The Golden Rule ? Sense or Bullshit?

[genkaus]

Why did you ask if you're not going to believe the answer? You wanted to make a point and you have the bad luck to actually ask one of the few who actually don't do this, and now I'm a liar? Don't ask next time and continue on in your worldview that everyone lies and cheats in tests and interviews.

The question was rhetorical, obviously. Which is why I'm not debating the point or asking you for evidence of you unimpeachable honesty.

If lying and manipulating doesn't bring any adverse effects then I don't see the problem with lying and manipulating people. If you can lie and manipulate your way to safe the world or not affect the world at all, then go ahead. And if you think a few people doing this won't matter too much, then that's the freerider mentality. When I say freerider, I mean the sort dealt with in game theory.

I'm saying that it doesn't always bring adverse effects - sometimes, the effects maybe positive. Which is why, everyone does it - though, once again, not always. And yet, the world is safe enough. I think that people lie and manipulate more often than they apply the golden rule. And yet, lying and manipulating is not considered moral. Why is that?

I did not say all forms of lies and manipulations are illegal. There are a lot of things you cannot lie about under the law. You can lie about petty things, make little scams, but there are laws governing what sort of lies are too much. Plainly lying doesn't get you far if you do not manipulate them into believing you, so there are actually laws governing that as well.

The only point on which lying is legislated upon is when certain transactions are carried out with the implicit duty of telling the truth. Here, the actual crime is not lying but perpetrating a fraud. It is not a question of being "petty", but whether reasonable duty to be mutually truthful can be presumed. Consider the campaign promises of any politician. They are almost always a pack of lies and have far-reaching consequences on the future of the society and yet they are not prosecuted for those lies.

So what you're doing applies to the entire world but what I'm doing doesn't? Pick another example.

Why would I, since this one illustrates my point so well.

I'm arguing that you don't even have to imagine how they'd feel.

You are imagining how you'd feel in their situation, which automatically means that you are trying to imagine how they'd feel.

Sociopaths have emotions, psychopaths are unable to feel a lot of emotions.

Yes, the ones related to guilt and remorse - which is why the golden rule doesn't work out for them.

Yes, we have this built in thing that makes us feel better when others feel better, why do you think we have it? What is the evolutionary benefit of such a thing? It is precisely the thing that bounds us to act according to the golden rule. If you're acting according to your emotions and not to the golden rule at all, and you choose to help someone because it makes you feel better, you actually have followed the golden rule to make you feel better, but evoked the same results. This was why I said even if no one spelled out the golden rule, I don't doubt people would still live by it, I think someone mentioned that it can be observed in the animal kingdom as well. Because the golden rule is useful, the golden rule was created because we have such instincts and these instincts are undoubtedly useful in survival.

You seem to be getting a bit confused as to what we are arguing about, so let's spell out a few things that we agree on:

1. Humans have an instinctive empathetic response towards someone else's suffering or joy.
2. This instinct conferred certain survival advantages by allowing us to form societies in the early stages of human development.
3. We can still see this instinct among other animals who have to live under intense survival pressure - pretty much the same situation the humans were in in the early stages of development.
4. The golden rule is the verbal form of this emotional response.
5. It is the presence of this response that gives us a reason to act according to the golden rule (as indicated by the bolded part).

Here's what we disagree on:

1. Does this empathetic emotional response - and by extension, the golden rule - confer the same survival benefit as it did pre-civilization? My answer is no. We've come a long way since that time. The survival pressure on us is much lower than it was before the advent of civilization. And this would be a critical difference between us and the rest of the animal kingdom.

2. Is this instinct - and therefore the golden rule - necessary for the survival of society as a whole, as it was back then? Again, my answer is no. Before, we weren't cognizant of the definite advantages of living in a society, nor could we rationally figure out which rules to live by. So, this emotional response became a handy way to do both. Now we are developed enough to come up with better rules.

3. Does the emotional response bind us into living by the golden rule? That is, would we still live by it even if it hadn't been spelled out? I'm saying that we barely live by it now. We are fine with following it when other considerations are minor, but as soon as they start outweighing the emotional response, we choose not to follow it.

The golden rule, spelled out, allows you to follow it without emotions, I would argue. psychopaths have desires and wants, even if you use the elaborated golden rule which you mention later on, they are quite good at predicting what others want. Are you trying to say they're completely incapable of following the golden rule? Because that would require that they cannot accurately predict what others want all the time, but people who are good at manipulating others, are very good at predicting other people's responses.

Not incapable.

Notice what you said in the previous paragraph about the instinct of empathy. "It is precisely the thing that bounds us to act according to the golden rule". Though "bind" maybe an exaggeration, I'd say that this instinct gives us an emotional desire to act according to the golden rule - a desire which maybe easily outweighed by competing desires, but a desire nonetheless. Given that its empathy that a psychopath is incapable of, I'd say that he is capable of following the rule, but has no reason to do so - no emotional gratification and no discernible survival benefit. Which is why he doesn't.

And most people reciprocate good and bad acts, there are hits and misses but it's not that hard to predict, there is reason to expect my coworker to be nice to me today if I bought her coffee in the morning. It's also reasonable to predict she'll buy me some form of beverage or snack sometime in the future. If I'm a normal person this makes me happy. If I'm a psycho/sociopath, this makes things easier for me. But even if i'm a normal person, it still makes things easier for me. So I get a biological plus practical incentive to buy that coffee.

Except, that's the principle of trade in practice - not the golden rule. According to the golden rule, you should be nice to her simply because you want her to be nice to you - but without any actual expectation of her doing so. If, for example, she is rude to you and never pays you back for the coffee, according to the trade rule, you should stop being nice to her and stop bringing her coffee, while according to the golden rule, you should keep doing it because your desire for her to do the same hasn't changed.

