Golden Rule

[anthony]

9 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The GR is the most practical of  ethical principles.  It is so practical it has popped up in just about every human society  going way back to ancient days.  One should  hesitate to caste out a principle that is so well grounded in common sense and has been shown to work, time after time.  On pragmatic grounds the GR is the all time champion.

The 'argument from historicism'. (If there is such). Mankind survives still, so any rationale can be ascribed as beneficent cause.

Practicality alone doesn't crack it, Bob. The golden rule is at best obvious - a given, for any honest and decent person who acts on his virtue irrespective of others, while implicitly expecting others to treat him the same way (but who knows that doesn't always follow). And it may be used as a justification for any kind of immorality you can name. It's worn out, well past time to drop it.

[BaalChatzaf]

10 hours ago, moralist said:

I totally agree, Bob... from within the government educated secularist point of view, that's totally proper usage for the word "create".

Many technological advances have been made, and I thoroughly enjoy all of them. But only God created everything from nothing... not man... no matter how bloated by pride he gets. Quantifying how a physical law operates and applying it cannot create that law... nor can it create matter or energy. By Divine law is this so.

 

Greg

Who in his right mind says otherwise.  First Law of Thermodynamics   Energy is conserved. It can neither be  created nor destroyed.  Charge is conserved.  Baryon count is conserved.  

 

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Who in his right mind says otherwise.  First Law of Thermodynamics   Energy is conserved. It can neither be  created nor destroyed.  Charge is conserved.  Baryon count is conserved.  

But energy can be dispersed--no? Right now that's the seeming fate of the universe.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

49 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

But energy can be dispersed--no? Right now that's the seeming fate of the universe.

--Brant

That is entropy.  Which always increases,  never decreases.  the 'quality' of energy degrades in every non-reversible thermodynamic  interaction.  The energy by entropy increase  can do less and less work.  Someday in the very distant future the cosmos will be all at one temperature  and no more work will happen.   Don't worry about it.  That will take a  long, long, long time./

[moralist]

55 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

But energy can be dispersed--no? Right now that's the seeming fate of the universe.

--Brant

Absolutely. For God created the law of entropy.

(beat me by 3 minutes, Bob   )

Greg

[KorbenDallas]

On 2/15/2016 at 11:55 AM, KorbenDallas said:

The Golden Rule is too bromidic, and needs to be cast out.  It's unprincipled, says nothing to the nature of man, of why we need values, and an Objective value system, in the first place.

 

20 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The GR is the most practical of  ethical principles.  It is so practical it has popped up in just about every human society  going way back to ancient days.  One should  hesitate to caste out a principle that is so well grounded in common sense and has been shown to work, time after time.  On pragmatic grounds the GR is the all time champion.

What exactly is common sense?  The men I described think it is common sense to do these things, and practical as well:

 

On 2/15/2016 at 11:55 AM, KorbenDallas said:

The Golden Rule depends on what the person values--the person might think it is "good" to treat people badly, as he expects people to do this unto himself.  This type of person enjoys conflict, uses the Golden Rule as a maxim.  How about a Heraclitian mentality, of strife and change--meaning he creates the strife and you change?  He would expect this kind of treatment from others, of the fight, the predator/prey.  The masochist, the person who enjoys seeing people suffer, that attempts to make other people suffer as he expects this unto himself.

 

[BaalChatzaf]

The Golden Rule:  Do not do to to others what you don't want them to do to you;

[KorbenDallas]

33 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The Golden Rule:  Do not do to to others what you don't want them to do to you;

Circular argumentation (petitio)

[moralist]

On ‎2‎/‎15‎/‎2016 at 8:55 AM, KorbenDallas said:

Exactly.  The Golden Rule depends on what the person values--the person might think it is "good" to treat people badly, as he expects people to do this unto himself.  This type of person enjoys conflict, uses the Golden Rule as a maxim.  How about a Heraclitian mentality, of strife and change--meaning he creates the strife and you change?  He would expect this kind of treatment from others, of the fight, the predator/prey.  The masochist, the person who enjoys seeing people suffer, that attempts to make other people suffer as he expects this unto himself.

