Golden Rule
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-09-2017, 10:26 AM
RE: Golden Rule
Suck my balls.

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2017, 11:03 AM
RE: Golden Rule
(23-09-2017 08:17 AM)Dark Wanderer Wrote:  Ridiculous. Look up Albert Fish and how he liked to be treated. Although in his defense he did treat others the way he liked to be treated. Yay for him?

That there was one fucked up individual.

I read an article regarding him on the old crime library site.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-09-2017, 11:16 AM
RE: Golden Rule
Like everything else, the Law of Reciprocity, should be considered situational. It sounds cliche to say that, but there are few maxims, laws, rules, etc. that can be applied everywhere to every situation, every time.

Yes, you should try to treat others as you yourself want to be treated. But there will be situations where you cannot or should not.

There is a strong desire in us, maybe it's innate, to want to "fall back on the rules". To abdicate responsibility, to avoid thinking about difficult subjects.

I would imagine that such desires helped religion embed itself so thoroughly into our cultures.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
30-09-2017, 12:50 PM
RE: Golden Rule
I agree with Immanuel Kant and his categorical imperative. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." Golden rule is too simplistic.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes ina.karlsson's post
30-09-2017, 01:20 PM
RE: Golden Rule
(23-09-2017 02:50 AM)Thinker Wrote:  What are most forum users' stance on one humanistic Golden Rule -

Treat others the way that you want to be treated.

Considering how religion teaches you to value denial of emotions and suffering as a badge of honor, no.

I'd say the opposite." DON'T do onto others what you would not want done to you."

FYI I hate the word "humanism", we don't need to create a new word simply to say, "don't harm others".

Our species ability to be cruel or compassionate is in our genes, our evolution. A label will never have a magic power to make the holder only do good always.

If a individual does good, it is because they are good, the label isn't doing that, they are.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-09-2017, 02:57 PM
RE: Golden Rule
If I treated people the way I want to be treated I'd be in jail. That only works for normal people.

'Murican Canadian
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes yakherder's post
14-10-2017, 06:55 PM (This post was last modified: 14-10-2017 07:19 PM by DistantSecond2.)
RE: Golden Rule
The problem I have with the Golden Rule is that it is a rule. I am wary of strictly defined 'moral' codes and clichés. Such are the shackles of religion.

There are many shades of gold. It is banally true that treating others well, or as you would like to be treated, is a good starting point. Of course, sometimes there are individuals who need to be treated a bit more sternly. Sometimes life is burdensome, and one doesn't need to carry a second burden. Of course, kind reciprocation can also be the smart thing to do. It just depends on the circumstances.

Variants can be found in Confucianism, the Buddhist suttas and even in God damned Leviticus. But I find the Golden Rule almost automatically distasteful for its association with Christianity. It strikes me as a form of false consciousness whenever non-Christians begin to cite things like the Golden Rule. It is better to formulate your own ideas, rather than clinging to Christian leftovers. That is living the examined life.

O, mia patria, sì bella e perduta
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DistantSecond2's post
14-10-2017, 11:12 PM
RE: Golden Rule
There's another even earlier example of the Golden Rule:




I have a website here which discusses the issues and terminology surrounding religion and atheism. It's hopefully user friendly to all.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-10-2017, 06:43 AM (This post was last modified: 15-10-2017 07:20 AM by Deltabravo.)
RE: Golden Rule
(14-10-2017 06:55 PM)DistantSecond2 Wrote:  The problem I have with the Golden Rule is that it is a rule. I am wary of strictly defined 'moral' codes and clichés. Such are the shackles of religion.

There are many shades of gold. It is banally true that treating others well, or as you would like to be treated, is a good starting point. Of course, sometimes there are individuals who need to be treated a bit more sternly. Sometimes life is burdensome, and one doesn't need to carry a second burden. Of course, kind reciprocation can also be the smart thing to do. It just depends on the circumstances.

Variants can be found in Confucianism, the Buddhist suttas and even in God damned Leviticus. But I find the Golden Rule almost automatically distasteful for its association with Christianity. It strikes me as a form of false consciousness whenever non-Christians begin to cite things like the Golden Rule. It is better to formulate your own ideas, rather than clinging to Christian leftovers. That is living the examined life.

It's not a rule, though. It's a logical basis for moral evaluation which underpins some religions and jurisprudential theories.

If, for instance, you are a judge, and faced with a case with no guidance in the legislation or case law, you have to fall back on some method of evaluating competing claims without reference to any ideology or beliefs, and without taking sides based on who is in front of you. You have to put yourself in the position of the litigants. You have to say that it could be you or anyone in the position of either of these two people and you have to come to the "just" decision in the case. You have to deal with the issue as if you were looking at the case with a curtain in front of you, not able to see who was behind it, standing in the position of either litigant and you have to imagine that either of these two people could be, in other circumstances, you or a friend or family member. So, you make your decision on a completely neutral basis which can't be criticised by an appeal court.

This also applies to legislation. Politicians should look at issues from the point of view of themselves, if they were in the position of the people affected by legislation. If they had been born black, or poor, how would they feel about the legislation you are proposing. Don't do something which you wouldn't have done to yourself. Don't take away a person's health care, because it might have been you, or your child, born with a pre-existing condition.

John Rawls develops this theory, which he calls "The Original Position": "In the original position, the parties select principles that will determine the basic structure of the society they will live in. This choice is made from behind a veil of ignorance, which would deprive participants of information about their particular characteristics: his or her ethnicity, social status, gender and, crucially, Conception of the Good (an individual's idea of how to lead a good life). This forces participants to select principles impartially and rationally."

It's not worded as the Golden Rule, but the reasoning process is the same.

It's a formula which allows you to analyse moral questions and it's not a "rule" which you can simply apply without thinking through what is right.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deltabravo's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: