• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

[NT] NTs and their Perception of the Golden Rule

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
NTs, what's your view of the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as others unto you,"? Does your auxiliary Te/Ti function approach the Golden Rule based on factual information as opposed to humanitarian information? I'm quite curious to see how you NTs approach ethical questions/problems. :)

The representation above is very incomplete. Here's a more complete version of the Golden Rule.

This is rooted in Christian dogma.
No, it's a key aspect of the Christian faith, but its roots go further back. It's one of those spiritual tenets that appears in most religions and ethical philosophies.

A rationalist's best bet is to establish a maxim that is legitimized by reason alone. On that note, Kant's categorical imperative is one such maxim: Can you will the action/decison in question a universal law? If not, it does not have reasonable justification. If I were a moralist, I would be a Kantian. However, I decided long ago that the business of ethics can be no business of mine since my comparative advantage is in logic and cost-benefit analysis.

Logic isn't as useful as you make it out to be. There are far too many situations in real life in which the logical approach is nonsensical. There are far too many people who simply do not operate logically, and your attempts to apply logic will simply backfire.

The purpose of a universal principle such as the Golden Rule is that it allows society to exist in the first place, without having to explain to each and every person why it is beneficial ethical/moral policy. It's a fundamental teaching tool, such as when telling a child, "Would you like someone to do that to you? ... [child meekly answers no] ... Well, then you shouldn't do it to others." It's easily learned, and produces benefits simply by showing people how to avoid most potential (and inefficient) conflicts.

Something funny happens, when a Rational takes hold of a spiritual truth, encapsulated and phrased in a fairly simple way, and then interprets that simple statement entirely literally, as a logical, objective rule, rather than as a spiritual/ethical truth. Of course, the Golden Rule, interpreted in such an asinine manner, is nonsensical. Fortunately, most people aren't rational in that regard, however, and understand what it means without having to find every logical contradiction and paradox.
 

Blank

.
Joined
Mar 10, 2009
Messages
1,201
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w6
I like to believe in the Golden Rule only strongly enough to recognize that there are sociopaths out there who may not care about what happens to them. Because of this, a group of people came together with similar views on how they would like to be treated and begun to enforce these views upon other people. Eventually a certain way of looking at the world has become the mainstream, "accepted" view of morality, and is enforced, as they would like to be treated.

Rationally though, the Golden Rule makes the most sense to me as having an underlying basis for morality, even though I don't think we as humans can completely accept it.
 

Frank

New member
Joined
Mar 13, 2008
Messages
689
The deeper shit like that I like to leave to Ni and Ni tells me it is the closest representation of ultimate reality within current range.
 

htb

New member
Joined
May 14, 2007
Messages
1,505
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
1w9
I think you guys are missing the point. The Golden Rule asks that we give others the same consideration that we would have given to us. It's not about specific reciprocal acts...you must place yourself in the other person's shoes and think about how you should be treated.

NTs may be too literal-minded for moral concepts
There we are.

Most of the negative responses used literal and specious interpretations of the passage. Furthermore, it's unlikely that those claiming to act independently of mores founded on mutual respect and consideration don't complain aloud over being excluded, mistreated, or diminished -- implying the expectation of standards of interpersonal behavior. A simple forum search would bear that out.

Edit: Uumlau gets it, too. Really, the lot of you are just posturing. Or college-aged and unable to reconcile ideals with reality.
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
It makes perfect sense. It simply means that you'll eventually be in the same position someone else is currently in, and that you should act toward that person in the way you would hope someone else would act toward you when you are in that position. It's fundamental fairness - don't expect of others what you're not willing to give of yourself.
 

Orangey

Blah
Joined
Jun 26, 2008
Messages
6,354
MBTI Type
ESTP
Enneagram
6w5
well, I'm a self-described american pragmatist, so i wouldn't have my own perception of it - I say one's perception of it depends on the metaphysical system and belief structure of the person. In short, it depends how they view the world. As such, the Golden rule and it's validity is contingent upon the person grappling with it. I think this has absolutely NOTHING to do with the cognitive functions, Ti, Fe, or anything - it's about belief and moral sentiment.

The essential problem of this question you ask has to do with Kant's categorical imperative - meaing that while it passes KAnt's "tests", it is NOT a good measure by which to decide right and wrong, and common sense tells us this. the golden rule can and does FAIL to produce moral, actively righteous actions in certain situations. A person who unconditionally follows the Golden Rule would not be able to end Hitler's life in order to spare the Jews, or to assassinate Stalin in order to save 10 million + Russian souls. Nor could they pull the plug on a terminally ill patient who was in terrible pain and was asking to die. As such, it seem to be good in theory, but it utterly fails when we consider the grander, more PRACTICAL scale and weight of moral sentiments. Hence, I think it has little "real weight" in most people's value systems.