The Golden Rule is too bromidic, and needs to be cast out.  It's unprincipled, says nothing to the nature of man, of why we need values, and an Objective value system, in the first place.

I believe you aptly described the double edged sword nature of the Golden Rule. It also applies to every other principle. Whether a person is a good example or a bad one, the rule still holds true.

 

Just out of curiosity... if you cast it out, what would you replace it with?

 

Greg

[syrakusos]

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

The problem with the Golden Rule is expecting that others will have the same values, the same needs that you do.  Broadly, that is true. However, in many specific circumstances, it surely is not. Statistically, it is likely that within your own body no two hemoglobin molecules are identical. Individual differences run deeper within us than is commonly known.  Aesop's fable of the Fox and the Stork demonstrated quite clearly that different people have different needs. Yours are not theirs.

 

[merjet]

7 hours ago, syrakusos said:

Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law.

Sounds very Kantian. 

[BaalChatzaf]

11 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

Circular argumentation (petitio)

No it isn't.  Figure out what you don't want other people to do to you.  Then decide not to do these things to others.  No circle. 

Would you dislike other people robbing you,  killing you for no reason, harming your family?  If so, do not do it to others.  Very simple. 

It is simple, it is practical and it works.  It ends up not initiating force against others. 

Why is this  simple principle  troublesome to you?

 

 

[Brant Gaede]

One can describe what one does as positive or negative. Constructive or destructive. So, does one behave positively or negatively? And in each case why?

What is the consequence of each, internally and externally?

It comes down not to what does to another but what one does to oneself. The object of one's actions may never even be aware of them. Essentially one's behavior always redounds. One becomes what one creates.

--Brant

[anthony]

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

No it isn't.  Figure out what you don't want other people to do to you.  Then decide not to do these things to others.  No circle. 

Would you dislike other people robbing you,  killing you for no reason, harming your family?  If so, do not do it to others.  Very simple. 

It is simple, it is practical and it works.  It ends up not initiating force against others. 

Why is this  simple principle  troublesome to you?

 

 

2 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

 

You don't think a liar and a cheat don't expect to be lied and cheated to? A thief and a con artist, also, do as they 'know' they can and will be done by. The morality each lives by is what they expect of the world, because that's their subjective purview of existence - predator or victim - which is only reinforced and self-justified by the Golden Rule. One individual sacrifices his belongings, in the expectation that you and others will do the same. A Putin assumes everyone is as cynically imperalist as he is; an al-Baghdadi 'martyrs' and murders while gladly seeking his own 'martyrdom'. He's very consistent to the GR, too (and probably why stone-killer terrorists/suicide bombers bewilder all the naive western Golden Rule-rs) . So much for "not initiating force".

Is it too troublesome to accept that the Rule is subjective? Moral men remain moral, the immoral do the same - so it's a useless imperative as well.

You think there is only you, Baal, and everybody is as nice as you?

 

[Brant Gaede]

The issue is not someone else's lying and cheating; it's yours--your behavior. Someone else's behavior is, basically, someone else's problem. Protecting yourself from others' bad conduct is self defense and derivative and both apart and not apart from "The Golden Rule." There is nothing selfless or altruistic about this.

--Brant

more is needed, of course

[dldelancey]

The entirety of this conversation has me thinking about The Five Love Languages by Gary Chapman.  Chapman says that there are five distinct ways to communicate love to another, and that most people prefer one over the others.  For instance, if a woman's love language is acts of service then she will feel most loved when someone does things for her that are helpful to her and in turn, she shows her love for others by doing things that are helpful to them.  Problems arise when she's carrying on this way with someone whose love language is words of affirmation because that person doesn't need stuff done for him to feel loved.  He needs stuff said to him.  And he isn't going to be doing stuff for her, he's going to be saying stuff to her, and that's not what she needs.

