New 'Golden Rule 2.0'

You westerners and your Golden Rule. Is that the best you can do? It is so one-sided, it will never work. Let’s look at it:

‘[You] do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’

‘You’ is referenced 3:l over the ‘others’. Vanity.

If I may paraphrase, I would like to introduce ‘Golden Rule 2.0,’ to wit: ‘Do not bother others, and in turn, do not let others’ actions bother you.’ There is no way out of this one. If we all keep it, perhaps we may eliminate contention among ourselves.

Comments?

Comments:

  1. It’s in the wrong forum (unless, of course, it’s critiquing the moderators’ abilities as regards GR 1.0, in which case it should still be in the Pit). One presumes a passing Mod or Admin will move it as needed.

  2. The origin of the GR 1.0 is not Western but from Kung Fu-Tse.

  3. GR 2.0 sounds suspiciously like the Rede of Neopaganism.

  4. Is GR 2.0 intended to deny any requirement on the part of its follower to behave ethically as regards actions affecting a second party by a third party who may not be obeying either GR?

The you-to-others ratios are the same in GR 1.0 and GR 2.0, i.e., 3:2. “Others” and “them” in the first version refer to the same people.

The ATMB forum is for technical questions and concerns about this message board. I’ll move this thread to MPSIMS.

I’ll paraphrase even further: Be nice to each other, dorks.

:smiley:

“Be excellent to each other and party on.”
Bill and Ted’s Bogus Journey

I like it even more than the Golden Rule, because it encourages people to have a good time. :smiley:

Please allow me to modify my original post. I knew my IP was about to throw me off, [they did, just minutes later] and I was rushing to get it posted.
I don’t know where GR-1 came from originally. I just ASSUMED it was Western. GR-1 puts the onus on the first individual, the ‘you’; there appears to be less of a requirement for the ‘other’ to refrain from complaining about real or imagined offenses. GR-2.0 attempts to place an equal burden on all parties.

The point of the Golden Rule, and, indeed, of Christianity, is that a believer does bear the burden to behave properly, regardless of what anyone else does. It’s not a 50/50 proposition; you’re supposed to give 100% and what others do should not affect that. This is also where “turning the other cheek” and “forgiving your brother seventy times seven times” comes in. This is because it’s not a contract between you and your human other. It’s a contract between you and God.

Golden Rule 3.0 - avoiding the issue of the “self” altogether - Do nothing. (also known as the slacker motto)

I posted that too quickly. It’s not just Christianity that holds this tenet; Leviticus 19:18 says, in part, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself.” The same or very similar sentiment has been expressed by almost every major religion, although sometimes posited in the negative (“Do not do to others what you would not have done to you”). It has also been argued that the positive form places a greater responsibility on the believer.

Onus and Burden would be a great name for a small law firm, probably one specializing in custom-fitted neck braces.

But in any case, ethical action always flows from the one who acts, and every action is a first action; “reaction” is just a self-justifying fable people tell themselves.

The Golden Rule isn’t Christian, it’s just good common sense.

Drastic writes: “But in any case, ethical action always flows from the one who acts, and every action is a first action; ‘reaction’ is just a self-justifying fable people tell themselves.”

Buddahpest replies: How silly and how false. I hope this is something you can attribute to someone else, and not something you thought of yourself. GR-2 requires the ‘turning of the other cheek.’ GR-1 does not. Wars have been fought for so little. Remember The War of Jenkins’ Ear from the 19th century?

But I like the new law firm.

I’d be very surprised if I invented the Golden Rule. I never get the important memos.

Not silly, nor false. Ethical action comes from the one who acts, just as unethical action does. Right action isn’t something the other guy’s supposed to do; it’s what I–whatever collection of aggregates composes that I–am supposed to do, just as right speech is not what the other guy is supposed to speak, but what I’m supposed to.

Do you control others’ actions? Nope. Only one being’s actions are within the scope of an individual’s control, and that is that individual alone.

It’s absolutely correct that the Golden Rule doesn’t mandate cheek-turning; that’s what makes it common sense. If you prefer to live a life where people inflict harm, then by all means, inflict harm yourself–it’s most likely they’ll respond in kind. But it’s not guaranteed–because other individuals control their own actions.

If you’d rather not that be the case, well and again, what other people do is not in your control. Only you are. So you act in the way you’d prefer others to.

I think you’re coming at “rule” entirley incorrectly: thinking of the word in the sense of “instruction” or “law.” No kewpie doll. Rule as in “measure.” As in the measure of an individual, and that individual’s actions; the measure is golden when one acts not in consonance with how they would rather others act–regardless of how they do.

Right action is neither onus or burden. That law firm is as respectable as any ambulance chaser.