Well virtue ethics is the answer to deontological ethics (I won't even mention consequentialist), and I think a lot of the self-styled neo-pragmatists have some version or other of it (they call it "neo-Aristotelianism) but I don't buy much of that either.
 

ez78705

New member
Joined
Mar 27, 2009
Messages
63
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
5w6
NTs, what's your view of the Golden Rule, "Do unto others as others unto you,"?

The rule is fine as long as the person who follows it takes into account his neighbor's tastes because different people have different tastes.
 

Katsuni

Priestess Of Syrinx
Joined
Aug 22, 2009
Messages
1,238
MBTI Type
ENTP
Enneagram
3w4?
My biggest issue with the supposed "golden rule", has probably already been stated several times, haven't bothered to check though.

That issue is... we're all different. We want different things. "Some of them want to use yeu, some of them want to be used. Some of them want to abuse yeu, some of them want to be abused." <-- epic song btw.

But the point is that whot *I* want, others may not. I happen to rather like some rather strange stuff and would find it cute/affectionate to have my S/O have me literally on a leash and collar. Most people would find that degrading and be pissed if yeu tried to do so to them.

Whot works for yeu does not work for other people. Whot yeu enjoy, they may not. One man's garbage is another's treasure. One's pleasure is another's torture.

I see no point in bothering with a rule whose whole existence relies solely upon the assumption that everyone is perfectly identical and everyone wants exactly the same thing in all situations without variation, which's an obviously flawed concept.
 

Provoker

Permabanned
Joined
Feb 4, 2008
Messages
252
MBTI Type
INTJ
No, it's a key aspect of the Christian faith, but its roots go further back.

Something can go further back and still be part of the same root. For example, if one posits that C is rooted in B, and B is rooted in A, then it follows that C is rooted in A. Now, if we go back far enough we might find the origins in Cro-Magnon man, but this argument depends on limited artifacts, circumstantial evidence, and a lot of speculation. My purpose was not to propound the absolute origins, as an anthropologist is predisposed to doing, but merely to claim that the Golden Rule can be traced back to the book of dogma and Christianity.

It's one of those spiritual tenets that appears in most ethical philosophies.

?


Logic isn't as useful as you make it out to be. There are far too many situations in real life in which the logical approach is nonsensical. There are far too many people who simply do not operate logically, and your attempts to apply logic will simply backfire.

It does not follow from the fact that some people do not operate logically that my attempts to apply logic will backfire. Even if humans do not always reason in a logically valid manner, they nevertheless follow rules; and nowhere is there to be found any irregularity. If it should seem as though there is irregularity, this is really a function of human ignorance. For example, a ten year old may speak in grammatically correct sentences and yet not know the rules of grammar. We conclude, therefore, that the ten year old, like all animate and inanimate things in the universe, follows rules. Similarly, should one try to run as fast as the speed of light one will find one is unable, and should one try to jump as high as the empire state building one finds one is unable. As such, it follows even when humans do not reason validly, they nevertheless follow rules. If one is highly equipped with the tools of logic and pattern recognition, one may be able to sort out situations in a logical manner even when humans themselves are not logical. Thus, given what has been stated hitherto it is not clear how you have deduced that logic will backfire from the fact that some humans are not logical.

The Golden Rule...It's a fundamental teaching tool, such as when telling a child, "Would you like someone to do that to you? ... [child meekly answers no] ... Well, then you shouldn't do it to others."

The problem, however, is when asked, "would you like someone to do that to you? And the person says yes." In other words, this is a notion based on experience rather than the application of reason. Accordingly, different experiences will inevitably be different, and thus a moral system predicated on differing experiences will lead to different notions of what is right and wrong. A person, for instance, could take someone's $5 dollar bill off of the table after making the supposition that if someone did that to them they wouldn't mind. Maybe $5 is insignificant to them. But the person likely does not know any better and uses their limited experience to induce a "universal maxim," based in highly dubious inductive reasoning. Now do you see the problem with an ethical system that uses experience to establish what is right and wrong?
 

onemoretime

Dreaming the life
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
4,455
MBTI Type
3h50
The issue of personal preference is why the ethic of reciprocity is a default rule for society, as opposed to every relationship a person has. It's what you do when you know nothing about the other person, in order to maintain social harmony.

For example: if you were suicidal, would it make any sense by the Golden Rule to save the injured man in the Good Samaritan parable? On the one hand, you might say no - you want to die, and if you're granting to the other person what you wish to yourself, you'd let the person die.

However, this is missing the point - it isn't about wishes, it's about actions. Even if you yourself would want to die, it's likely that you still wouldn't want someone to kill you without your consent, nor would you want someone to refuse aid to a non-consensually inflicted injury. Not to mention, there may be a future situation where you're not suicidal, so you'd definitely want the help then.

