Do Unto Others: A Poor Rule

[Revenant_Threshold]

@Princhester

emphasis added.

… 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.

Well, I referred to it as such in terms of why it resounds so much with people, at least in part. Even if i’m right on that, it doesn’t necessarily mean the golden rule isn’t actually fair or reasonable, just that people might not follow it entirely because of that.

There’s still a couple of problems with this, though. The first is that it’s a yardstick of entirely our own creation. If you gave someone a stick and asked them to cut it down to about a metre, without having something to measure against, you’re going to end up with a lot of different sized sticks. And the other is that I too have argued it would work, in a world where we all think alike. Because we don’t, our yardsticks are going to be at least partially cut from our own concept of fairness and what’s right. Like I said earlier, you’re not going to give a madman a gun, even if that’s what he really wants. For many people, there is a line that may be drawn between happily complying with another’s immediate feelings and between wanting to help them in the longer run. And that’s just one difference which means what counts as “consideration” will differ from person to person.

@cosmosdan

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.

Right, and I get that. The problem is that each of us approaches others from our own viewpoint. It’s like anthropomorphising animals or inanimate objects, giving them human characteristics; we us-ise other people, cosmosdanise or Revenantise. We assume, even when taking another person’s feelings into account, that they are like us in some way. When we consider whether it’s more considerate to serve someone a balanced meal or just food they like, while we may certainly know a person or try to we inevitably call upon our own experiences. That’s not a bad thing, and I would say it’s even required as part of empathy - we need to not only understand others, but be able to link them with ourselves - but it means that we likewise inevitably aren’t going to get it right all the time, even with the best of intentions. And so problems arise.

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 would tend to disagree, still. The Golden Rule requires that we know how we would like to be treated, but not why. I don’t have any problem with adding it, I just don’t think that it’s something actually built into the rule.

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.

I would argue we’ve said the same thing here, just with different words.

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 disagree. Avoiding all those things depends on those in power believing it is wrong to do them. And yet people considered slaves to be beneath them, only good for the work they did - and even after that, look at all the examples of old films or TV, where often pretty damn racist caricatures were treated as sympathetic characters, that being enough to count as “consideration”. Saying that manipulation and exploitation wouldn’t happen assumes as you say that people don’t want that done to themselves, but I have known people who were entirely fine with the idea others might try to exploit them in turn - emphasising the try. A person could be entirely out for themselves, an entirely selfish being, yet still follow the Golden Rule in accepting the idea that they could be victim to another doing the same to them, with the assumption that it’s not likely to happen.

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’m not saying being a true believer overrides giving consideration, i’m saying it alters it. That a person saying “Ah, I see you’re uninterested; i’ll stop trying to persuade you.” and another saying “No, I won’t take no for an answer, listen to these arguments!” can both be in their way equally in their minds considerate of another.

The madman thing relates in that it shows that in some cases, you’re willing to consider the unsick version of that person as more important than the sick one; that the potentially unsick person’s desires should be pandered to over those of the sick. Likewise, a true believer may see a person of a different faith as being in a state of temporary wrongness, even delusional, and that they should consider the undelusional version of that person over the one temporarily disagreeing with them. Either may be showing true consideration.

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.

I certainly agree with us learning, since often we learn from our mistakes.

I’m not missing the introspection part, though I would class it as merely knowing what you personally would want. I’m saying that that is the thing that stops the Rule from being effective; we can’t stop thinking like us.

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.

Do you want to show all cultures respect?

I might argue that I would not want to show respect for, say, cultures that perform ritual genital mutilation. I don’t feel inherently superior to them, though I do feel superior. I would argue that consideration is best shown for such people by disagreeing with them, trying to change their minds even if they’re convinced of their rightness, not by acceptance.

On the other hand, a ritual such as transubstantiation as practiced in the Catholic Church i’m not all that bothered with. Were I arguing with a proponent of it I probably would accept an “I’m uninterested in debating this further; I will not be convinced”, because in that situation it’s more considerate to acquiesce.

The Golden Rule doesn’t put everyone on an equal footing. It puts everyone on a footing equal with what we believe they deserve.

[The_Tao_s_Revenge]

@Revenant Threshold

I’ve seen a similar sentiment expressed quite often just recently on the boards, although it’s a fairly common one anyway. And it is this;

“If everyone treated others as they would like to be treated, the world would be a better place.”

A helpful rule which would solve all of our problems. Except that no, it would not, and for two reasons.

• What I want and like is not necessarily what you want and like.

An obvious problem, I would have said, although apparently it isn’t all that obvious. I don’t like the same thing you do. While i’m sure we can all agree on some general, vague things that are good, when we get down to specific things we often disagree. You might like puppies, and would be delighted with the free chance from someone of hugging one. I wouldn’t, because i’m scared of dogs. Likewise, I might like a tasty meal of chicken, but a vegan would turn down and might even be offended at the offer.

