Freethought & Rationalism Archive

DRFseven · 04-01-2003, 10:53 AM

I take it as meaning, "Treat me in the manner of which I would approve, and I will also treat you that way."

This, of course, is not meant to be taken literally (if doctors treated us this way, we might die). After all, we don't always know how WE would like to be treated, much less someone else. But we're social animals and this is the kind of thing we're pretty good at figuring out. It means to try to be fair.

tronvillain · 04-01-2003, 04:00 PM

Yes, I do think that the "Golden-Rule" is nonsense, at least from my perspective. I am sure it might accurately descrive some people's moral system, but it certainly does not describe mine.

Guillaume · 04-03-2003, 09:32 PM

tronvillain, "Golden-Rule" doesn't need to make sense, simply because it is a belief. Beliefs are not accepted because they are logic or rational, but because they feels right. And to merely question a belief will often result in insults and anger from the believer, as you just experienced. So your chances of actually convincing anyone are literally as slim as deconverting a Christian : unless your target already has serious doubt about his faith, you will need to reconstruct his personality from the base to inject some logic in his head and ultimately remove his faith in Christianity/Golden Rule.

paul30 · 04-04-2003, 05:59 AM

Kant's take on the Golden Rule is the Categorical Imperative: behave as if the maxim you are following could be unversally generalized.

You don't steal because if stealing were universal there would be chaos.

You don't kill for the same reason.

You don't lie for ditto.

This is a negative view of the Golden Rule. It could theoretically have a positive side:

Help others because if everyone helped people society would be much better than it is.

Both sides are perfectly good as long as you don't get too specific.

It would be silly to say, "Well, I would like to watch this Arnold Scharenegger video. But I won't because that would mean everyone would have to, and some might not like it."

But if you are more general, it works: "I would like to enjoy myself. And as long as I harm no one, that is fine. It would be a better world if the vast majority spent more time enjoying themselves."

Nowhere357 · 04-12-2003, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by meritocrat
so-called 'Golden Rule' is a nonsense?

This sounds peculiar but I actually feel that not as many claim to follow it as is believed.

The basis for the golden rule is empathy.

Quote:

Let us take, for example, the Inquisition. Catholic leaders are gathering up and burning infidels. The Catholic leader says, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." And he also says, "Yes, if I were an infidel, then I should be subject to the same treatment. It would be for my own good and the good of society."

And the catholic leader is not displaying empathy. His rationalization notwithstanding.

Quote:

Or a child molester with fantasies of being a child who is being molested (or rapist who includes among his fantasies being a woman who is subject to this sort of treatment)

This type is harder. Empathy demands he try to drop his desires for a moment, and consider his victim. Does a person in general want to be raped? Of course not. The golden rule holds.

It's really not that difficult.

04-04-2003, 05:59 AM	#24
paul30 Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA USA Posts: 870	Kant Kant's take on the Golden Rule is the Categorical Imperative: behave as if the maxim you are following could be unversally generalized. You don't steal because if stealing were universal there would be chaos. You don't kill for the same reason. You don't lie for ditto. This is a negative view of the Golden Rule. It could theoretically have a positive side: Help others because if everyone helped people society would be much better than it is. Both sides are perfectly good as long as you don't get too specific. It would be silly to say, "Well, I would like to watch this Arnold Scharenegger video. But I won't because that would mean everyone would have to, and some might not like it." But if you are more general, it works: "I would like to enjoy myself. And as long as I harm no one, that is fine. It would be a better world if the vast majority spent more time enjoying themselves."

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

04-01-2003, 10:53 AM	#21
DRFseven Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2001 Posts: 2,322	I take it as meaning, "Treat me in the manner of which I would approve, and I will also treat you that way." This, of course, is not meant to be taken literally (if doctors treated us this way, we might die). After all, we don't always know how WE would like to be treated, much less someone else. But we're social animals and this is the kind of thing we're pretty good at figuring out. It means to try to be fair.

04-01-2003, 04:00 PM	#22
tronvillain Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: Alberta, Canada Posts: 5,658	Yes, I do think that the "Golden-Rule" is nonsense, at least from my perspective. I am sure it might accurately descrive some people's moral system, but it certainly does not describe mine.

04-03-2003, 09:32 PM	#23
Guillaume Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Canada, Québec Posts: 285	tronvillain, "Golden-Rule" doesn't need to make sense, simply because it is a belief. Beliefs are not accepted because they are logic or rational, but because they feels right. And to merely question a belief will often result in insults and anger from the believer, as you just experienced. So your chances of actually convincing anyone are literally as slim as deconverting a Christian : unless your target already has serious doubt about his faith, you will need to reconstruct his personality from the base to inject some logic in his head and ultimately remove his faith in Christianity/Golden Rule.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.