The Golden Rule

Jaymes · Nov 11, 2005

"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

What if someone wouldn't want you to do unto them as you would have them do unto you? Does this still fall under 'I wouldn't want it to happen to me, so I shouldn't do it to them', or is it 'well, I'd want it to be done to me, so I should do it to them'?

mr.guy · Nov 11, 2005

Jensa, the real question is "who's gonna do me?" Friggin Confusius.

Pah · Nov 11, 2005

Jensa said:
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."
...

That certainly can lead to unintended abuse.

jeffrey · Nov 12, 2005

I think the concept is in a positive way, not negative. As in how you would want to be treated, then treat someone else in that manor, (This of course is assuming that you have at least a little self-esteem.)

world nonpotent · Nov 12, 2005

: it is an ethics for DOING. Some would commit you for which there is no Goldeness or structure in POSSESSING. It came about beyond the ETHOS of involvement. That's why I believe the rule applies for understanding the means for communication in relation to the construction.

: it is also an ethics for HAVING. Some would forsake you for that there is but the availability at TRUST and uninvolvement just to react with the best of kindness you may accomplish.

: however, it resolves one into the negative conclusion of kharma. Of course, there is the faulty result of intolerance, and the tolerance is laid flimsy. People must adjust with the return to eternity of time expected to start over. Yes, people being pushed could have a better solution to the problem of compassionate decisions in living situations.:tsk:

: in the end there is another rule (which I see no reason to subsribe on the internet). Don't get overly-concerned with other-people's rabbling. The tower of Bable is a tower of rabble, or babble.

Halcyon · Nov 12, 2005

Jensa said:
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

What if someone wouldn't want you to do unto them as you would have them do unto you? Does this still fall under 'I wouldn't want it to happen to me, so I shouldn't do it to them', or is it 'well, I'd want it to be done to me, so I should do it to them'?

Hmmm, i never thought of it like that before. If you think of it like that, then i guess its a way of forcing your beliefs onto others.

However, you can then think; Although i would want people to do this to me, i wouldn't like someone to do something to me that they would want but i would not. Does that make sense? You wouldn't want others to force their beliefs onto you, so you shouldn't force yours onto them, even if you think it would be the right thing to do.

I like the Wiccan; "An it harm none, do what you wilt" better, less room for dodgy interpretation i think.

world nonpotent · Nov 12, 2005

: I see.

: forcing beliefs may be necessary not to hurt anyone. But disgression is the better part of consciounable action such that maybe their is not so much by believing in sharing.

Scuba Pete · Nov 12, 2005

Let no good deed go unpunished!

Sure, some people screw up when cultures collide. For the most part the rule works fairly well, and is a good reminder for bullies and the such!

Darkdale · Nov 12, 2005

I hate the golden rule. It's what happens when people refuse to think and they just need some stupid catch phrase to spout, to pretend as if they have an actually philosophy.

Pah · Nov 12, 2005

Darkdale said:
I hate the golden rule. It's what happens when people refuse to think and they just need some stupid catch phrase to spout, to pretend as if they have an actually philosophy.

I have no idea what you consider an "actual" philosophy but I am slighted when you fail to recognize humanistic principle.

Popeyesays · Nov 12, 2005

If you examine the principle of any religion, all point to the Golden Rule:

* Buddhism: "Hurt no others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."

* Judaism: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man. That is the entire law; all the rest is commentary."

* Christianity: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

* Islam: "No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself." * Bahai faith: "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself."

Regards,
Scott

Popeyesays · Nov 12, 2005

Popeyesays said:
If you examine the principle of any religion, all point to the Golden Rule:

* Buddhism: "Hurt no others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."

* Judaism: "What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow man. That is the entire law; all the rest is commentary."

* Christianity: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

* Islam: "No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself." * Bahai faith: "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself."

Regards,
Scott

Let's add some more:
Bahá'í:
"Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself."
- Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, 71

Buddhism:
"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."
- Udana-Varga, 5:18

Christianity:
"All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them."
- Matthew 7:12

Confucianism:
"Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you."
- Analects 15:23

Hinduism:
"This is the sum of duty: do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you."
- Mahabharata 5:1517

Islam:
"No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself."
- Sunnah

Jainism:
"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self."
- Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara

Judaism:
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. That is the law: all the rest is commentary."
- Talmud, Shabbat 31a

Native American:
"Respect for all life is the foundation."
- The Great Law of Peace

Sikhism:
"Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone."
- Guru Arjan Devji 259, Guru Granth Sahib

Zoroastrianism:
"That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self."
- Dadistan-i-Dinik, 94:5

Scuba Pete · Nov 12, 2005

I actually like this one better for Christians:

Philippians 2:1 If you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any fellowship with the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and purpose. 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit, but in humility consider others better than yourselves. 4 Each of you should look not only to your own interests, but also to the interests of others. NIV

THAT'S my golden rule!!!