“But Revenant”, I hear you cry. “These are petty, small issues. When we say treat people as you would want to be treated, it means in general terms - that if you want to be treated well, you should treat others well, and that includes knowledge of what they like and dislike. If someone helps you, you don’t need to help them in that specific way back.” And that’s a fair point, but for the second problem.

• What I want and like is not necessarily what you want and like.

Ok, so it’s the same problem, but on a different scale. Let’s take taxes. I’m willing to accept taxes to a certain extent, as we all are. I am willing to vote for people who’ll take my money to give to other people, when I think that’s a good thing. But my vote doesn’t just mean my money will be taken, but yours, too. And you might not agree that your money should be taken forcibly, for whatever reason. Me treating you as I would want to be treated means you get taxed unfairly. Likewise, you treating me as you’d like to be treated means those I think need money don’t get as much.

Let’s take religion. A religious person, convinced of the rightness or the helpfulness of their beliefs, may look at a person who believes otherwise or an atheist and think that, in their shoes, preaching to them to convince them of the truth is a good thing. It is how they would like to be treated. But the atheist may not want to be preached to, and may try counter-convincing them in return, as they might think they’d want to be treated. Each is doing what they consider a good turn for the other, treating each other as well as they would want to be treated, and yet this is often an acrimonious situation.

So that’s my point, really. My title for this overstates it a bit; I wouldn’t say it’s a horrible rule, or one that would lead to more problems. Just that, were we able to enforce it, we’d pretty much have all the problems we have now.

Wouldn’t the implications of a successful “do on to others” rule there be “I would want other people to be respectful of my differences so I shall be respectful of theirs, and try to find peace with them as I would want them to find with me”?

[cosmosdan]

@Revenant Threshold

Well, I referred to it as such in terms of why it resounds so much with people, at least in part. Even if i’m right on that, it doesn’t necessarily mean the golden rule isn’t actually fair or reasonable, just that people might not follow it entirely because of that.

There’s still a couple of problems with this, though. The first is that it’s a yardstick of entirely our own creation. If you gave someone a stick and asked them to cut it down to about a metre, without having something to measure against, you’re going to end up with a lot of different sized sticks. And the other is that I too have argued it would work, in a world where we all think alike. Because we don’t, our yardsticks are going to be at least partially cut from our own concept of fairness and what’s right. Like I said earlier, you’re not going to give a madman a gun, even if that’s what he really wants. For many people, there is a line that may be drawn between happily complying with another’s immediate feelings and between wanting to help them in the longer run. And that’s just one difference which means what counts as “consideration” will differ from person to person.

The reason it’s a good rule, but admittedly not a perfect one, is that at least you have people making an effort to be considerate of others which is far better than the alternative.

Right, and I get that. The problem is that each of us approaches others from our own viewpoint. It’s like anthropomorphising animals or inanimate objects, giving them human characteristics; we us-ise other people, cosmosdanise or Revenantise. We assume, even when taking another person’s feelings into account, that they are like us in some way.

I’ll acknowledge this and add that in most cases, they are like us in some way. That’s why giving others equal respect and consideration because we want respect and consideration, moves us forward as a race.

When we consider whether it’s more considerate to serve someone a balanced meal or just food they like, while we may certainly know a person or try to we inevitably call upon our own experiences. That’s not a bad thing, and I would say it’s even required as part of empathy - we need to not only understand others, but be able to link them with ourselves - but it means that we likewise inevitably aren’t going to get it right all the time, even with the best of intentions. And so problems arise.

Methinks you’ve just admitted your OP is incorrect. The GR is a good but imperfect guide rather than a poor one. Problems are not failure. As you agree later in this post, we learn from our mistakes. It is the application of the GR that puts us on this path. That’s not a poor thing. That’s a good thing. I don’t remember anyone arguing the GR solves all issues. Quite the contrary.

I would tend to disagree, still. The Golden Rule requires that we know how we would like to be treated, but not why. I don’t have any problem with adding it, I just don’t think that it’s something actually built into the rule.

I’ve conceded that it’s not there directly. I think any thoughtful effort rather than a simplistic approach will lead to deeper questions through the very errors just mentioned. In situations where I’ve applied the GR and there are still problems the obvious question is, why?

I would argue we’ve said the same thing here, just with different words.

okay

I disagree. Avoiding all those things depends on those in power believing it is wrong to do them. And yet people considered slaves to be beneath them, only good for the work they did - and even after that, look at all the examples of old films or TV, where often pretty damn racist caricatures were treated as sympathetic characters, that being enough to count as “consideration”. Saying that manipulation and exploitation wouldn’t happen assumes as you say that people don’t want that done to themselves, but I have known people who were entirely fine with the idea others might try to exploit them in turn - emphasising the try. A person could be entirely out for themselves, an entirely selfish being, yet still follow the Golden Rule in accepting the idea that they could be victim to another doing the same to them, with the assumption that it’s not likely to happen.

