Golden Rule

[Jonathan]

9 minutes ago, moralist said:

You don't think... you ~feel~.

 

Greg

No, Apey, you're the one who feels rather than thinks. You believe in magic/pretend/make-believe. You have the intelligence and logical abilities of a second-grader.

J

[anthony]

5 hours ago, Jonathan said:

So, Rand's entire setup about existence and survival was irrelevant. Her ethics -- of non-initiation of force -- are not based on what is "required for the organism's survival." She makes a magical leap from "survival" to "survival proper to man qua man," which is simply begging the question of what is ethically proper to man. Knowingly or not, she snuck in a bit of the golden rule ...

J

You say:

"Her ethics - of non-initiation of force - are not based on what is required for the organism's survival. She makes a magical leap... which is simply begging the question of what is ethically proper to man."

You clearly need to brush up on the ethics!

Individual rights are not a morality, y'know. Non-initiation of force is not an ethics.

 

[Jonathan]

24 minutes ago, anthony said:

You say:

"Her ethics - of non-initiation of force - are not based on what is required for the organism's survival. She makes a magical leap... which is simply begging the question of what is ethically proper to man."

You clearly need to brush up on the ethics!

Individual rights are not a morality, y'know. Non-initiation of force is not an ethics.

 

You're a moron.

J

[dldelancey]

22 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

I get your point--I consider it valid--but you need a better example. Flowers versus trash re love? Something's wrong in Love City.

--Brant

It's a perfectly good example. Some people feel most loved when given gifts.  Some people feel most loved when acts of service are performed for them.  If you give a gift to one who would prefer an act of service, she'd likely thank you for the gift but she wouldn't truly feel loved or satisfied.  That's the crux of this discussion, is it not?  A person who wants someone to feel loved/appreciated/fulfilled is going to be purposeful and thoughtful in his expression.  Which means that he has to figure out if she wants flowers or if she wants the trash taken out.  He does NOT simply do whatever he would want her to do for him.  Yes?

[anthony]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Jonathan,

I missed this.

You are exactly right.

The whole idea of having the right to act so long as one does not violate the rights of others is pure golden rule.

Attacking the golden rule is not the best course for Objectivism-friendly people to attack Christianity if that is what they want to do. No matter how much you twist the arguments into logical pretzels, they can't escape the fact that the golden rule is part of the foundation of individual rights. 

  

Michael

MSK,

Who's attacking Christianity? That is the farthest from my mind. I'm opposing the GR (no longer simply a religious edict) on the grounds it totally depends on the existing morality of any person who uses it - which is of hugely variable and unpredictable standards, and therefore, subjective. What's pretzel-like about that? The already good and rational person has almost no need of the GR except perhaps as a momentary check in social situations, while those who need it most won't let it stop them do what they wish.

As far as individual rights goes, I don't consider the Objectivist form to be at all based on the GR, or further, a pragmatic reciprocity: instead it's objective, based on an objective recognition by each individual (and a government) of man's right to life, and so - his freedom to act. If treating all others as "man" - too - is reciprocity, then so be it!

Having the right to act as long as one doesn't violate the rights of others, is a given. If he does, rightaway he loses his right to act anyway.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

11 minutes ago, anthony said:

Who's attacking Christianity? That is the farthest from my mind. I'm opposing the GR (no longer simply a religious edict) on the grounds it totally depends on the existing morality of any person who uses it - which is of hugely variable and unpredictable standards, and therefore, subjective. What's pretzel-like about that?

Tony,

I didn't have you in mind when I wrote that. I had other things I've read. However, you do use the same logic as the other stuff I've read in claiming the Golden Rule is not a standalone principle. It needs a context.

But that's the way it is in Christianity, too. I mentioned earlier that the Golden Rule applies to Christians ONLY after they've followed the rule to love God with all their might.

Not before.

This is essentially what you are saying about the Golden Rule in general. Merely replace the command to love God and replace it with philosophy.

However, people in O-Land often argue against the Golden Rule as if it were a fundamental Christian principle. They leave out the actual fundament: the qualification to love God first. The implication is: See? Christianity is based on the Golden Rule and this has no real meaning without a philosophy. Look how shallow Christianity is. Objectivism is the true truth.

