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.

Gurdur

non-sequiter between your two statements.

In answer anyway:

1) no, you're obviously not the only one, but you're wrong anyway.

There you go. Unsubstantiated statement answered with a non-substantiated statement of my own values.

2) So what if not as many follow it as is claimed by them ?

Hypocrisy proves nothing. Neither does sophomoric nihilism, BTW.

meritocrat

Why am I wrong?

Quote:

2) So what if not as many follow it as is claimed by them ? Hypocrisy proves nothing. Neither does sophomoric nihilism, BTW.

Then why say you DO follow the Golden Rule if you really do not? THAT is a non sequitur and something that does not logically follow.

Gurdur

*sigh*
You didn't bother trying to substantiate your claim that the Golden Rule was nonsense.

When you make something near a full, rational argument as to why it supposedly is nonsense, then I'll substantiate my claim that you are simply wrong.

Go back and read what I wrote.

I did not write that I claim to follow the Golden Rule but do not really follow it;
I simply pointed out that the fact that others who claim it but do not really follow it does not prove anything.
It does not prove the Golden Rule is "nonsense".

So, are you going to make any argument ?

Alonzo Fyfe

I have a problem with the Golden Rule as illustrated by the following example:

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."

Or, the slave owner who says, "If I were black, I would still have no objection against slavery; I would recognize that God placed me on this planet to serve my white master and do so unquestioningly."

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).

Or the "dirty tricks" politician with a machiavellian philosophy who fully endorses and expects lies and deceit from all politicians.

Or the highly-competitive corporate executive who fully endorses a corporate-darwinism account of governance that allows lies, deceipt, spying, and other under-handed tricks on the part of corporate executives.

Or countless other examples that all fit the same pattern.

Gurdur

So what ?

As you should know well, the best possible formulation of the Golden Rule is,
"Do not do unto others what you would not like them to do to you"

Now let's see you quibble with that.

meritocrat

I agree. The 'Golden Rule' is to open to subjective interepretation.

Gurdur

Oh gosh, this is hardly news.

Like any rule stating human values, it is based on subjectivity and often intersubjectivity. So what ?

There is no such thing as a fully objective human value, and no fully objective interpretations of them.

Sooooo, meritocrat, are you going to come up with a real argument or not ?

Misso

Indeed, "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". That means you, not who you aren't.
It's not about if the rapist would mind being raped had he been a female - because he's not a female. It's about if the raper, as the person he is at that moment, would mind being raped. It's about the (white) slave owner minding to be treated like a (black) slave. The slave owner is a white slave owner who doesn't and can't know what it's like to be a black slave. He can only imagine.
All of the examples, save the ones of the politician and the businessman, are abusingf the Golden Rule because they do not feature a "you" but a projection of the "you".

With the examples of the businessman and the politician there's no such conflict: they, not someone they imagine they might possibly have been, treat people like they expect to be and don't mind being treated.


To answer the original question: no I don't think the Golden Rule is nonsense. That's just my opinion though.

Psychic

well... your arguement against the golden rule is kind of strange! let me explain. the first thing to note is that your arguement adresses the golden-rule directly, pointing to its essence. so such and arguement can be elusive at times, but the true fact is: your arguement against the golden rule can be valid at times, and invalid at other time. but at this particular time, I think it's invalid.
and the second thing to note is that your arguement against the golden-rule is inherently Contingent, so it is possible for it not to exist and at the same time can be logically necessary. but at this particular time also I am unable to see your arguement at all any where through this page.
so until I am able to detect the arguement's metaphysical presence, I'd be more than happy to reply to it.

thank you.
yours truely: Psychic.
:banghead: