Christian Objectivist

[Selene]

The point is, the Golden Rule needs a tiny qualification, like saying it is a good rule of thumb for mostly normal people, not the fringe. Or limiting it to specific types of situations.

Michael

That is why I posted the question.

It is the normal Bell Curve participants that we tend to make "rules" for.

[Jules Troy]

Haha Michael isn't the rule of thumb derived from the width of the stick you were legally allowed to beat your wife with?!

[Selene]

Haha Michael isn't the rule of thumb derived from the width of the stick you were legally allowed to beat your wife with?!

I used to believe that canard. However, it is not true.

"Rule of thumb" is a rude reference to an old law permitting men to beat their wives with a stick no thicker than a thumb, right? Wrong! Well, except that it may still be rude to use a phrase that you know will upset people. It may also be rude to assume that people who use the phrase are being rude. (Isn't etiquette wonderful?)

According to many attempts to research this history, the phrase "rule of thumb" predates by a couple of centuries the first known reference that connects it to a supposed law or custom about wife-beating.

A reference to this connection is found in 1881, in a book by Harriet H. Robinson: Massachusetts in the Woman Suffrage Movement. She says there, "By the English common law, her husband was her lord and master. He had the custody of her person, and of her minor children. He could 'punish her with a stick no bigger than his thumb,' and she could not complain against him."

http://womenshistory.about.com/od/mythsofwomenshistory/a/rule_of_thumb.htm

Snopes.com:

Rule of Thumb

The phrase is almost certainly an allusion to the fact that the first joint an adult thumb

measures roughly one inch, literally a rule (or ruler) of thumb. Since human dimensions

vary, any measurement so taken would be only a rough approximation and not to be trusted where precision was required.

The most commonly connected tale with this story is that the original rule of thumb

appeared in English Common Law. The law said that a man could not beat his wife with a

stick that was thicker than his thumb. Beating her with smaller sticks was permitted, and in some regions encouraged, to keep the woman in her place.

While it was certainly true that in many places in the past (and unfortunately to this present day), men were permitted to beat their wives, but this so-called rule was never codified. In fact, this explanation does not appear until relatively recently and its appearances are in American courts that claim such an old English law exists without citing it specifically.

Blackstone in Commentaries on the Laws of England (1765) writes, "the husband also (by the old law) might give his wife moderate correction. [...] But this power of correction was confined within reasonable bounds; and the husband was prohibited to use any violence to his wife, aliter quam ad virum, ex causa regiminis et castigationis uxoris suae, licited et rationabiliter pertinet (other than what is reasonably necessary to the discipline and correction of the wife). The civil law gave the husband the same, or a larger, authority over his wife; allowing him, for some misdemeanors, flagellis et fustibus acriter verbare uxorem

(to wound his wife severely with whips and fists); for others, only modicam castigationem adhibere (to apply modest corrective punishment)." No mention of thumbs at all.

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=95;t=000001;p=0

[Jules Troy]

Lol that movie " Boondock Saints" we're the one guy getting the assbeating by that rather large woman replies " in your case they should have made a rule of wrist!"

[Selene]

Lol that movie " Boondock Saints" we're the one guy getting the assbeating by that rather large woman replies " in your case they should have made a rule of wrist!"

Excellent movie ... the cat scene is as sick as you can get...

[moralist]

Here's another.

Suppose I want to commit suicide, but want someone else to do it for me because I'm chickshit.

The Golden Rule gets messy with that one.

Thought provoking points, Michael...

So you want someone else to kill you, but if you can't kill yourself, you can't kill anyone else who wants you to kill them because they can't kill themselves. Not messy, because nothing can happen.

Or suppose the greatest thing I want is for people to keep me from having wealth so I will not fall into temptation of greed.

Should I treat others the way I want to be treated?

No one can keep you from wealth except yourself.

You can't keep anyone else from wealth either.

Move along... nothing to see here.

Suppose I'm a sex fiend who wants to be gang-raped.

That's simply a matter of finding their own kind because they deserve each other.

I came up with these off the top of my head. And I can keep on going without any effort.

I think I'm damaged goods.

