Alonzo Fyfe

Actually, I do not like the Golden Rule because it is, in a sense, bigoted.

It says, "Treat everybody else as if they are exactly like you." But everybody else is not exactly like me. They are different. They have different likes, dislikes, needs, wants, and the like.

I should not be "do[ing] unto others as I would have them do unto me," I should be "do[ing] unto others as he would have me do unto him."

So, I consider the "golden rule" to be yet another example in which religious ethics is primative and deficient, assuming that "different" is "bad".

The AntiChris

I'm surprised anyone would interpret the Golden Rule in such a literal sense in this day and age.

Chris

Alonzo Fyfe

I'm surprised that anybody still argues for a literal interpretation of the bible. But they do.

At the same time, if we hold that just about any interpretation is to be accepted, then the Golden Rule is not much of a guide. It can recommend a long list of sometimes contradictory things depending on a long list of possible, sometimes contradictory interpretations.

Which is yet another reason not to like it. It is either wrong, or useless. One of the two.

Mageth

I should be "do[ing] unto others as he would have me do unto him."

Alonzo, that sounds like what I've heard of as the Platinum Rule, called to my attention by another poster on this board not that long ago, and which I also find superior. It goes something like "Do unto others as they would have done unto them" or "treat others as they wish to be treated." Since I don't always know how others would "have done unto them", I suggested modifying it into an "alloy" or "white gold" rule something along the lines of "If possible, apply the Platinum Rule. If not possible (i.e. you don't know what someone wants done unto them and there's no way to find out) apply the Golden Rule.

Rusting Car Bumper

First, the Golden Rule has many forms. You seem to be globally tossing it out based on one form of it.

Further, I think its hard to argue that its not a deep part (either explicit or implicitly) of almost all ethical systems. One can make a reasonable argument that it is the most basic moral claim.

DC

Alonzo Fyfe

I have stated a version that I would have fewer problems with. I am only "throwing out" the literal interpretation, and arguing that if some other "form" can avoid the difficulties of the literal interpertation then that other "form" is the form that should be used, rather than giving some obscure and twisted interpretation to the form listed here.


There is a basic moral principle that is represented in some forms of the Golden Rule -- this is the principle of universalizability. Moral principles are supposed to be universal -- that is to say, they apply to everybody. If it is wrong for A to do X, then it is wrong for B to do X and for C to do X and so on.

This is not the same as saying that moral statements are absolute. A non-absolute morality can still be universal where the exceptions are independent of the identity of the people involved.

This is perhaps better captured in the Kantian phrase, "Do that which you can consistently will to be a universal law."

But this does not save the literal interpretation of the categorical imperative, because there are severe problems with universalizing the principle, "treat everybody else as if they are identical to you in all respects."

Rusting Car Bumper

Well this is likely to get into a long drawn out discussion that I do not have time for.

When you say "universal" this is at best, vague, because it depends on the metaethical paradigm.

That depends on the context and the facts. If everyone was immortal or bullet proof or used photosynthesis to produce their own food, then morality would be different. Morality and what even counts as universal depends on the facts.

This need to universalize a paradigm is something I think is far from obvious.

DC

Arken

Back before Johnny Hart became a fundie, he was actually kind of funny. I remember a Wizard of Id strip where the king stated the following golden rule:

Whoever has the gold makes the rules.

I can't think of a more true-to-life golden rule. Can you?

Silent Acorns

I don't think it's possible to condense all moral philosophy into a single (or even a handful) of simple rules. The Golden Rule, however, represents a very simple and powerful default position for moral decision making, and as such it deserves respect. Of course, it shouldn't be applied blindly without "some people don't want you to do unto them what you whould have them do unto you" and "some people don't want you to do anything unto them".

rfwu

You are only using the "positive" or aggressive form of the Golden rule, which is represented by the Jain, Christian, Islamic, and Sikh versions of the rule. (There may be more, but I'm just using the original list) This type of rule is aggressive because it tells the person to go out and do something they consider a good thing to the other person. The rest, Hindu, Zoroastrian, Taoist, Buddhist, Confucian, and Jewish versions tell the person not do do what they consider a bad thing to other people. A Confucian scholar said that the Confucian golden rule was superior to the Christian golden rule because it was far less likely for any type of misunderstanding to occur. One thing I noticed was that it was most of the eastern religions that prescribe the "negative" or passive golden rule, while it is most of the western religions that prescribe the "positive" or aggressive golden rule.