The Golden Rule ? Sense or Bullshit?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

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.

It's subject to scrutiny of course, but it's not a yes/no question, it evolves over time. If you want to call it science that's fine by me.

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.

Sure, not a philosopher, merely mentioning it to say that it did not originate from religion in some cultures.

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?

Our sense of morality evolves, i think i made this clear. As with everything, evolution sometime lag behind environment, so we our morals may not have caught up with what is optimally beneficial to the human race. Just like some societies still do not practice laws that are beneficial.

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.

There is diversity in nature, and diversity is necessary for evolution, the evolution of morals is no different. The fact that there has been no society that survives solely on people looking out for themselves is the point i'm trying to make, if you do something that's not beneficial, you die out, so that's why they aren't around.

No societies are based solely on the golden rule, of course not, like i said diversity, and also a small amount of free-riders exist in every society and as long as the number isn't too large, the society still functions.

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.

Rule of trade doesn't apply to a lot of things we do in life? For example why bother helping someone out say... ok say you found a wallet in school, do you take the money and throw it away or turn it in to the lost and found? It's more beneficial in the long tern to turn it in to the lost and found, because you're fostering an environment where people will do this more often (the person coming back to look for his wallet would be more inclined to turn in other wallets he find). Or you can take the money and benefit yourself in the short term. The rule of trade only applies when we're buying or paying for services.