As for its origins? Hardwired in our DNA as how we engage with others recognized as part of an extended ingroup. The great innovation of the modern religions was to universalize this ethic to all humanity.
 

uumlau

Happy Dancer
Joined
Feb 9, 2010
Messages
5,517
MBTI Type
INTJ
Enneagram
953
Instinctual Variant
sp/so
Something can go further back and still be part of the same root. For example, if one posits that C is rooted in B, and B is rooted in A, then it follows that C is rooted in A. Now, if we go back far enough we might find the origins in Cro-Magnon man, but this argument depends on limited artifacts, circumstantial evidence, and a lot of speculation. My purpose was not to propound the absolute origins, as an anthropologist is predisposed to doing, but merely to claim that the Golden Rule can be traced back to the book of dogma and Christianity.
You didn't click on the link, didya?


Nope, didn't click on the link.


It does not follow from the fact that some people do not operate logically that my attempts to apply logic will backfire.
Actually, it just backfired on you. You don't realize it, because it all fits in your logical framework.

However, I shall attempt to answer the following in your terms:
Even if humans do not always reason in a logically valid manner, they nevertheless follow rules; and nowhere is there to be found any irregularity. If it should seem as though there is irregularity, this is really a function of human ignorance. For example, a ten year old may speak in grammatically correct sentences and yet not know the rules of grammar. We conclude, therefore, that the ten year old, like all animate and inanimate things in the universe, follows rules. Similarly, should one try to run as fast as the speed of light one will find one is unable, and should one try to jump as high as the empire state building one finds one is unable. As such, it follows even when humans do not reason validly, they nevertheless follow rules. If one is highly equipped with the tools of logic and pattern recognition, one may be able to sort out situations in a logical manner even when humans themselves are not logical. Thus, given what has been stated hitherto it is not clear how you have deduced that logic will backfire from the fact that some humans are not logical.
My interpretation of what you just said: "Humans need not reason logically in order to behave logically, and in fact do behave logically in ways of which they are often unaware. Therefore logic does apply to analyzing human behavior. The conclusion, therefore, that logic will always backfire when applied to human behavior is false."

Assuming my interpretation is correct, I will admit that your logical analysis is pretty much correct, with the exception that it rests on the assumption that I implied that logic always backfires.

You are missing the point of my message by insisting that it be phrased in a precise logical manner. In general, I go for "clarity of message" over "technical precision" in my posts. This is a conscious choice on my part. It also happens to provide in this case a demonstration of how logic can backfire.

My message was, "Logic doesn't always work." Then, without irony, you used logic to prove that logic does work. Yes, logic will give you an analysis of a situation, from a rational/objective/logical perspective. It doesn't necessarily give you a useful analysis, and can easily result in a crappy analysis (even if the logic is "100% correct"). With respect to "the Golden Rule," it results in some really sophomoric ramblings that have no real meaning beyond demonstrating one's own ignorance.

Let me finish quoting you, in order to complete my point:
The problem, however, is when asked, "would you like someone to do that to you? And the person says yes." In other words, this is a notion based on experience rather than the application of reason. Accordingly, different experiences will inevitably be different, and thus a moral system predicated on differing experiences will lead to different notions of what is right and wrong. A person, for instance, could take someone's $5 dollar bill off of the table after making the supposition that if someone did that to them they wouldn't mind. Maybe $5 is insignificant to them. But the person likely does not know any better and uses their limited experience to induce a "universal maxim," based in highly dubious inductive reasoning. Now do you see the problem with an ethical system that uses experience to establish what is right and wrong?

Yes, this is where the spiritual lesson, collapsed into something comprehensible to most people, has flaws when interpreted absolutely literally.

For most people, the Golden Rule is completely clear. It's not a computer program, it's a lesson for human beings. Human beings learn and train, and develop their own understanding: you don't just plug in logical modules.

If you were trying to teach a child how to add numbers, you wouldn't bring up negative numbers, fractions, irrational numbers, imaginary numbers, set theory, calculus, and tensor notation. You wouldn't even start off like a textbook, and formally define addition, discussing commutative and associative properties of addition.

No. You'd take rocks or sticks or paperclips or apples (without attempting to clarify that it doesn't matter what kind of thing it is), and put down one, ask how many, put down another, and ask how many, and then say "one and one is two." You would teach the child how to do addition.

You are precisely correct when you say, "this is a notion based on experience rather than the application of reason."

The Golden Rule is not an statement of pure reason, which is why logical analysis is inapplicable. It's "one and one is two" said in such a way as to give the overarching idea, to give a beginning of understanding, so that one may use that as a bridge to better understanding as one becomes more familiar with the subject.
 
Top