they are an extreme minority.
I don’t think it was ever intended to solve the problems of the world, just make relationships better. With better relationships and understanding the problems of living in the physical will go easier.
And??? My point is that the golden rule IMO isn’t about what you want in a material sense or even what you like from a subjective sense. It’s about consideration of the people we deal with in different situations. Details may change but the act of showing them consideration does not. It requires a little more thought than :Hey I love brussel sprouts so that’s what I’ll serve my guests"
I don’t believe it does.It isn’t perfect in application because we are not perfect. If we strive to use it in our day to day activities experience will alter the way we perceive ourselves and others because it requires that we consider others. Then our application improves. What outfit is appropriate is subjective and the reason outfits are chosen varies. The golden rule in spirit means we consider the options and try to discern the feelings of the person we’re dealing with. If a person is perfectly happy and comfortable wearing what you consider to be horrible pants you might decide to let it go. If however you feel they might be harmed emotionally by people making fun of them or harm their standing at work by dressing inappropriately you might find a tactful way to share your opinion while still acknowledging their right to choose what they like. Ever told a total stranger their fly was unzipped. I have. Golden rule. They said thank you. If they had smiled and said “I know” it doesn’t change things for me.
I’m not sure how belittlement would apply in any case. Exposing someone’s bad behavior to the light of day after they ignore a warning can be a correct application of the golden rule. I’d remind you that often in society we have to consider more than one person at a time when choosing our actions.
The point is that applying the golden rule means considering what the other person thinks and feels. A Christian might feel passionate about witnessing eager to save someone’s soul. That doesn’t mean they don’t consider the other persons feelings in deciding their approach. If they ask themselves honestly “How would I feel about someone pushing beliefs on me?” they are applying the rule and that will affect their approach. Let’s say they decide “I would want to know the truth and be saved” so they take a straight forward approach and receive anger and rejection as a result. Then their consideration of the other person would kick in again and they should alter their approach. IOW the golden rule allows for growth and evaluation of new experience and information. It doesn’t tell us specifically what to do in every situation. It tells us to give careful consideration of others in every situation rather than follow our own selfish desires and impulses.
What am I adding? I think your application is flawed and not truly in the spirit of the GR. as I’ve explained. Consideration of others means we consider their feelings , likes and dislikes. Your simplistic application amounts to justification and a lack of thoughtfulness. IMHO.
Wait a minute. In the OP you said
and disagreed. Isn’t that what we’re discussing? Whether the GR would improve things if more, most, all people used it?
Lost me on this. Can you explain?
As I’ve said, the GR allows for evaluating new experience and changing how we apply it. You can’t know what a persons reaction might be. Maybe they are open to witnessing and maybe they are hostile. The GR means you at least care which they might be and gauge your approach accordingly. It also means you consider how you would like to be approached in a similar situation. All of that should temper the approach. IMO if someone is too zealous in their approach they are not applying the GR. They are focusing on *their *beliefs and what they think is right IMO it means, since I want and claim the right to pursue my own belief system I extend that right to others.
And you cited your “second problem” (“What I want and like is not necessarily what you want and like.”) as evidence of this prescience. I don’t think that resolves Dex’s objection, though.
If anything, his response demonstrates the flaw in your “second problem.” You might not want or like spinach, but you do like being served food that you enjoy. In other words, the Golden Rule should not be interpreted to mean that you should serve a specific kind of food, but it does prescribe general hospitality and consideration.
With all due respect, I think you’re getting way too hung up on the particulars.
I didn’t think you thought I was an asshole, though it would probably be fair to admit I can be at times. I apologise for suggesting you might do, though.
I am going to choose to pay the 20% because I want to help people, and because I believe that that amount of tax when paid out to the government and then onwards is a better way than doing so than having no tax. I’m not choosing to be helpful because I would want to be helped in return, because I can’t honestly expect or assume it would occur, let alone occur in equal proportions. I help because I want to, just that.
I agree. I’m just saying that what occurs in that little more thought differs from person to person. Showing someone consideration means you have to try and think about what they would want, and how; but people still have their own views of what is good and bad that shape those ideas.
We’re having a debate about this. In a perfect fantasy world, i’d like to be right and for everyone to see that and agree with me. Of course, should I be wrong, i’ll also be happy if i’m corrected and learn something new. Now, you could continue to argue with me, thereby showing consideration to my want to learn and be corrected. Or you could lie and say you agree, showing consideration to my ego. When considering the rule, i’d hope you’d pick the former rather than the latter, since i’d much prefer to know the truth than be lied to. But your decision is still tinged with the idea of not only what you think I want but what you think would be better for me, be showing me more consideration.
Think of it like this; if I said, here and now, that I would prefer being lied to (and start the inevitable a just Pit thread calling me an idiot), would you lie? Either way is justifiable in consideration terms.
You were adding the examination of our own motives, which isn’t as far as I can tell a part of the rule.
Yes. That was just an attempt at describing my own motives. In that case me recieving money were I in a different situation wouldn’t be guaranteed under a global application of the rule.
Cynical Bastard Mode On.
I believe that the Golden Rule resounds so strongly with people at least in part is because it hooks into our self-interest. The catch of putting ourselves in other people’s shoes, considering how we would like to be treated in there place, activates that part of us that’s actively interested in helping ourselves and ties it into helping others. A sort of moral equivalent of a patriotic, stirring political speech - associating the emotional pull of one subject with a different subject.
But in a world where such a person is right, I would say that are fully justified in their zealotry. Eternal happiness (or the equivalent) is very much worth momentary annoyance in my book. Were I a true believer, I would consider your and even my own actual distaste at such perseverance as doing us the best duty possible. You’ve mentioned accepting the fact that you might be wrong; but I would say it’s also important to accept when considering the feelings of others the idea that they’re wrong also. A madman who rushes in, demanding a gun from you so he can shoot the numeous reptilian aliens just outside the door; is he shown the greatest consideration by doing what he wants? Or by doing something against what he wants now in the immediate, in the hope that he will later be the better for it?
I believe that the problem of the particulars may equally be applied to the general. The concepts of what includes general hospitality and consideration change from person to person just as much as the extent of like for spinach does. And as much someone may attempt to do what the other would most like, it’s still going to be affected by their own opinions. You show me consideration by attempting to point out my mistakes; another person might equally show me consideration by allowing me to learn from them myself. Or by shielding me from the horrible truth of my self-deception. You might further show me consideration by doing of those whichever you believe I want most - but I would imagine that there are some mistakes you would not be willing to let someone make without a warning. Or that some things need to be learned first-hand. Or that in some cases, ignorance is bliss. There’s no way you or I can go into a situation and leave our opinions *totally * behind. By showing me the consideration of trying to prove me wrong, you’re essentially offering me spinach.
Gert’s a little bit out there, especially when he steps out of his primary field, which is medical ethics. He offers, for example, Ten Moral Rules, which I’m sure you could Google. But then he immediately admits that they can and will often contradict and leaves his readers with essentially greater moral dilemmas than they had before examining his rules. And in the case you cited, his criticisms of the Golden Rule are no different than those of you, me, or the people here. He just really doesn’t contribute much that is useful, with the exception of medical ethics which are more esoteric and aren’t applicable here anyway.