What’s been going on for generations? What was and is the civil rights movement about. Equal fair consideration of our fellow humans right? If the people in power make a genuine attempt to apply the GR then they will believe those things are wrong. To do otherwise is to create exceptions to the GR which are justifications for immoral acts.
The other thing you’re describing is “Do unto others before they do unto you” Some folks call that being realistic , but it’s not the GR.

I’m not saying being a true believer overrides giving consideration, i’m saying it alters it. That a person saying “Ah, I see you’re uninterested; i’ll stop trying to persuade you.” and another saying “No, I won’t take no for an answer, listen to these arguments!” can both be in their way equally in their minds considerate of another.

Acknowledged. The mitigating factor is the addition of “How would I want to be treated if someone was preaching their religion to me and I didn’t want to hear it?” IMO Only the most stubborn closed minded zealot would fail to acknowledge that if the situation was reversed they would want their beliefs and their right to politely decline conversion through brow beating, respected. Sure they exist, but I think they’ve closed their minds and hearts to the GR if they go that far.

The madman thing relates in that it shows that in some cases, you’re willing to consider the unsick version of that person as more important than the sick one; that the potentially unsick person’s desires should be pandered to over those of the sick.

Not at all. It’s not that the unsick person is more important. It’s factoring in sick or unsick when empathizing.

Likewise, a true believer may see a person of a different faith as being in a state of temporary wrongness, even delusional, and that they should consider the undelusional version of that person over the one temporarily disagreeing with them. Either may be showing true consideration.

Same rule as above. Honestly, even though I’m sure you get it , it seems to me that in the examples you provide you consistently speak of the consideration factor without the introspection weighed properly. One neighbor invites the other to church out of consideration and with sincere desire to do what’s best for their neighbor , namely, save their soul. Neighbor two thinks organized Christianity is bad for the soul and repeatedly invites neighbor one to his pagan festivals which he sincerely feels encourage a more positive relationship with people and the earth. Both are sincere in offering consideration to the other. If both apply the “How would I feel in their shoes” part of the GR {which should be easy in this situation} what do you suppose the result is?

I certainly agree with us learning, since often we learn from our mistakes.

That’s why I keep making them. The desire to learn.

I’m not missing the introspection part, though I would class it as merely knowing what you personally would want. I’m saying that that is the thing that stops the Rule from being effective; we can’t stop thinking like us.

I think the introspection fails only with a very simplistic application. “I like broccoli so you must like it to” I don’t find that to be a reasonable interpretation of the GR.
I think what you’ve demonstrated as the discussion has gone on, is that the GR isn’t a perfect solution, {no surprise} but it is not a poor one either.
We can’t stop thinking like us but we can understand and appreciate that others think differently and factor that in when we’re applying the GR. I repeat, the GR guides me to show others respect and consideration, but beyond that a thoughtful approach requires me to try and understand the different views of respect and consideration from person to person, culture to culture.

Do you want to show all cultures respect?
I might argue that I would not want to show respect for, say, cultures that perform ritual genital mutilation. I don’t feel inherently superior to them, though I do feel superior. I would argue that consideration is best shown for such people by disagreeing with them, trying to change their minds even if they’re convinced of their rightness, not by acceptance.

On the other hand, a ritual such as transubstantiation as practiced in the Catholic Church i’m not all that bothered with. Were I arguing with a proponent of it I probably would accept an “I’m uninterested in debating this further; I will not be convinced”, because in that situation it’s more considerate to acquiesce.

I don’t think the GR asks us to respect practices that clearly violate the GR. It gets more complex when we’re balancing individual rights with the rights of a nation or culture but I still think it applies. We are all imperfect and at some point we need to respect others rights to choose their own path. I agree that a measured attempt at education and cultural growth.

The Golden Rule doesn’t put everyone on an equal footing. It puts everyone on a footing equal with what we believe they deserve.

I don’t agree. What you’re expressing is our imperfect application and frequent justifications to violate the GR. The GR starts from a place where all persons are equal and deserving of fair and equal consideration and respect. The fact that we as a race have not perfected that ideal in practice doesn’t alter the ideal. It is the repeated attempt to practice the GR that helps move us forward, little by little generation by generation.

[cosmosdan]

@The Tao's Revenge

Wouldn’t the implications of a successful “do on to others” rule there be “I would want other people to be respectful of my differences so I shall be respectful of theirs, and try to find peace with them as I would want them to find with me”?

Very simply and eloquently expressed. Thanks

[Revenant_Threshold]

@cosmosdan

The reason it’s a good rule, but admittedly not a perfect one, is that at least you have people making an effort to be considerate of others which is far better than the alternative.

I disagree that that’s certain. Some of the greatest tragedies in history have been perpetrated by people who believed they were doing right by someone or some people. You can be just as harmed by someone who doesn’t care about you as by someone who cares about you but goes about it entirely wrongly. After all, the person who doesn’t care at least isn’t *motivated * to do you a disservice; they don’t care one way or the other. The considerate person is very much motivated to their task.

I’ll acknowledge this and add that in most cases, they are like us in some way. That’s why giving others equal respect and consideration because we want respect and consideration, moves us forward as a race.

