Look! Confirmation of my theory that giving love engenders love. Thanks, MKM. 
Second time today I’ve been hoist on my own petard. Okay, point taken, and thanks, both of you.
And yes, I too find it very difficult to tolerate the intolerant, and accept the unaccepting (or swap the verbs and gerunds if you like! :)).
Well, Gaudy, it’s been well known for centuries that giving love often engenders something, usually after nine months or so!
::groan:: Go sit in the corner for that remark, Poly. 
(…and once men found out they were partially responsible for the kids, they never got over themselves)
Boy, talk about God working in mysterious ways.
I agree “hopelessly flawed” is inaccurate. Allow me to alter it to this:
The Golden Rule (I’ll discuss the Empathic Golden Rule below) is not a good basis for ethics because it is flawed. It is flawed because it assumes the ethicity of the person who is going to adhere to it. The Golden Rule is an effective secondary rule, once a person’s initial ethicity has been established by some other means.
The Empathic Golden Rule (henceforth TEGR) will be stated as the following:
“Treat others as you believe they wish to be treated.”
TEGR is flawed just like TGR, although perhaps not to the same degree, i.e. it is more difficult to get an immoral answer from it. TEGR still doesn’t provide a solid basis for morality (and therefore I submit that like TGR is not the basis of atheistic morality). The problem with TEGR is that although it now takes into consideration the other person viewpoint (unlike TGR), it still doesn’t provide a lot of direction to immoral people, unlike other codes of conduct.
Example #1. A bully/thug is pondering whether it is moral to pick a fight with somebody. He uses TGR and figures it is okay, but then applies TEGR and decides the following “I am a big strong guy, and I enjoy fighting. Big and strong people are good at fighting. Therefore, if somebody has taken the time and effort to become big and strong they must be interested in becoming a better fighter, and therefore won’t mind fighting either. Therefore, as long as the person I pick on is big and strong it is okay for me to fight him.” Now, Lib will howl “That’s inductive reasoning!”, and he’s right it is. But there is nothing in TEGR that says you can’t use inductive reasoning, and there is nothing about empathy that says it cannot be inductive, and the inductive reasoning above is logically accurate even if it doesn’t give a true answer in the real world. So what’s next the The Deductive Empathic Golden Rule?
Example #2. A destitute thief is pondering stealing from a wealthy person. He applies TGR, as above, and figures it’s okay, but then applies TEGR and decides “I know that he has considerable investments and earns $1,000 a day in interest. Furthermore, I know that he is man of very strong spirit and takes set backs in stride as just being part of life. So, I am sure he won’t a small amount of money, like $1,000, in a financial sense and he won’t be put out that he has been stolen from. It will be like water of a ducks back to him. He will just shrug it off. Therefore, it is okay for me to steal from him.” In other words, perfect justification to steal from somebody who doesn’t mind being stolen from. Certainly such a person is rare, but certainly just because he doesn’t care doesn’t make it moral.
So, although TEGR provides a better means to analyze an action as moral/immoral is still fails and as such doesn’t provide a good solid basis for moral conduct.
Now, I mean all of this in comparision to a more absolute set of rules. The Bushido Code, The (objective parts) Bible, My Creation Principle, etc.
My other point of all this is that neither the TGR nor TEGR form the basis of atheistic morality. But rather on an atheist to atheist basis there is some other principle underlying the possible use of TGR or TEGR which forms the basis.
Again, TGR and TEGR make fine secondary rules, but poor primary rules.
Glitch:
Looks like solid analysis to me. Thanks.
Small problem with Example #1: it attempts to generalize from a single example, a common problem with inferential systems. Polycarps Astronomical Law: All solar systems with at least seven planets have rings around the fifth, sixth, and seventh, with the sixth having by far the largest ring system. Demonstrably true and, while theoretically disprovable, impossible to disprove at this time. It’s obviously generalizing from a case of one. Similarly, Polycarp’s Law of Vestiges in Sapients: All technologically advanced species retain the vermiform appendix. It meets all the rules. If our moral thug surveys a reasonable sample of big, strong people and finds that without exception they enjoy fighting, he may be morally justified. But not on the basis of his own case.
I was intrigued by the similarity of Example #2 to a case C.S. Lewis used where a destitute person steals something from a well-to-do Christian, whose reaction was, “If I had known he needed it, I would have given it to him before he came and stole it. Therefore I fore-give it to him, retroactively.” (The pun was intentional, and key to Lewis’s point, developed next, about forgivenes.)