Ok, still doesn't invoke emotions. These are things one can deduce quite easily about another person.

But without emotions, there is little to no reason to act on that deduction.

In terms of interactions, following it gives you more benefit than not. Someone mentioned game theory, that's something you may want to look into if you haven't already. It outlines how reciprocity is a good strategy.

As indicated previously, I regard reciprocity to be a completely different principle than the golden rule. Reciprocity is based on an actual expectation of exchange, while the golden rule isn't.

Why are you saying certain? It's ridiculous to claim something would certainly happen. And yes you have. If you lost a wallet and never found it. The next time you happen upon a wallet, you might think, hm, this could belong to the asshole who took mine. Maybe I should take this. You certainly affect someone by taking a wallet, and what that effect is, can be predicted in one way by thinking the person will reciprocate. As humans tend to do.

Or I might think, hm, this could belong to the asshole who took mine. So, if I return this, he'd feel ashamed and return mine.

Or I might think, hmm, I never take something that I haven't earned. Which is why I'll return this wallet.

Or, I might think, some douchebag took my wallet and only douchebags take another person's wallet. I don't want to be a douchebag, so, I'll return this.

Or, I might think, god judges everything and he'll send the douchebag who took my wallet to hell. But since I don't want to be there next to him, I'll return this.

Really, you can't predict how another person would think because everyone thinks differently.

You keep bringing up the immediate benefit and the benefit to you. But evolutionarily it's not about what benefits you, it's about what benefits the whole society. In some cases following the golden rule gives you immediate benefit (the coffee example above), in some cases it doesn't. But the golden rule is there because even in those cases when the benefit isn't apparent, it's beneficial for the society that you follow the golden rule. Because what is beneficial for the society, generally speaking, is beneficial for the individual.

If you act according to your own wants without regards to the effect to the society, in game theory you'd be a free rider. Too many of you and the society would break down.

First of all, the assumption that evolutionarily speaking the golden rule would benefit the whole society is incorrect. That may have been the case in a different context, but that doesn't mean that it is true now. And so far, I have seen no evidence of it. What I have seen evidence of is that in some cases it is beneficial and in others it is harmful. Which means I do have a good reason to act against it in many cases.

Secondly, my immediate benefit is relevant because, ultimately, the rule is being applied to my actions. Even in the case where its application would benefit the society which would ultimately benefit me, I'd still have to measure that potential benefit against my current benefit or loss. Simply put, why would I opt for future benefit of the society and my eventual benefit over my current benefit/loss? The only good reason given here is that the potential future benefit/loss would be greater than my current loss/benefit, but as I've said before, that is not true in many cases.

And thirdly, I can act according to what I want without any regards to the effect on society and still not be a free-rider, as long as I pay for what I take. An no, that does not mean that I'm automatically following the golden rule.

Look, I don't know why it's not obvious to you that reciprocity is something often observed in humans and in animals. There is a reason to expect people to reciprocate based solely on the fact that they're often observed to do so.

It is obvious to me - but reciprocity is not the same thing as the golden rule.

I said it's not very sophisticated to begin with. Every action has countless possible consequences, the golden rule predicts the person will reciprocate. Which is a reasonable thing to predict. Why is it not worth considering? even if we completely disregard your action's effect on society, human reactions do play a part in what benefits you. And in actuality, if you returned the wallet, you may or may not make a friend who would want to do you a favour in the future. You cannot discount all human reactions just because they're less certain, you'll miss out. Sociopaths do not discount human reactions, they're often very likeable people.

That is one of the points I've been trying to make. The golden rule does not predict reciprocation. It does not require you to act with any such expectation. Consider Red Celt's "pregnant woman in the bus" example. In that case, you are acting according to the golden rule without there being even the possibility of reciprocation. Reciprocation, I would argue, is a feature of the trade rule - where you give something and expect something in return.

---

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 must be talking about something else now, because the golden rule you laid out previously is about niceness, isn't intrinsically selfish and its success is what I am questioning. That's one of the things I find so surprising - the golden rule is part of the moral system that isn't self-serving and yet it is adopted by moral agents - in principle though, not necessarily practice.

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 reinforces my point about the golden rule mostly being applied under trivial circumstances. In any such investment, the cost to us is insignificant. The moment the cost is higher, people choose not to invest. It is a trivial matter to me to give up the can I hailed to another who appears to be in a hurry, if I expect to catch another within the next minute. At a check out line in a supermarket, I often allow someone else to cut in front of me if they only have one or two items. But if its raining and I have a laptop in my bag, I'm not going to give up my cab and if the other guy has a cartload of items to check out, he can get in the back of the line.

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.

Should? No. Would like that? Definitely yes.

I'm simply putting myself in her shoes and empathetically gauging the response. I don't think any stranger is obligated to help me cross the street and I don't think he is obligated to pay my medical bills. But I would be happy and grateful he he helps me cross and a thousand times more happy and grateful if he pays my medical bills. So, if I'm basing my actions on empathy and the golden rule, then there is no reason for me to do the first and not do the second. Which brings me to my point. We act on empathy when the cost of doing so is negligible.

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.

But the actual application of the golden rule would dictate that I do give up my seat for her everytime - regardless of her gratitude. As for not noticing her, I'm not habitually on the lookout for pregnant women to surrender my seat to. Are you?

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.

What a ridiculous notion! Why would it need a god-head or come into existence immediately after big-bang?

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".

And my point is that by adding consideration to the golden rule, you've changed it into something different - namely, the trade rule. And this distinction is significant because the consideration of consideration would often result in your actions being inconsistent with or even contradictory to the golden rule.