Sure, we’re like each other, but not enough. And certainly not in the specific terms that consideration is often given. If you want to give me the consideration of providing me with five-fingered gloves, that’s fine, a very small percentage of the population differs from that. But the amount of people who share our own personal ideas of what’s good and bad dwarfs us hugely.

Methinks you’ve just admitted your OP is incorrect. The GR is a good but imperfect guide rather than a poor one. Problems are not failure. As you agree later in this post, we learn from our mistakes. It is the application of the GR that puts us on this path. That’s not a poor thing. That’s a good thing. I don’t remember anyone arguing the GR solves all issues. Quite the contrary.

Well, I quoted one person saying that in post 14. And I stick by my post; we learn from our mistakes. We don’t necessarily learn the right lesson. And the lesson we learn doesn’t necessarily mean something good for anyone else.

I’ve conceded that it’s not there directly. I think any thoughtful effort rather than a simplistic approach will lead to deeper questions through the very errors just mentioned. In situations where I’ve applied the GR and there are still problems the obvious question is, why?

That assumes you percieve there to be problems, or that you consider the problems big enough to warrant a change.

What’s been going on for generations? What was and is the civil rights movement about. Equal fair consideration of our fellow humans right? If the people in power make a genuine attempt to apply the GR then they will believe those things are wrong. To do otherwise is to create exceptions to the GR which are justifications for immoral acts.

And why was the civil rights movement needed in the first place? Your perception that the GR naturally leads to equality is, I believe, flawed. Can it lead there? Certainly. But the problem lies in the very nature of the rule; by putting oneself in another’s shoes, it seperates the two people. It says “Imagine yourself as different than you are”; it invites people to think of the very differences that seperate them. And it ignores the people who would say that they in another’s shoes should not be treated well, by virtue of that role. And immoral acts I would say are a vital and necessary component of any working GR on top of that; sometimes you must be a little bad to do more good. Like the madman example.

The other thing you’re describing is “Do unto others before they do unto you” Some folks call that being realistic , but it’s not the GR.

No, it isn’t, unless the person in question assumes all others are like themselves.

Acknowledged. The mitigating factor is the addition of “How would I want to be treated if someone was preaching their religion to me and I didn’t want to hear it?” IMO Only the most stubborn closed minded zealot would fail to acknowledge that if the situation was reversed they would want their beliefs and their right to politely decline conversion through brow beating, respected. Sure they exist, but I think they’ve closed their minds and hearts to the GR if they go that far.

I disagree. I think that such a person is, to the best of their knowledge and ability, following the GR exactly. It isn’t a failing on their part - a zealot literally *cannot * see another way - so we can’t blame them. It is a fault in the rule, if we assume that such a thing is bad.

And i’m not saying that such people are ignoring protests. I’m saying they’re considering them less important. A stubbourn closed minded zealot may well accept that their opponents would very much like the ability to politely decline, and if they were them they’d want it too - but it’s less important than getting across the truth. And, for them, it is.

Not at all. It’s not that the unsick person is more important. It’s factoring in sick or unsick when empathizing.

It’s factoring in sick and unsick and judging one to be more important. It’s prioritising. It’s saying, essentially, “this person is more worthy of my help; it is more considerate of me to aid the one over the other”. It is making a judgement to do a minor evil to promote a major good. And if the other person disagrees - then, to them, no matter the reasons you’ve still done them an evil. Problems!

Same rule as above. Honestly, even though I’m sure you get it , it seems to me that in the examples you provide you consistently speak of the consideration factor without the introspection weighed properly. One neighbor invites the other to church out of consideration and with sincere desire to do what’s best for their neighbor , namely, save their soul. Neighbor two thinks organized Christianity is bad for the soul and repeatedly invites neighbor one to his pagan festivals which he sincerely feels encourage a more positive relationship with people and the earth. Both are sincere in offering consideration to the other. If both apply the “How would I feel in their shoes” part of the GR {which should be easy in this situation} what do you suppose the result is?

We can’t know. Seriously, I believe a zealot is exactly as considerate as a less extreme believer. If the Christian believes that the neighbour has a 100% chance of dying and being tortured in Hell for all eternity in the company of the embodiment of all evil, and I decide, meh, I won’t bother pushing it because he’ll be annoyed, i’d be being highly inconsiderate. Consideration does not mean “Ah, what he wants goes, no questions asked”, as I pointed out with the madman question. And if we accept that there are cases in which to do what the other person wants is not always the most considerate thing to do, then we accept that sometimes we have to go against it, as we do.

I think the introspection fails only with a very simplistic application. “I like broccoli so you must like it to” I don’t find that to be a reasonable interpretation of the GR.

Move out of the analogy and back into the actual use of it. Look at yourself in this post;

I don’t remember anyone arguing the GR solves all issues. Quite the contrary.

Honestly, even though I’m sure you get it , it seems to me that in the examples you provide you consistently speak of the consideration factor without the introspection weighed properly.

