Kevin's Watch

Someone could ask, what do we mean by "it works"?
...to accomplish what?

Zarathustra wrote:

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Phrased differently, treat other people the way you want to be treated.

If put into practice by everyone on the planet then 90% of our current problems would be solved.

...this is how children reason. It's kindergarten morality, solutions to keep kids from stealing each others' crayons. It doesn't work in the adult world of nuclear missiles and terrorism. It won't solve even 1% of our problems.

I'm even more extreme than Hashi, I think.
I'd say it totally works 100% of the time (in individual interactions!).
(If you're willing to accept martyrdom.)


Secondly, someone could ask, what do we mean by "do unto others"?

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Phrased differently, treat other people the way you want to be treated.

If put into practice by everyone on the planet then 90% of our current problems would be solved.

If I treated all introverts the way that I wished to be treated, I think they would avoid me!!!

So we at least need to clarify this... is it mutatis mutandis their personalities / situations, etc.?

Of course it works. Recognizing yourself in others (and others in yourself) is the core of not only ethics, but of relationships, family, and love. The alternative is ... alienation, division, and despotism.

Of course, it's implied that you do unto others as they would do unto you in the same situation. You don't treat someone whose trespassed against you as you would expect to be treated after having done nothing, but rather as you would expect to be treated if you had trespassed against them in the same way.

So there's a bit of honest realism involved. For example, if you had harmed someone, you may want to be treated as if you have done nothing wrong, but that's not realistic. However, it is realistic to want to be treated justly, and to not incur more penalty than is deserved. The latter is the right kind of "as you would have them do unto you" that needs to be applied.

And that is the tough part, determining where "as you would have them do" ends and where "as you would wish them do" begins.

It's especially hard if you can never see yourself in the other persons situation.

+JMJ+

It seems that wayfriend summed up what I would have said so that I don't even have to bother typing a response. And that's always appreciated.

Thanx.

If you don't want people to trespass against you, and you followed this way of life, then you wouldn't trespass against them. No worries about penalties being more than they should be.

Unfortunately, though the whole concept would work if everyone practiced it, that's never going to happen. The one who wants power over others isn't going to treat others the way he wants them to treat him. He's not going to obey their every whim, give them his money, bow down to them, etc. "Do unto others" is incompatible with how he wants to be treated.

Zarathustra wrote:It doesn't work in the adult world of nuclear missiles and terrorism.

Did the people (and obviously we have to generalise here because nation-states and all that) who terrorists target always treat the people who became terrorists the way they would have wanted to be treated?

WF wrote:And that is the tough part, determining where "as you would have them do" ends and where "as you would wish them do" begins.

It's especially hard if you can never see yourself in the other persons situation.

Excellently put. And agreed. It does work. And can work.

--A

The golden rule fails - or rather, people fail the golden rule - when they say to themselves, I would NEVER be in that situation, so I can treat someone who is in that situation any way I want to.

It fails because we have varying ideas of how we want to be treated. I do not want to be patted on the head or given charity, I want to be treated as a dignified, capable being. As a result, my actions might differ from someone who says, "gee, if I need a few bucks, I'd want someone to give it to me". By exercising the "golden rule", we run afoul with each other in our actions and goals and fail to establish any empathetic relationship.

Ultimately, the Golden Rule is a good "Baby's first morality", but needs to be built upon and expanded to get the actual desired result in the adult world.

Orlion wrote: Ultimately, the Golden Rule is a good "Baby's first morality", but needs to be built upon and expanded to get the actual desired result in the adult world.

Yea, it needs more than just itself. Not so much cuz it is baby-like, I don't think, but because in a world without known and factual/objective morality it functions more like a heuristic than an axiom.
Start there [just like the famous razor]---but it's about the process/approach, not the solution/answer.

Vraith wrote: ...it functions more like a heuristic than an axiom...

Oh, nice.

--A

Vraith wrote:Yea, it needs more than just itself. Not so much cuz it is baby-like, I don't think, but because in a world without known and factual/objective morality it functions more like a heuristic than an axiom.
Start there [just like the famous razor]---but it's about the process/approach, not the solution/answer.

Who ever said that an ethical model can't be valid unless it solves every moral dilemma all by it's little old self?

The better question is, what would things be like without it? Can anyone run or even walk without having taken baby steps?

In other words, how many ethical standards begin with the Golden Rule as a basis, and expand from there? How much would collapse if the Golden Rule didn't support it?

wayfriend wrote: In other words, how many ethical standards begin with the Golden Rule as a basis, and expand from there? How much would collapse if the Golden Rule didn't support it?

The answer to both questions is "all of them".

I never said that it was a one-size-fits-all philosophy by which one lives one's entire life. It is, though, the foundation upon which everything else is built. Well, at least it should be.
Clearly, though, anything can be taken to strange logical extremes. I generally wish to be left alone and so I treat other people this way, minimizing my interaction with others when possible. If everyone behaved in this manner then the world would be a more disconnected although coolly polite place than it is.

Why is anyone bringing up terrorists, in any event? We are talking about human beings interacting with one another whereas terrorists, people whose desired goal is to inflict harm on others, do not wish to behave like human beings; therefore, we should treat them like rabid animals and put them down when they show up. If you want to live, act, and die like a human being--with dignity--then act like a human being. If you want to live, act, and die like a rabid dog then you should live and die with other rabid dogs.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:[...] We are talking about human beings interacting with one another whereas terrorists, people whose desired goal is to inflict harm on others, do not wish to behave like human beings; therefore, we should treat them like rabid animals and put them down when they show up [...]

