The Not So "Golden" Rule

[Nakosis]

Well Nietzsche is hardly a shining example to hold up. His highest ambition is might makes right?

Regardless of ambition, it practical terms, might does make right. Not as a desirable trait of humanity but just the way it works out in our reality.

 

[Nakosis]

Who said the Golden Rule is the be all and end all? Love GOD then as best as possible as imperfect sinners, love people (golden rule).

I'd rather not be a victim of my emotions. Even if that emotion is love.
I don't need to love everyone in order to treat them decently.
However if you need to feel love to act like a decent person, I guess you have to do what you got to do.

 

[Nakosis]

It isn't necessarily "reciprocity", which would imply that you expect or hope that the same will actually be done for you, but more of a "would I want someone to ignore my plight in this instance?", and if the answer is "no", then perhaps you are compelled to act. The phrasing of the Golden Rule in this instance is: Do not ignore others, in those circumstances where you would not like to be ignored.

Though I would like to humbly admit that my teenage son knocked my ideas down a few pegs when he pointed out that the insertion of a negative into the negative version (thereby making it a double negative) of the "Golden Rule" causes the same issues that the positive version has. For example, for a person who likes being spanked: "Do not not spank others, as you would have them not not spank you." Where "not spank" is the composite action. A little over-the-top in probably almost all scenarios, perhaps, but again, introduces that same problem the positive version is attributed with - prescription of taking action on another, simply because you, yourself enjoy it.

Unless that person, like me, prefers to be ignored.
Always annoyed by people wanting to help. Like I am incapable of dealing with the problem myself.

I'm happy to help if asked. I'd rather not invalidate someone else's abilities by racing to the rescue.
Maybe not best to assume to know how best to act on someone else's behalf based on your own thoughts and feelings.

 

[Nakosis]

No guarantee does not mean it's like honour among thieves! Thieves are thieves. Normal human beings are not like thieves. Some of them maybe thieves. When you are among thieves, you know you are a thief and everyone else is a thief.

The point is you share a common bond which might cause you to act more decently to your fellow thieves.
We share some bonds with each other being humans.
This feeling of a bond can cause people to act differently towards people you accept as part of the group.

The GR is just an similar way of encouraging folks to feel they share a common bond with other humans so you feel you ought to treat them better than those not part of the group.

 

[Alien826]

What a lot of discussion (not just here) over a simple sentence! Frankly, if everyone just took it to mean "attempt to see the other person's point of view when dealing with them", and actually practiced it, our interactions would be so greatly improved that it would justify the "rule" on its own. There is so much value from taking the GR in a general sense that it annoys me when me it is discarded over trivial problems.

Putting it another way, "do no harm" is so powerful that it will almost do on its own. I don't think we are obligated to help others to the same extent that we are obligated not to harm them. It's nice to want to help certainly, but be careful you don't do more harm than good.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Regardless of ambition, it practical terms, might does make right. Not as a desirable trait of humanity but just the way it works out in our reality.

Didn't work out so good for him, though. He thought it was a weakness to need people, and in the end he needed people just to feed and clothe him... Kind of makes you believe in karma.
And no, might doesn't make right.

 

[Nakosis]

Didn't work out so good for him, though. He thought it was a weakness to need people, and in the end he needed people just to feed and clothe him... Kind of makes you believe in karma.
And no, might doesn't make right.

Ok, we will just have to disagree.

 

[firedragon]

The point is you share a common bond which might cause you to act more decently to your fellow thieves.
We share some bonds with each other being humans.
This feeling of a bond can cause people to act differently towards people you accept as part of the group.

The GR is just an similar way of encouraging folks to feel they share a common bond with other humans so you feel you ought to treat them better than those not part of the group.

So this is about a tribalistic mentality? Our group vs their group?? Cmon Nakosis. Where is this going?

 

[Bathos Logos]

Unless that person, like me, prefers to be ignored.
Always annoyed by people wanting to help. Like I am incapable of dealing with the problem myself.

I'm happy to help if asked. I'd rather not invalidate someone else's abilities by racing to the rescue.
Maybe not best to assume to know how best to act on someone else's behalf based on your own thoughts and feelings.

Unfortunately that would probably see none of us capable of doing anything for anyone else at any given time. If you simply wouldn't act unless you knew for certain how the person would react, then there are all sorts of things that would go on, unimpeded. It might possibly even evolve into a situation where everyone literally expected zero help, even as that might weigh heavily upon their sense of worth in the community. And eventually those who were causing the problems for others may come to know, with fair certainty, that no one would hold them accountable for their actions, that no one would help whoever it was that they were tormenting, or even throw an admonishing phrase their way. Which would possibly lead to those same types of people eventually acting poorly toward others without even feeling a tinge of guilt or tug of conscience - simply because there was nothing done to teach them that they possibly should be ashamed or feel badly for treating others poorly.

