• 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.

"Do unto others..."

wolfy

awsm
Joined
Jun 30, 2008
Messages
12,251
I always liked Carl Sagan's rules. From Billions & Billions. Here is a PDF.

The Golden Rule Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The Silver Rule Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.

The Brazen Rule Do unto others as they do unto you.

The Iron Rule Do unto others as you like, before they do it unto you.

The Tit-for-Tat Rule Cooperate with others first, then do unto them as they do unto you.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
[...]the idea behind a rule of conduct.

Which would be...?


And whatever the idea is, is it not screwed if individually differing value systems instantiate the idea differently. Which they do. So if you have a pretty strong idea of what is and isn't valuable, and how to perform it, and another person has a substantially different idea, what then?

And MBTI stuff tends to suggest not only that there are substantially different individual value systems in every large enough community, but that those differing systems are all normal and all suitably functional, or at least internally consistent and capable of self-checking. So what now?



(The Tit-for-Tat Rule seems like the only workable one, but it's still flawed.)
 

Ojian

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
74
MBTI Type
INTP
Why would differing value systems even matter? It's not a meant to define or raise standards of good, or to weigh the merits of one's beliefs vs anothers. It is simply a statement of how to generally conduct yourself with other people.

If everyone followed this rule, the world would be a better place.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Why would differing value systems even matter? It's not a meant to define or raise standards of good, or to weigh the merits of one's beliefs vs anothers. It is simply a statement of how to generally conduct yourself with other people.

If everyone followed this rule, the world would be a better place.

Well, imagine this (and I know this is not a totally realistic scenario, it just conveys a point). If a masochist follows the golden rule, does that masochist become a sadist? It seems to make sense. They want pain done unto them, so do pain unto others.

But, we can assume that a good portion of the population isn't masochistic in this manner, and would object severely to having pain bestowed upon them. This an example of where different values cause a serious problem for the golden. The world would certainly be a worse place for at least one party in this scenario.
 

Journey

New member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
261
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6
I taught little three year olds this concept in nursery school. It's just not that difficult to understand or apply. Get real.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Some wholly imaginary value systems, in precis, that differ:

system 1 - it's better to follow well-understood social mores.
system 2 - you aren't real unless you've worked out for yourself what you must do.
system 3 - if you lie, I will never speak to you again.
system 4 - I'll know the truth, and work toward it, but other things govern what I actually say.
system 5 - truth is far less important than stability.
system 6 - truth is far less important than warmth.

And those are just the normal systems. Is anyone seriously saying these differing ideas do NOT leading to differing styles of interaction, some of which are positively antithetical?

People, c'mon, different types piss you off in different ways! Do you really want them insisting that you do unto them what they do unto you?

EDIT: actually, really, the golden rule is wrong really only if individual people are allowed to be their own moral determiner, which is to say, the one who comes up with their own version of right and wrong. Because some people are going to decide right and wrong differently.

And come to think of it, under the golden rule, duality relationships are kind of illegal.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
I taught little three year olds this concept in nursery school. It's just not that difficult to understand or apply. Get real.

Okay, so they understand how it is structured. Did you explain to them why it would be the best workable system of interpersonal ethic?
 

Journey

New member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
261
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6
Okay, so they understand how it is structured. Did you explain to them why it would be the best workable system of interpersonal ethic?

Of course I did. It was in a Christian nursery school and I told them that Jesus said to do it. And that is the Truth.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
Of course I did. It was in a Christian nursery school and I told them that Jesus said to do it. And that is the Truth.

Hah, yes, I see how that could be pervasive reasoning for children in a Sunday school. :D However, it does not give any explanation as to the functional or consequential advantages of the golden rule.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
If I really don't want you to do unto me what you would have me do unto you were you in my place, are you doing wrong?

See, the Golden Rule doesn't specify whether you use your understanding or the other person's understanding when you make the test "as you would have them do unto you." If you use your understanding, you can sometimes, maybe are bound sometimes, to insist on things they wouldn't. And if you use their understanding, well, that's a whole other moral code dressed up in mysterious language, namely, put yourself in the others shoes, so why not just say it that way?