As I said above, there are times when the golden rule fails.

wayfriend wrote:

Vraith wrote:Yea, it needs more than just itself. Not so much cuz it is baby-like, I don't think, but because in a world without known and factual/objective morality it functions more like a heuristic than an axiom.
Start there [just like the famous razor]---but it's about the process/approach, not the solution/answer.

Who ever said that an ethical model can't be valid unless it solves every moral dilemma all by it's little old self?

The better question is, what would things be like without it? Can anyone run or even walk without having taken baby steps?

In other words, how many ethical standards begin with the Golden Rule as a basis, and expand from there? How much would collapse if the Golden Rule didn't support it?

Hah...historically, a ton of people have said that.
But I wasn't saying it...I think it's silly to think such a thing.

The rule, or close variations, does come into play in so many "systems."
[I quote that word, cuz many of them aren't systematic at all.]

But the rule as a Law can't be [at least hasn't been, and no one has an idea for an approach/method that will] shown/"proven."
The rule as guideline has powerful uses. [including, but not limited to, minimizing the necessity to use force/violence].

wayfriend wrote: As I said above, there are times when the golden rule fails.

I was skimming and probably missed that.

Hashi Lebwohl wrote:Why is anyone bringing up terrorists, in any event? We are talking about human beings interacting with one another whereas terrorists, people whose desired goal is to inflict harm on others, do not wish to behave like human beings; therefore, we should treat them like rabid animals and put them down when they show up. If you want to live, act, and die like a human being--with dignity--then act like a human being. If you want to live, act, and die like a rabid dog then you should live and die with other rabid dogs.

It's interesting the extent to which this language implies terrorists aren't human.
Huh, it seems they're the ones who we cite as people "we could never have become like" around here.
So people can forfeit their humanity by not acting sufficiently like our idea of an ideal human?
What?


What about thieves? What's our consensus? Do we say thieves are still human? Or only if it's white-collar?

As hard as it is for people to accept, they're all human. And the vast majority of them are probably doing what they think is right/good/best.

Certainly the horrors we inflict on each other far outreach anything ever done by animals. It is a peculiarly human trait. From the best to the worst, all human.

--A

Avatar wrote:As hard as it is for people to accept, they're all human. And the vast majority of them are probably doing what they think is right/good/best.

--A

Yep, pretty much all human. Some damaged, some badly wired in the first place, some warped/controlled/manipulated---but human.
Not quite sure a vast majority are doing what they think right/good/best---at least in the large scale/grand scheme---but I'd quibble about the "vast" just because I feel like quibbling I guess...

Linna Heartlistener wrote:It's interesting the extent to which this language implies terrorists aren't human.
Huh, it seems they're the ones who we cite as people "we could never have become like" around here.
So people can forfeit their humanity by not acting sufficiently like our idea of an ideal human?
What?


What about thieves? What's our consensus? Do we say thieves are still human? Or only if it's white-collar?

Oh, no--terrorists are all too human. Unlike many species, the only natural predator we have to fear is ourselves. We often act out violently against one another, or take things which are not ours, or inflict harm (either real or only on paper as in the case of white-collar crimes) on others most of the time--this is the reason that news feeds are often 99.9% bad news.

Should we behave in those ways? Of course not. When certain individuals have demonstrated a pattern of behavior which results in harm to others the rest of us have three options: imprison the one misbehaving, placing them in an environment where they cannot inflict harm on other people except others like them (exile, which is really imprisonment without walls), or killing them. Ideally, exile is the option which should be chosen--"so you want to be a killer, hm? we'll just throw you onto that island with all the other killers and you are free to do whatever you want because there aren't any laws or moral codes other than the ones you impose upon yourself"--but if these people cannot be captured then they will unfortunately meet with death. Exile also means that we aren't expending resources on keeping them fed, clothed, and safe from other people like them.

If, on the other hand, they were treating other people with respect then these sorts of things wouldn't happen. In fact, even minor crimes like theft wouldn't occur--you don't steal from someone whom you respect.

What is an "ideal" human? A human who respects the rights of others. Notice that this has nothing whatsoever to do with ethnicity, country of origin, gender, gender identity, or religious belief. At some point, we have to conclude that people who wish to behave in ways contrary to this have chosen that they do not wish to live with those of us who do act accordingly. Why should society be saddled with those who have chosen anti-social behavior? This isn't cruel and it isn't even hypocritical; in fact, it is perfectly in accord with respecting other people--we are respecting their choice to live by their own rules and laws, just in a place where the rest of us don't have to put up with it.

That's only ideal by your standards though, isn't it? Others will have other definitions of what is ideal behaviour.

--A

The empathy requirement in "do unto others" has us ask "If I believed in something as strongly as what they believe in", not "if I believed what they believe". For reasons amply explained by the golden rule itself -- how do you want people who don't believe what you believe to treat you?

As far as respecting the rights of others, people don't even agree on what rights others have. (E.g. the right to determine their own gender.) The same argument applies: If others were arguing that I don't have rights that are obvious and reasonable to me, then ....