The Golden Rule ? Sense or Bullshit?

[Red Celt]

So you agree that the rule by itself is actually useless in practice unless one applies careful thinking to make it work. Confucius is a very good example of someone adding carefully weighed material to it in order to make it practically workable. It's been doing so for a few thousand years in China but would it be unreasonable to doubt it's effectiveness and not try and find an alternative that could work better?

In history people took similar philosophical ideas like God to make it work for them in practice like the Romans and the Greeks.

Can't we think of something better?

No, I don't agree that it is useless. What you describe as "careful thinking" is what I would describe as instinctive. Well, it certainly is for me.

There is no such thing as objective morality. Subjective morality is an evolved thing within a social species (such as ourselves). The concept of reciprocity is what we've been using since (and before) our ancestors climbed out of the trees.

Humanity doesn't work on black and white. We work on so many shades of grey. There is no "right" or "wrong" way to behave... there is the best way to behave. The golden rule gives us that.

As for "something better", I have a slight modification to the golden rule. In which, it is possible for someone to lose the right to have it applied to them if they break the golden rule. I call this justice. Others call it karma.

If someone comes up to you and punches you in the face, they have broken the golden rule... which would insist that you do nothing about it. Me, I'd punch them back. We shall reap what we sow.

There should (fairly obviously) be constraints. How you treat them should be proportional. If someone punches you, you punch them back. You don't shoot them dead. (cough)Zimmerman(/cough)