The Golden Rule ? Sense or Bullshit?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

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.

One conclusion I can draw from this is that our current morality - which includes the golden rule - maybe outdated and lagging behind the our current environment. Which means that the golden rule may no longer be beneficial and maybe opted out of morality in the future.

You know, I notice that people use the word "moral" very liberally. I may think someone has no morals (e.g., in honour killing, i say the dad has no morals, actually he clearly does, it's just different from mine, he likely thinks i have no morals as well). So because the golden rule does not leave out what people think, i think it's still in play. By itself it isn't moral because some people have warped sense of morality, but it fosters the environment you'd want to live in.

So for example, I wouldn't say murder is ok, even if i really want A to kill B. because then, I may end up being murdered as well. So part of it is self-preservation, I think.

And the point I am making is that it is incorrect to compare natural evolution with the evolution of morality. If "what is beneficial, survives" was, in fact, the deciding factor in what constitutes a moral principle, then there would've been other - more beneficial - principles which would be considered moral. For example "lie and manipulate people into doing what you want" is certainly beneficial. "Take whatever you can, as long as it doesn't bite you in the ass" is another. And yet, we do not consider these things moral.

We don't because if too many people do it, the society would not function optimally. Your first example comes with a very important disclaimer which is "as long as it doesn't bite you in the ass". How far into the future are you looking when considering this? 10 hours from now? 20h? 10 years? 50 years? So if everyone went out today, and manipulated people into what they want, let's go for an extreme example and say con people into taking fake cancer treatments and charging them lots of money for it. If we say this is moral, and more and more people start doing it, the next time you're sick, you cannot trust anyone to treat you. You'll have to spend a lot of time researching what is real and what isn't. the same would apply, to a lesser extent, in less extreme cases.

It is also clear from today's society that the golden rule is not necessary for survival. One can be a successful and productive member without subscribing to it. As a matter of fact, it is much less evident in practice than in principle. Where most of our actions are concerned, the wants or desires of others are a passing consideration at best. And that applies even more when our actions are of greater significance.

And finally, it is incorrect to assume that anyone not subscribing to the golden rule would be a free-rider.

Idk what to address here. I have conceded that you don't follow the golden rule all the time, so maybe you follow it while making 50% of your decisions. I don't think it's realistic to say you can be successful and not subscribe to it (do you mean at all?), i could say you can be unsuccessful and not subscribe to it. I mean both are baseless assertions. i think most of us have been in situations where while making a decision, we go "if i were in his position, what would i want me to do?". That's a variation of the golden rule, principle is the same though.

Rule of trade doesn't apply to a lot of things we do in life?

It can apply almost anywhere the golden rule does.

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?

Those aren't the only two option. I can take the money and return it to lost and found. I can keep the wallet till the owner promises a reward. I can take some of the money as my reward and return the rest to lost and found. Or I can simply leave it lying there.

1. the rule of trade doesn't apply here.

yes, multiple options. or bring it home, redecorate it, and use it as your own, wasn't really the point i was trying to make.

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.

Your so-called benefit is far too uncertain. If benefit was the criteria, then it'd certainly be more beneficial to keep the money and to take better care of my wallet than this person did.

I happen to take good care of my things. I haven't lost my wallet even once and do not expect to. Even if I did, I don't keep anything invaluable in it. So, even if I were to foster an environment where people returned lost wallets, it would be of little benefit to me and I could gain more benefit just keeping the money. As it happens, I want to foster an environment where people take better care of their possessions, so it might be more beneficial to me to teach the guy a lesson by not returning his wallet. Clearly, the golden rule is less beneficial.

But you did follow the golden rule. you want an environment where if you were to lose your money, you'd rather they take it and teach you a lesson. That's how you want to be treated, so you act that way to affect others into treating you that way.

But, we can be more imaginative than that. Let's see how the trade rule applies here. I will return the property to him, but take some compensation in exchange. Which means that at once I have gained the short term benefit of some money and long term benefits of fostering an environment where people return wallets, pay for services rendered and take better care of their possessions. That gives me much more benefit than golden rule.

The trade rule only applies once you start charging for your service, because then it becomes a trade. But you do see how it'd be problematic if we started charging for everything, right?

Again, you're still using the golden rule here. You want to be treated a certain way, so you treat others that way and successfully fostered the environment where others will treat you the same way.[/quote]