They may not use those words, but the subtext certainly is that. I've seen it in several places.

I have no issue with those who wish to judge Christianity as shallow, but they gotta get this stuff right. Otherwise, they are knocking down a strawmen argument. 

For example, if I claim you have three legs, two heads and a 12 foot long tail, and I don't like you because people with three legs, two heads and a 12 foot long tail make me uncomfortable, I suspect you would find my logic lacking.  

But let's make it closer to the logical process of those bashing the Golden Rule in Christianity without mentioning the premise.

Suppose you were acting as a monster in a play where you had three legs, two heads and a 12 foot long tail. If I go around saying I hate Tony because he has three legs, two heads and a 12 foot long tail and don't mention the play (i.e., the foundation, premise, context, whatever you want to call it), don't you think I would be misrepresenting a little?

Just a little?

(God, I hope you really don't have three legs, two heads and a 12 foot long tail because my argument would go right down the toilet.  )

Michael

[moralist]

35 minutes ago, anthony said:

MSK,

Who's attacking Christianity? That is the farthest from my mind. I'm opposing the GR (no longer simply a religious edict) on the grounds it totally depends on the existing morality of any person who uses it - which is of hugely variable and unpredictable standards, and therefore, subjective.

I agree that humans are completely subjective beings whose subjective behavior can either be in harmony with objective reality or be at odds with it. Humans can only either subjectively agree or disagree with what is objective... but they can never be it. The consequences our actions clearly indicate which is which.

The Golden rule is a hammer. You can hit nails with it... ...or you can hit your own thumb.

This double edged sword quality can be found in all universal truths.

It's up to each of us what we choose to do with it.

 

Greg

[KorbenDallas]

Bit of a fact here... GR etymologically predates christianity..

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

29 minutes ago, anthony said:

If he does, rightaway he loses his right to act anyway.

Tony,

Who takes that right away?

Since he has lost his right to act, who has the authority to enslave him or dispose of him as they see fit?

But suppose a person doesn't even want to go there. Suppose he knows what individual rights are and he wants to have a rule that will help him remember how to observe them when he's not thinking. Or when he's mighty tempted. Something short and pithy and easy to remember...

Hmmmmm...

Here's an idea.

Treat others as he would have them treat him.

 

That works because the concept of reciprocal treatment is baked into the very concept of individual rights.

Michael

[moralist]

1 minute ago, KorbenDallas said:

Bit of a fact here... GR etymologically predates christianity..

(shrug...) That only makes it more universally valid.

 

Greg

[anthony]

39 minutes ago, dldelancey said:

It's a perfectly good example. Some people feel most loved when given gifts.  Some people feel most loved when acts of service are performed for them.  If you give a gift to one who would prefer an act of service, she'd likely thank you for the gift but she wouldn't truly feel loved or satisfied.  That's the crux of this discussion, is it not?  A person who wants someone to feel loved/appreciated/fulfilled is going to be purposeful and thoughtful in his expression.  Which means that he has to figure out if she wants flowers or if she wants the trash taken out.  He does NOT simply do whatever he would want her to do for him.  Yes?

Off topic, you make me recall what Nathaniel Branden said or wrote somwhere:

"When a woman wants to get mad, she cries; when a man wants to cry he gets mad".

[KorbenDallas]

7 minutes ago, moralist said:

(shrug...) That only makes it more universally valid.

 

Greg

At this point, are you expecting me to accept your statement as true and argue against it?

Barf.

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

44 minutes ago, dldelancey said:

He does NOT simply do whatever he would want her to do for him.  Yes?

Deanna,

I think it goes deeper and a bit more abstract. Look at the kind of thing he is doing. Does he want her to do stuff for him that he wants, not just what she wants?  Then he should do stuff for her that she wants, not just what he wants. It works like that. If you divorce specific acts between two people from their bilateral essence as values and use such acts as examples, you can invalidate any morality at all. 

The underlying premise, of course, is they both want a healthy relationship.

If they want a sicko relationship underneath it all like S&M or whatever, this equation can change.  