The point of the book is to learn how to express all of the five love languages, and how to identify the love language of self and others so that everyone is feeling the love, right?  Not just in romantic relationships but in all relationships - personal, professional, familial.

What can be learned from this?  The Golden Rule is a nice guideline for everyday transactions in shallow* relationships, but it isn't enough for ongoing relationships that require cultivation.

-------

*Shallow has a neutral meaning here.

[anthony]

1 minute ago, Brant Gaede said:

The issue is not someone else's lying and cheating; it's yours--your behavior. Someone else's behavior is, basically, someone else's problem. Protecting yourself from others' bad conduct is self defense and derivative and both apart and not apart from "The Golden Rule." There is nothing selfless or altruistic about this.

--Brant

more is needed, of course

Of course: you're indicating an independent and objective standard of morality, irrespective primarily of others' responses, and naturally, selfish. It's a given that many will respond in kind with their honesty, for its own sake too.

If the Golden Rule said only - "act always consistent to your virtues and knowledge, i.e. with integrity"- who'd argue?

[dldelancey]

28 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

The issue is not someone else's lying and cheating; it's yours--your behavior. Someone else's behavior is, basically, someone else's problem. Protecting yourself from others' bad conduct is self defense and derivative and both apart and not apart from "The Golden Rule." There is nothing selfless or altruistic about this.

--Brant

more is needed, of course

This assumes only situations where bad conduct is in play.  What about situations where neutral or good conduct is in play, but still not the desired conduct?  For instance, if you give your partner flowers, that's not bad conduct at all.  However, the flowers won't be received in the way you expect if what your partner really wanted was for you to take out the trash.  You might have preferred the flowers.  Your partner prefers you take out the trash.

[Jonathan]

Many people have observed over the years that Rand performed a bit of not-so-sleight sleight-of-hand in her ethics by beginning with referring to "survival," "life," "existence versus nonexistence," and "man's life" as her standard of value, and then suddenly and not-so-sneakily switching to "man's survival qua man," or "proper to man qua man." Such a not-so-sneaky leap from all of the arguments made about "survival" to "survival qua man" requires either pure question-begging or a smuggling in of a bit of the golden rule.

J

[Jonathan]

34 minutes ago, dldelancey said:

The entirety of this conversation has me thinking about The Five Love Languages by Gary Chapman.  Chapman says that there are five distinct ways to communicate love to another, and that most people prefer one over the others.  For instance, if a woman's love language is acts of service then she will feel most loved when someone does things for her that are helpful to her and in turn, she shows her love for others by doing things that are helpful to them.  Problems arise when she's carrying on this way with someone whose love language is words of affirmation because that person doesn't need stuff done for him to feel loved.  He needs stuff said to him.  And he isn't going to be doing stuff for her, he's going to be saying stuff to her, and that's not what she needs.

The point of the book is to learn how to express all of the five love languages, and how to identify the love language of self and others so that everyone is feeling the love, right?  Not just in romantic relationships but in all relationships - personal, professional, familial.

What can be learned from this?  The Golden Rule is a nice guideline for everyday transactions in shallow* relationships, but it isn't enough for ongoing relationships that require cultivation.

-------

*Shallow has a neutral meaning here.

Cool! Thanks for the info!

J

[anthony]

50 minutes ago, dldelancey said:

The entirety of this conversation has me thinking about The Five Love Languages by Gary Chapman.  Chapman says that there are five distinct ways to communicate love to another, and that most people prefer one over the others.  For instance, if a woman's love language is acts of service then she will feel most loved when someone does things for her that are helpful to her and in turn, she shows her love for others by doing things that are helpful to them.  Problems arise when she's carrying on this way with someone whose love language is words of affirmation because that person doesn't need stuff done for him to feel loved.  He needs stuff said to him.  And he isn't going to be doing stuff for her, he's going to be saying stuff to her, and that's not what she needs.

