The Golden Rule ? Sense or Bullshit?

[Magnum]

I quote the following;

All the most reasonable teachings of human wisdom concerning justice are summed up in that famous adage: Do unto others that which you would that others should do unto you; Do not unto others that which you would not that others should do unto you. But this rule of moral practice is unscientific: what have I a right to wish that others should do or not do to me? It is of no use to tell me that my duty is equal to my right, unless I am told at the same time what my right is.

How many things in life do we just accept without really looking at it closely?

Religion has caused many cultures of nonthinking to occur. This I see as the root of the God-problem namely educated non-thinkers.

I suffer from the same educational problems but at least I try and see through them as much as possible.

Do you agree? Sense or Bullshit?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

Right is a human concept, and thus, not a scientific question.

I think the golden rule just means do unto others as you want them to do unto you. Many cultures have this saying, not just in religion, but also by philosophers.

From an evolutionary viewpoint, this is extremely advantageous behaviour that would help the species survive, so I'm not surprised that humans have come to believe this is the way to act as those who do not act this way (thieves/other criminals) generally do not do well in societies, and a society comprised only of people who do what's best for themselves with no regards for others would break down rather quickly. Nowadays individuals in societies are so dependent on each other that i don't think anyone would argue that's a good idea.

I think if no one spelled out the golden rule, we'd still live by it anyway, because of the reasons i've outlined above.

[Minimalist]

The Greeks thought of it centuries before any alleged jesus. They regarded it as merely a good idea not as any religious bullshit. They were still doing animal sacrifices to their gods at the time.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

The Chinese philosophers have a similar saying, too. That's the version I was taught.

[FlyingNarwhal]

If I'm a sadomasochist and enjoy being tortured, do I get to torture others?

[Magnum]

pineapplebunnybounce

I accept what you say but for me you are making a lot of assumptions. First of all the assumption is made that what you see as good and acceptable is also good and acceptable to your neighbor.

I don't know if you ever traveled to other countries that have very different cultures to your own? Well, I did and I burnt my fingers a few times in this respect.

I think my question is really about how practical statements like that are compared to accepting it as a philosophical, spiritual or religious truth that sounds nice and gives us the cosy feeling but are as impractical as can be.

So to my mind it can still be either a statement of sense or bullshit.

---

If I'm a sadomasochist and enjoy being tortured, do I get to torture others?

Yes! Imagine walking up to a strange girl and you just start rubbing her delicious because you are just practicing the Golden Rule doing to others what you'd like them to do to you.

[genkaus]

I quote the following;

All the most reasonable teachings of human wisdom concerning justice are summed up in that famous adage: Do unto others that which you would that others should do unto you; Do not unto others that which you would not that others should do unto you. But this rule of moral practice is unscientific: what have I a right to wish that others should do or not do to me? It is of no use to tell me that my duty is equal to my right, unless I am told at the same time what my right is.

How many things in life do we just accept without really looking at it closely?

Religion has caused many cultures of nonthinking to occur. This I see as the root of the God-problem namely educated non-thinkers.

I suffer from the same educational problems but at least I try and see through them as much as possible.

Do you agree? Sense or Bullshit?

The thing to remember about the golden rule is that its just a thumb rule, not a universal moral principle. It is a handy guide which would help you make the right decision regarding a lot of actions in your everyday life, but it is not to be treated as an absolute principle to live by. There may be supervening moral principles or interests in play which may render its application moot. So, while it is good adage that allows for peaceful relations in your daily affairs, it is not to be applied blindly and without consideration for the situation.

Consider another thumb rule - "If it smells funny, don't eat it". While a good rule in most cases, there are foods that are good for you even though they smell bad. Other foods may smell good may be harmful. Clearly, there are many cases where the principle fails completely.

Similarly, when a judge is sentencing a criminal, he should not act on the golden rule. When a rich man is thinking of donating all his money to charity, he should not act on the golden rule. When you are thinking of taking your dream job which would take you away from your family who want you close by - you should not act on the golden rule. And when someone holds and acts on irrational beliefs, you should not hold your tongue because in his place you wouldn't want to be told that you are wrong.

[Kayenneh]

If I'm a sadomasochist and enjoy being tortured, do I get to torture others?

Not really, no

The Golden Rule in itself does not take this into account, so I have always thought it to be 'do to others according to their preferences and not your own'.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

pineapplebunnybounce

I accept what you say but for me you are making a lot of assumptions. First of all the assumption is made that what you see as good and acceptable is also good and acceptable to your neighbor.

I don't know if you ever traveled to other countries that have very different cultures to your own? Well, I did and I burnt my fingers a few times in this respect.

I think my question is really about how practical statements like that are compared to accepting it as a philosophical, spiritual or religious truth that sounds nice and gives us the cosy feeling but are as impractical as can be.

So to my mind it can still be either a statement of sense or bullshit.

Lived in 4 countries, been in 7, mostly asia and north america. What has this got to do with anything i'm not sure.

ok, i looked at my original post, and as expected, i didn't use the word "good" to say you should do "good". To clarify i meant beneficial. I might as well restate my point which is because we're social beings, what benefits others generally ends up benefiting us. What is beneficial is generally quite obvious. Genkaus has pointed out that just like everything, there are exceptions to this rule.

---

If I'm a sadomasochist and enjoy being tortured, do I get to torture others?

haha, you know, i think part of this rule deals with the reciprocity aspect of human interaction. So one could say that if you tortured someone, you may get them to torture you, too, achieving your goal.

[genkaus]

Right is a human concept, and thus, not a scientific question.

Human concepts are not exempt from scientific inquiry. The question of rights is studied under political science.

I think the golden rule just means do unto others as you want them to do unto you. Many cultures have this saying, not just in religion, but also by philosophers.

And many philosophers have criticized it as well.

From an evolutionary viewpoint, this is extremely advantageous behaviour that would help the species survive, so I'm not surprised that humans have come to believe this is the way to act as those who do not act this way (thieves/other criminals) generally do not do well in societies, and a society comprised only of people who do what's best for themselves with no regards for others would break down rather quickly. Nowadays individuals in societies are so dependent on each other that i don't think anyone would argue that's a good idea.

From an evolutionary viewpoint, a lot of other behaviors that do not fit the common moral paradigm are advantageous as well. Are you surprised as to why humans don't believe that they should act that way? You should note that a lot of people who do not follow the golden rule, do happen to do well in societies. A lot of thieves and criminals happen to occupy the highest echelons of our society. And you cannot say that a society composed entirely of people only out for themselves would break down quickly because there has never been such a society in existence. Neither has there ever been a society solely based on the golden rule - so we can't credit the success of the society to it either. And finally, your dependence on other individuals can be resolved without ever bringing in the golden rule by the rule of trade - "Do unto others what they pay you to do unto them".

I think if no one spelled out the golden rule, we'd still live by it anyway, because of the reasons i've outlined above.

Hard to say, given that we barely live by it now even though it has been spelled out.

---

I accept what you say but for me you are making a lot of assumptions. First of all the assumption is made that what you see as good and acceptable is also good and acceptable to your neighbor.

I don't know if you ever traveled to other countries that have very different cultures to your own? Well, I did and I burnt my fingers a few times in this respect.

I think my question is really about how practical statements like that are compared to accepting it as a philosophical, spiritual or religious truth that sounds nice and gives us the cosy feeling but are as impractical as can be.

So to my mind it can still be either a statement of sense or bullshit.

Given that this rule is to be applied with appropriate consideration given to the context and situation, I'd say that its a statement of sense sometimes and of bullshit the others.