Golden Rule

[william.scherk]

Your [Francisco's] view is of someone who sits of their ass... and that's why it will never change. You'll always be a complaining victim because that's what you've made out of your self.

Gee, Greg, maybe he's concerned with broader issues, not just his personal productivity. This is something you're purblind to.

Greg is indulging himself in raw insult. It is important to him to denigrate discussion partners who disagree with him. It's a kind of feminized leftist affectation, by which Greg adopts the Queenly Knowingness Gambit: he is smarter, more productive, more effective, more holy, more imbued with virtue ... he is Queen of Capitalism and Royal Highness of Productivity. He has a magical pony called Jesus, and a magical in-dwelling all-seeing-eye.

Through some kind of post-modern feminine navel-gazing, the Royal Moralist believes he sees into other men's souls. It would be funny if it weren't so sadly irrational. Weak, lazy, bigoted thinking ... a lot more like the feminized left 'reality is what I say it is' epistemology than the hard, manly work of inquiry.

It is striking how bitchy and personal Greg gets with people he has no personal knowledge of -- it's a mark of his sloppy habits of mind. The moment a defect in his thinking is highlighted, out come the claws ...

Edited February 22, 2015 by william.scherk

[moralist]

No matter how well one takes care of his body (exercises, eats moderately and avoids bad habits) we all end up the same way: deader than dirt in the dirt. It can't be helped. The second law of thermodynamics has no known exceptions.

You stated an enduring truth, Bob.

It cuts right to the core of the absolute objectivity of death. Death is perfectly fair because no one escapes.

That then throws light on NOT just living and dying... but HOW we live and die...

...for the latter is determined by the former.

Greg

[moralist]

Gee, Greg, maybe he's concerned with broader issues, not just his personal productivity. This is something you're purblind to

Damn right, Brant.

Becoming hypnotically fixated on "broader issues" over which you have absolutely no control and for which you bear no personal responsibility...

...is just an emotional distraction from the failure to properly address your own life over which you do have control and do bear personal responsibility.

It's like people getting all worked up over the "evil international bankers" while they're drowning in their own personal debts!

Greg

[Francisco Ferrer]

You have exactly zero knowledge about how much I produce or how useful it is.

You're wrong, Frank.

I know that if you lived by the American Capitalist principle of creating wealth through useful production, you wouldn't be a complaining victim...

...because you would understand that enjoying your God given rights is your own personal responsibility...

...and you would know they do not depend on the government.

Clearly, you don't.

You create an arbitrary and unnecessary dichotomy between production and complaining about one's government. People have managed to do both and enjoy success in both spheres: Benjamin Franklin, Lysander Spooner, Rose Wilder Lane, and Ayn Rand, just to name a few famous examples.

Yes, securing God-given (or natural) rights is our responsibility, and that is why pro-capitalist intellectuals have an important role to play in countering the big government and big media propaganda that the State should be the dominant factor in society and the economy.

You call it complaining. I call it educational outreach, and it is precisely what Ayn Rand advocated:

The intellectuals serve as guides, as trend-setters, as the transmission belts or middlemen between philosophy and the culture. If they adopt a philosophy of reason—if their goal is the development of man’s rational faculty and the pursuit of knowledge—they are a society’s most productive and most powerful group, because their work provides the base and the integration of all other human activities. [bold added]

Cost of heart surgery too high for you?

No, it isn't.

Perform a by-pass on yourself for a fraction of the cost! It's the American Capitalist way!

That's certainly the stupid way.

The American Capitalist way is to be personally responsible for taking decent care of your own body, and not to let it degenerate by your own useless sloth.

And when you need goods and services, you simply go to other American Capitalist producers and make equitable value for value exchanges with them because they share your values. Again, this is Business 101. I'm only stating the obvious.

When government actions cause the price of a good to be so high that one must compensate by performing the labor oneself

Jeez, Frank... you just can't be actually reading what you're writing!

