The Not So Golden Rule

Nakosis said:

That's fine, you follow your moral compass, I'll follow mine. I really have no expectation of you meeting my moral standards.

Click to expand...

I see our moral compass also needs a direction that is outside self.

Our compass, or magnet of attraction is the virtues, but we can not find a way unless there are poles, or focal points for our virtues.

Otherwise what direction are we going?

Regards Tony

Nakosis said:

Sure, it that works for you, but I'll pass.

I'll deal with people in the manner I see as right without regard for any reciprocity.

Click to expand...

Evidently you think I proposed some kind of reciprocity. If you read carefully I think you'll find I did not.

Do unto others what's right.

Click to expand...

And the decider is, who?

.

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

I see our moral compass also needs a direction that is outside self.

Our compass, or magnet of attraction is the virtues, but we can not find a way unless there are poles, or focal points for our virtues.

Otherwise what direction are we going?

Regards Tony

Click to expand...

Fair enough but who? Some man other than yourself that you feel is more perfect than yourself. Some God that we can't prove exists and even if he does exists, no one seems to be able to agree on what he wants?

You want to live up to someone else's moral standards that's up to you. I guess for whatever reason you feel this outside entity has a better grasp on what is right and wrong than you do.

Maybe, but it's kind of a crapshoot. You are gambling that whomever you see as having this authority has actual knowledge of this which you yourself can't even verify since you don't see yourself as having the necessary knowledge in the first place.

In the beginning, sure. You rely on parents, teachers but at some point you should have gain enough knowledge through your own experience to be able to make this determination yourself, IMO.

So the golden rule is a primer perhaps, that at some point you have to stop relying on.

Skwim said:

Evidently you think I proposed some kind of reciprocity. If you read carefully I think you'll find I did not.

Click to expand...

IMO, it is implied by the particular golden rule that you used. The positive version (biblical) of the golden rule vs the negative version used by Buddhism for example.

And the decider is, who?

.

Click to expand...

Yourself of course, I'm assuming that is something you are capable of.

Nakosis said:

IMO, it is implied by the particular golden rule that you used. The positive version (biblical) of the golden rule vs the negative version used by Buddhism for example.

Click to expand...

Let's see. I said


This would be doing something to someone as they would like me to. Nowhere is it implied that they are obligated to do anything to me. For instance, I have no reason to think I'd like to be tied up and spanked, so I wouldn't welcome it; however, someone else might, and ask me to do it to them. This would be an example of

Yourself of course, I'm assuming that is something you are capable of.

Click to expand...

So I get to decide what's right for others, not them. I get to decide if you should eat eel for dinner tonight, not you. Hmmmm. . . . . I don't think that's going to fly.

.

Nakosis said:

Fair enough but who? Some man other than yourself that you feel is more perfect than yourself. Some God that we can't prove exists and even if he does exists, no one seems to be able to agree on what he wants?

You want to live up to someone else's moral standards that's up to you. I guess for whatever reason you feel this outside entity has a better grasp on what is right and wrong than you do.

Maybe, but it's kind of a crapshoot. You are gambling that whomever you see as having this authority has actual knowledge of this which you yourself can't even verify since you don't see yourself as having the necessary knowledge in the first place.

In the beginning, sure. You rely on parents, teachers but at some point you should have gain enough knowledge through your own experience to be able to make this determination yourself, IMO.

So the golden rule is a primer perhaps, that at some point you have to stop relying on.

Click to expand...

Yes the choice is ours as to what the source of selfless morality is.

I would suggest high morality is learned and humanity shows progress when only when morality is practiced. Do we must ask, who are the most learned?

Regards Tony

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

Yes the choice is ours as to what the source of selfless morality is.

I would suggest high morality is learned and humanity shows progress when only when morality is practiced. Do we must ask, who are the most learned?

Regards Tony

Click to expand...

If you have more trust in humanity than I do.

While I don't expect you or anyone else to be perfect in their morals, if you and I can come up with an arrangement which benefits both our individual needs, that's good enough.

If not, I'll suppose we'll both have to look for other folks to associate with.

Skwim said:

Let's see. I said

"Do unto others as they would have you do unto them"​

This would be doing something to someone as they would like me to. Nowhere is it implied that they are obligated to do anything to me. For instance, I have no reason to think I'd like to be tied up and spanked, so I wouldn't welcome it; however, someone else might, and ask me to do it to them. This would be an example of

"Do unto others as they would have you do unto them"​

Click to expand...