Actually, I think I remember reading that the basic criticism of Kant's Categorical Imperative is it doesn't actually make anything imperative without there being some seed principles for what is and isn't good.

And the Golden Rule is a suck-ass Fe principle that even they don't follow. I forget where I read that. Some philosophical journal. Kinda surprised they said suck-ass.



Hm, not sure how snotty I should be here. I'm basically arguing for Fi rights to decide by myself and for myself what is and isn't good. And one of those rights is independence and freedom from constraint. By which it sorta maybe follows that I can't do unto others as I would have them do unto me, because I prefer to do unto others what is actually right and good.
 

rhinosaur

Just a statistic
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
1,464
MBTI Type
INTP
Yeah, the wording of that archaic Golden Rule is screwed up. There is a lot of meaning tied up in it that goes beyond the literal. Societal expectations for how to behave. Play nice, and stuff like that.

You start with the literal interpretation, which boils down to "Treat others the way you would want to be treated if you were in their shoes, instead of not thinking about the effect your actions have." From there you build upon it, adding exceptions and fine-tuning for specific actions and specific people.

The Golden Rule is one of my favorites, as I've interpreted it in the quotation marks above. For me, it's really about putting yourself in other people's shoes, and thinking about the consequences of one's actions.
 

Journey

New member
Joined
Mar 14, 2008
Messages
261
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
6
Hah, yes, I see how that could be pervasive reasoning for children in a Sunday school. :D However, it does not give any explanation as to the functional or consequential advantages of the golden rule.

The functional and consequential advantage of obeying the golden rule is that it pleases the Lord our God. That results in the consequences of good results for ourselves because He stated it for our benefit and it functions to smooth relations between basically incompatible human beings because of the fall.
 

Ojian

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
74
MBTI Type
INTP
Well, imagine this (and I know this is not a totally realistic scenario, it just conveys a point). If a masochist follows the golden rule, does that masochist become a sadist? It seems to make sense. They want pain done unto them, so do pain unto others.

But, we can assume that a good portion of the population isn't masochistic in this manner, and would object severely to having pain bestowed upon them. This an example of where different values cause a serious problem for the golden. The world would certainly be a worse place for at least one party in this scenario.

I don't think that the Golden Rule necessarily applies in EVERY situation for EVERY minutia of human interaction, but nobody is saying it need to either. It's called "Golden" because of it's perceived value or relevance in human interactions, not some Midas reference :)

With that said, I don't think that the masochist example is a fair one. For one, I wouldn't say the Golden Rule applies to self destructive behavior. In fact, just being a sadist probably violates the golden rule. But I think the masochist description is a little misleading. Even if you accept that it is not a destructive behavior, a masochist doesn't want just pain, they want pleasure - they just happen to derive that from pain in some circumstances. I doubt a masochist would WANT to be walking down the street and then have a gang jump them and beat them half to death, but throw them in someones dungeon bedroom with a wall of whips and their happy. If you could apply the golden rule to this situation (and this is probably not realistic either), a masochist would only 'perform' with a willing partner (otherwise forcing it is a violation of the rule), and would have to be willing to inflict their 'pain for pleasure' on the willing partner if desired. And even if they did 'inflict the pain', it wouldnt necessarily make them a sadist, as they might not derive pleasure from that action.

If a person objected to pain being bestowed on them, then the masochist/sadist wouldnt inflict it if they were following the golden rule. The masochist may want his pain, but they will never get it from an unwilling counterpart, and the rule doesn't indicate he necessarily should. But if a mashochist does apply the rule, he is probably more likely to find a counterpart willing to give him what he wants.

The rule never states that if a person does x, he will get x. Whether or not a person gets what he wants is irrelevant. The rule is proactive, not reactive. A person will act on principle, regardless whether it is returned or not. Most people want respect and kindness. The rule is there to foster such. Someone practicing respect and kindness may not get it back from everyone, but nothing in the rule said they would. But I bet that someone practicing respect and kindness towards others will more likely than not do get it back from some, probably others applying the same rule. And if everyone did that, the world would be a better place.
 

kyuuei

Emperor/Dictator
Joined
Aug 28, 2008
Messages
13,964
MBTI Type
enfp
Enneagram
8
Spongey, I believe that the particular situation represented would be counter active of what the masochist needs. In that situation, it isn't a matter of putting himself in another's shoes.. He is not changing who he is in the process, because if he did, he would attract the very being he is, instead of the proper yang for his ying.