What’s been going on for generations? What was and is the civil rights movement about. Equal fair consideration of our fellow humans right?

Both are sincere in offering consideration to the other. If both apply the “How would I feel in their shoes” part of the GR {which should be easy in this situation} what do you suppose the result is?

You assume your experiences are similar to my own, that I understand what you understand, and that my answers to the questions you pose are going to be similar to the answers you’d give. I do the same thing; I assume that my hypotheticals are a good argument because they make sense to me, that my questions will get the answers I predict. We each assume that the other is like ourselves, and so pose our arguments in the ways that would convince us, that work in terms of how we each think.

I think what you’ve demonstrated as the discussion has gone on, is that the GR isn’t a perfect solution, {no surprise} but it is not a poor one either.
We can’t stop thinking like us but we can understand and appreciate that others think differently and factor that in when we’re applying the GR. I repeat, the GR guides me to show others respect and consideration, but beyond that a thoughtful approach requires me to try and understand the different views of respect and consideration from person to person, culture to culture.

But it doesn’t require of you respect of other’s views. It asks you to consider them on their merits. And people’s ideas of those merits vary. Appreciating that others think differently means nothing unless we put value on a person’s right to think differently, and in some cases we may believe another path is more considerate. Sometimes we are considerate by not respecting another person’s views. Debating, in and of itself, shows a lack of respect by questioning other’s views; it may not be “Expletive you, you’re expletive wrong!” but if we admit the existence of a continuum then it’s only a matter of how far along it we’re willing to go.

I don’t think the GR asks us to respect practices that clearly violate the GR. It gets more complex when we’re balancing individual rights with the rights of a nation or culture but I still think it applies. We are all imperfect and at some point we need to respect others rights to choose their own path. I agree that a measured attempt at education and cultural growth.

Right, at some point we need to respect those rights. But at other times we don’t. It’s not automatic. And when we don’t respect those rights, as is often the right thing to do (in our opinions), that those rights have value becomes even more important.

I don’t agree. What you’re expressing is our imperfect application and frequent justifications to violate the GR. The GR starts from a place where all persons are equal and deserving of fair and equal consideration and respect. The fact that we as a race have not perfected that ideal in practice doesn’t alter the ideal. It is the repeated attempt to practice the GR that helps move us forward, little by little generation by generation.

The GR starts from a place where all people are equal to ourselves. The problem being, of course, that since we’re all different, we all have a different idea of what level we’re all equal at, and what fair and consideration and respect we all deserve is. And, of course, it assumes that all people think to be in another person’s shoes means we yet retain our identity, which often isn’t so.

[cosmosdan]

@Revenant Threshold

I disagree that that’s certain. Some of the greatest tragedies in history have been perpetrated by people who believed they were doing right by someone or some people.

But that would not be the golden rule. You might justify torturing somebody to get them to accept your religion as being what’s best for them, but once you put yourself in their painful shoes it becomes much more difficult to justify. IMO this is another example of how you keep applying the consideration factor without the attempt at empathy.

You can be just as harmed by someone who doesn’t care about you as by someone who cares about you but goes about it entirely wrongly. After all, the person who doesn’t care at least isn’t *motivated * to do you a disservice; they don’t care one way or the other. The considerate person is very much motivated to their task.

Comon now. Sure there are examples but in general the person who doesn’t care about you is more likely to take what they want without consideration of you. Even those who* claim* to care about you while they’re doing you harm are different than those who make a judgment error while sincerely trying to help.

Sure, we’re like each other, but not enough. And certainly not in the specific terms that consideration is often given. If you want to give me the consideration of providing me with five-fingered gloves, that’s fine, a very small percentage of the population differs from that. But the amount of people who share our own personal ideas of what’s good and bad dwarfs us hugely.

I disagree. We may differ in specific preferences but I think in general we are much more alike. Even a person of moderate intelligence can understand cultural and preferential differences and through the GR seek to tear down that barrier rather than build it higher. People across cultural lines can understand what the more positive aspects of humanity are as well as the negative. Compassion for others, love for our families, a life lived honorably, cross cultural and language barriers.
It’s the GR and the call for empathy that allows me to understand why some Iraqi’s want us gone from their country even though we are supposedly trying to help. Would I, or we, as citizens want a foreign power to occupy our country even with good intentions? Nope. Can I empathize with an Iraqi citizen whose family was killed and understand their anger? Yes. Even though their are language and cultural barriers I can understand that basic human feeling.

Well, I quoted one person saying that in post 14. And I stick by my post; we learn from our mistakes. We don’t necessarily learn the right lesson. And the lesson we learn doesn’t necessarily mean something good for anyone else.

Even that quote has qualifiers.

If so, I’d say, “Let everyone REALLY treat others as they themselves would like to be treated.”

That would *just about *solve every problem I can come up with.

The problem is that we often don’t even attempt to apply the GR or if we do we have exceptions and justifications for our failings. I’m talking about a continued effort to apply it more effectively, so we will make mistakes but we use those to apply it more fully in the future. As I learn more about the very differences between myself and others I am better equipped to apply the GR. Tao expressed it very simply and accurately just a few post’s ago.

