I think the concept of the golden rule is mis-interpreted in this thread. As it was explained to me as a child it is a function of what NOT to do. Not what to do.
Example: if you are a Christian you do not want other religions to proselytize to you in deference to your religion. It doesn’t mean you can’t go forth and spread the word, it means you don’t bother people once they have made their preferences clear.
Example: if you like music you don’t play it loudly because it would annoy others. You would not want someone else playing it loudly.
I disagree - it’s just as much help as the reciprocal GR.
The question you’ve asked can be answered quite easily: “Mu!”.
or, to be less obscure:
the Thelemic Rule is a lot of help. When faced with a moral dilemma, simply ask yourself “What do I want to do” - and then do it. This involves some soul searching, some “knowing thyself”, and a full awareness of the possible consequences of your actions. But so does the standard GR - you have to think about what you would want done to yourself. This is , IMO, as much soulsearching as thinking what you want to do, with added empathy and “seeing it from the other guy’s point of view” thrown in. Now, all that empathy usually comes built in to the idea of “what I want to do” anyway, since I’m not a sociopath*, so I think shortening the rule chops out a lot of wasted introspection. I do my introspection on my downtime, to make sure my psyche is prepped for these sort of moral tests ahead of time.
*The GR, or moral rules in general, of course being useless on sociopaths anyway.
“Do what thou wilt” is not anarchy to me. I see “Will” as being a more refined concept that “Want” in this arena, anyway. “Will” carries some connotations of enactment for me, the ability to enforce your desires. So therefore a realistic concept of what you can actually achieve is inherent in the Rule.
The OP is hardly the first to make such criticisms of the Golden Rule (see here).
I think it’s too much to expect the Golden Rule or any other single, short sentence to serve as a complete, foolproof, all-encompassing rule for good behavior, but the Golden Rule comes about as close as any.
However, the examples provided lack. This seems to me a straw-man:
… I disagree that “That’s what the Golden Rule tells us”. The Golden Rule implies a reasonable reciprocity and an awareness that different people and different situations are to be treated differently. For example, a thief may not want the police called should he break in, but knows full well that calling the police is the reasonable course; it is what the thief himself would want should (for example) another thief be breaking into his aged parents’ house.
Or, to provide a more expressive example of the same sort, a masochist will not be following the Golden Rule by inflicting pain on others, since a reasonable masochist is fully aware that not everyone else is a masochist.
The Golden Rule is merely shorthand for intelligent, reasonable reciprocity. It alone cannot supply all the details of what that reciprocity is to consist of - it merely hints at whole realms of philosophy - the important point is understanding that others have needs and desires and are to be treated with at least a minimum of respect for the same. As one would want oneself treated.
Thelemites don’t advocate anarchy. Politically they tend towards the libertarian. That’s a simplistic reading of the Thelemic Law. It doesn’t mean “do whatever you feel like”, it means you have a spiritual duty to discover and enact your Will, which is not defined as “whatever you want”. It also implies – and this is expanded on within the context of the religious texts of Thelema – that you have a duty not to keep others from following their Will. So if you think your Will is to cut my head off, you must (cosmically speaking) be wrong unless it’s my Will for you to cut my head off. Semi-hijack, but I thought it worth explaining that this is, in fact, a potentially useful version of the “golden rule” as far as social restraint is concerned.
I think I’ll attempt to adhere to it even after all of this wonderful and meaningful discussion. I have always taken it to mean just be considerate of others just a little more than yourself.
… and that there is the golden rule. There are limits to how much and how little we want to help others. The golden rule provides a yardstick. You refer to it perjuratively as hijacking your own selfishness but it seems to me a pretty fair and reasonable way to decide what standard of behaviour to apply to others.
I don’t know where you two are coming from–whether it is part of an ongoing discussion that is hostile or one that uses mock hostility to express friendship–but this exchange had no purpose in this thread.