Well, I did say, "Putting aside for the moment the consequences of an incorrect empathic judgement . . . "
As Gaudere said,
-And I submit that errors in judgement will happen, and are a consequence not necessarily of a flaw in the rule, but flaws in reasoning. For example:
Your thug is failing to take into account the consequences of losing the fight. When considering this kind of empathic judgement, it is imperative to account for all possible outcomes. Additional thoughts might be, “Well, what will it feel like to lose the fight? One of us could be hurt, possibly badly. Hey, even if he is big and strong, maybe he doesn’t know a lot about fighting, and maybe I could really hurt him. That wouldn’t make me feel good. I probably shouldn’t fight him.”
Of course, all bets are off if your thug truly wants to inflict pain and suffering.
There’s more gray in the example of the thief, depending on how badly the thief needs the money, how much the rich man has to spare, the ability of local shelters to provide for the thief what he cannot buy, etc.
Any value judgement made to determine the intrinsic “rightness” of an action in a specific situation must take into account all possible consequences, good and bad.
Sum Ergo Cogito
Poly:
Forgive me, but I stand with Glitch on this one. His point was not that the man can generalize about other people based on his own views, but that the Golden Rule’s imperative is that he use his own views as the standard.
But the problem with all moral imperatives is that, for them to be perfect (unflawed), the one who practices them must be perfectly moral himself. That includes the Golden Rule, Glitch’s Variation on the Golden Rule (and Confucius’s), and even Kant’s own Categorical Imperative.
Kant says to apply that principle which you would set as the standard for all men for all times (hence, the “categorical” part). But unless you are perfectly moral yourself, whatever principle you apply is not standardable by definition, because you aren’t perfect.
Yep. Just what I get for not paying attention. Glitch is correct; by the Golden Rule Our Hero may fight (which he enjoys) but not defeat his opponent (since he himself would not enjoy being defeated). Hence, a sparring match.
True enough, but I can get around it by modifying the example slightly. It is after all just an example and I can come up with a multitude of examples. Also, and your point illustrates it well, it is more difficult to come up with examples for TEGR than TGR.
Anyway, how about this modification.
Example #1 (modified) I am big and strong and I like to fight. I also have several friends who are big and strong and like to fight. … the rest is the same …
It still uses inductive logic, but inductive logic is not bad logic, it just sometimes fails to give accurate results in the real world.
Nice story and good point but I see a problem: Forgiveness (even fore-giveness) <> action taken not moral. The thief is still a thief, and anybody who defines stealing as wrong would agree that the action was immoral, even if forgiveable.
I am putting a seperator here because the rest is not in reply to you Polycarp.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
I just want to compare and contrast my examples with different codes of conduct to perhaps make them clearer still, although I think you guys are getting it.
Example #1. We have a thug. The thug wants to decide if he wants to fight somebody. He applies TGR and TEGR and all systems are go, but then he decides to apply the Bushido code. The Bushido code strictly forbids attacking those who do not wish to, or cannot fight (there is a WONDERFUL passage in the Bushido about hitting women … they call it the ultimate act of cowardice, because if a woman was a man should would never accept being struck, but because she is a woman she must accept it tearfully. She is not permitted to fight back, and therefore to strike her is an extreme cowardice). So applying this he comes to realize “I may enjoy fighting, but in order for my combat to be just, fair and honorable I must have the mutual consent of the other.”
We can clearly see the application of TEGR here, but only after the application of another moral code, the Bushido. TEGR is a secondary rule.
Example #2. Take the example, and instead of the Bushido apply the Bible. You can see how the logic would be similar because of the commandment “Thou shalt not steal”.
Amusingly, applying the logic here doesn’t lead to an application of TGR or TEGR. In this case, we simply have the application of a moral absolute.
Definitely true; however, in the case of some moral codes empathy, intelligence and knowledge may not be enough. Granted my examples are specifically designed to come up with the immoral answer because I choose the reasoning the hypothetical person choose. The just as easily could have realized something different, but I think it is equally clear that although a bit odd the reasoning in the examples is not completely unreasonable. I mean it doesn’t assume anything truly outlandish.