That assumes you percieve there to be problems, or that you consider the problems big enough to warrant a change.

Yes, since the discussion is about applying the golden rule we assume people want to apply it and/or are trying to. Since you recognized them and called them problems I’m thinking people trying to apply the GR would be able to see that as well. Every time in every situation? Not claiming that. If you try to express respect and consideration for someone and they respond with anger you might suspect a problem and seek to correct them.

And why was the civil rights movement needed in the first place?

Um, because people were not applying the GR. They were finding justifications to exclude groups of people from it’s principles.

Your perception that the GR naturally leads to equality is, I believe, flawed. Can it lead there? Certainly.

And as mankind has moved toward more recognition of human rights as in the civil rights movement, it is leading there. Imperfectly, gradually, but it is leading us there. It’s a clear example of the GR in action. Equal consideration for others rights that we want for ourselves

But the problem lies in the very nature of the rule; by putting oneself in another’s shoes, it seperates the two people. It says “Imagine yourself as different than you are”; it invites people to think of the very differences that seperate them.

and clearly asks us to not let those differences be a reason for separation or hostility. I reference Tao’s post again.

And it ignores the people who would say that they in another’s shoes should not be treated well, by virtue of that role. And immoral acts I would say are a vital and necessary component of any working GR on top of that; sometimes you must be a little bad to do more good. Like the madman example.

I’m not sure how this applies but no matter. Yeah, you might have to kill someone to defend someone else. You might have to cut off a leg to save a life. I don’t think either of those things shows a failing in the GR.

No, it isn’t, unless the person in question assumes all others are like themselves.

Yes and Yes. If a person assumes others will treat them dishonestly and uses that to justify their own dishonesty {everybody lies, or, it’s just business} that’s not the GR. The GR asks “Would I rather be treated dishonestly?” rather than “do I think I will be.”

I disagree. I think that such a person is, to the best of their knowledge and ability, following the GR exactly. It isn’t a failing on their part - a zealot literally *cannot * see another way - so we can’t blame them. It is a fault in the rule, if we assume that such a thing is bad.

Then we disagree. If a zealot cannot see another way then they are unable to apply the GR, even though they are convinced they are doing what is right or best for someone else.

And i’m not saying that such people are ignoring protests. I’m saying they’re considering them less important. A stubbourn closed minded zealot may well accept that their opponents would very much like the ability to politely decline, and if they were them they’d want it too - but it’s less important than getting across the truth. And, for them, it is.

What you’re describing is someone who has a basic understanding of the GR but because of other emotions and priorities cannot really apply it.

It’s factoring in sick and unsick and judging one to be more important. It’s prioritising. It’s saying, essentially, “this person is more worthy of my help; it is more considerate of me to aid the one over the other”. It is making a judgement to do a minor evil to promote a major good. And if the other person disagrees - then, to them, no matter the reasons you’ve still done them an evil. Problems!

It’s not necessarily judging one or the other as being more worthy. We do have to make judgment calls and prioritize. I don’t see how that reflects on the GR itself.

We can’t know. Seriously, I believe a zealot is exactly as considerate as a less extreme believer. If the Christian believes that the neighbour has a 100% chance of dying and being tortured in Hell for all eternity in the company of the embodiment of all evil, and I decide, meh, I won’t bother pushing it because he’ll be annoyed, i’d be being highly inconsiderate. Consideration does not mean “Ah, what he wants goes, no questions asked”, as I pointed out with the madman question. And if we accept that there are cases in which to do what the other person wants is not always the most considerate thing to do, then we accept that sometimes we have to go against it, as we do.

Now you seem to be using the most simplistic interpretation again which I’ve repeatedly said is not a realistic one. I repeat it’s equal respect and consideration combined with an attempt at empathy. If a believer is such a zealot that they cannot empathize with others different beliefs in a “I want the freedom to pursue my own beliefs without persecution or harassment so I extend that freedom to others” kind of way then they are not employing the GR. It’s consideration without empathy and does not qualify.

That’s all the time I have this morning. I may get back to this this evening.

[Malthus]

@The Tao's Revenge

Wouldn’t the implications of a successful “do on to others” rule there be “I would want other people to be respectful of my differences so I shall be respectful of theirs, and try to find peace with them as I would want them to find with me”?

Yup.

The GR is, I think, more indicative of an attitude than a hard-and-fast rule to be applied mindlessly.

[MrDibble]

Sounds like you’re pushing a “No True Golden Rule” variant there, cosmosdan. IOW, where does it say any of that stuff about empathy/realistic interpretation in or immediately around the usual text versions (Bible, Analects, Gita, etc.) of the Rule itself?

