The Golden Rule ? Sense or Bullshit?

[genkaus]

I mentioned tribe, because it's easier to imagine this in a small group of people.

And I used government because we don't need to imagine.

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.

You are missing your own analogy. The question was how principle of lying, manipulation and taking what you want would play out within the society. Not how such a society would interact with people external to it. Here, you are focusing on the external part while ignoring how such a society is still internally stable.

Besides, you also ignored the central principle here - "Take what you can, as long as it doesn't come back to bite you in the ass. "

---

"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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule#Scientific_research


Do better research next time.

[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One conclusion I can draw from this is that our current morality - which includes the golden rule - maybe outdated and lagging behind the our current environment.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]

[genkaus]

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.

You are using the word pretty liberally yourself, since you refer to your own morality to judge someone else's as warped. As for the golden rule, it is moral, by itself, because it prescribes what you should or should not do.

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.

You've given no evidence to support your assertion that "if too many people do it, society would not function optimally". As far as we know, too many people in the world regularly lie, manipulate and take what they can if they can get away with it. Haven't you ever lied in an interview?

And your example here is a strawman. My given condition was "if it doesn't bite you in the ass". The timeframe is irrelevant. Even if thereis possibility of that happening on your deathbed (or putting you there), you should consider it. So, your given example doesn't apply in such a world.

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.

The problem is, one assertion does have more support for it than the other. The golden rule is a rule based on empathy, i.e. your capacity to understand someone else's emotions and act on them. So someone incapable of empathy would be the clearest example of someone who rarely, if ever, lives by the golden rule.

I'm not sure how scientific this study is, but here is it anyway:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovic...reat-ceos/
http://boingboing.net/2012/12/31/which-p...e-mos.html

According to this, the incidence of psychopathy among CEO's is four times that of general popuation. It also seems that psychopathy is more common in jobs associated with traditional ideas of success, money and power. That's because a lot of these jobs indicative of success and power require traits indicative of psychopathy - such as making objective, clinical decisions without consideration for anyone else's feelings. Which would indicate that as far as money, power and success are concerned, the less often you apply the golden rule, the more likely you are to succeed.

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

It does if I go for the option of holding out for a reward.

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.

First of all, that would the interpretation of the golden rule that is rarely applied. In fact, most people argue against that interpretation because another example of the same application would be "I want to be murdered if I'm ever stupid enough to walk down a dark street - so I should murder anyone who does".

Second of all, the point you were actually making was how your given application of golden rule is more beneficial and my example is simply to show that it isn't.

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?

Nope. And it would be a mistake to think that the trade rule means always to be paid in money.

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.

Except, the golden rule here is a tertiary motive at best. The primary motive is the monetary benefit and the secondary motive is teaching him a lesson. My actions would've been the same even if I had no desire or any real expectation of effecting a change in environment. The golden rule is an optional extra. And that is the point. I'm saying that rather than treating the golden rule as the primary, we can gain greater benefit by applying the trade rule instead. And unlike this example, if the two rules are in conflict, it'd still be beneficial to give precedence to the trade rule.

And by the way, once again, this is not the interpretation people seem to favor. If any and all forms of the golden rule are acceptable, then I choose the economic interpretation - "He who has the gold makes the rules".

[pineapplebunnybounce]

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.

You are using the word pretty liberally yourself, since you refer to your own morality to judge someone else's as warped. As for the golden rule, it is moral, by itself, because it prescribes what you should or should not do.

Bolded was the point I was trying to make.

Here's the thing though, it prescribes what you should or should not do, based on what you want. So it really is quite liquid.

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.

You've given no evidence to support your assertion that "if too many people do it, society would not function optimally". As far as we know, too many people in the world regularly lie, manipulate and take what they can if they can get away with it. Haven't you ever lied in an interview?

I actually have never lied or cheated in tests or interviews or on my resume. Because I think one of the problems in this world is that incompetent people get important responsibilities. I don't want to contribute to that problem, I'll get whatever I deserve, no more, no less. I didn't do this because of the golden rule, it just makes sense to me this is what I should do to help achieve the kind of world I want to live in.

And your example here is a strawman. My given condition was "if it doesn't bite you in the ass". The timeframe is irrelevant. Even if thereis possibility of that happening on your deathbed (or putting you there), you should consider it. So, your given example doesn't apply in such a world.