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Korben,

I guarantee you that the Golden Rule always had an underlying context that took precedence over it even in the very beginning.

Way back when, people took their uga-ugas seriously. They would kill you over opposing them, but maybe not kill you over violating the Golden Rule.

So, without knowing what your source is, I am pretty confident in saying expectations were in place of what proper behavior was when the Golden Rule first arose.

Another way of saying it for the ancient is if you want that expected behavior toward yourself, you have to act in that expected manner toward others.

Take away that expected behavior and the Golden Rule goes with it.

I can't conceive of the Golden Rule arising in a societal vacuum in primitive humanity.

Michael

 

[anthony]

1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

I didn't have you in mind when I wrote that. I had other things I've read. However, you do use the same logic as the other stuff I've read in claiming the Golden Rule is not a standalone principle. It needs a context.

But that's the way it is in Christianity, too. I mentioned earlier that the Golden Rule applies to Christians ONLY after they've followed the rule to love God with all their might.

Not before.

This is essentially what you are saying about the Golden Rule in general. Merely replace the command to love God and replace it with philosophy.

However, people in O-Land often argue against the Golden Rule as if it were a fundamental Christian principle. They leave out the actual fundament: the qualification to love God first. The implication is: See? Christianity is based on the Golden Rule and this has no real meaning without a philosophy. Look how shallow Christianity is. Objectivism is the true truth.

They may not use those words, but the subtext certainly is that. I've seen it in several places.

I have no issue with those who wish to judge Christianity as shallow, but they gotta get this stuff right. Otherwise, they are knocking down a strawmen argument. 

For example, if I claim you have three legs, two heads and a 12 foot long tail, and I don't like you because people with three legs, two heads and a 12 foot long tail make me uncomfortable, I suspect you would find my logic lacking.  

But let's make it closer to the logical process of those bashing the Golden Rule in Christianity without mentioning the premise.

Suppose you were acting as a monster in a play where you had three legs, two heads and a 12 foot long tail. If I go around saying I hate Tony because he has three legs, two heads and a 12 foot long tail and don't mention the play (i.e., the foundation, premise, context, whatever you want to call it), don't you think I would be misrepresenting a little?

Just a little?

(God, I hope you really don't have three legs, two heads and a 12 foot long tail because my argument would go right down the toilet.  )

Michael

I'll put up my picture one of these days, then you'll see>>>ha!

And I agree with you, that the GR would have been implemented in the context of Christian morality. I also found in a quick search recently an academic writing that early tribes of Jews utilized it also on the premise of being "righteous" (or something). So yes, one could say all those people DID and do have a standard to work off.

(There is even a Zoroastrian version of it, and a Buddhist).

Today, however - with increasing secularist numbers, but their (I think I see) still growing adherence to, and unabated reliance on the identical GR - is when personal moral standards of any sort are a little less certain, up to the point of non-existent - except for their golden rule. Any port in a storm, as is said.

 

[Brant Gaede]

test only

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, dldelancey said:

It's a perfectly good example. Some people feel most loved when given gifts.  Some people feel most loved when acts of service are performed for them.  If you give a gift to one who would prefer an act of service, she'd likely thank you for the gift but she wouldn't truly feel loved or satisfied.  That's the crux of this discussion, is it not?  A person who wants someone to feel loved/appreciated/fulfilled is going to be purposeful and thoughtful in his expression.  Which means that he has to figure out if she wants flowers or if she wants the trash taken out.  He does NOT simply do whatever he would want her to do for him.  Yes?

Like I said, I'm not taking any issue with the thought.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, anthony said:

You say:

"Her ethics - of non-initiation of force - are not based on what is required for the organism's survival. She makes a magical leap... which is simply begging the question of what is ethically proper to man."

You clearly need to brush up on the ethics!

Individual rights are not a morality, y'know. Non-initiation of force is not an ethics.

Individual rights are part of ethics and morality and are the justification for rights. Rights are right actions respecting other people and other people respecting you.

--Brant

[KorbenDallas]

4 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

I guarantee you that the Golden Rule always had an underlying context that took precedence over it even in the very beginning.

Way back when, people took their uga-ugas seriously. They would kill you over opposing them, but maybe not kill you over violating the Golden Rule.