[cosmosdan]

@Revenant Threshold

Move out of the analogy and back into the actual use of it. Look at yourself in this post;

You assume your experiences are similar to my own, that I understand what you understand, and that my answers to the questions you pose are going to be similar to the answers you’d give. I do the same thing; I assume that my hypotheticals are a good argument because they make sense to me, that my questions will get the answers I predict. We each assume that the other is like ourselves, and so pose our arguments in the ways that would convince us, that work in terms of how we each think.

um no. I assume we’re in GD trying to exchange ideas. I assume we both speak English. Beyond that I try to express myself clearly because it’s my responsibility to do so, and I try to understand what you are saying to me, your POV, because according to the GR, if I want you to make an effort to understand me, then I must make and effort to understand you.

But it doesn’t require of you respect of other’s views. It asks you to consider them on their merits. And people’s ideas of those merits vary.

No we don’t have to respect an uninformed opinion born of ignorance. We are asked to show basic respect we think we are deserving of. A basic respect for a person’s right to hold a different view even if we don’t agree.

Appreciating that others think differently means nothing unless we put value on a person’s right to think differently, and in some cases we may believe another path is more considerate.

And of course if we want our own right to think differently respected we will strive to extend that courtesy to others, according to then GR. We will value their right to think differently even if we sincerely believe they are wrong , that is , if we’re striving to follow the GR instead of imposing our concept of what’s best upon others.

Sometimes we are considerate by not respecting another person’s views. Debating, in and of itself, shows a lack of respect by questioning other’s views; it may not be “Expletive you, you’re expletive wrong!” but if we admit the existence of a continuum then it’s only a matter of how far along it we’re willing to go.

No, debating doesn’t show a lack of respect. There is a difference between disagreement and disrespect. We can have little respect for a particular view and still respect the person who holds it, and their right to, and reasons for, holding it.

Right, at some point we need to respect those rights. But at other times we don’t. It’s not automatic. And when we don’t respect those rights, as is often the right thing to do (in our opinions), that those rights have value becomes even more important.

Lost me a bit here. Sometimes it’s complicated because we are dealing with more than one person or group at the same time. That’s a more difficult balancing act and makes applying the GR more challenging. We may respect someone’s right to hold a different view and still have to act against them. Basic human respect doesn’t free us from the responsibility of making a judgment call. Circumstances might lead someone to believe life isn’t worth living. I don’t have to allow them to commit suicide to respect their feelings.

The GR starts from a place where all people are equal to ourselves. The problem being, of course, that since we’re all different, we all have a different idea of what level we’re all equal at, and what fair and consideration and respect we all deserve is. And, of course, it assumes that all people think to be in another person’s shoes means we yet retain our identity, which often isn’t so.

That last sentence lost me again. Lot’s of emotions and influences come into play. Some of these prevent us from applying the GR effectively, but that’s the person not the rule itself. If a person suffers from depression and a lack of self respect, how do they apply the GR effectively? The plus side is the GR asks that person to think about how they really want to be treated. It can be difficult to separate the nature of the GR itself from everything else. Still, seeing all people as equal to ourselves doesn’t seem like a poor thing to me. It doesn’t exclude a consideration of differences. It doesn’t mean we see them as the same. The level that we’re equal at doesn’t seem to complicated to me if given a little thought. As I said, fair and equal consideration. As someone put it.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

It’s obvious that we won’t agree on this.You’re correct that it’s not a rule that applies easily to every situation. I maintain that the GR is a good but imperfect rule, because we are imperfect in applying it. In general the sincere attempt to apply it leads to a better understanding of others and growth. I think examples like the civil rights movement are clear examples. That’s IMHO.

[cosmosdan]

@MrDibble

Sounds like you’re pushing a “No True Golden Rule” variant there, cosmosdan. IOW, where does it say any of that stuff about empathy/realistic interpretation in or immediately around the usual text versions (Bible, Analects, Gita, etc.) of the Rule itself?

Any bit of writing like the GR is subject to interpretation. I just happen to think the intent of the GR is a bit more than “Since I like broccoli I’ll assume everyone else does” Not much point in having a moral guide to behavior that is that useless and stupid. It’s also a bit more than “When in Rome do as the Romans”

Just considering the basic rule it speaks of our actions toward others and asks us to consider how we would want to be treated. A sincere attempt at applying this principle asks for a bit of thought.
As a spiritual belief is it reasonable to assume it’s about personal growth? If we get beyond the simplistic interpretation and consider the very differences in people that make it more complicated I think it *necessarily *leads us toward an attempt at empathy. Beyond the details of specific preferences and cultural influences we get to the basic human desire for , justice, equality, respect, love, etc. That leads to questions like, what would be justice in situation X if I’m trying to live by the GR.
If my wife and I have some different ideas about what is or isn’t an expression of love and consideration and both want the other to feel loved because we want that for ourselves, it necessarily leads to some introspection and a little deeper effort in understanding each other.

I don’t think I’m reading anything into it or adding anything to the text. I’m simply following where it must lead if we consider it beyond the most simplistic interpretation.