Then lying and manipulating people isn't such a good idea in the long run. How is my example irrelevant? So if you think that lying and manipulating is not going to affect a society's wellbeing, then make it legal and see what happens. Obviously we cannot make it legal just to settle an argument, but there's a reason certain things are legal, and certain things aren't. It's to prevent victims. So if we were to make these things legal when they matter, then there's a possibility you'll be one of the victim within your lifetime, which is something you should consider.

Also lying and manipulating people, if you're caught, would make people less inclined to be honest with you. If you have the resources to survive in a world like that, and want to survive in a world like that, there's no reason why you shouldn't do it. The golden rule, quite plainly, caters to what you want, not what the other person wants, while taking into account the other person's reaction to your action.

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.

The problem is, one assertion does have more support for it than the other. The golden rule is a rule based on empathy, i.e. your capacity to understand someone else's emotions and act on them. So someone incapable of empathy would be the clearest example of someone who rarely, if ever, lives by the golden rule.

Why do you say this (italicized), when the rule says that do unto them, what you want done unto you. You don't have to understand their emotions, you just have to place yourself in their situation, and think what do you want done to you. Unless this is what you mean by understanding their emotion? Because people don't necessarily understand emotions just by placing themselves in someone else's shoes.

I'm not sure how scientific this study is, but here is it anyway:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffbercovic...reat-ceos/
http://boingboing.net/2012/12/31/which-p...e-mos.html

According to this, the incidence of psychopathy among CEO's is four times that of general popuation. It also seems that psychopathy is more common in jobs associated with traditional ideas of success, money and power. That's because a lot of these jobs indicative of success and power require traits indicative of psychopathy - such as making objective, clinical decisions without consideration for anyone else's feelings. Which would indicate that as far as money, power and success are concerned, the less often you apply the golden rule, the more likely you are to succeed.

You're confusing emotions with the golden rule. Just because someone doesn't feel emotions doesn't mean they don't know how to react to it. How you act (the golden rule), doesn't necessarily correlate with how you feel. Especially in psychopaths and sociopaths. The golden rule doesn't say what you feel, it says what you want. Which sociopaths and psychopaths understand.

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

It does if I go for the option of holding out for a reward.

Yea, i got to that part.

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.

First of all, that would the interpretation of the golden rule that is rarely applied. In fact, most people argue against that interpretation because another example of the same application would be "I want to be murdered if I'm ever stupid enough to walk down a dark street - so I should murder anyone who does".

This is a correct application. What do you mean rarely applied? That's exactly what the golden rule says. I've never said the golden rule is inherently beneficial or inherently good, but it gets you to where you want to get to. Which is having others treat you the way you treat them.

Second of all, the point you were actually making was how your given application of golden rule is more beneficial and my example is simply to show that it isn't.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. In my original example of the wallet, the person making the decision wanted wallets returned to him in the future, so I said that was beneficial for this person. If you want your wallets taken away, then this situation is beneficial for you. If you only want to take away others', but don't want others to take away yours, then you might not want to take theirs in the first place, because you increased the possibility of a less ideal situation happening to you.

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?

Nope. And it would be a mistake to think that the trade rule means always to be paid in money.

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.

Except, the golden rule here is a tertiary motive at best. The primary motive is the monetary benefit and the secondary motive is teaching him a lesson. My actions would've been the same even if I had no desire or any real expectation of effecting a change in environment.

Your motives affect your actions, your actions affect the environment. Your motive doesn't alter the effect of your actions on the environment. Even if you do the same thing with a different motive, the effect will be the same. The golden rule, if you thought about it before acting, simply allows you to consider the consequences and maybe change your mind.

Also if you charged for education, then the poor stay poor, and you lose out on fostering smart people to solve your problems because poor people won't afford to go to school.

The golden rule is an optional extra. And that is the point. I'm saying that rather than treating the golden rule as the primary, we can gain greater benefit by applying the trade rule instead. And unlike this example, if the two rules are in conflict, it'd still be beneficial to give precedence to the trade rule.

Did I say the golden rule is a primary rule that everyone should act by? It is a good thing to think about, that I would insist on. That your actions have consequences, and the golden rule is a very simple (not very sophisticated, for sure) way of predicting the consequences.

And by the way, once again, this is not the interpretation people seem to favor. If any and all forms of the golden rule are acceptable, then I choose the economic interpretation - "He who has the gold makes the rules".

Uhm. I stuck pretty close to the words. You could even say I took them literally. Where did I stray? If others have different interpretations, feel free to present it. And also, please tell me what this other, more popular interpretation is. Because I honestly don't know it.

"He who has the gold makes the rules". You mean he who has the power. Because if you mean money, this rule breaks down in a kidnapping situation, where it's the kidnappers who make the rules instead of those who have the money. I would say this is on par with the golden rule in terms of universality, but less instructional.

