Alonzo Fyfe

So, you are saying that the proper way to treat a child, then, is not how I would have others treat me if I were a child, but as I would have others treat me as an adult. Which means (does it not) that I should treat the child in all ways as an adult, and the fact that the child is a child is not relevant to that treatment.

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by 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."

Nope. The reverse is the infidels rounding up and burning Catholics.

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."

Again, the reverse is blacks enslaving whites.

[Bb]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).[/B]

This is an actual problem. That's why I favor the inverse of the Golden Rule: Don't do onto others as you don't want others to do to you.

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

Does he want to be lied to? No.

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.

Does he want to be the victim of such? No.

beastmaster

The greatest strength and weakness of the Golden Rule is that it is consequentialist. Under the Golden Rule, good intentions are just lousy excuses.

The Golden Rule is a rule of thumb -- and like all rules of thumb, it is as practical as it is imprecise.

The most frequent problem scenario for the Golden Rule that I encounter is "Callous Me, Sensitive Others." There's lots of things that don't bother me that bug other people. Trivial example: if my mother doesn't call me for three weeks, I assume everything is ok and she still loves me; if I don't call her, she assumes something is wrong and that I don't care about her anymore. The Golden Rule lets me down in instructing me how to treat my mother -- and most people for that matter -- in these everyday ordinary concerns.

Alonzo Fyfe

So, is the reverse of imprisoning (or executing) a murderer that of a murderer executing innocent people?

cpickett

Isn't that what the murderer already did?....

Alonzo Fyfe

That's not what the Golden Rule says. The Golden Rule says that innocent people should do to the murderer what they wold have (ask for) the murderer do to innocent people.

Bumble Bee Tuna

I don't think the Golden Rule was ever supposed to extend to the realm of punishment...Nobody wants to be punished, after all. It is a rule for how to treat a person with no extenuating circumstances. I.e., don't kill someone if you don't want to be killed...but if that person is a murderer there you have an extenuating circumstance that ruins the golden rule. I don't think the Golden Rule can possibly apply to the inquisition example because the Inquisition was a punishment. The blame goes not on the Golden Rule but on the OTHER moral codes they had that said being an infidel deserved death.

-B

Misso

The adult might not be a child, but it has been, and so knows what it is to be one. The white slave owner has never been a black slave, the male rapist has never been the female victim of a rape, and a murderer most certainly has never been murdered.
Furthermore, in the "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", the 'others' in this case are children. So that would make it "do unto children as you would have children do unto you". As far as I can see this won't lead to problems. Punish children when they break the rules, correct them if their pronounciation is wrong, love them like they love you.

But to avoid this kind of complications, I'll go along with Gurdur and Loren Pechtel in preferring the inverse Golden Rule: "Do not do unto others what you would not like them to do to you".
Also, I think Bumble Bee Tuna has a very good point on this.

meritocrat

That's illogical. What infidel would feel they have a 'right' to be tortured?

Quote:

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."

Again, what black person would expect to be a slave?

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). 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.

Similar logic could be used to counter your points.

For example, if one walks in a street and punches the first person they see in the face, can they think 'well if I were that person I would expect to be punched'? To reiterate, it's an illogical viewpoint. The person suffering assualt in this MAY NOT want to be physically hurt. I agree that the inverse of the 'Golden Rule' seems the most feasible.

Alonzo Fyfe

Meritocrat:

If the Golden Rule said, "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them," then your claim that I was being illogical would apply.

Plus, I would have far fewer objections against it myself.

But it does not. It says "do unto others as you would have others do unto you."

This means that you are supposed to treat me as if I were a pschological clone of Meritocrat. Any differences between us are morally irrelevant. It is not that you have permission to ignore those differences, but you have an obligation to do so.

But I am not a psychological clone of Meritocrat and there is no reason why I should be treated as if I am. I am somebody else, with no legitimate principle of morality that says that I am to be denied my identity and those things that make me unique and be treated as if I am somebody I am not.

It means that if you were a homophobe who would rather be dead than be gay, that you have ought to treat everybody else as a homophobe who would rather be dead than be gay.

It means that if you are somebody who has no problem with the idea of the government being able to look into every corner of your life, you should treat me as somebody who has no problem with the government looking into every corner of my life.

The principle, "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them" says look at that other person, and pay attention to the way that they are different from you, because those differences are important.

The principle, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," says to look into yourself. And if there happen to be any differences between you and the other, ignore them, because they are not morally relevant.

Now, you could try to get around this and say, "Well, since I do not want others to treat me as if I were there psychological clone, then I should not treat others as if they were my psychological clone."

But this just says that the Golden Rule does not even meet its own criterion. It says, "According to the Golden Rule, since I do not want others to use the Golden Rule then I should not use it myself."