Sorry you're right. I guess my head was stuck on the biblical quote. Still not my cup of tea though. Just not really into others deciding what is right for me to do.

So I get to decide what's right for others, not them. I get to decide if you should eat eel for dinner tonight, not you. Hmmmm. . . . . I don't think that's going to fly.

.

Click to expand...

No, you get to decide what is right for you to do. They get to decide what is right for them to do. No obligation either way.

Nakosis said:

Sorry you're right. I guess my head was stuck on the biblical quote. Still not my cup of tea though. Just not really into others deciding what is right for me to do.

Click to expand...

Fine. If you'd rather not do unto others, then don't; however, doing so is at the core of the Golden Rule,

the subject of the thread.

Nakosis said:

If you have more trust in humanity than I do.

While I don't expect you or anyone else to be perfect in their morals, if you and I can come up with an arrangement which benefits both our individual needs, that's good enough.

If not, I'll suppose we'll both have to look for other folks to associate with.

Click to expand...

Yes I have great trust in all of Humanity that we will find a way.

Nakosis said:

both have to look for other folks to associate with.

Click to expand...

That is why I became a Baha'i, as I see all that is needed to find that unity, is in the message of Baha'u'llah. That Message asks me to look only for the good in every person, a virtue most faiths will support.

Thus you can see it is a great challenge.

Regards Tony

Tony Bristow-Stagg said:

Yes I have great trust in all of Humanity that we will find a way.

Click to expand...

I hope you are right and I am wrong. I suspect man will become extinct at some point like the majority of species that have come and gone on the planet.

That is why I became a Baha'i, as I see all that is needed to find that unity, is in the message of Baha'u'llah. That Message asks me to look only for the good in every person, a virtue most faiths will support.

Thus you can see it is a great challenge.

Regards Tony

Click to expand...

Good luck. Everyone needs a challenge.
Mine are much less notable. Like conquering the remote on my TV.

Nakosis said:

Good luck. Everyone needs a challenge.Mine are much less notable. Like conquering the remote on my TV.

Click to expand...

You need more luck than me, if you are to achieve that aim.

Regards Tony

Matthew 7:12

Nakosis said:

If, as I have suggested, we stand in need of a core universal morality upon which we can base liberal democratic social projects, then we would be ill-advised to embrace a counterfeit; for counterfeits notoriously prove unreliable at the crucial moment. Thus the Golden Rule, in either its positive or negative articulations, cannot be the gold standard of moral behavior: it cannot support the things liberal democratic nations need in the 21st Century – like consensus on policy, general standards of justice, and a warrant for human rights. First, it is not universal; but even if it is generally reflected in all majorcultures, the Golden Rule can still hardly be the core of all morality. It offers little resistance to weak, inconsistent or morally-questionable applications, and it fails to reflect our highest moral standards. Thus we should be concerned about the enthusiasm with which some people tend to embrace something like the Golden Rule as a cure-all for the modern problems of value pluralism; and we should wonder what that tendency tells us about our unwillingness to squarely face the fact that cultures have disharmonious moral styles. It is true that if we could find a universal rule of morality – something like the Golden Rule – it would help us resolve a great many serious moral and political problems. But the fact remains that the Golden Rule is very clearly not the core of morality, and yet it has been embraced as such nonetheless.
The Golden Rule: Not So Golden Anymore | Issue 74 | Philosophy Now

Not precisely my view of the Golden rule but it comes close.

In some cases, inequity is necessary for society to function. The individual on occasion has to sacrifice for the greater good. As mentioned in the article, something married will be familiar with.

Also pointed out there are two forms of the golden rule. Negative and positive. Don't do something that you wouldn't want done to you, don't cause harm. And, do to others what you would want done to you. Help others so they will help you in return. This seems a little too self interested for my tastes.

So one, as long as you pretty much ignore the rest of humanity, your good. The other caters to one's own greed.

My moral compass, cause no unnecessary harm. What's necessary/unnecessary is left to my own discretion. Sacrifice as needed to support friends and family. Similar to the negative version of the golden rule but adds inequality and self sacrifice as needed.

Click to expand...