The point of the book is to learn how to express all of the five love languages, and how to identify the love language of self and others so that everyone is feeling the love, right?  Not just in romantic relationships but in all relationships - personal, professional, familial.

What can be learned from this?  The Golden Rule is a nice guideline for everyday transactions in shallow* relationships, but it isn't enough for ongoing relationships that require cultivation.

-------

*Shallow has a neutral meaning here.

Yes indeed. I'd say one's particular language of emotional communication makes itself plainly heard (at least, to anyone who cares enough to hear and know). Implicitly, a person IS always 'doing as he would like to be done by'. Ya just gotta see it.

(I see the obvious use for the GR, with a child still learning about boundaries with others. Such as "How would you like it if Sarah took your favorite doll?" As a morality for adults however, it's completely superfluous and subjectively all over the place.)

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

 

You don't think a liar and a cheat don't expect to be lied and cheated to? A thief and a con artist, also, do as they 'know' they can and will be done by. The morality each lives by is what they expect of the world, because that's their subjective purview of existence - predator or victim - which is only reinforced and self-justified by the Golden Rule. One individual sacrifices his belongings, in the expectation that you and others will do the same. A Putin assumes everyone is as cynically imperalist as he is; an al-Baghdadi 'martyrs' and murders while gladly seeking his own 'martyrdom'. He's very consistent to the GR, too (and probably why stone-killer terrorists/suicide bombers bewilder all the naive western Golden Rule-rs) . So much for "not initiating force".

Is it too troublesome to accept that the Rule is subjective? Moral men remain moral, the immoral do the same - so it's a useless imperative as well.

You think there is only you, Baal, and everybody is as nice as you?

 

I don't know what anyone thinks other than myself.  I know what other people tell me. I sometimes see what other people do.  But not once in my life have I have known what another person thought. Thoughts are  personal and private.  Maybe you have mental telepathy but I do not.

 

Ba'al Chatzaf 

[anthony]

16 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I don't know what anyone thinks other than myself.  I know what other people tell me. I sometimes see what other people do.  But not once in my life have I have known what another person thought. Thoughts are  personal and private.  Maybe you have mental telepathy but I do not.

 

Ba'al Chatzaf 

You believe then that actions by men are disconnected from their thinking? Or that thought doesn't lead to action? At least, do you hold people responsible for what they do?

Maybe men's actions are all arbitrary happenstances without source.

[Jonathan]

24 minutes ago, anthony said:

Yes indeed. I'd say one's particular language of emotional communication makes itself plainly heard (at least, to anyone who cares enough to hear and know). Implicitly, a person IS always 'doing as he would like to be done by'. Ya just gotta see it.

(I see the obvious use for the GR, with a child still learning about boundaries with others. Such as "How would you like it if Sarah took your favorite doll?" As a morality for adults however, it's completely superfluous and subjectively all over the place.)

One of my favorite activities on OL is treating people as they treat others while expecting not to be treated that way themselves. There really isn't much difference between adults and children, including (or maybe I should say "especially") highly intellectualized adults. There are 30 to 80-year-olds who post here who still have the same insecurities and double standards as 2-year-olds, and who regularly practice childish bullying/bluffing/victim-playing techniques.

J

[BaalChatzaf]

49 minutes ago, anthony said:

You believe then that actions by men are disconnected from their thinking? Or that thought doesn't lead to action? At least, do you hold people responsible for what they do?

Maybe men's actions are all arbitrary happenstances without source.

Please read what I wrote.  I said I don't know what anyone else is thinking.  I know what they write when I read what they write.  I know what they say, when I can hear what they say.   I know what they do when I can see what they do.  I do NOT know what they think. Their thoughts are in their heads where I cannot perceive them.   My actions are connected to what I think. That I can say from first hand witness.  I can -suppose- that other people's actions are connected to what they think.  

Do you know the difference between know as in first hand witness and suppose  or the difference between direct knowledge gotten  through the senses and second hand witness  i.e. hearsay?