 

[Nakosis]

So this is about a tribalistic mentality? Our group vs their group?? Cmon Nakosis. Where is this going?

Well exactly. The GR tries to expand the group/tribe to the largest possible. To assume a bond of similar motivations.

 

[Nakosis]

Unfortunately that would probably see none of us capable of doing anything for anyone else at any given time. If you simply wouldn't act unless you knew for certain how the person would react, then there are all sorts of things that would go on, unimpeded. It might possibly even evolve into a situation where everyone literally expected zero help, even as that might weigh heavily upon their sense of worth in the community. And eventually those who were causing the problems for others may come to know, with fair certainty, that no one would hold them accountable for their actions, that no one would help whoever it was that they were tormenting, or even throw an admonishing phrase their way. Which would possibly lead to those same types of people eventually acting poorly toward others without even feeling a tinge of guilt or tug of conscience - simply because there was nothing done to teach them that they possibly should be ashamed or feel badly for treating others poorly.

Or not.
You are assuming a worse case scenario without feeling empathy to motivate our good actions.
Instead of relying on emotions, I'd suggest rational thinking.

 

[firedragon]

Well exactly. The GR tries to expand the group/tribe to the largest possible. To assume a bond of similar motivations.

Not a band of thieves mate.

 

[Nakosis]

Not a band of thieves mate.

I have a less romantic view of humanity.

 

[firedragon]

I have a less romantic view of humanity.

If you define humanity as a whole as a band of thieves, that's your serious problem. I can understand why you would think like that, but I don't agree. Because if you had a father, mother, children, wife, they are also human.

I think that ends this discussion Nakosis. But I understand you.

Cheers.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Or not.
You are assuming a worse case scenario without feeling empathy to motivate our good actions.
Instead of relying on emotions, I'd suggest rational thinking.

I suppose one could just ask if the other needs help first, and react after that way, even in your scenario. However, re-reading your reply makes me wonder if you'd be the type to even get miffed over the fact that someone even thought to ask... which leads back to the problem I posed. Not being able to even offer help without worrying over whether or not you could be "hurting someone's feelings" could see a lot less help even being offered in the first place, and leaving people who are actively hoping someone offers feeling alone and their feelings being hurt by the inaction of those around them. Kind of like the preferences of the few hurting the many - which is certainly related to those things wherein the transgressions of the few cause headaches for the many. Like insurance fraud, or over-fishing. Everyone pays the price based on those who react the poorest to a particular situation.

 

[Nakosis]

I suppose one could just ask if the other needs help first, and react after that way, even in your scenario. However, re-reading your reply makes me wonder if you'd be the type to even get miffed over the fact that someone even thought to ask... which leads back to the problem I posed. Not being able to even offer help without worrying over whether or not you could be "hurting someone's feelings" could see a lot less help even being offered in the first place.

Yes, exactly the problem in relying one one's emotions in deciding whether to act or not. What we feel is not always accurate.
Best not to jump in because you feel it is the right thing to do.

 

[Bathos Logos]

Yes, exactly the problem in relying one one's emotions in deciding whether to act or not. What we feel is not always accurate.
Best not to jump in because you feel it is the right thing to do.

Perhaps much like the Christian who seeks to inform others that they are going to hell in order to "help" them. The Christian may actually, truly believe they are "helping" the situation, I suppose. Though how, then, to tell when one truly does desire help? Is it okay to ask, in your estimation? I know that personally, I have found myself in situations where it wasn't even possible to ask, and the help I tried to provide ended up being very much appreciated, and indeed, may have actually helped restore some of the intended target's faith in humanity. So I am going to continue to prefer not to ask, unless it seems pertinent, if that's okay with you.

 

[Nakosis]

Perhaps much like the Christian who seeks to inform others that they are going to hell in order to "help" them. The Christian may actually, truly believe they are "helping" the situation, I suppose. Though how, then, to tell when one truly does desire help? Is it okay to ask, in your estimation? I know that personally, I have found myself in situations where it wasn't even possible to ask, and the help I tried to provide ended up being very much appreciated, and indeed, may have actually helped restore some of the intended target's faith in humanity. So I am going to continue to prefer not to ask, unless it seems pertinent, if that's okay with you.

You do you.
My answers are just for me. My views of the world around me.

 

[syo]

What's a golden rule?

 

[MonkeyFire]

The expression of love is unconditional, but it doesn’t effect your faithful/sexual wishes