[NT] NTs and their Perception of the Golden Rule

[INTPness]

Oh, god. I'm sorry but I can't stop laughing. Just had to point this out!

Ha ha ha. Oops. I'm not going to edit it. I like it the way it is.

 

[Blutter]

In most cases it's perfectly understandable. Reciprocity has its well-earned place in society.
I must admit, I'm thinking mostly about the revenge part. If others cross your "line", you have the right, and most of the times, obligation to cross over on their turf, and take it back.

 

[Totenkindly]

Do unto others as others unto you

I generally do not like to interfere with others or take a harsher style of interaction with them than they've chosen for me. I expect them to treat me in kind and get annoyed if they insist on invading me in some way or treating me poorly after I've treated them well.

At that point, I generally put up some sort of boundaries or just stop interacting with them until they change.

I don't like to retaliate, really. I'd rather just withdraw.

Anyway, the rule is more of a non-interference rule in my approach to it. And if I do something nice for someone else to be nice, i don't expect something nice back, because they never agreed to a tit-for-tat rule.

 

[tinkerbell]

I'm a P type WTF are all these rules about....

OK I'd say I try and treat people well and often not credited with the extent to which I go to be considerate which just makes you think why bother....

 

[nozflubber]

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.

 

[1104]

more like "do it, but if they do it back then you had it coming bitch."

 

[TiNe_2_IP]

I'm a P type WTF are all these rules about....


Rules versus Principles

If this is a facetious statement I apologize for my ignorance in advance...

This statement by Jesus was not a rule but a basic universal principle
of conduct and it can help us make wise decisions in our relationships with others.
Some have used a similar expression in a negative form: "Do not do to others what you would not like done to yourselves." The difference between the Golden Rule and a negative form of it is that we must take the initiative in applying it not merely view it as a form of reciprocity.
Warm, pleasant, and amicable relations can result only when we take the initiative to ‘do unto others’ what is good.

Jesus also said ‘You must love your neighbor as yourself. Neighbour being our fellowman.
This requires showing unselfish love, going beyond just caring for our own interests and again not just an act of reciprocity but something that should be initiated by ourselves.

Of course not everyone is going to live by the same principle but at least we did.

 

[CJ99]

Don't really go by that rule to be honest.
Cause no matter what you do to someone else that doesn't make them do it back to you so its a flawed rule.

 

[entropie]

I dont like the sound of the rule either, sounds pretty radical and formal and does exclude by the mere sound of it that doing more for example for another person wouldnt be wise, cause they did less for you.

As a general concept though and a general idea, it's of course a good thing to treat others like you wanted to be treaten. I just think this rule, by its mere sound, was more applicable in the time when kings ruled the country and there was a huge gap between the standings of people in society.

Though this huge gap does exist today aswell, I still hope the basic idea the rule from the OP wants to convey is second nature to every rational mind nowadays.

 

[EffEmDoubleyou]

Good to see that most NT's steer clear of abstract "moral dilemmas". As others have said, it really depends on the context. Presumably most christians wouldn't want to be killed, but yet many support the death penalty.

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.

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.

For instance, if you support the death penalty yet don't want to be killed, you aren't violating the Golden Rule unless you are guilty of a capital crime. That person is being executed for a reason; you would be killed for no reason. Likewise, if you euthanize a suffering person, you are not violating the Golden Rule unless that person's wishes are otherwise. You are adhering to the Golden Rule by respecting that person's wishes as you would have yours respected.

NTs may be too literal-minded for moral concepts

As for my own opinion of the Golden Rule, I like it. My consideration may not be returned to me, as some have pointed out. But I'd rather get burned a few times than act the scoundrel. My character is worth more to me than my pride.

 

[INTPness]

.

 

[Spamtar]

The real golden rule is youse got the gold youse makes da rulz. Nuck nuk nuk

 

[tcda]

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.

In this case, it doesn't really seem that this "rule" is very necessarry...why not just say "be considerate"...

I think dismantling these rules by showing their practical consequences, while it may seem literal-minded, is a good thing to do. Do I think that in some circumstances it's ok to bomb, I don't know, an occupying army? Yes. Does that mean I think that the soldier being killed doesn't deserve consideration or that I would like to be killed in his position? No. He may even be a conscript and very much against the war. But some wars, those for liebration, are just. And therefore some people who don't "deserve" to be killed, will be, sadly. But if we were to obey "thou shalt not kill" or "do unto others...", then no war of liebration could ever effectively be fought (we'd have to know the life story of every soldier, or that no bomb might kill a single civilian).

I hope you don't think I am being pedantic, I think that these are genuine problems and that the existence of this abstract "morality" has very much helped unjust social orders to perpetuate themselves - because they are specifically designed so that the plebs will obey them and those at the top will ignore them, and then when threatened with retribution, point to said morality!

 

[tcda]

The real golden rule is youse got the gold youse makes da rulz. Nuck nuk nuk

Basically, this.

 

[thisGuy]

Do unto others as others unto you

for me, translates to

i expect from others what i give to them

 

[avolkiteshvara]

Golden rule only applies if it benefits you, either directly or indirectly.

 

[Katsuni]

The 'do onto others as yeu would want done onto yeu' concept is... flawed. This's generally the same mindset as most serial killers who hate themselves. Suicide by proxy more or less...

It's a rather flawed rule, as things yeu don't want done to yeu, others do want, and vice versa. Yeu might like being groped, others may consider it sexual harassment, the golden rule rarely ever works and is a flawed concept from the start as it assumes that everyone wants to be treated identically.

 

[Laurie]

"The golden rule doesn't make much sense. What if I like things that the person I'm trying to golden rule doesn't? What if I like to be abused, should I abuse them?"

-INTJ friend. I sighed at him (but obviously never forgot it)

 

[Not_Me]

"Do unto others as others unto you,"?

As written, it sounds like another way to say "any eye for an eye".

But the golden rule is normally interpreted as "do unto others as you would like others to do unto you." This is a good rule of the thumb for enhancing social cooperation. But it is unworkable as a moral principle to strictly abide by. It would fail on so many levels. I don't think it's even necessary to list examples.

 

[Provoker]

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.

This is rooted in Christian dogma. 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.