Perhaps because of your limited background in economics, you are not familiar with the idea that when the price of a good rises, people will tend to buy less of it or or use substitutes for it. A perfect demonstration of it is the increase of roll-your-own cigarettes and the jump in sales of pipe tobacco.

Calling me a lazy, good-for-nothing non-producer will not make the facts go away.

If you DON'T do productive useful work, you'll NEVER create any wealth.

then one's own labor is a cost one is not shifting forward but absorbing.

That ludicrous statement just screams that you're not productive. You actually regard your own labor as a negative when it is the only way to secure your own economic freedom.

If the price of a good rises because of government policy, and I have to offset that cost by increasing my own labor, then the additional labor must be regarded as a cost to me.

Rather than considering one's own labor a negative, I and every person I know treat it as a precious resource. Yes, there is dignity in hard work. But when government policies, such as high taxes and inflation, increase one's need to labor more to achieve the same results, the outcome is not a net benefit.

What is your "real world practical solution" to the cost of the welfare state? Have every soldier, firefighter and police officer unilaterally raise the price he charges to the consumer?

Public employees are very well paid for the services they provide. I know. I was one of them.

Your view is of someone who sits of their ass... and that's why it will never change. You'll always be a complaining victim because that's what you've made out of your self.

Greg

As usual, you miss or evade the point. I have shown that entrepreneurs cannot pass on every tax increase without affecting their bottom line. Furthermore, wage earners, public or private, are in no position to unilaterally pass on any increase. Advising every wage earner, including the 1.3 million active duty military, to escape the welfare state by establishing his/her own business is another bedtime tale from Magic Pink Pony Land.

[Brant Gaede]

No matter how well one takes care of his body (exercises, eats moderately and avoids bad habits) we all end up the same way: deader than dirt in the dirt. It can't be helped. The second law of thermodynamics has no known exceptions.

You stated an enduring truth, Bob.

It cuts right to the core of the absolute objectivity of death. Death is perfectly fair because no one escapes.

That then throws light on NOT just living and dying... but HOW we live and die...

...for the latter is determined by the former.

Greg

I'm 1150 years old and still going strong.

--Brant (The Highlander)

gotta keep my sword sharp

[BaalChatzaf]

No matter how well one takes care of his body (exercises, eats moderately and avoids bad habits) we all end up the same way: deader than dirt in the dirt. It can't be helped. The second law of thermodynamics has no known exceptions.

You stated an enduring truth, Bob.

It cuts right to the core of the absolute objectivity of death. Death is perfectly fair because no one escapes.

That then throws light on NOT just living and dying... but HOW we live and die...

...for the latter is determined by the former.

Greg

I'm 1150 years old and still going strong.

--Brant (The Highlander)

gotta keep my sword sharp

Mini years. And even immortals die with their heads attached. The second law of thermodynamics has no known exceptions.

[moralist]

I'm 1150 years old and still going strong.

--Brant (The Highlander)

gotta keep my sword sharp

You don't look a day over 1100.

[Alexander Warner]

I think others should be treated as they deserve to be treated. there is no reason to treat a low-life and a genius in the same manner. it is not just

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just finished reading the Bible and there has been an equivocation in O-Land about the Golden Rule.

It is often taken out of context. Then a different meaning is assigned to it. Then it gets bashed as the Golden Rule, but with the misattributed meaning.

For example, what if you're a masochist? Should you treat others as you would have them treat you? And so on. Or this thing of treating scumbags and productive geniuses equally. That's not what the Golden Rule means. It could in certain cases (definitely not all cases), but that's not the fundament.

Just like knowledge is hierarchical in Objectivist thinking, values are hierarchical in Christian thinking (and in the Abrahamic religions in general). The very first commandment before there were the 10 commandments is to love God with all your might and soul. That's Judaism 101. Even Jesus later emphasized that. The Koran certainly does (I'm finally nearing the end of reading that one, what a slog! ).

All other ethical values fall under loving God. (For Jesus, the second of the two major commandments is to love your neighbor as yourself, but based on loving God first.)

In other words, the Golden Rule, treating others as you would have them treat you, doesn't mean anything to religious folks who actually follow the Bible if loving God is not the context. The correct meaning of the Golden Rule is: Love God, then do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

You don't get to cut off the love God part if you want the correct meaning.

So you would only treat a scumbag as you would yourself if you believe doing that were part of God's plan for your life. If not, if you believe that scumbag is an impediment to God's plan for your life, you would treat him as a scumbag or worse. And, in a kind of pretzel logic, you would want to be treated that way yourself if you fell out of grace.

A person who loves God will try to do God's will above his or her own will. And here, trying to figure out what that divine will is, all hell breaks loose.

That's why there are so many different religions and denominations within the Abrahamic religions.

So, if Objectivist philosophical warriors want to pull the teeth out of the Golden Rule as an attempt to fight altruism or mysticism whatever, they are going about it the wrong way. They need to understand the Golden Rule in its correct meaning and go after that, not assign an arbitrary meaning to it. I keep seeing them fight optical illusions instead of enemies in front of them.

And, ironically, if you take the core principles of Objectivism and place them as more foundational in the normative hierarchy than the Golden Rule, the Golden Rule makes perfect sense for Objectivists and is actually a good thing. A person who follows Rand's ideas should treat others as he or she wish to be treated.

Michael

[anthony]

That's why there are so many different religions and denominations within the Abrahamic religions.

So, if Objectivist philosophical warriors want to pull the teeth out of the Golden Rule as an attempt to fight altruism or mysticism whatever, they are going about it the wrong way. They need to understand the Golden Rule in its correct meaning and go after that, not assign an arbitrary meaning to it. I keep seeing them fight optical illusions instead of enemies in front of them.

And, ironically, if you take the core principles of Objectivism and place them as more foundational in the normative hierarchy than the Golden Rule, the Golden Rule makes perfect sense for Objectivists and is actually a good thing. A person who follows Rand's ideas should treat others as he or she wish to be treated.

Michael

Michael, the major concern is less that the GR is immediately altruistic or mystical, but that it is a *subjective* standard. It rests on the assumption that one (anyone) is always 'good' and right, but as 'goodness' varies widely from one to another and at random times, it is not always good or true for either participant.

You must have had experience with people who treated you as they "would be treated", and not appreciated the experience! I have, many times. In response, I don't and can't treat them back the same way they -perhaps - wish for.

I take the point about the Biblical formulation, but is that known so well? And then, at least two thinkers I know, the rabbi Hillel (whom Bob always quotes) and Kant in his CI had their own interesting versions, but over all it's still the same basic maxim which has seeped into common discourse and can only be argued for or against as it is commonly framed.

As a general maxim I'm more fond of "You take yourself with you wherever you go". ;)

[KorbenDallas]

Peikoff speaks against the Golden Rule in his Introduction to Logic course, as a logical fallacy of the Misuse of the Mean. He talks about sliding standards inherent in that kind of thinking, and provides other reasons as well. Lionel Ruby also touches on this in his Logic an Introduction book.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Tony and Korben,

Both of your comments treat the Golden Rule as a primary. A contextless rule for all occasions.

And that's the fallacy I see in all the criticism coming from our neck of the woods.

It's like saying selfishness is a moral good without saying we are speaking from a Randian perspective underneath it. For those who think selfishness is simply taking stuff from others and trampling over babies if one feels like it, they could equally say they had bad experiences with selfish people or there is a logical fallacy in the moral concept, there is a misused mean in the root, and so on.

The Randian ethics of selfishness is not a primary. It rests on Randian fundamentals like the axiomatic concepts, reason, productive achievement heroism, etc.

Yet there is a form of selfishness that is legitimate (just open any dictionary) and it is bad.

Does this mean selfishness qua selfishness is simply a subjective moral concept? That it is invalid?

Or does it mean it is a subordinate moral concept?

I say subordinate.