(Emphasis added by me!)

mr.guy · Nov 12, 2005

NetDoc said:
THAT'S my golden rule!!! (Emphasis added by me!)

Netdoc, that's waaay to long and concise. How's Darkdale supposed call you a philosophical flake with material like this? (alliteration mine).

michel · Nov 12, 2005

Jensa said:
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

What if someone wouldn't want you to do unto them as you would have them do unto you? Does this still fall under 'I wouldn't want it to happen to me, so I shouldn't do it to them', or is it 'well, I'd want it to be done to me, so I should do it to them'?

I never even thought of that aspect Jensa, and it is a very valid point.

Thank you for making me reassess some principle I have always believed in; 56, and I have to start re-evaluating...................

I hate the golden rule. It's what happens when people refuse to think and they just need some stupid catch phrase to spout, to pretend as if they have an actually philosophy.

Got out of the wrong side of the bed today, Darkdale ?.........doesn't 'sound' like you.
In my case (well, I guess I am the only person I can talk about with conviction), you couldn't be further from the truth.

to pretend as if they have an actually philosophy.

I think I know what you mean (the sentence is ungramatical, but I take offence to that.

Fluffy · Nov 12, 2005

The Golden Rule is... dodgy to say the least. It needs to be worded in a very careful way lest it become so relative as to be meaningless or completely impractical.

One consideration is that it does not stand as an ethical structure on its own since its meaning will vary massively depending on what a person's moral framework consists of. However, if this is disregarded for a second, it is easy to see that were it equally justifiable for a person who believed in murder and a person who did not believe in murder to ascribe to the Golden Rule, then over an extended period of time, the collective effect would be to encourage constructiveness and hinder destructiveness.

When looked at on such a basic level, I do not believe that there is a contradiction when considering what you posted, Jensa. You would just keep on doing to others what you would want them to do you regardless of whether they wanted it or not and vice versa. Eventually, destructive actions and desires would disappear (since you would not survive as long) and only constructive ones would remain meaning that, barring the odd anomaly or outside intervention, the problem would essentially solve itself.

joeboonda · Nov 12, 2005

Jensa said:
"Do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

What if someone wouldn't want you to do unto them as you would have them do unto you? Does this still fall under 'I wouldn't want it to happen to me, so I shouldn't do it to them', or is it 'well, I'd want it to be done to me, so I should do it to them'?

First an interesting note is that Jesus was the first to take that statement from a negative statement, "do NOt do to others..." to "DO unto others..." I think the first is man's wisdom, and the second is God's wisdom.

Now to clarify to Jensa, If we do to another what we want done to ourself, then we would not do to them what they would not want. Example, if I love chocolate, but my wife is allergic, I will do to her what I would want her to do to me if I were her, and not give her chocolate.

Sometimes we analyze things to death, and we miss the true meaning. I guess thats why Jesus said we must come to him as children...

Fluffy · Nov 12, 2005

First an interesting note is that Jesus was the first to take that statement from a negative statement, "do NOt do to others..." to "DO unto others..." I think the first is man's wisdom, and the second is God's wisdom.

This is simply not correct. The Egyptians pipped Jesus by about 1000 years on this one.

joeboonda · Nov 12, 2005

Fluffy said:
This is simply not correct. The Egyptians pipped Jesus by about 1000 years on this one.

I would have to have proof of that, even so Christ said love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you, and the Egyptians, weren't quite so nice as that.

world nonpotent · Nov 12, 2005

There is the golden rule for Materialists ( like Hobbes), and the golden rule for Idealists like many utopists (did I apply that thing now: does it conjure up many fond things you others read?). Why defend ourselves to protect a bias when the system can work. I'll tell you why. We can beat the system, applying the golden rule by Love.

The Golden Rule

The cake is a lie

crapsack

Uber all member

â Ãig Dogâ

Member

Lord of the Badgers

Member

Le plongeur avec attitude...

World Leader Pretend

Uber all member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Le plongeur avec attitude...

crapsack

Administrator Emeritus

A fool

Well-Known Member

A fool

Well-Known Member

Member

â Ãig Dogâ