Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Gawen · 06-26-2007, 04:00 PM

At first glance, the rule appears justified. Who wouldn't want to receive treatment the way we wish? And who wouldn't want to give the same treatment to others? However, upon further reflection we quickly come upon problems. Who says that the receiving person wishes to always get treated the way "we" wish? Would most people like to get treated like a masochist from a masochist? Would an atheist like to get treated like a Christian? Would a Christian like to get treated as an atheist?

Clearly, the Golden rule can cause severe incompatibilities with the other person involved. The Golden Rule only seems commendable because we impart our own individual concepts without realizing that "doing unto others" has various meanings to other people. The Golden Rule reflects upon selfish motives instead of incorporating a system that can work for a diverse society.
Therefore, when Jesus uses this incomplete and illusory command, he deceives the believer into a false sense of morality. Consider that in some cases, treating people the way they would like to get treated works better than the way you would like to get treated.

Hrvoje Butkovic · 06-26-2007, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mageth

So use the platinum rule ("Strive to do unto others as they wish to be done onto them" [my paraphrase]) and fall back to the golden rule if you just don't know or aren't sure how they wish to be treated.

The Platinum Rule can be derived from the Golden Rule by observing that we would rather have our preferences respected than have the preferences of others imposed upon us.

Hrvoje Butkovic · 06-26-2007, 10:48 PM

Hopefully this explanation from Wikipedia will clarify:

Quote:

Not a "rule" in specifics
If one were to apply the Golden Rule as a mandate to force one's eccentricities on another, many unethical consequences would result. For example:

a masochist would be charged with harming all others, since a masochist enjoys having pain inflicted on him/her-self.
the perfectionist would be charged with critiquing everyone else's behavior.
a dieter would be charged with harassing others about their caloric intake.

The ethic of reciprocity or Golden Rule of ethics is not a "rule" that should be applied to specific personal preferences or eccentricities. It must always be applied first to the overarching desires that all people share, especially the desire to lead one's life without interruption by others.

rfmwinnie · 06-26-2007, 11:13 PM

That is why Judaism says it's rule is superior "Do NOT do to others that which you do NOT want done to you."

But I think both miss the point. The rule I live by is: before you do something ask yourself what would happen if everyone did this all the time. That takes me out of it and puts it in a larger context.

In the example given if everyone served everyone a meal without knowing what their preferences were then everyone would be unhappy -- not something I'd want. So I'd ask Sally ahead of time if she had any allergies and go from there

premjan · 06-27-2007, 12:03 AM

Do unto others as they deserve, or more ideally, as they would like.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

06-26-2007, 04:00 PM	#11
Gawen Contributor Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Cylon Occupied Texas, but a Michigander @ heart Posts: 10,326	At first glance, the rule appears justified. Who wouldn't want to receive treatment the way we wish? And who wouldn't want to give the same treatment to others? However, upon further reflection we quickly come upon problems. Who says that the receiving person wishes to always get treated the way "we" wish? Would most people like to get treated like a masochist from a masochist? Would an atheist like to get treated like a Christian? Would a Christian like to get treated as an atheist? Clearly, the Golden rule can cause severe incompatibilities with the other person involved. The Golden Rule only seems commendable because we impart our own individual concepts without realizing that "doing unto others" has various meanings to other people. The Golden Rule reflects upon selfish motives instead of incorporating a system that can work for a diverse society. Therefore, when Jesus uses this incomplete and illusory command, he deceives the believer into a false sense of morality. Consider that in some cases, treating people the way they would like to get treated works better than the way you would like to get treated.

06-26-2007, 11:13 PM	#14
rfmwinnie Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Phoenix Posts: 1,494	That is why Judaism says it's rule is superior "Do NOT do to others that which you do NOT want done to you." But I think both miss the point. The rule I live by is: before you do something ask yourself what would happen if everyone did this all the time. That takes me out of it and puts it in a larger context. In the example given if everyone served everyone a meal without knowing what their preferences were then everyone would be unhappy -- not something I'd want. So I'd ask Sally ahead of time if she had any allergies and go from there

06-27-2007, 12:03 AM	#15
premjan Obsessed Contributor Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: NJ Posts: 61,538	Do unto others as they deserve, or more ideally, as they would like.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.