[Red Celt]

There seems to be some confusion about the golden rule. Some seem to be mistaking it for rule utilitarianism. Others, still, are analysing every word in a legalistic sense, rather than the philosophical sense that it was originally intended.

The terminology of doing unto others (and not doing unto others) is about reciprocity.

Tsze-kung asked, saying, "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not Reciprocity such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."

— Confucius, Analects XV.24

And this is in the spirit of reciprocity. You may treat someone within the concepts of the golden rule, with the full knowledge that you will probably never meet them again for the duration of their life or yours. But that doesn't matter. You have contributed to society (no matter how small that contribution is) so as to make it more reciprocal, not less. And that reciprocity can be contagious. If you doubt that, you'll certainly be less doubtful that treating someone like a cunt will make that person a whole lot less likely to be pleasant to the next person that they meet.

OK. Taking it away from the precise wording of the original philosophers who (if they lived today) would provide sub-clauses and explanations for the less philosophical...

You're male. You're on a bus. The bus is fully occupied. A pregnant woman boards the bus. Without any seats, she is standing in the aisle, doing her best to support herself as the bus moves.

Now, Confucius wouldn't be confused about what you should do next. It isn't a matter of treating others as if you were them. You're male. You can't get pregnant. There's no reason for you to stand up and let her have your seat. At least not if you don't understand the concept of the golden rule.

As has already been said, the key to the golden rule is empathy. What would you want to happen if you were her? If you were (obviously and visibly) pregnant? If you were tired from carrying the extra weight? If you were painfully holding onto the rail, to prevent yourself from falling? If you saw people all around you who looked like they would have none of the same problems that you were having? Would you want one of them to stand up to give you their seat?

The golden rule works on empathy and knowledge. With a complete stranger, your knowledge will be limited. With someone you know well - whose wishes and needs you are very familiar with, your knowledge is greater, therefore your ability at applying the golden rule is better... because empathy is easier.

[Magnum]

There seems to be some confusion about the golden rule. Some seem to be mistaking it for rule utilitarianism. Others, still, are analysing every word in a legalistic sense, rather than the philosophical sense that it was originally intended.

The terminology of doing unto others (and not doing unto others) is about reciprocity.

Tsze-kung asked, saying, "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not Reciprocity such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."

— Confucius, Analects XV.24

And this is in the spirit of reciprocity. You may treat someone within the concepts of the golden rule, with the full knowledge that you will probably never meet them again for the duration of their life or yours. But that doesn't matter. You have contributed to society (no matter how small that contribution is) so as to make it more reciprocal, not less. And that reciprocity can be contagious. If you doubt that, you'll certainly be less doubtful that treating someone like a cunt will make that person a whole lot less likely to be pleasant to the next person that they meet.

OK. Taking it away from the precise wording of the original philosophers who (if they lived today) would provide sub-clauses and explanations for the less philosophical...

You're male. You're on a bus. The bus is fully occupied. A pregnant woman boards the bus. Without any seats, she is standing in the aisle, doing her best to support herself as the bus moves.

Now, Confucius wouldn't be confused about what you should do next. It isn't a matter of treating others as if you were them. You're male. You can't get pregnant. There's no reason for you to stand up and let her have your seat. At least not if you don't understand the concept of the golden rule.

As has already been said, the key to the golden rule is empathy. What would you want to happen if you were her? If you were (obviously and visibly) pregnant? If you were tired from carrying the extra weight? If you were painfully holding onto the rail, to prevent yourself from falling? If you saw people all around you who looked like they would have none of the same problems that you were having? Would you want one of them to stand up to give you their seat?

The golden rule works on empathy and knowledge. With a complete stranger, your knowledge will be limited. With someone you know well - whose wishes and needs you are very familiar with, your knowledge is greater, therefore your ability at applying the golden rule is better... because empathy is easier.

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?

[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)

[genkaus]

I actually have never lied or cheated in tests or interviews or on my resume. Because I think one of the problems in this world is that incompetent people get important responsibilities. I don't want to contribute to that problem, I'll get whatever I deserve, no more, no less. I didn't do this because of the golden rule, it just makes sense to me this is what I should do to help achieve the kind of world I want to live in.

Frankly, I don't believe you. But that's beside the point. The point here was that a lot of people do lie and manipulate - even if you are one of the few who don't - which I don't think you are - and yet the society works just fine.

Then lying and manipulating people isn't such a good idea in the long run. How is my example irrelevant?

