The Golden Rule ? Sense or Bullshit?

[Magnum]

Here's the problem. Reciprocity is actually a much more sensible concept than the golden rule. If I am being nice to you, I do expect you to be nice right back. I don't do it with the expectation that you'd be nice to the next person which would somehow come around to someone down the line being nice to me. I don't do it to contribute anything to the society. I'm doing it because I expect you to be nice right back. If there is a chance of a relationship to be cultivated - and there always is - everything else being equal, I prefer to start with a positive exchange of niceties. Its a simple, selfish motive and if you are not nice to me right back, I no longer have any obligation to do the same.

The golden rule isn't meant to be about niceness. It is an intrinsically selfish system, as it makes life easier for you. That's the beauty of it - and why it has been so successful. Any moral system that isn't self-serving is unlikely to be adopted by moral agents.

You mention the foundation of relationships. Often, our encounters are with people that we will never meet again. Yet, at the time, we can't know whether or not we'll meet that person again. It is an investment, which may or may not provide obvious results. The less obvious result is that society will be slightly more likely to reciprocate consideration. This makes society a better place to inhabit. And that's good for you. And for everyone else.

This leads to the second problem. While under trivial circumstances, the satisfaction of empathetic instincts is reason enough follow the golden rule, that reward is usually negligible when the stakes are higher. It is one thing to help an old woman cross the street because she wants you to and quite another to pay her medical bills. We commonly find that the greater the impact of an action on our life, the less likely we are to follow the golden rule in that regard.

If your empathy with that old woman leads to think that strangers should pay your medical bills... then you're a slightly strange person. If your empathy leads you to that conclusion, then you yourself hold that opinion. If you do, then pay her medical bills.

Take your pregnant woman's example. While I don't expect that she'd return the favor, I do have certain expectations out of it. I expect that any extra discomfort I go through due to standing up to be more than made up by the emotional gratification. Which is why if I happened to board the bus tired or with luggage, sorry lady, you ain't getting my seat. I also expect gratitude from her. So if she says to me "About time, I was standing for five minutes already" - I would instantly regret giving my seat up.

In which case, if you should encounter that woman again you wouldn't give up your seat for her. Although I do have to wonder why nobody on the bus (including you) gave her a seat for as long as 5mins.

That's debatable.

To you, perhaps. If objective morality exists, could you point out the nanosecond after the Big Bang when it came into existence? It requires a god-head to create such a thing. I don't know about you, but I don't believe in such a thing.



P.S. It might be worth mentioning that I'd previously over-stated my use of the golden rule. My system is based on the rule, but concentrates on consideration. That consideration is of other people, but also includes yourself. So the paying of the old woman's medical bills would be neatly avoided. Despite me adding to the golden rule, there are still good grounds to defend it. Mainly because it is so often (wrongly) attacked by people who haven't really understood it. It is better than many think it to be... and certainly doesn't deserve the label of "bullshit".

---

The answer was given in the opening post! A better moral system is based on reality and scientific fact. Kapish!

That is such an incredible non-answer. If you can't provide an actual moral code that is better, how about you provide answers to some intuition pumps.

Trolley Problem

Jim and the Indians (in the Critique of utilitarianism)

And don't throw the word "kapish!" around like that. It makes you look like an idiot.

Your arguments are nothing but subjective tantrums. It takes a god-head to accept the GR as not being BS. In practice the GR is nowhere to be found. A better moral code is the practiced laws of any country and then some are better and some are worse. In fact, the GR has no effect on the moral codes of any society in the same way as the color of the ink or quality of paper they are written in and on have an effect.

You can't argue in favor of something that can't be applied in practice on it's own. The GR cannot be applied in practice. It's an subjective illusion. It is BS!

It requires brains to live reality and not EGO.