OK. I have just seen the origin of this little bit of acrimony. Liberal, you were out of line dragging that in here. (Omegaman, you need to resist the urge to respond to things you can safely ignore.)
Here’s where I think you’re missing the spirit of it. It is indeed consideration of your feelings and preferences but I have to also consider the way I would want to be treated. So, I think my concept of what would be better for you doesn’t come into play. However, knowing that I don’t like being lied to would affect how I react.
I might prefer ice cream to broccoli but my host wouldn’t be following the golden rule to serve me only what I prefer. My host may have vices of his own {cheesecake} and knowing he needs a little help with discipline, he serves me a balanced meal. Not because he has judged what is best for me, but because he understands me through understanding himself. It encourages a little empathy among humans.
I think it is if we apply the more thoughtful approach. The GR means giving consideration of others whith a certain introspection to discern how we would like to be treated. We deal with the positive and the negative emotions. Instead of justifying our own bad qualities and criticizing those same qualities in others {a common human trait} the GR urges us to be a little more thoughtful when confronted. Although the GR doesn’t speak of examining our motives directly, I think the introspection it requires inevitably leads to exactly that.
I think it tempers our self interest by asking us to be more aware of those we share the world with. It’s also “Whatever you have done to the least of these you do unto me” {or yourself} It’s one simple way of getting us to understand the connection between ourselves and others. We truly serve our own best interests by showing equal consideration of the people we share the world with.
What are the implications of the GR in light of prejudice or tribal and religious separation? Even across language and cultural boundaries we are asked to give consideration to others. We would not enslave or manipulate or exploit others because we don’t want others to do those things to us.
I think in this case it is you who are adding to it. It seems you’re saying that being a true believer about what is best for someone else overrides giving them consideration under the GR. A valid opinion but not part of it. If a true believer encounters another true believer who believes differently, what does consideration of the other person ask of them? Perhaps recognizing their strong conviction and believing they are wrong gives true believer 1 reason to reconsider their own conviction. So, true believer one still thinks true believer 2 is wrong but the GR either gives them a reason to consider they may not be 100% correct or at least urges them to respect believer 2’s right to hold different beliefs without harassment or persecution. Since they want people to listen to their beliefs they may consider giving equal time to other beliefs. It at least should mediate any animosity. It would IMO prohibit violent attacks on people simply because they believe differently, or trying to pass laws outlawing traditions that harm no one.
I don’t get the whole madman thing or how it realistically relates to the discussion. If someone is sick what does consideration require? How would I like to be treated if I was sick?
I really think you’re missing an essential component of the GR. It isn’t just giving consideration to others. It’s giving them consideration through the lens of trying to out yourself in their shoes. Introspection.
I’ve already noted that our application of the GR will be imperfect because we are imperfect. In one instance we might help thinking “If it was me I’d want help” but the experience itself might educate us so that another time we allow that person to learn for themselves without intervening. The continued effort of trying to apply the GR, even imperfectly, will lead us to understand ourselves and others better.
If I want to show respect to someone from another culture then I have to learn what their traditions of respect are. It is the GR that makes the initial demand of consideration and respect toward others through introspection. It whittles away at concepts of inherent superiority and entitlement. It very simply puts all people of every race and economic class, on equal footing from the aspect of basic respect and consideration of our fellow humans.
This Sir, is why you have garnered my respect. Your willingness to put forth the effort and the proper tool to execute said effort flows from you like music from Jeff Beck or Jesse James (the bike builder). If you ever need a nail driven in or your car repaired you give me a call, my friend, if I may be so forward to refer to you as such.
Assuming this is directed at me, {not to conceited an assumption I hope} I humbly thank you. Lots of posters have aided me in my time spent here through education and by offering different perspectives. I’m glad to be able to participate.
btw; I did respond to the “pets with old souls thread” when I got back in town. I don’t know much about that kind of thing from a spiritual point of view but it was an interesting thread. Thanks for the heads up and invitation.
