The Golden Rule ? Sense or Bullshit?

[Chas]

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.

The Golden Rule is a stable winning strategy in game theory. Variants of it have been shown to be evolutionarily stable strategies - that is, they will be selected for in some populations.
It's somewhat more complicated than that, but Google is your friend.

Versions of it (Tit-for-tat, delayed tit-for-tat, ...) are common in other apes besides us.

[genkaus]

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

You already have.

It is also what evolution gave us.

So what?

[Magnum]

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)

OK, it seems you chose violence as the end result. Violence seems to be your kind of instinct. A tooth for a tooth and an eye for an eye. What happened to the GR the moment you were hit in the face and you retaliated with the same action as a reaction? It seems the GR became useless after all because in itself there are no guidelines given to cope with matters outside its idyllic illusion.

So the GR seems to be bullshit because it's impractical but is it?

Instead of the GR one could opt for a simple list of rules like.

1. Don't hit anyone in the face.
2. If someone hits you in the face call the cops without retaliation.
3. Cops are allowed to hit someone in the face, kill etc., while on duty.

I'm just playing with ideas because the GR seems to be a nice idea but somewhat of an impractical magical illusion of bullshit given certain kinds of cultures, religions, individuals etc.

[pineapplebunnybounce]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

See above.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Alright, i concede the point.

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?

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[/quote]. 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.

[Magnum]

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.

With reciprocity one has to take into account the nature of the cause(person) and the nature of the effect(person). It's going to be either good or evil. Take a very good guy that by accident bumps into a very evil guy. The good guy had no bad intentions/motives but received a beating from the evil guy. This means that the golden rule applied in both cases but the differing natures resulted in violence due to evil or ignorance. Is violence acceptable? For some it's the only means and for others it's not.

This means that the GR contradicts itself and ends up without meaning for what is good to one is bad to another unless rules are added that defines the how. Once rules are added the GR becomes obsolete. So in practice/real life the GR is BS, it's a nice dream, or isn't it?

[Red Celt]

I've lost count of the number of times that you've called the golden rule "bullshit". Including the title of this thread. The question (to you) was a rhetorical one.

Provide a better moral system.

[Magnum]

I've lost count of the number of times that you've called the golden rule "bullshit". Including the title of this thread. The question (to you) was a rhetorical one.

Provide a better moral system.

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

[Red Celt]

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.

There is no such thing as objective morality.

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".

---

I've lost count of the number of times that you've called the golden rule "bullshit". Including the title of this thread. The question (to you) was a rhetorical one.

Provide a better moral system.

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.

[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.

[Red Celt]

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!

Are you seriously trying to say that morality is based on the legal system of a country? That something in one country is moral there, but immoral in the neighbouring country? Are you actually that thick? Do you know what morality is? Do you know that some moral actions aren't covered by any laws? That laws can sometimes be stupid, ill-judged and designed purely to gain popularity with the electorate, rather than... oh, I don't know, anything to do with morality? If morality shapes those laws, which morality system is doing that shaping? This isn't so much a chicken & egg thing. You have the chicken and you're pretending that the egg doesn't exist, or that the egg is the chicken.

The sheer level of stupidity that you've exhibited is almost awe inspiring.

I was going to say that you didn't tackle either of those thought experiments, but it is obvious that you're not capable of such a thing.

It requires brains to live reality and not EGO.