The point is, the Golden Rule needs a tiny qualification, like saying it is a good rule of thumb for mostly normal people, not the fringe. Or limiting it to specific types of situations.

Michael

Good point. The Golden Rule is for decent people. The rest who deserve each other already have what they deserve. Like all great truths, the Golden Rule is double edged and cuts both ways. Those who do to others will tend to get it done to them no matter if its good or bad.

This is similar to the American form of government. It works for decent people, and works against the indecent.

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Greg,

I have seen this elsewhere when Objectivist people react to a valid observation critical of a Randian principle. They turn into pretzels trying to justify the unjustifiable.

I gently suggest you are forcing it a bit.

Seriously. There's no need for rationalizing.

And I'm not going to say that without something positive behind it.

Think about it. Why am I able to come up with these examples?

Is it because the Golden Rule is flawed as a principle?

Not really.

I inverted strategy and tactics. The Golden Rule is a tactic (a humongously effective one), not a strategy (which it sucks at).

A strategy is your overall game plan. A tactic is how you deal with immediate situations in carrying out a strategy.

I'll put this in Christian terms for you.

If your strategy is to serve God and Jesus, you would obviously not want to do any of the things I mentioned. And there is a lot of good things you would want to do. Moreover, you would want others to treat you according to the Christian storyline. (Not the crucifixion part. The loving others and following His will part.)

If that is your strategy, the Golden Rule makes it easy for you to choose what to do if you are in doubt. You obviously want a Christian world, you want to be treated as a Christian, so you will treat others in a Christian manner.

This works for Objectivism, too. Not the snarky put down part , but instead, the living by reason part. If you want to be treated according to reason, it is a great idea to treat others according to reason. If your strategy is to live according to reason, the Golden Rule is a great tactic for putting that into effect in a social realm.

This works well for business, too, as many businessmen learn. If they want to be treated fairly, but want to receive profits and become wealthy, and that is their strategy, their best tactic is to treat others fairly and provide them with profit first (I'm not just talking about money). Provide value to receive value.

Where I became a smart-ass was by inverting the tactic and strategy. If your strategy is to live according to the Golden Rule at all costs, if that is your living strategy, you will have to extend it to sociopaths, etc.

This is what happens when you turn a tactic into a strategy.

The thing is, I like being a smartass.

(And yes, it comes back on me. But I have a lot of fun. )

Michael

[Selene]

And, Michael, it was fun, while thought provoking.

Worked for me.

However, I am also a smart ass.

A...

[Jules Troy]

Ima dumbass but I have fun anyways. (chuckles)

[Brant Gaede]

And, Michael, it was fun, while thought provoking.

Worked for me.

However, I am also a smart ass.

A...

I admit to being smart.

--Brant

doing what I can here

[Jules Troy]

I like to set my bar low so that If I ever have something half important or insightful to say people pay attention and think "where the hell did that come from!"

[anthony]

The Silvern Rule: Claim from others as you would do unto them.

Hm.

The corollary is unfeasible. The Golden Rule is a one way street.

[Selene]

The Silvern Rule: Claim from others as you would do unto them.

Hm.

The corollary is unfeasible. The Golden Rule is a one way street.

Tony, if it is a good one way street take it.

A famous Yogism [Yogi Berra - only human on the planet with ten [10] World Series rings]:

When you get to a fork in the road...take it.

[Jules Troy]

There is no spoon

[Selene]

There is no spoon

Of coursse not, the dish ran away with it!!!

[anthony]

The Silvern Rule: Claim from others as you would do unto them.

Hm.

The corollary is unfeasible. The Golden Rule is a one way street.

Tony, if it is a good one way street take it.

A famous Yogism [Yogi Berra - only human on the planet with ten [10] World Series rings]:

When you get to a fork in the road...take it.

Quite right, Adam. I've nothing against the GR, especially for casual relations with everyday people.

Just looking at it from all sides.

Another thought is, as a general Rule, doesn't it seem slightly self-evident or redundant to you?

I'm sure you and most people have practised The Golden Rule before even knowing of it. Those who are anything like truthful to themselves, that is.