As to the inconveniences of how religious folks use the Golden Rule, the problem ain't in the rule, but in what their religion means to them. That's the fundament. The Golden Rule is simply a form of implementing it. It's more a process standard than a value standard.

Anyway, I happen to think it's a great idea for a person to use the same moral standards for others that he adopts for himself. Think about it. Is there a word one can use to describe employing a different moral standard for others than for oneself? Does the word subjective come to mind?

Michael

[Steve Gagne]

Treat others as you wish them to treat you, including with respect, courtesy, empathy, friendliness, non-criminality, and non-tyranny. This applies to low-life mass men and high-quality noble souls.

That which you would have others do unto you, you are ALREADY doing to them likewise.

Beware.

[BaalChatzaf]

The so-called positive version of the GR is a hair ball. There are an infinite set of things you would have others do unto you, This creates an infinite set of obligations one has to others. The sane version of the GR is: Do not do unto others what you would hate being done to you. That is a regulating principle which minimizes the damage one can do. If most follow this version of the GR then life in a social orders can be reasonable.

As to Hillel's principle he marks the fact that (1) we have our own interests and (2) we share the planet with others who also have their own interests. Humans are NOT socially atomic. Except for the handful of true hermits on the planet, we live with and among others and there is really no way we can support lives individually and alone. Like it or not, we all need each other in some way or another. Try taking out your own inflamed appendix all by yourself. See? I think you get the idea.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Marcus]

Peikoff speaks against the............

Korben Dallas multipass!

"Yeah I know, it's a multipass...."

Sorry, had to say it lol

[Marcus]

Humans are NOT socially atomic. Except for the handful of true hermits on the planet, we live with and among others and there is really no way we can support lives individually and alone. Like it or not, we all need each other in some way or another. Try taking out your own inflamed appendix all by yourself. See? I think you get the idea.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I think you miss the larger (Objectivist) point. We must still live and produce our own values to trade with others, just as we must produce our own values in seclusion as a hermit on a desert island. The fact that living with and among others increases our chances of survival and opportunities for trade, does not change the basic facts.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This creates an infinite set of obligations one has to others.

Bob,

Baloney.

The Golden Rule is a filter to use when faced with choices, not a command to act. You still get to choose to act. The Golden Rule just gives you a process to use for one aspect of the choice. There are other reasons to do things, not just this.

The Golden Rule is a way to judge what to do, not a starting command to do stuff.

Even Ayn Rand calls morality a code to guide one's actions. Not a set of commands to perform.

Here's another way to say it. Be consistent when acting with others. Use the same moral principles in dealing with others as you do for yourself.

How does that create an infinite set of obligations to enslave you?

The bully uses the double standard you are talking about--doing unto to others what they don't want done to them. And bullies are not morally fit to preach wisdom to anyone.

I do agree if you are reacting to aggression, you should do to others what you don't want done to you. Smack them silly. But when people like Trump do that and counterpunch hard, you yourself are the first to call them a buffoon.

You talk a tough game, but in practice, you are more Christian than you think.

(That's just a playful jab in the ribs... )

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

Humans are NOT socially atomic. Except for the handful of true hermits on the planet, we live with and among others and there is really no way we can support lives individually and alone. Like it or not, we all need each other in some way or another. Try taking out your own inflamed appendix all by yourself. See? I think you get the idea.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I think you miss the larger (Objectivist) point. We must still live and produce our own values to trade with others, just as we must produce our own values in seclusion as a hermit on a desert island. The fact that living with and among others increases our chances of survival and opportunities for trade, does not change the basic facts.

I do not deny that each of us have our own individual interests that we pursue. I am saying that we are NOT atomic. We pursue our individual interests in a social environment. How far would you get if you did not learn to talk by being taught speech by your care givers? And we need to have our needs fulfilled by others in the first five years of our lives or we simply would not survive. A human does not became a human in a socially atomic environment. Emphasizing our individual natures to the exclusion of all social connection is simply not true to the facts of how we live, grow and sometimes prosper. The basic relation production/trade presupposes a social order. The only person on a desert island has no one to trade with and his labor must be general and not specialized. Hobbes described this existence as nasty, brutish and short.

