Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Mu · 03-12-2002, 10:40 PM

i recognize the possibility that i am the only thinking being in the universe (since after all I don't inhabit others minds, only my own) and everyone else is some sort of organo-robot or an illusion.

hypothetically, if this was true than the golden rule might be useless.

Vorkosigan · 03-13-2002, 03:12 AM

If I see hitler getting killed should I rescue him, since i expect him to resuce me in the same situation? Am i not putting my faith in his probable action? If I rescue him am I morally responsible for any future deaths that could occur because of him?

Why yes. The way I read the Golden Rule, it does not encumber the other party with a reciprocal burden. Only oneself. "Do unto others...." says nothing about the obligations of the other party, right?

Jayhawker Soule · 03-13-2002, 08:44 AM

Anyone know who came up with the term "Golden Rule"? Just curious ...

In any event, it seems the ethic of reciprocity is best stated as a prohibition, e.g.:

Brahmanism: "This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517
Confucianism: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23
Judaism: "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a

(from <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm" target="_blank"> This Site </a>)

phaedrus · 03-15-2002, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by turtonm:
Why yes. The way I read the Golden Rule, it does not encumber the other party with a reciprocal burden. Only oneself. "Do unto others...." says nothing about the obligations of the other party, right?

Michael

Well, that was the point of my above post after going through the thread where everyone seem to hold the golden rule in atmost admiration. Thats why all those questions. The golden rule is too simplistic

and doesnt offer any real framework to resolve moral issues.

JP

DRFseven · 03-15-2002, 05:30 AM

Quote:

phaedrus: The golden rule is too simplistic and doesnt offer any real framework to resolve moral issues.

Too simplistic! Of course it's too simplistic to resolve specific issues; that's the point. It's a huge, hazy blanket, from which many people are, nevertheless, able to ground themselves. I use it constantly.

phaedrus · 03-17-2002, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DRFseven:


Too simplistic! Of course it's too simplistic to resolve specific issues; that's the point. It's a huge, hazy blanket, from which many people are, nevertheless, able to ground themselves. I use it constantly.

Power to you

Everyone has their own take on life.

I was just tyring to offer/bring in a different perspective on the issue. Yes, it is a huge and hazy blanket, and people try to make sense out of it any way they can. But its a personal choice as to what tools one uses. Trying to use the simple or easy way doesnt always suffice is the point.AS Einstein was quoted in Reader's Digest long back -"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."

It could be an entire discussion by itself, but the simplicity part reminds me of a quote on myths....

Quote:

In passing from history to nature, myth acts economically: it abolishes the complexity of human acts, it gives them the simplicity of essences, it does away with all dialectics, with any going back beyond what is immediately visible, it organizes a world which is without contradictions because it is without depth, a world wide open and wallowing in the evident, it establishes a blissful clarity: things appear to mean something by themselves. - Roland Barthes : Mythologies

DRFseven · 03-18-2002, 06:10 PM

Quote:

Quoted by Phaedrus: In passing from history to nature, myth acts economically: it abolishes the complexity of human acts, it gives them the simplicity of essences, it does away with all dialectics, with any going back beyond what is immediately visible, it organizes a world which is without contradictions because it is without depth, a world wide open and wallowing in the evident, it establishes a blissful clarity: things appear to mean something by themselves. - Roland Barthes : Mythologies

That was elegant and beautiful, Phaedrus. It reminds me of a much less beautiful, but apropos quote by John Wayne regarding his simple belief in the cowboy mythology; I heard this a few days ago on an NPR piece. John Wayne lived in a simple black and white world, where good and evil were easily discernable; where good was sought and evil punished. When confronted with the confounding contention that 'all is not black and white', he answered, "Well, why the hell not?"

Jayhawker Soule · 03-19-2002, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by phaedrus:
It could be an entire discussion by itself, but the simplicity part reminds me of a quote on myths....

Great quote!

Sojourner553 · 03-19-2002, 10:21 AM

Which is REALLY better-- the Golden or Silver Rule?

The Silver Rule was summarized by the Jewish rabbi Hillel the Elder, (first century C.E.),

"What is hateful to you", wrote the famous rabbi, "do not
to your friend. This is the entire Torah. The rest is
commentary. Go forth and learn."

Jesus' "GOLDEN" Rule

The Golden Rule treats people from the POSITIVE--going beyond refraining
from doing evil--to LOVING everyone as ourselves.