Fact is, to those who most need to learn it explicitly - those who have never noticed the contradiction in doing as they wish to others, but somehow feeling entitled to far better treatment in return from them - are probably ones who will reject it.

[Selene]

Just looking at it from all sides.

Another thought is, as a general Rule, doesn't it seem slightly self-evident or redundant to you?

I'm sure you and most people have practised The Golden Rule before even knowing of it. Those who are anything like truthful to themselves, that is.

Fact is, to those who most need to learn it explicitly - those who have never noticed the contradiction in doing as they wish to others, but somehow feeling entitled to far better treatment in return from them - are probably ones who will reject it.

Agreed.

I thought that was what you were saying.

A...

[Jules Troy]

Lol what's with the swastika's on the ground?

[BaalChatzaf]

.

Another thought is, as a general Rule, doesn't it seem slightly self-evident or redundant to you?

I'm sure you and most people have practised The Golden Rule before even knowing of it. Those who are anything like truthful to themselves, that is.

Most humans do reciprocal behavior at least with those they know, particularly in families. The GR (either version) is just the simplest expression of social and reciprocal behavior.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[moralist]

I'll put this in Christian terms for you.

If your strategy is to serve God and Jesus, you would obviously not want to do any of the things I mentioned. And there is a lot of good things you would want to do. Moreover, you would want others to treat you according to the Christian storyline. (Not the crucifixion part. The loving others and following His will part.)

If that is your strategy, the Golden Rule makes it easy for you to choose what to do if you are in doubt. You obviously want a Christian world, you want to be treated as a Christian, so you will treat others in a Christian manner.

While I agree with what you just described, I view the same idea on broader perspective in that I already live in a world which is exactly as decent as I am. And that world is defined as everyone with whom I personally interact face to face, and not what is on television news with which I have no personal contact, over which I have no personal control, and for which I bear no personal responsibility...

...because it is within the personal contact, personal control, and personal responsibility of others.

This works for Objectivism, too. Not the snarky put down part , but instead, the living by reason part. If you want to be treated according to reason, it is a great idea to treat others according to reason. If your strategy is to live according to reason, the Golden Rule is a great tactic for putting that into effect in a social realm.

This works well for business, too, as many businessmen learn. If they want to be treated fairly, but want to receive profits and become wealthy, and that is their strategy, their best tactic is to treat others fairly and provide them with profit first (I'm not just talking about money). Provide value to receive value.

Where I became a smart-ass was by inverting the tactic and strategy. If your strategy is to live according to the Golden Rule at all costs, if that is your living strategy, you will have to extend it to sociopaths, etc.

The Golden Rule actually does extend to sociopaths... as they do to others, others do to them, for they personally interact with their own kind just as they deserve.

This is what happens when you turn a tactic into a strategy.

The thing is, I like being a smartass.

(And yes, it comes back on me. But I have a lot of fun. )

Michael

Your attitude has a certain charm, Michael.

There is also another aspect to the Golden Rule.

The first is a what: Do to others as you would have them do to you...

The second is a why: ...because what you do to others will be done to you.

Notice how it applies equally to the indecent as well as the decent. This is because all truths cut both ways.

Greg

[Brant Gaede]

If Greg lived in a nudist colony, how "decent" would he be?

--Brant

[dldelancey]

Greg, do you understand what a sociopath is? Or are you using that term in a generic way to define people who are not true sociopaths?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

While I agree with what you just described, I view the same idea on broader perspective...

Greg,

Then you won't mind me saying this.

If someday you ever put tactics in the place of strategies and try to force them to work, you will get exactly what you deserve.

Michael

[moralist]

Greg, do you understand what a sociopath is?

Yes. A person who has completely given themselves over to doing evil.

Greg

[moralist]

While I agree with what you just described, I view the same idea on broader perspective...

Greg,

Then you won't mind me saying this.

If someday you ever put tactics in the place of strategies and try to force them to work, you will get exactly what you deserve.

Michael

Hey Michael,

I have to admit that those terms are lost on me because instead of thinking of tactics or strategies, my attention is on doing what's right. Being a simple person, it's a simple way to live. I've found that the more well grounded in what's right my actions are, the better things go.

Greg