[Marcus]

I do not deny that each of us have our own individual interests that we pursue. I am saying that we are NOT atomic. We pursue our individual interests in a social environment. How far would you get if you did not learn to talk by being taught speech by your care givers? And we need to have our needs fulfilled by others in the first five years of our lives or we simply would not survive. A human does not became a human in a socially atomic environment. Emphasizing our individual natures to the exclusion of all social connection is simply not true to the facts of how we live, grow and sometimes prosper. The basic relation production/trade presupposes a social order. The only person on a desert island has no one to trade with and his labor must be general and not specialized. Hobbes described this existence as nasty, brutish and short.

Now your taking things out of context. For the sake of argument we are talking about fully grown adults and the (moral) choices they make. Small children cannot nor have the capacity yet, to make certain choices. Their needs must be provided for and they must be guided by adults. That's not the issue here.

And Hobbes by the way, was describing existence *in a society* before the advent of the rennaissance, not a desert island. I would argue it's worse to live in an ignorant theocracy than on a desert island where at least you don't have to content with violent threats, punitive taxes by decree or deadly diseases (aside from the animals). I'll take the desert island over that "society" anyday.

[moralist]

Here's a positive take on the Golden Rule. It explains why the goodwill of others from your doing good for them is more precious than gold.

"Give, and it will be given to you. They will pour into your lap a good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over with no space left for more. For with the standard of measurement you use when you do good to others, it will be measured to you in return.

Notice this wording is not that of a commandment... but rather a description of how this Divine moral principle operates. I run my business according this principle because it's the right thing to do... and I always have more money than I need.


Greg

[moralist]

Marcus writes:

Korben Dallas multipass!

"Yeah I know, it's a multipass...."

Sorry, had to say it lol

One of our all time favorite movies!

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

Now your taking things out of context. For the sake of argument we are talking about fully grown adults and the (moral) choices they make. Small children cannot nor have the capacity yet, to make certain choices. Their needs must be provided for and they must be guided by adults. That's not the issue here.

And Hobbes by the way, was describing existence *in a society* before the advent of the rennaissance, not a desert island. I would argue it's worse to live in an ignorant theocracy than on a desert island where at least you don't have to content with violent threats, punitive taxes by decree or deadly diseases (aside from the animals). I'll take the desert island over that "society" anyday.

In the war of all against all, each one is a solitary combatant. And the last one standing is not really the winner. Hobbes believed a sovereign power is necessary for a functioning social order. The anarchists may disagree with this but even anarchists require a function social order to get on with the own business.

[KorbenDallas]

 

Peikoff speaks against the............

 

Korben Dallas multipass! 

 

"Yeah I know, it's a multipass...."

 

Sorry, had to say it lol

 

 

 

 

Marcus writes:

Korben Dallas multipass!

"Yeah I know, it's a multipass...."

Sorry, had to say it lol

One of our all time favorite movies!

Greg

 

 

Definitely OT to the thread, but:

 

 

 

 

[moralist]

Bob writes:

Hobbes believed a sovereign power is necessary for a functioning social order.

As do I... and there already is.

Civilization is impossible without God... because with no objective moral standard, by default there can ONLY be the collective popular consensus of relativistic morally equivalent OPINIONS.

Greg

[BaalChatzaf]

Bob writes:

Hobbes believed a sovereign power is necessary for a functioning social order.

As do I... and there already is.

Civilization is impossible without God... because with no objective moral standard, by default there can ONLY be the collective popular consensus of relativistic morally equivalent OPINIONS.

Greg

You mean the same God that killed all t he infants in Sodom and Gomorrah and the same God that drowned all the babies and the same God that stood idly by while His people were being slaughtered by the Nazis??? This God is clearly incompetent when He is not being cruel and crazy.