[MrDibble]

I’m inclined to say that any moral guide that’s open to interpretation is open to distortion - that’s why rules don’t work. You can’t legislate morality - what anything like the classic GR boils down to is “do what you want to do, just jump through some hoops first to make it fit”, to me. The GR doesn’t seem to make people act differently than they normally would, is what I’m saying. Anyone with the empathy required in the reflective/considerate phase of applying the Rule, is already going to be guided by that empathy, and if they don’t have that empathy to begin with, or it’s misguided, having the wide-open Rule doesn’t help them.

I guess that’s why I prefer the Thelemic version, at least it’s honest.

[cosmosdan]

@MrDibble

I’m inclined to say that any moral guide that’s open to interpretation is open to distortion - that’s why rules don’t work. You can’t legislate morality - what anything like the classic GR boils down to is “do what you want to do, just jump through some hoops first to make it fit”, to me. The GR doesn’t seem to make people act differently than they normally would, is what I’m saying. Anyone with the empathy required in the reflective/considerate phase of applying the Rule, is already going to be guided by that empathy, and if they don’t have that empathy to begin with, or it’s misguided, having the wide-open Rule doesn’t help them.

I guess that’s why I prefer the Thelemic version, at least it’s honest.

Okay. It’s interesting to note that a version of the GR exists in so many religions. No rule does any good if people discard it. The GR is designed as a guide to follow if the question is “how do we make our society better?” As we struggle with things like forms of government and laws the changes that have taken place over the centuries have reflected that. Since I think things like the civil rights movement are a reflection of applied mortal guides like the GR I believe they do work. Sometimes people don’t start out with empathy but can gain it through experience and a desire to grow and understand.

I can accept “do what you want to do” and think that’s pretty much how it works. The thing is we must accept the consequences of our actions as individuals and as a group. The more we recognize how connected we are as a group the better understanding we have of what those consequences are. Then what we want to do changes.

Perhaps it’s been mentioned and I missed it. Please fight my ignorance and explain the Thelemic version.

[MrDibble]

Posts #42 & 47.

[Consonants]

A better way of stating the rule is: “Would you want your mother treated like you are treating their mother?” Somehow this removal of ego and replacement with a sympathetic figure helps clarify points. “Sure, I’d be okay with someone trying to scam me because I don’t trust people and will not fall for it, but you’re right that I’d be worried and angry if someone tried to scam my mother.”

[cosmosdan]

@MrDibble

Posts #42 & 47.

Thanks. That was educational.

I’m afraid I don’t see much difference between the GR and the Thelemic version. A simplistic version or interpretation of that doesn’t work either.

[MrDibble]

@cosmosdan

Thanks. That was educational.

I’m afraid I don’t see much difference between the GR and the Thelemic version. A simplistic version or interpretation of that doesn’t work either.

That’s the whole point by stating just the bare bones, the Thelemic version makes us question immediately what our Will actually is- “Do as thou wilt” doesn’t hide behind a facade of *enforced *empathy. Which is no empathy at all.

[cosmosdan]

@MrDibble

That’s the whole point by stating just the bare bones, the Thelemic version makes us question immediately what our Will actually is- “Do as thou wilt” doesn’t hide behind a facade of *enforced *empathy. Which is no empathy at all.

There is no enforced empathy in the GR. No facade. It merely asks us to consider the actions we take from another perspective. “How would I feel if this were done to me?” We are free to discard it or justify our actions and often do. The beauty and simplicity of it IMO is when we sincerely decide to ask the question our own desire to understand will inevitably lead us on. {assuming we have one and that’s why we asked in the first place}

It doesn’t mean squelch your normal inclinations and feelings. It just asks us to think about them more. If we decide to ask the question, then that is our will.

The basic non thoughtful Thelemic version means we can lie, cheat, steal, betray, and be generally self serving with no thought to others at all. You in post 42 say

This involves some soul searching, some “knowing thyself”, and a full awareness of the possible consequences of your actions

although that is not included in the basic text of “do as thou wilt” There’s nothing there asking us to care about how our actions affect others. Until post 47

you have a duty not to keep others from following their Will

That asks us for empathy. Consideration of others. I prefer the simplicity of the GR although I think they both lead to the same place.
Notice in the link I left showing different versions the GR.

Wicca: “An it harm no one, do what thou wilt” (i.e. do what ever you will, as long as it harms nobody, including yourself). One’s will is to be carefully thought out in advance of action. This is called the Wiccan Rede

pretty close huh?

[MrDibble]

Maybe “enforced” was too strong a word - “strongly suggest” might be closer.

Crowley’s version is certainly riffing off the Rede (and Rabelais).

[Ensign_Edison]

Crowley was the Tarantino of mysticism, all right.

[cosmosdan]

@MrDibble

Maybe “enforced” was too strong a word - “strongly suggest” might be closer.

Crowley’s version is certainly riffing off the Rede (and Rabelais).

Sure seems to. My point is that as it fleshes out “An it harm no one” suggests an effort toward empathy as well as “you have a duty not to keep others from following their Will”

different phrasing but the same teaching.