Not so, as above, the reasoning used is not completely outlandish even though it might be described as being a bit odd, especially to you or me who are neither thieves nor thugs.
However, I will always recall a story told to me by a Christian friend about another Christian friend (I knew him too).
This guy found a wallet with no id. His rent was due and he was in bad financial shape. He reasoned that keeping the money was not stealing because it must have been sent from God (his reasoning was based on scripture that states (paraphrased): God takes care of the flowers and the birds, so he will certainly take care of me).
Now, personally, I think it was stealing. The fact is the money was somebody elses, and it wasn’t his. He made it his without the person to whom it rightfully belonged giving it to him. Sounds like stealing to me.
But accepting the truth of his interpretation of the scripture, he might be right.
Odd reasoning? From my perspective, yes. Completely outlandish and not based at all in anything logical at all? No.
I can accept that there could be people who would use reasoning like what is in the examples above. If the moral code cannot help these people with moral direction, than in my view it is best set aside as a secondary rule, and some other code should be set forth as a primary rule.
Glitch:
Actually, Poly admitted she was wrong and posted his retraction.
Try applying the Categorical Imperative to your examples. That should be a fun exercise. For the benefit of those who might not know, it is the moral tenet offered by Immanuel Kant that basically says that a for a moral code to be useful, it must be one that applies to all people at all times.
Boy, you’re really covering your ass to prevent misidentification of gender here!
http://www.elnet.com/~sburch/sjbgrin.gif
Maybe you should just refer to everyone as “it”.
We appreciate its advice, and thank it profusely. :o
Applying the Categorical Imperative (henceforth TCI):
From the web I got these definitions of the categorical imperative.
“Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
“Act so that the maxim [determining motive of the will] may be capable of becoming a universal law for all rational beings.”
The Thug. So, the Thug wants to figure out if it is okay to pick a fight with somebody and could reason as follows “I am big and strong and I like to fight; however, would picking a fight be an okay universal law for all rational beings? Well, I have established that it is only okay to fight someone who is as big and strong as I am. So, is it fair that anybody would want to fight somebody else who is as big and strong or small and weak as they are? No, because somebody who isn’t interested in improving their fighting ability i.e. isn’t willing to work on being big and strong, isn’t going to want to fight anybody even if it were a fair match. Since I cannot apply picking fights as a universal law, it must be immoral.”
Example #2. A destitute thief trying to decide whether it is okay to steal reasons "I have nothing and other people are rich, so I will steal from them. Is stealing from somebody rich who wouldn’t care if you stole from them something any rational person would consider a good law? … " I am not sure where to take the reasoning from there. Anybody want to pick it up?
Well, thanks a lot Lib, now I have to go and ponder TCI (and secretly I love ya for it :)). I forsee, worst case, one of two problems (certainly not both).
-
Is it possible that the TCI is paralytic?
-
Just because the two examples above may not show that TCI allows reason to allow immoral actions, but maybe I can think of another example.
I’ll be back.
Or he might just as easily reason, “I am a big strong guy, and I enjoy fighting. Big and strong people are good at fighting. Therefore, if somebody has taken the time and effort to become big and strong they must be interested in becoming a better fighter, and therefore won’t mind fighting either. Therefore, as long as the person I pick on is big and strong it is okay for me to fight him.”
Your thug’s reasoning, whether applying TEGR or the Bushido Code, can be wrong because he fails to acknowledge his intended opponent may have different feelings about fighting than he does. In either case, the mis-apprehension of empathy is at fault.
Sum Ergo Cogito
Quixotic: The thug couldn’t reason that way because the Bushido code specifically forbids fighting without those who cannot or will not fight. It does not allow for implied consent.
I realize, of course, that the problem with the Bushido code, the Bible, etc. is that they cannot possibly list a do and don’t for every possible thing under the sun. Which means they are flawed, as is any attempt to simply list do’s and do not do’s
The quest then is to find some general principle by which through honest, even if somewhat flawed without being way off the deep end flawed, reason you come up with a moral answer. I don’t think The Golden Rule or The Empathic Golden Rule is this. And you are correct, Quixotic, the Bushido code, the Bible, etc aren’t it either. I am sure you could read the Bushido and come up with examples of have by honest reason come up with an immoral answer … in fact, it would be trivial, if time-consuming, to simply find something not covered.
The Categorical Imperative is looking pretty interesting though.