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.

[genkaus]

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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, 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.

[pocaracas]

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.

Yes, that may seem beneficial for the individual, but imagine a tribe where everyone lives by that manipulating of others.
How long until the tribe breaks apart and its elements become scattered, outcasts and, ultimately, fail to survive.... because we need each other to survive. We are a social species and don't have many natural protections nor weapons.

[Red Celt]

I'm interested to see how this discussion goes. I live by the GR and it is far too often misunderstood. And that includes well-published philosophers.

[genkaus]

Yes, that may seem beneficial for the individual, but imagine a tribe where everyone lives by that manipulating of others.
How long until the tribe breaks apart and its elements become scattered, outcasts and, ultimately, fail to survive.... because we need each other to survive. We are a social species and don't have many natural protections nor weapons.

You don't have to imagine - just take a look at politics. People who are best at manipulating others and getting away with taking what they want seem to prosper the most. And yet, the whole body doesn't break apart because everyone wants it to work.

That's my whole point. We seem to have simply accepted it as a fact that without its members following the golden rule and behaving empathetically, a society would simply tear itself to pieces. And frankly, I'm not buying that.

[Anomalocaris]

I quote the following;

All the most reasonable teachings of human wisdom concerning justice are summed up in that famous adage: Do unto others that which you would that others should do unto you; Do not unto others that which you would not that others should do unto you. But this rule of moral practice is unscientific: what have I a right to wish that others should do or not do to me? It is of no use to tell me that my duty is equal to my right, unless I am told at the same time what my right is.

How many things in life do we just accept without really looking at it closely?

Religion has caused many cultures of nonthinking to occur. This I see as the root of the God-problem namely educated non-thinkers.

I suffer from the same educational problems but at least I try and see through them as much as possible.

Do you agree? Sense or Bullshit?

It is the mere verbalization of just one of the instinctive perception that form the basis of species' social behavior repertoire. Its roots can clearly be observed in chimps.

The Christians in their inanity is making but a de facto acknowledgment that their Jesus was but an ordinary confidence fraudester trading in pseudo-profundities, and they themselves shallow ignorant impressionable yokels, when they label this as golden rule uniquely bequeathed onto them by their jesus. It was bequeathed onto them by their common ancestor with the chimps.

[pocaracas]

Yes, that may seem beneficial for the individual, but imagine a tribe where everyone lives by that manipulating of others.
How long until the tribe breaks apart and its elements become scattered, outcasts and, ultimately, fail to survive.... because we need each other to survive. We are a social species and don't have many natural protections nor weapons.

You don't have to imagine - just take a look at politics. People who are best at manipulating others and getting away with taking what they want seem to prosper the most. And yet, the whole body doesn't break apart because everyone wants it to work.

That's my whole point. We seem to have simply accepted it as a fact that without its members following the golden rule and behaving empathetically, a society would simply tear itself to pieces. And frankly, I'm not buying that.

My example contemplated a society where every (or most) member acted like that.
Your example contemplates that only a small minority acts like that.
I'd say my version requires some imagination, since we don't actually see any society like that.

[genkaus]

My example contemplated a society where every (or most) member acted like that.
Your example contemplates that only a small minority acts like that.
I'd say my version requires some imagination, since we don't actually see any society like that.

Your example contemplated a tribe and tribes usually contain less people than the government of a country.

Nevertheless, examining how a principle applies at a small scale and then extrapolating the effect is a reliable way of predicting how it would apply at large scale. So, I'd say that the hypothesis that society where people lie, manipulate and take what they can won't destroy itself has more support for it, since we see small sections of society doing just that and not ending up destroyed. On the other hand, I don't know of any society - small or large - which is solely based on the golden principle.

[pocaracas]

I mentioned tribe, because it's easier to imagine this in a small group of people.
A few politicians acting for their sole benefit get those benefits from the remaining people... which are much more than those politicians and that's why we let them get away with it... it's just peanuts in the grand scheme.
If, at some point, instead of peanuts, they start reaping gold and silver (this metaphor is going too far), then the people kick them out... unless they manage to keep the people deluded about the gold and silver . e.g. N.Korea.

[kılıç_mehmet]

I quote the following;

All the most reasonable teachings of human wisdom concerning justice are summed up in that famous adage: Do unto others that which you would that others should do unto you; Do not unto others that which you would not that others should do unto you. But this rule of moral practice is unscientific: what have I a right to wish that others should do or not do to me? It is of no use to tell me that my duty is equal to my right, unless I am told at the same time what my right is.

How many things in life do we just accept without really looking at it closely?

Religion has caused many cultures of nonthinking to occur. This I see as the root of the God-problem namely educated non-thinkers.

I suffer from the same educational problems but at least I try and see through them as much as possible.

Do you agree? Sense or Bullshit?

"Unscientific"? Didn't know that there were any sorts of scientific research was done on the subject of the golden rule, obviously its a philosophical objection rather than a scientific one. But it's still incorrect.
The Golden rule is one of singularity, and applies for individuals only.