|
|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
 Posted - 09/13/2011 : 21:53:35
|
This is the Golden Rule which is not a phrase of wisdom originating from Christianity.
It makes complete sense and is as profound and as true as one can get, in common language.
Unfortunately, it is the rule that many religions continually break.
I've noticed recently, on certain skeptic forums, that this dictum has been repudiated for its illogicallity and inconsistency, and I wonder if such repudiations are genuine, or just attempts to appear clever.
The argument goes, that which you would like to be done unto yourself may not be liked by another with different tastes and from a different culture. Now that's completely reasonable, I agree.
However, this is an example of a blinkered and too literal interpretation.
Surely it is understood that whatever you would have others do unto you must be something you must like or accept. Therefore, when doing unto others what you think you would like to be done unto you, it is surely a basic consideration to determine whether not that act unto the other is acceptable or liked by the other.
Surely, that goes without saying.
I confess that I am a skeptic. I'm even skeptical about anthropogenic global warming, but let's try to get a reasonable balance, as opposed to simply scoring points.
Do Unto Others what you would have Done Unto You, including the concept of what is liked and accepted by you and the other, is the basis of all that is valuable in religions.
It's the basis of a harmonious society where equality prevails. Something which we are all, or should be all, striving for.
But let's not also put a too literal interpretation on equality. By equality, I don't mean that everyone should be like identical twins, but rather have an equality of opportunity, free from oppression, prejuduce and political bias.
Of course, it goes without saying, if such freedom of opportunity results in a breaking of the law, in any particular country, then that can not be tolerated. The appropriate punishment must be applied.
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26022 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 04:53:34 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
This is the Golden Rule which is not a phrase of wisdom originating from Christianity. |
The Ethic of Reciprocity does have a long history.| It makes complete sense and is as profound and as true as one can get, in common language. |
It is as "true" as any other moral rule can be.I've noticed recently, on certain skeptic forums, that this dictum has been repudiated for its illogicallity and inconsistency, and I wonder if such repudiations are genuine, or just attempts to appear clever.
The argument goes, that which you would like to be done unto yourself may not be liked by another with different tastes and from a different culture. Now that's completely reasonable, I agree.
However, this is an example of a blinkered and too literal interpretation. |
Indeed. The rule exists to remind people they should consider other peoples' feelings, so if different tastes or cultures are conflicting with what you're doing, you're not following the Golden Rule.| I'm even skeptical about anthropogenic global warming... |
Do tell.| Do Unto Others what you would have Done Unto You, including the concept of what is liked and accepted by you and the other, is the basis of all that is valuable in religions. |
But religions stumble upon it accidentally. One can derive it logically and empirically using only a few assumptions, but religions just tack it on by fiat. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
 |
|
|
Hal
Skeptic Friend
USA
302 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 05:51:18 [Permalink]
|
Kant, of course, in attempting to establish a purely rational basis for morality (i.e., not founded in empirical experience), nevertheless managed to land on something oddly familiar: | There is ... but one categorical imperative, namely, this: Act only on that maxim whereby thou canst at the same time will that it should become a universal law. |
|
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr.
 |
|
|
|
BigPapaSmurf
SFN Die Hard
3192 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 07:09:32 [Permalink]
|
Round here we proscribe to the Platinum Rule, "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them" -somebody
Technicly a sado-masichist could run around hurting people and be following the Golden rule to the letter. |
"...things I have neither seen nor experienced nor heard tell of from anybody else; things, what is more, that do not in fact exist and could not ever exist at all. So my readers must not believe a word I say." -Lucian on his book True History
"...They accept such things on faith alone, without any evidence. So if a fraudulent and cunning person who knows how to take advantage of a situation comes among them, he can make himself rich in a short time." -Lucian critical of early Christians c.166 AD From his book, De Morte Peregrini |
|
|
|
Hal
Skeptic Friend
USA
302 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 07:33:11 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Round here we proscribe to the Platinum Rule, "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them" -somebody
Technicly a sado-masichist could run around hurting people and be following the Golden rule to the letter.
|
Which, I believe, is precisely the sort of problem Kant sought to avoid by eliminating the subjective will of the agent from the determination of "moral good."
|
Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Martin Luther King Jr.
|
|
|
|
Sebastian
New Member
44 Posts |
Posted - 09/14/2011 : 19:34:28 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Round here we proscribe to the Platinum Rule, "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them" -somebody
Technicly a sado-masichist could run around hurting people and be following the Golden rule to the letter.
|
Exactly the point I was trying to refute. A too-literal interpretaion of this Golden Rule puts one in the same position as the sado-masochist.
As Dave W pointed out in his link to the Wikipedia article, the Golden Rule is very old and has many variants of expression.
Even in science, data always has to be interpreted. There must be an assumption in the Golden Rule, that whatever is done to the other must be appreciated by the other.
A literal interpretation of ancient texts, whether the Bible or the Koran, is the source of so much confusion and conflict in the world.
One should always try to get 'behind' the literal meaning of the words, bearing in mind that common words don't have the precision of scientific terminology. |
|
|
|
Elmo the Clown
New Member
31 Posts |
Posted - 09/16/2011 : 12:19:18 [Permalink]
|
How about the good 'ole pagan:
Do as you will, but harm none. |
Support a clown, buy a luury cruise from www.ChicLuxuryCruises.com (or any cruise...) |
|
|
|
ThorGoLucky
Snuggle Wolf
USA
1487 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2011 : 09:13:44 [Permalink]
|
I prefer Do not do to others as you would not do to yourself.