Here's how its irrelevant. You specifically pick an example where lying and manipulating end up having adverse (and foreseeable) consequences for the liar and manipulator and from that generalize that lying and manipulating is a bad idea. Its the same as arguing how an unmarried woman who liked having sex got an STD and concluding that therefore premarital sex is always bad.

So if you think that lying and manipulating is not going to affect a society's wellbeing, then make it legal and see what happens. Obviously we cannot make it legal just to settle an argument, but there's a reason certain things are legal, and certain things aren't. It's to prevent victims. So if we were to make these things legal when they matter, then there's a possibility you'll be one of the victim within your lifetime, which is something you should consider.

It is legal. Which country do you live in?

"If you send me 200 dollars I'll help you meet the love of your life" - there, I just lied to you.

"If you love your country, you should vote for a Republican president" - that would be emotional manipulation.

And I'm not going to jail for that.

Also lying and manipulating people, if you're caught, would make people less inclined to be honest with you. If you have the resources to survive in a world like that, and want to survive in a world like that, there's no reason why you shouldn't do it. The golden rule, quite plainly, caters to what you want, not what the other person wants, while taking into account the other person's reaction to your action.

I'm saying that we already live in such a world. For all our moral trumpeting of the golden rule, we drop it in an instant if we have a reasonable belief that they are not going to do unto us what we want them to. The people to whom I've told most lies would be those closest to me and they have lied to me many times over as well - and yet we trust each other.

The fact is, I have no expectation that my telling the truth is going to make it more or less likely that I would be given the truth. I could be the most truthful person in the world and people are still going to lie to me at about the same frequency as they do now. That's because for most people - like me - the consideration of future honesty is irrelevant to their need to lie. In fact, the reason I usually tell the truth about something embarrassing is not because I expect truth from them in the future, but because when I lie to them about something even more embarrassing, they'd believe me.

Why do you say this (italicized), when the rule says that do unto them, what you want done unto you. You don't have to understand their emotions, you just have to place yourself in their situation, and think what do you want done to you. Unless this is what you mean by understanding their emotion? Because people don't necessarily understand emotions just by placing themselves in someone else's shoes.

That is what empathy means - your capacity to put yourself in another's situation and think about what you'd want and how you'd feel.

You're confusing emotions with the golden rule. Just because someone doesn't feel emotions doesn't mean they don't know how to react to it. How you act (the golden rule), doesn't necessarily correlate with how you feel. Especially in psychopaths and sociopaths. The golden rule doesn't say what you feel, it says what you want. Which sociopaths and psychopaths understand.

I think you are the one ignoring the role of empathy and emotions in application of the golden rule. Psychopaths and sociopaths have emotions - without those they wouldn't have wants. You say that applying the golden rule would be beneficial to the society and thus ultimately to ourselves, but that is not what people think about while applying it. Any potential benefit far down the line is too meager an incentive - especially when compared to a definite benefit right now. The purpose of putting yourself in some else's place is to invoke an empathetic emotional response. The idea of making someone else happy creates an automatic positive emotional state within you, while making them upset creates a negative one. It is that emotional state which forms the primary reason for following the golden rule. How well this state stacks up against other considerations is a different matter.

The reason why psychopaths don't follow the golden rule is because this emotional response is absent. Intellectually, they may understand that the other person would feel bad or good as a result of their actions, but that doesn't matter to them. Since they understand that there is no reason to expect others to do the same unto them and there is no emotional deterrent, they see no reason to follow the golden rule - so they don't.

This is a correct application. What do you mean rarely applied? That's exactly what the golden rule says. I've never said the golden rule is inherently beneficial or inherently good, but it gets you to where you want to get to. Which is having others treat you the way you treat them.

First of all "what it says" is not how its interpreted. This is an extremely common criticism and counter-criticism of the golden rule, which you should know already. There are countless examples - I'm a masochist, therefore, I should torture other. The counter given to this is that the golden rule actually means - "Do unto others according to their desires, interests and values as you'd have them do unto you according to your desires, interests and values". That is how most people consider the golden rule.

Secondly, as I've said before, there is no certainty that it would get you where you want.

That wasn't the point I was trying to make. In my original example of the wallet, the person making the decision wanted wallets returned to him in the future, so I said that was beneficial for this person. If you want your wallets taken away, then this situation is beneficial for you. If you only want to take away others', but don't want others to take away yours, then you might not want to take theirs in the first place, because you increased the possibility of a less ideal situation happening to you.

