• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Updated Golden Rule

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
In a recent thread the golden rule, 'do to others as you would have them do to you' was shown to be inadaquate. The rule as stated above implies that other people share your own priorities and values.

Would the following updated golden rule have less potential for conflict?

Don't do to others what they hate.
 

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Would the following updated golden rule have less potential for conflict?

Don't do to others what they hate.

That's Confucius formulation of the golden rule and I would say it's indeed superior for its potential to reduce harm.
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
In a recent thread the golden rule, 'do to others as you would have them do to you' was shown to be inadaquate. The rule as stated above implies that other people share your own priorities and values.

Would the following updated golden rule have less potential for conflict?

Don't do to others what they hate.

I always favored reciprocity through causality. No need for any golden rule there. Any action you take is reflected back upon you.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
I always favored reciprocity through causality. No need for any golden rule there. Any action you take is reflected back upon you.
This still seems to have the same problem as the original golden rule. Your values of what's welcome are imposed on me.

If I'm a hugger, should I hug people because I'd like the hug in return? What if the other person doesn't want one?
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
This still seems to have the same problem as the original golden rule. Your values of what's welcome are imposed on me.

Not at all. That's the beauty of it. My values have nothing to do with you. What you do comes back to you. Not to anyone else.

If I'm a hugger, should I hug people because I'd like the hug in return? What if the other person doesn't want one?

I don't want one. Stay away from me. :p
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
Don't do to others what they hate
Impossible. And still dependent upon value assumptions. Such as, some people hate that gay people are out of the closet amd don't keep it entirely and completely to themselves. Prohibiting discrimination and doing away with racial segregation forced many white people to deal with something they hated. But the poor treatment and segregation was hated by black people.
Amd, indeed there will be many conflicts of interest if we try to avoid doing something another will hate. It's unavoidable at times, even.
The best we can do, under normal circumstances, is to try to understand the views of others and try our hardest to not cause harm to them.
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
That's Confucius formulation of the golden rule and I would say it's indeed superior for its potential to reduce harm.
Can you find a quote? What I found on wikipedia is the exact same as the commonly known golden rule.

Zi gong (a disciple of Confucius) asked: "Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?"
The Master replied: "How about 'shu' [reciprocity]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?"


Golden Rule - Wikipedia.
 

JustGeorge

Not As Much Fun As I Look
Staff member
Premium Member
In a recent thread the golden rule, 'do to others as you would have them do to you' was shown to be inadaquate. The rule as stated above implies that other people share your own priorities and values.

Would the following updated golden rule have less potential for conflict?

Don't do to others what they hate.

It would be complicated. Sometimes we have to do to someone what they hate, in order to better serve them. It might be forcing a child to take medicine, or having a difficult conversation with a friend that perhaps they don't want to have(but need to).

I say just try not to be a jerk. Sometimes a person may interpret your actions wrong, but if your intents were good, you can at least rest easy you did your best in the situation.
 

amorphous_constellation

Well-Known Member
In a recent thread the golden rule, 'do to others as you would have them do to you' was shown to be inadaquate. The rule as stated above implies that other people share your own priorities and values.

I guess a problem might be that it allows you to 'game' them, right? If you consider life to be a game board, as many might in a capitalistic society, then you consider it all fair game, you just want to be the winning piece

Would the following updated golden rule have less potential for conflict?

Don't do to others what they hate.

How do you know what they hate?
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
Not at all. That's the beauty of it. My values have nothing to do with you. What you do comes back to you. Not to anyone else.
OK. So if I hug you, and you don't want one, then I'm punished for it... I get it.

Is this punishment instantanteous and/or obvious?
 

dybmh

דניאל יוסף בן מאיר הירש
It would be complicated. Sometimes we have to do to someone what they hate, in order to better serve them. It might be forcing a child to take medicine, or having a difficult conversation with a friend that perhaps they don't want to have(but need to).

I say just try not to be a jerk. Sometimes a person may interpret your actions wrong, but if your intents were good, you can at least rest easy you did your best in the situation.
Maybe you're right in some situations. But as a general rule, do you think the updated version is better or worse than the original?
 

SalixIncendium

अग्निविलोवनन्दः
Staff member
Premium Member
OK. So if I hug you, and you don't want one, then I'm punished for it... I get it.

Is this punishment instantanteous and/or obvious?

I don't think there's any punishment. Perhaps it would help to step away from the view that any action another doesn't appreciate results in punishment.

Perhaps if you project something another dislikes, something you dislike may be projected unto you.
 

VoidCat

Pronouns: he/him/they/them
I like the medical ethic idea of First do no harm. Obviously a nurse would have to do things like use needles and a doctor may have to cut someone up but all in all the goal is to do as little harm as possible. This could also be applied outside the medical field. Try your best to cause as little harm as possible. Even if it does cause some hurt.
 
Last edited:

epronovost

Well-Known Member
Can you find a quote? What I found on wikipedia is the exact same as the commonly known golden rule.

Zi gong (a disciple of Confucius) asked: "Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?"
The Master replied: "How about 'shu' [reciprocity]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?"

Golden Rule - Wikipedia.

That's precisely what you said in your OP, don't do to others what you hate, only worded slightly differently. The idea is not to act upon others.
 

icehorse

......unaffiliated...... anti-dogmatist
Premium Member
In a recent thread the golden rule, 'do to others as you would have them do to you' was shown to be inadaquate. The rule as stated above implies that other people share your own priorities and values.

Would the following updated golden rule have less potential for conflict?

Don't do to others what they hate.

There's more to this than meets the eye! Cool !

It seems to me that - apart from those pesky relativists - we could construct a huge Venn diagram of various belief systems, and determine a sort of "universally held set of core values". Then we could say something like:

"Don't act in opposition to universal core values"

??

maybe?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
In a recent thread the golden rule, 'do to others as you would have them do to you' was shown to be inadaquate. The rule as stated above implies that other people share your own priorities and values.

Would the following updated golden rule have less potential for conflict?

Don't do to others what they hate.
Do unto others what they would want done to them
 
Top