Alonzo Fyfe

You are correct. Such an interpretation makes no sense.

However, I did not say that it is "an injunction to impose one's will on others." It is an injunction to disregard the ways in which others are different and respect only the ways in which they are the same.

Rusting Car Bumper

And your comment is flawed because there is more than one form of the Golden Rule, some of which dont have this problem.

What you are calling the "Silver Rule" is simply another formulation of it. Its argument by name substitution.

DC

rfwu

Hey, every rule is flawed in some way. The Confucian rule is flawed in the way that sometimes people don't want what is good for them, like medicine or something.

And I didn't call it the "Silver Rule". I was simply complaining how people seem to always declare anything from the far east as inferior to anything from the west! I myself didn't say that it was superior, it was just that Confucian Scholar that I referred to.

The AntiChris

Ok. If this is the way you genuinely interpret the GR then I really don't know what to say.

Chris

dk

I agree the ethical maxim (Golden Rule) is contingent upon (follows from) ethical minimalism, but they are certainly not the same. Ethical minimalism is in no way dependent upon an ethical maxim.

dk

Then you're misinformed. The principle of star decisis for example keeps positivism alive and well in the letter of the law.

dk

The Golden Rule doesn't stand alone, but is contingent upon culture, institutions, morality, ethics, values and rule of law. For example the Bronze Law, as yet not mentioned, "A tooth for a tooth". In our society in many circumstances the golden rule simply doesn't apply. There are countless examples where "good deeds" are punished with severe prejudice, and evil rewarded. For example, millions of parents with sick children (and doctors trying to provide adaquate healthcare) are sent to poor house, while billions are spent on parents that send thier kids to the hospital with abuse. Why support parents that send their kids to the hospital emergency rooms with neglect and abuse? Go figure.

Alonzo Fyfe

Legal positivism and philosophical (logical) positivism are two different sets of ideas. The latter is dead, and has been for about 50 years.

And, in fact, the view known as "legal positivism" has also been dead for at least that long. "Legal positivism" states that the law is whatever the judge says it is. "Legal positivism" is dead because it tells the judge absolutely nothing about how to decide a case. It tells the judge that throwing a dart at a dart board to reach a decision is just as valid as making a decision based on statute and precident. Which is false. Ergo, no more legal positivism.

If you mean something else by positivism, I do not know what it could be.

As for stare decises, your posts seem to imply that the golden rule raises some sort of problem wor this practice. Yet, the very foundation of the practice of stare decises is that like cases should be treated alike. I do not see how the golden rule raises a problem for that practice.

Either way, I need to understand better what you mean by "positivism". Obviously, you do not seem to mean either the philosophical views of logical positivism or legal positivism. You must mean something else.

dk

Positivism is a school of thought (movement) based on the verification principle i.e.
(1) The meaning of a statement is the method of its verification.
(2) A statement is meaningful if and only if it is in principle verifiable.

Stare decisis is a verifiable principle employed by the Supreme Court all the time, and looms large in the social sciences. Note, the verification principle itself is unverifiable. Obviously the Golden Rule is not verifiable, but conjoined with a suitable statement, for example the Golden Rule could be made verifiable in conjecture with a Altruism Gene or a unit of utilitarian practicality.

In Casey[505 U.S. 833, 834], O'Connor writes, "principles of institutional integrity, and the rule of stare decisis require that Roe's essential holding be retained and reaffirmed as to each of its three parts: ... " She goes on to say that many women plan thier lives and families counting on legal abortion. Stare Decisis (legally) means, "the doctrine under which courts adhere to precedent on questions of law in order to insure certainty, consistency, and stability in the administration of justice with departure from precedent permitted for compelling reasons (as to prevent the perpetuation of injustice)". O'Connor in effect says, the injustices perpetrated by Roe are unverifiable, therefore meaningless. She based the decision on logical positivism.

Alonzo Fyfe

The first part, then, is logical positivism. Like I said, dead since the 1950s.

I do not see how the second part relates to logical positivism.

Stare decises is justified from the fact that unexpectely changing the rules on people significantly increases the cost of decision-making. The principle that says, "keep the rules the same unless there is a compelling reason to change them," is a rule designed to keep down the costs of government by making it easier (and cheeper) for people to make plans.