That is what I mean by the benefit being too uncertain. There is no certain reason to believe the I have decreased the possibility of my wallet being returned if I decide to keep this one. Similarly, there is no certain reason to believe that my returning the wallet would increase the possibility of my wallet being returned in future. Any benefit, in either scenario, is far too unreliable and simply pales in comparison to the certain benefit right now.

Your motives affect your actions, your actions affect the environment. Your motive doesn't alter the effect of your actions on the environment. Even if you do the same thing with a different motive, the effect will be the same. The golden rule, if you thought about it before acting, simply allows you to consider the consequences and maybe change your mind.

Also if you charged for education, then the poor stay poor, and you lose out on fostering smart people to solve your problems because poor people won't afford to go to school.

If the motive doesn't matter then let's just get rid of the golden rule. Besides, the golden rule doesn't say anything about the consequences. It gives you no reason to believe that others would do unto you as you want them to, it simply tells you that you should.

Also, we do charge for education. Its just that those getting educated aren't the ones paying.

Did I say the golden rule is a primary rule that everyone should act by? It is a good thing to think about, that I would insist on. That your actions have consequences, and the golden rule is a very simple (not very sophisticated, for sure) way of predicting the consequences.

No, it isn't. If I decide to keep the wallet, all I can predict is that the person who lost it would most likely be upset. Maybe this trauma would darken his heart and he'd wander the streets collecting lost wallets never to be returned to their owners. Or maybe he'd start a one man crusade of changing the society by returning all the lost wallets. Either way, I can't predict which is more likely. So, why do you think it'd be a good thing to consider?

Uhm. I stuck pretty close to the words. You could even say I took them literally. Where did I stray? If others have different interpretations, feel free to present it. And also, please tell me what this other, more popular interpretation is. Because I honestly don't know it.

See above.

"He who has the gold makes the rules". You mean he who has the power. Because if you mean money, this rule breaks down in a kidnapping situation, where it's the kidnappers who make the rules instead of those who have the money. I would say this is on par with the golden rule in terms of universality, but less instructional.

That was a joke.

[genkaus]

There seems to be some confusion about the golden rule. Some seem to be mistaking it for rule utilitarianism. Others, still, are analysing every word in a legalistic sense, rather than the philosophical sense that it was originally intended.

The terminology of doing unto others (and not doing unto others) is about reciprocity.

Tsze-kung asked, saying, "Is there one word which may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not Reciprocity such a word? What you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others."

— Confucius, Analects XV.24

And this is in the spirit of reciprocity. You may treat someone within the concepts of the golden rule, with the full knowledge that you will probably never meet them again for the duration of their life or yours. But that doesn't matter. You have contributed to society (no matter how small that contribution is) so as to make it more reciprocal, not less. And that reciprocity can be contagious. If you doubt that, you'll certainly be less doubtful that treating someone like a cunt will make that person a whole lot less likely to be pleasant to the next person that they meet.

OK. Taking it away from the precise wording of the original philosophers who (if they lived today) would provide sub-clauses and explanations for the less philosophical...

You're male. You're on a bus. The bus is fully occupied. A pregnant woman boards the bus. Without any seats, she is standing in the aisle, doing her best to support herself as the bus moves.

Now, Confucius wouldn't be confused about what you should do next. It isn't a matter of treating others as if you were them. You're male. You can't get pregnant. There's no reason for you to stand up and let her have your seat. At least not if you don't understand the concept of the golden rule.

As has already been said, the key to the golden rule is empathy. What would you want to happen if you were her? If you were (obviously and visibly) pregnant? If you were tired from carrying the extra weight? If you were painfully holding onto the rail, to prevent yourself from falling? If you saw people all around you who looked like they would have none of the same problems that you were having? Would you want one of them to stand up to give you their seat?

The golden rule works on empathy and knowledge. With a complete stranger, your knowledge will be limited. With someone you know well - whose wishes and needs you are very familiar with, your knowledge is greater, therefore your ability at applying the golden rule is better... because empathy is easier.

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 doesn't address that. It doesn't tell you whether or not you can actually expect others to do unto you - it simply tells you to do unto others regardless. And at this point of divergence from reciprocity, the golden rule loses its justification. Confucius may keep saying that I should continue doing unto others despite no expectation of them doing unto me, but why should I?

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.

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.

---

There is no such thing as objective morality.

That's debatable.

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.

And what makes it the "best"?

[Red Celt]

Too hot to type, so I'll keep this very brief. I'll give a longer reply later.

It is the best, because there are none better. Or perhaps there are. I'd be intrigued to hear of them.

It is also what evolution gave us.