“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

I don't know how greed would be a factor concerning the particulars present in the golden rule.
Perhaps the way to look at the golden rule and with the intention of addressing the above excerpt from the OP, is that to love ones neighbor as themselves is a particular characteristic in the democratic model of government.
Because activists for example seeking change in policy for example are able to do so because the articulating factor that compels political activist pursuits is encompassed by the fact the activist is in pursuit of a better life and is encouraged to secure that for their fellow citizen.
They therefore show love for their own future and wish to insure the same security for others out of that love that compels them to act.

FragrantGrace said:

Matthew 7:12


“So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.

I don't know how greed would be a factor concerning the particulars present in the golden rule.
Perhaps the way to look at the golden rule and with the intention of addressing the above excerpt from the OP, is that to love ones neighbor as themselves is a particular characteristic in the democratic model of government.
Because activists for example seeking change in policy for example are able to do so because the articulating factor that compels political activist pursuits is encompassed by the fact the activist is in pursuit of a better life and is encouraged to secure that for their fellow citizen.
They therefore show love for their own future and wish to insure the same security for others out of that love that compels them to act.

Click to expand...

Right, they want or expect a certain return out of their action. A future they deem as being best for everyone else. Me, I think it best to let folks determine their own future. Maybe they want a future that's different than what I want.

Democratic model? Sure, I can feel all of the love in our democratic model.

Sorry I agree with Socrates,

"Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequaled alike."

And Plato

Plato uses the "democratic man" to represent democracy. The democratic man is the son of the oligarchic man. Unlike his father, the democratic man is consumed with unnecessary desires. Plato describes necessary desires as desires that we have out of instinct or desires that we have in order to survive. Unnecessary desires are desires we can teach ourselves to resist such as the desire for riches. The democratic man takes great interest in all the things he can buy with his money. He does whatever he wants whenever he wants to do it. His life has no order or priority.
Plato's five regimes - Wikipedia

Though apparently Socrates side with you on the golden rule...

"I'd have no one touch my property, if I can help it, or disturb it without consent on my part; if I'm a man of reason, I must treat the property of others the same way"

Greedy *******. "Don't touch my stuff"

Nakosis said:

So, do you love your neighbor as yourself? Do you go out and make sure your neighbor is as well feed as you? Has as nice of car, job, spouse?

That's IMO is a stupid unrealistic commandment. It's just dumb. Nobody does that. Here's a commandment that nobody can meet, great, thanks a lot God. Have you heard the phrase being setup to fail. God is not your friend.

Click to expand...

Leviticus 19: 17
You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

I have participated in clothing distribution, in food parties and soup kitchen and visiting people stuck in an institution like a rehab who can't get out

I am a friend of God... wan't that part of the blessing of Abraham "Abraham believed God and it was counted to Him as righteousness and he was called 'the friend of God'

i am a friend of god israel houghton lyrics

Nakosis said:

Right, they want or expect a certain return out of their action. A future they deem as being best for everyone else. Me, I think it best to let folks determine their own future. Maybe they want a future that's different than what I want.

Democratic model? Sure, I can feel all of the love in our democratic model.

Sorry I agree with Socrates,

"Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequaled alike."

And Plato

Plato uses the "democratic man" to represent democracy. The democratic man is the son of the oligarchic man. Unlike his father, the democratic man is consumed with unnecessary desires. Plato describes necessary desires as desires that we have out of instinct or desires that we have in order to survive. Unnecessary desires are desires we can teach ourselves to resist such as the desire for riches. The democratic man takes great interest in all the things he can buy with his money. He does whatever he wants whenever he wants to do it. His life has no order or priority.
Plato's five regimes - Wikipedia

Though apparently Socrates side with you on the golden rule...

"I'd have no one touch my property, if I can help it, or disturb it without consent on my part; if I'm a man of reason, I must treat the property of others the same way"

Greedy *******. "Don't touch my stuff"

Click to expand...

People disparage America because they either don't live here or they're not well traveled.
People hate our country until they need us. Then they're all about the USA.
We've the best form of government on earth.
As for the observation of Socrates, one has to remember the government he lived under. And if they're unaware, have to realize the governors of said Athenian government killed him under the charge of impeity and corrupting the youth of Athens Greece.
Socrates was anti-Democracy so his quotes are prejudice in that regard.

“There is one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." Socrates

As to the "Greedy *******. "Don't touch my stuff." Since you uphold that ideology I applaud you for having no locks on your home nor car. Nor security systems at all installed. In fact, I'm amazed you are on-line in that you haven't given away everything you have because you abhor possessions.