If I liked my ass pinched and hair fondled by strangers, most strangers wouldn't like that, eh?
The golden rules seems to come from our evolved capacity for compasion, to imagine ourselves feeling how others would feel. It's the root of all law, eh? |
| Edited by - ThorGoLucky on 09/17/2011 09:15:47 |
|
|
|
H. Humbert
SFN Die Hard
USA
4574 Posts |
Posted - 09/17/2011 : 10:00:29 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Sebastian
There must be an assumption in the Golden Rule, that whatever is done to the other must be appreciated by the other.
A literal interpretation of ancient texts, whether the Bible or the Koran, is the source of so much confusion and conflict in the world.
One should always try to get 'behind' the literal meaning of the words, bearing in mind that common words don't have the precision of scientific terminology.
|
So you're saying it's more of a guideline than a rule.
|
"A man is his own easiest dupe, for what he wishes to be true he generally believes to be true." --Demosthenes
"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool." --Richard P. Feynman
"Face facts with dignity." --found inside a fortune cookie |
|
|
|
sugarino
New Member
33 Posts |
Posted - 10/01/2011 : 10:00:44 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by BigPapaSmurf
Round here we proscribe to the Platinum Rule, "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them" -somebody
Technically a sado-masichist could run around hurting people and be following the Golden rule to the letter. |
Technically they would also be breaking the Golden rule if they did.
Even sado-masochists desire that their boundaries aren't violated. They choose pain. If they follow the golden rule, the sado-masochists would not violate another person's boundaries and inflict undesired pain ..
|
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 10/03/2011 : 19:45:10 [Permalink]
|
Ever since I began informal debate as a freshman student in college, I have genuinely welcomed personal comment from family, friends, and even - in many instances - people whom I did not know well at all. Personal comment that was polite, to be sure, but certainly directed to my having displayed obvious evidence of one or more of my many failings and inadequacies. That which could honestly be called constructive criticism
There are probably many other folks who feel the same way. The longer that I live, the more I realize how pathetically ignorant I am, when contrasted with those who speak from a broader and deeper data base of education and experience than mine.
However, I really don't believe that a large majority of humankind appreciates or desires much personal criticism of any kind, no matter how accurate it may be nor how kindly it is offered. Examples are not needed; my observation is that, in general, if the typical debate participant confronts criticism, resentment and even rancor is frequently generated.
Even if that criticism is fairly conceived and courteously directed.
So does the Ethic of Reciprocity really apply in instances involving "constructive criticism"? I fully realize that malicious criticism, trivial criticism, and completely unfounded criticism certainly does exist - (and is occasionally evident even in relatively high-level forums such as these at SFN) - and resentment is certainly understandable when there is ill-intent behind unkind words.
But if one truly appreciates and welcomes constructive criticism that genuinely has merit, is that person right to offer similar criticism in good faith to others? Or is the dictum of be not holier than thou perhaps a more productive path to follow when discourse may become contentious?
Opinions?
|
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2011 : 08:00:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Ever since I began informal debate as a freshman student in college, I have genuinely welcomed personal comment from family, friends, and even - in many instances - people whom I did not know well at all. Personal comment that was polite, to be sure, but certainly directed to my having displayed obvious evidence of one or more of my many failings and inadequacies. That which could honestly be called constructive criticism
There are probably many other folks who feel the same way. The longer that I live, the more I realize how pathetically ignorant I am, when contrasted with those who speak from a broader and deeper data base of education and experience than mine.
However, I really don't believe that a large majority of humankind appreciates or desires much personal criticism of any kind, no matter how accurate it may be nor how kindly it is offered. Examples are not needed; my observation is that, in general, if the typical debate participant confronts criticism, resentment and even rancor is frequently generated.
Even if that criticism is fairly conceived and courteously directed.
So does the Ethic of Reciprocity really apply in instances involving "constructive criticism"? I fully realize that malicious criticism, trivial criticism, and completely unfounded criticism certainly does exist - (and is occasionally evident even in relatively high-level forums such as these at SFN) - and resentment is certainly understandable when there is ill-intent behind unkind words.
But if one truly appreciates and welcomes constructive criticism that genuinely has merit, is that person right to offer similar criticism in good faith to others? Or is the dictum of be not holier than thou perhaps a more productive path to follow when discourse may become contentious?
Opinions?
|
Personal criticism is one of those things that is rather sticky.
I try not to offer any unless asked and I have suggestions on how to make things better and offer support for whatever decision that person makes on how to change or resolve the situation.
Usually, if someone is talking to me about a particular problem or situation, I can offer an overview of the appearance of the situation from an emotionally uninvolved third party point of view.
If one appreciates constructive criticism, that person should still wait to be asked for constructive criticism.
Of course what we do here is constructive crisism to argumentation techniques and positions, not personal. (Although we are humans and can devolve into unconstructive criticism and downright flame wars.)
More goes towards the splinter and plank stuff. |
Cthulhu/Asmodeus when you're tired of voting for the lesser of two evils
Brother Cutlass of Reasoned Discussion |
|
|
|
justintime
BANNED
382 Posts |
Posted - 10/04/2011 : 10:28:03 [Permalink]
|
Interesting the operative word is reciprocity. The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity
Some of the examples used would not invite reciprocity if the party receiving the negative action (ass pinching, sado-masichist) not wanting to have that done to him/her would either not reciprocate or reciprocate differently and defeat the objective of the initiator.
It still stands to reason the soundness of this Golden rule. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Do unto Others as you would have done unto You
