Naw, all you can get is from us is $.
You only had one “all are crap” option, so I went with that even though I don’t exploit it.
Why would you send me pesos?
Not sure I understand why people get hung up on the details – These all look like just different attempts to formulate the same principle.
The abstract idea is really the only moral guideline that’s objectively true. Now, I’m sure not everyone follows it, but that doesn’t invalidate it, that just means people are [del]scum[/del] imperfect.
I agree, and think “Well, I wouldn’t have a problem with being treated this way, why are they complaining?” is flawed thinking. But I don’t think it’s a problem with the concept, just with interpretation and the fact that sustained and consistently applied empathy is actually pretty difficult.
…or perhaps, “Treat other people as though they matter as much as you do.”
Or ‘treat others like subjects in their own right, rather than objects’.
All versions of the Golden Rule are really attempts to spell out the nature of empathy - and empathy, above all, is the basis of morality.
Yes, I think that’s exactly it (and why it’s so hard to come up with a simple and concise version that captures all of it!).
I always considered the Golden Rule (some versions at least) as being too subjective to be generally useful. There are people in the world who are masochistic or unfocused in their desires and needs, and it would be foolish for me to base my morality on their point of view.
Yeah.
I picked the last option, although most hard liquor tastes like kerosene to me. But the point is, it’s not the differences among the expressions that I disagree with. The golden rule is a close approximation of ideal social behavior.
Computer simulations found that treating everyone you encounter like they ask/want to be treated works well to a point, but after someone’s screwed you over a few times in a row, you have to change your behavior with respect to them.
Again, seems to me this is taking it too literally. The Golden Rule & variants do not literally demand that everyone like asparagus, or S&M.
What it demands, seems to me, is an examination of other people as having inherent worth and desires of their own that ought to be respected - to look on the Other and understand that, to them, you are the ‘Other’.
So, for example, if you happen to be a masochist who enjoys flagellation during sex, the Golden Rule doesn’t demand that you go around flagellating other people whether they like it or not. What it demands is more like ‘I enjoy flagellation, and think it a harmless sexual passtime; perhaps then, I ought to have some empathy when I discover someone else has a different sexualty of their own, and not be judgmental about it if they aren’t harming others thereby - even if it is something I’m not into’.
I believe in treating others the way that I would like to be treated, unless they are my compitition or enemy. Then I believe in doing to them before they do unto me.
Right…and this is exactly why the Golden Rule, in any of the permutations written in the OP, is too general to be useless. It’s pithy, and possibly of some use with small children (“Don’t hit Timmy! Would you like it if he hit you?”), but a critical examination reveals that, as the basis for *behavior *it’s usually presented to be, it’s useless and, in fact, patriarchal and assumptive. Adults should try to refrain from being patriarchal and assumptive in most cases, I believe.
You’ve got to intentionally not read it literally if your claim is that it’s intended to teach empathy. In fact, you’ve got to read it backwards. As written, it’s not empathetic at all - it’s assuming everyone is like you. To develop empathy, you must first realize that *not *everyone is like you. You should strive to understand what they’re feeling and thinking, not what you might feeling or thinking in the same situation.
Much like “begs the question”, or “it’s a moot point”, the Golden Rule, literally, as read, means the opposite of what most people think/want it to mean.
I think it is more reasonable to assume that it is intended as a pithy saying intended to be applied intelligently.
If you think it means ‘everone ought to eat asparagus because I like to receive them for dinner’ - and then find that a “patriarchal and assumptive” imposition of asparagus on the world - I suppose you can, but I doubt many will agree with that. 
I don’t know. I can’t believe that any person quoted in the OP or any other person who seriously states a Golden Rule-like morality guide could ever intend it to mean “the specifics of my life that I find pleasing I must perpetrate upon all other people.” In that case the Golden Rule is so clearly broken that it seems silly to even consider that that is its intended meaning.
And, you must live in a much more morally developed universe than I if you think that something like, "hey, shouting at that person and making them feel bad about themselves . . . " wait. I think I see what you’re saying now (funny how while typing something can just kind of ‘click’). Using my feelings as a basis for how I treat others is inherently un-empathetic?
While I guess I agree with that to some degree, I think an assumption of some universal feelings and desires is necessary, and a reminder/appeal to that does not get in the way of empathy, but can be a pathway to developing empathy.
The full thought process behind a Golden Rule situation would be as follows:
"Don’t hit Timmy! Would you like it if he hit you?"
“No, because it would hurt and make me cry and feel bad.”
"Do you want to make Timmy feel bad?"
“No.”
"Why not?"
"Because I know what it feels like to feel bad and it is an unwanted feeling.
That seems as good a method of moral reasoning as any for a basic, dualistic sort of decision making. And, I know plenty of adults whose behavior would benefit greatly if they employed this sort of thought process.
I’m just not following the logic of the people who are using the food examples to show how the GR doesn’t work. Explain this to me, please?
What I’ve seen is that the GR isn’t just a guideline to behavior, it’s something of a truism: you will (in general) be treated the way you generally treat people. I’ve seen this in action - my ex generally used and lied to most of the people he knew, and he ended up with a social group of users and liars.
I always liked the corrolary -
Expect to be treated the way you treat others.
If you’re an ass, expect to be treated as such.
If you expect others to be helpful, you should be helpful yourself.
This one just doesn’t quite get to my ideals of the Golden Rule standards.
If you have evil bastards deciding your fate, you’re screwed no matter how you treat others.
But I guess the same is true for all of them after I think about it…
Again, except for Matthew, the rulegivers above do not say that. They do not say to treat others as you would wish to be treated. They say to not treat others as you don’t wish to be treated. Proscriptive, not prescriptive. A limit, not a mandate.
It is. Indeed, I would say it’s not about making people happy at all. It’s about allowing others to pursue happiness in their own way.
And that is not the same as saying that you ought to give Timmy a candy bar (or Cheeseburger Hot Pocket), because you would like one.
The rule is about behavior, direct or subversive; not about fulfilling desires.
It’s a check against an action you’re about to take: should I sneak a peek at this guy’s text messages?
That’s how I see it. It should be kept simple and used with common sense.