I don't think the Golden rule applies to the essential core of a human being. Only suggesting that there is more than the essentials to consider.
 

Magic Poriferan

^He pronks, too!
Joined
Nov 4, 2007
Messages
14,081
MBTI Type
Yin
Enneagram
One
Instinctual Variant
sx/sp
The point I made wasn't so much based on the actual psychology of your typical masochist, it was just a demonstration of where this golden rule could go really wrong. Most times it's failure is not at all the extreme or colorful, it still ends up being an odd case of people projecting their desires and values onto others, and then treating them based on it. I see it cause problems in romantic relationships a lot. With my parents (not that I'd call that romantic, hah) there has been this unending problem where neither of them could imagine what would seem goo to the other one, so they attempt to reward, punish, or communicate in ways that all totally fail, because they're acting like they're dealing with another one of themselves.

I also think the responses to the masochism example actually revealed one of the things I was going for. Once I brought that example up, you had to provide a lot more specifications and qualifiers that were based on more deliberate interpretations. So, the golden is not hardly just that one line we have been using to represent it, as there must be far more details. This is problematic though because even if you decide to write out the comprehensive golden rule, as if it were a legal document or a game guide, it would all come down to your way of picking and choosing how you want to apply the golden rule, which may not be agreable to others.
 

Ojian

New member
Joined
Jan 14, 2008
Messages
74
MBTI Type
INTP
I also think the responses to the masochism example actually revealed one of the things I was going for. Once I brought that example up, you had to provide a lot more specifications and qualifiers that were based on more deliberate interpretations. So, the golden is not hardly just that one line we have been using to represent it, as there must be far more details. This is problematic though because even if you decide to write out the comprehensive golden rule, as if it were a legal document or a game guide, it would all come down to your way of picking and choosing how you want to apply the golden rule, which may not be agreable to others.

Hmm, that's interesting, because I would probably want to switch around the where the specifics need to be addressed. If I understood right, you are saying that in order for the GR to work, there would need to be more specifics in the rule to apply to the myriad of ways humans may interact.

I dont think that the GR needs to be made more specific. As a general rule it is fine. The only qualification on the rule itself I would make is to say it doesnt apply to self-destructive desires. Where the specifics need to apply is in looking at ones actions against the rule. in the Masochist example, I think you misstated their premise. Its too simplistic or inaccurate to say a masochist wants pain inflicted on them. Otherwise then you could say they would be happy to have someone randomly club them over the head while out walking. If someone was happy for that to happen, 1) they wouldnt necessarily be a masochist, and 2) that is clearly a self-destructive desire. (Another example might be someone wanting to commit suicide by having the police kill them. The GR wouldn't work well for them.) Though I'd hate to do it, you would have to break down the specifics of what actions a masochist wants or is considering and apply them to the GR. Given: they derive pleasure from having pain inflicted on them. But likely the source of that pain is not unknown, nor performed without consent from the masochist. If the were applying the GR in this odd case, they would never inflict pain onto another person that did not consent or want it)

But for nearly everyone else where they are not seeking their own destruction or damage, the GR works pretty well. You mentioned you've seen it not work in relationships a lot. Could you provide a specific example of such? I could be wrong, but I bet if you broke down their actions into detail (not adding to the rule in detail), you'll find that the problem source wasnt the one applying the GR.

It's been said before, but applying the GR doesn't guarantee the results one wants. The rule doesn't need the addendum, but it could be said as: "You do to others just as you would have them do to you, and that regardless of what they may do."
 
L

Lasting_Pain

Guest
Of course I did. It was in a Christian nursery school and I told them that Jesus said to do it. And that is the Truth.

You Can't Argue With Jesus.....................................
























I mean literally you can't argue with Jesus.
 

Kalach

Filthy Apes!
Joined
Dec 3, 2008
Messages
4,310
MBTI Type
INTJ
Well, if you don't mind Jesus arguing with you too, maybe it's okay.
 
Top