Bryan Ekers, changing your post to another misrepresentation of my argument is tiresome.
What in the name of Hitler IS your argument?
#9
If you want to play it that way, #14. Are you trying to obfuscate?
Your OP is as confusing as all get-out. First, you garble the Golden Rule. It’s commonly known as “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” but from what you wrote, it’s at least concievable that you think it’s “Do unto others as they would have done unto you,” which is a completely different principle.
From your later posts, it becomes more clear what your actual question is. Near as I can make out, what you want to ask is, “Does it matter to you how someone treats other people, or does it only matter how they treat you, personally?” Is that your question? And if so, what does it have to do with the Golden Rule?
Actually, my initial reaction was completely honest. “Der… uh?” was how I initially felt when confronted with:
…because I first linked the pronoun “they” with the apparent subject noun “things”, which made no sense. The post you wrote afterward about Spock and Hitler while I was composing mine (and which I saw after I’d posted) helped clarify matters somewhat, hence my edit.
Only somewhat, mind you. At this point, I’m tempted to ask if it’s okay to think less of someone who doesn’t think less of Spock for not thinking less of Hitler. Personally, I don’t have much patience for people who’d have less patience for someone willing to have a consistent amount of patience for Spock, but your mileage may vary.
Fare enough, I’m pretty sure I’ve phrased my OP incorrectly. I think your post most cogently summarizes my point.
Given Thudlow’s distillation and Sitnam’s agreement, I’d guess that… well… there’s nothing even slightly close to a universal rule on how your friend’s treatment of others must affect your treatment of your friend.
I don’t know anyone who is of unblemished character, yet I have friends. I, myself am seriously unfit for the sobriquet of “Man of great character”, yet I have friends. I have fallen into bad company on occasion, and among those were some people worthy of my respect, and others not so worthy to whom I gave respect.
The golden rule is not about character of others, it is about holding yourself to your own standards. Do unto thieves, murderers, and reprobates as you would have thieves, murderers and reprobates do unto you.
Following it involves sacrifice, and the willful acceptance of that sacrifice for reasons unrelated to nature of the world.
Tris
“You must be the change you wish to see in the world.” ~ Mohandas K. Gandhi ~
The Roots of Violence:
Wealth without work,
Pleasure without conscience,
Knowledge without character,
Commerce without morality,
Science without humanity,
Worship without sacrifice,
Politics without principles.
Gandhi
The irony, it burns!
(thanks **Thudlow Boink **,for clearing the fog, a little, thought my head might explode!)
Gandhi gave little girls enemas. Would you still have a beer with him?
This is actually a fairly interesting question - Spock is not likely to like or dislike Hitler, but to react to his actions according to the job he was trying to do and the regulations he was operating under. Spock probaby would have made a good Nazi.
Or maybe it’s about treating thieves, murderers and reprobates with the same basic respect as model citizens.
The Golden Rule, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” works poorly with, say, sadomasochism. Or more generally, people with different preferences and subcultures. So no, at best it’s a useful rule of thumb, not an innately good idea.
Define character; and important for what purpose; and what kind of character flaws and what circumstances? Personal character flaws like, say, cheating on your spouse are far more important for someone you intend to marry than if you are electing them or buying from them.
My answer is that personally I find character very important, but I tend to look at patterns of behavior more than individual acts. Since you asked, I do, in fact, have a best friend who cheated on her fiancée, and I have remained friends with both of them. My best friend is generally a person of good character–this act was not typical for her. I made it clear that I was disappointed in her behavior and left it at that.
I think there are examples where a single act is so extreme as to overshadow other good traits, but I’m weirdly inconsistent when it comes to the kinds of people I do and don’t tolerate. Absence of guilt is what bothers me the most. If someone is a criminal but feels pain or remorse for the criminal act, I tend to feel more compassion than I do for a run-of-the-mill self-centered asshole who doesn’t feel remorse at all.
When I am trying to draw conclusions about a person’s character, I am way more interested in how they treat others than in how they are treating me. In new romances and friendships, people tend to show you their shiny side but if you look carefully at how they treat others you can predict pretty accurately how they will treat you in the long-term. This is one of the major things that attracted me to my husband. He is so good to people – not just me, but people – without any expectations or entitlements. It’s just who he is.
No. He would treat Hitler exactly the same way he would treat himself if he was intentionally responsible of the genocide of 10-million-plus people. Heck, he was willing to kill someone who was going to kill a significant portion of humanity.
But I think what you really meant by the question is how nice we should be to people who are nice to us, but not to others. Like, I have a friend who cheated with one of her friends’ boyfriends. Try as I might, I can’t hate her for it, although I now spurn all her romantic advances towards me, because I don’t know I can trust her not to just be caught up in the moment. But I’m still gonna be nice to her.
To use your hypothetical: I’d be nice to Hitler if he was nice to me, but I’d still try to get him punished, if that makes any sense. But I think the reason I’d be nice in person is that I’d be afraid of him.