So, without knowing what your source is, I am pretty confident in saying expectations were in place of what proper behavior was when the Golden Rule first arose.

Another way of saying it for the ancient is if you want that expected behavior toward yourself, you have to act in that expected manner toward others.

Take away that expected behavior and the Golden Rule goes with it.

I can't conceive of the Golden Rule arising in a societal vacuum in primitive humanity.

Michael

 

GR was present in several warlike Native American tribes (nations) where aggression was valued and was the expected behavior amongst their own tribal members.  These people were treating each other as they expected to be treated and considered the behavior "good", that they were strong, righteous, powerful, just, etc.  Many of these tribes had a sophisticated culture and belief system, and would not be what I would call "savages".  They valued aggression, and treated each other in that way, amongst their own tribal members.

[moralist]

5 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

At this point, are you expecting me to accept your statement as true and argue against it?

Barf.

 

Oh, not at all.

I'm totally fine with expressing my view and demonstrating how it contrasts to your view, with the full understanding that they are both totally antithetical and irreconcilable.

 

Greg

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Korben,

Because of Ayn Rand's friendship with Ruth Beebe Hill, years ago I read Hanta Yo.

That's a beautiful book that left-wing scholars, intellectuals and activists who were trying to use the victimization story of the Indians to get power trashed as hard as they could. Hill's collaborator, a Sioux named Chunksa Yuha, insisted that his input was to prove that the Lakota were first and foremost a spiritual people.

They made a TV series out of this book, too, but every time it comes up, book or TV, controversy swirls. However, those who read the book and are not interested in the politics of the controversy come away enchanted. I, myself, consider this as one of the big pleasures of my reading life. I remember what I felt as I read it with a great deal of fondness. (I read it while I was in Brazil.) I didn't see the TV version, nor ever tried to find it, probably because I don't want to spoil the enchantment of that memory.

I was thinking of tying this to the Golden Rule discussion and your comment, but it's late...  

People can figure that one out on their own and even if such a connections exists...  

Michael

[KorbenDallas]

35 minutes ago, moralist said:

Oh, not at all.

I'm totally fine with expressing my view and demonstrating how it contrasts to your view, with the full understanding that they are both totally antithetical and irreconcilable.

 

Greg

Sounds acceptable, which means we just agreed on something.

That can't be right.

 

[KorbenDallas]

57 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

Because of Ayn Rand's friendship with Ruth Beebe Hill, years ago I read Hanta Yo.

That's a beautiful book that left-wing scholars, intellectuals and activists who were trying to use the victimization story of the Indians to get power trashed as hard as they could. Hill's collaborator, a Sioux named Chunksa Yuha, insisted that his input was to prove that the Lakota were first and foremost a spiritual people.

They made a TV series out of this book, too, but every time it comes up, book or TV, controversy swirls. However, those who read the book and are not interested in the politics of the controversy come away enchanted. I, myself, consider this as one of the big pleasures of my reading life. I remember what I felt as I read it with a great deal of fondness. (I read it while I was in Brazil.) I didn't see the TV version, nor ever tried to find it, probably because I don't want to spoil the enchantment of that memory.

I was thinking of tying this to the Golden Rule discussion and your comment, but it's late...  

People can figure that one out on their own and even if such a connections exists...  

Michael

Caught an inference there, but not worried about it otherwise.

edit: "it" here is the inference..  not the book or memory..

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

Caught an inference there, but not worried about it otherwise.

edit: "it" here is the inference..  not the book or memory..

Korben,

I could have been clearer, I suppose.

By "it," I meant the work, whether title, book, or TV show (which, btw, is called "The Mystic Warrior"). In other words, rewritten, the line would read: "They made a TV series out of this book, too, but every time that work comes up, book or TV, controversy swirls."

Michael

 

[moralist]

1 hour ago, KorbenDallas said:

Sounds acceptable, which means we just agreed on something.

That can't be right.

 

It's the only way... because our two views are utterly irreconcilable.

Each of us has the objective reality of how our lives have unfolded as the only final verdict on the validity of the view we each have chosen to live by.

 

Greg