I wonder how the Golden Rule would apply to Flagellants or the Puritans.

whirlingmerc said:

Leviticus 19: 17
You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

I have participated in clothing distribution, in food parties and soup kitchen and visiting people stuck in an institution like a rehab who can't get out

I am a friend of God... wan't that part of the blessing of Abraham "Abraham believed God and it was counted to Him as righteousness and he was called 'the friend of God'

i am a friend of god israel houghton lyrics

Click to expand...

Not the Jesus version

whirlingmerc said:

Leviticus 19: 17
You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

I have participated in clothing distribution, in food parties and soup kitchen and visiting people stuck in an institution like a rehab who can't get out

I am a friend of God... wan't that part of the blessing of Abraham "Abraham believed God and it was counted to Him as righteousness and he was called 'the friend of God'

i am a friend of god israel houghton lyrics

Click to expand...

Fair enough, you know what is in your heart not me, however in referring to the "golden rule" what is commonly meant is Matt 7:12 -
Therefore whatever you desire for men to do to you, you
shall also do to them; for this is the law and the prophets.

This is a common moral theme among many different religions and wisdom imparted by a number of philosophers. My disagreement is directed specifically towards this passage.

FragrantGrace said:

People disparage America because they either don't live here or they're not well traveled.
People hate our country until they need us. Then they're all about the USA.
We've the best form of government on earth.
As for the observation of Socrates, one has to remember the government he lived under. And if they're unaware, have to realize the governors of said Athenian government killed him under the charge of impeity and corrupting the youth of Athens Greece.
Socrates was anti-Democracy so his quotes are prejudice in that regard.

“There is one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance." Socrates

As to the "Greedy *******. "Don't touch my stuff." Since you uphold that ideology I applaud you for having no locks on your home nor car. Nor security systems at all installed. In fact, I'm amazed you are on-line in that you haven't given away everything you have because you abhor possessions.

Click to expand...

How I view it is if something is taken/stolen/borrowed not returned, is I assume they needed it more than me. I don't sweat it or hold a grudge. In fact I blame myself for not securing/protecting my belongings in he first place. If I see someone needs help and I'm in a position to help, I'm happy to do so.

Property is nice, but it is temporary. You possess something for a time and then you don't. So while I'm not particularly attached to ownership doesn't mean I go about handing out all of my possessions. This is more, I would think, along the lines of what Jesus suggested to his followers.

Ownership IMO requires responsibilities but it's not something one should get attached to.

Nakosis said:

How I view it is if something is taken/stolen/borrowed not returned, is I assume they needed it more than me. I don't sweat it or hold a grudge. In fact I blame myself for not securing/protecting my belongings in he first place. If I see someone needs help and I'm in a position to help, I'm happy to do so.

Property is nice, but it is temporary. You possess something for a time and then you don't. So while I'm not particularly attached to ownership doesn't mean I go about handing out all of my possessions. This is more, I would think, along the lines of what Jesus suggested to his followers.

Ownership IMO requires responsibilities but it's not something one should get attached to.

Click to expand...

But securing and protecting your belongs appears to be the opposite stance from what was touted earlier with regard especially to your remarks to Socrates last quote in your post. You're now assuming Socrates position when prior you synopsized it with ridicule.

Further, it is a different time than it was in the age of Jesus walking on this earth.
I have a large property in a mid-Atlantic state. There are buildings there that have been vandalized to the point those structures are now worthless. And those buildings have been robbed. Police do nothing using the excuse, there is nothing they can do.
Implying there are no laws against vandalism, breaking and entering, and theft in that particular state.
This gives permission to Vigilante justice in my view. But that is another thread.

The reason I bring those structures up is, were I to be there when one of those vandals broke in I surely would not love them, ask them if they wish to take my car as well as all else they've stolen.

They already do not know me and their smashing in walls shows they have no respect for others property.

Do I love that? It was my property but am I to not respect the labor it took to afford it? Thereby dismissing as meaningless its destruction so that it is now scrap?

I help people in need whenever God puts them in front of me. I give to the food bank, I donate to military charity. Money and time.

If we reckon back to the old testament we realize God was quite brutal with those that desecrated what was his. Property and tribe.
When Jesus was that holy spirit in flesh are we to imagine he did a complete 180? Which would mean he didn't really intend what he did in the old testament.

Jesus did not say, be a doormat. Jesus himself took a whip he fashioned to the money changers for turning against their own Jewish people and working in service to pagan Romans before the house of the Father.