An early version of the Golden Rule can be found in the famous Old
Testament verse:

"...you shall love your neighbor as yourself". (Leviticus 19:18)

Still, this verse specifically refers to one's "NEIGHBORS", and could thus
possibly EXCLUDE one's "enemies". Jesus expanded the scope of this moral
rule to apply to EVERYONE:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you,
do ye even do to them." (Matthew 7:12)

In addition to loving our enemies, Jesus' taught that NO resistance should
be given to our enemies:

"But I say to you that hear, LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, do good to those who
hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. TO HIM
WHO STRIKES YOU ON THE CHEEK, OFFER THE OTHER ALSO; AND FROM HIM WHO TAKES
AWAY YOUR CLOAK DO NOT WITHHOLD YOUR COAT AS WELL. Give to every one who
begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods, do not ask them again.
And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them."
(Luke 6:27-31, emphasis mine.)

Matthew's version of the Sermon on the Mount, also demonstrates this PASSIVE
element in loving one's enemies:

"Offer the wicked man no resistance. On the contrary, if anyone hits
you on the right cheek, offer him the other also". (Matthew 5:39-40).

Because of these and other sayings, Jesus is generally recognized as one
of the great moral leaders in the world--by BOTH believers and non-believers!

How the Golden Rule was "Twisted" to Allow
Tortures, Slavery, and Religious Wars

When Orthodox Christians came into power in the Roman Empire during
the fourth century C.E., a controversy arose among Christians as to whether
the Golden Rule allowed them to go to war against the barbarian enemy.--For
a LITERAL interpretation of the Golden Rule, would seem to imply that good
Christians should not take up arms against ANY enemy. Orthodox Christians
were thus anxious to find an interpretation that would assure the devout
that it was not sinful to take up arms to go to war.

St. Augustine of Hippo (late fourth century C.E.) writings were heavily
relied on to justify aggression against an "Enemy". According to Augustine's
doctrine of original sin, there was a need for a strong authoritarian power
(interpreted to mean both religious AND secular leaders) to control corrupted,
evil humans.

St. Augustine reconciled his view with the Golden Rule-- by interpreting
the Golden Rule along a SPIRITUAL plane, so that it was no longer relevant
towards our affairs on EARTH! A "just" war could and should be waged by
Christian authorities against a recognizable evil.

St Augustine's reinterpretation of the Golden Rule was based on the
following rational argument: Because our EARTHLY lives are INSIGNIFICANT
when compared to eternal life in HEAVEN, then there could be no loftier deed
that we could want others to do for us, than to SAVE OUR ETERNAL SOUL.
From this reasoning, it follows that the act of saving souls is so important,
that it SUPERCEDES EVERYTHING ELSE! Inhumane actions such as wars and even
torture could thus be reconciled to the Golden Rule, because of the necessity
of maintaining a strong Christian society under the leadership of a powerful
Church-- whose primary goal was to save souls for heaven.

Using this interpretation, persecution could now be defined as a "righteous"
act--performed out of "love" for the soul of the heretic.

...

Comparison of the Golden Rule with the Silver Rule

One important reason why St. Augustine
and others were able to interpret the Golden Rule along this new spiritual
plane is because the Golden Rule speaks in terms of the believer doing what
s/he feels is "best" for the other person. In other words, the Golden Rule
does NOT state:

"Do unto others as THEY [ie, the other people] would like",

Instead, the Golden Rule states:

"Do unto others as YOU would have them do unto YOU." (emphasis mine.)

Thus, the person who JUDGES what is "good" for the individual is the
believer, and NOT the other person. Assuming the believer has a good moral
framework, this should not make much difference.--That is, the rule would NOT
be interpreted as taking an INHUMANE action against another--such as
torturing, killing, raping, or enslaving--under the pretense of "loving"
these individuals.

However, real life experience has shown that one CANNOT ASSUME everyone to
have a good basis of morals! And such an individual can conceivably PERVERT
the Golden Rule by claiming that they are acting towards others as they
themselves would "like" to be treated. Examples would include a masochist
who feels empowered by the Golden Rule to hurt others, (ie, because s/he
himself wants to be inflicted with pain); a sex offender who wants to sexually
abuse others (again because s/he wants to be so abused), and a religious
zealot who believes s/he would rather die if they felt they were straying
from their "perfect" dogma.

Because there are OTHER explicit laws in the form of the Ten Commandments,
believers are prevented from interpreting the Golden rule along lines of
sodomy, theft, etc. However, THERE ARE NO EXPLICIT OLD OR NEW TESTAMENT
LAWS DIRECTLY FORBIDDING TORTURE, SLAVERY, POGRAMS, AND WARS!

Therefore, these latter items (ie torture, slavery, etc) could RATIONALLY
be justifiable acts under the Golden Rule--IF(?) defined in such a way that
the believer is inflicting these out of "love" for the eternal souls of others.
This discussion is no mere exercise in logic, because during the Dark Ages,
Catholic Inquisitors tortured and burned heretics after interpreting the
Golden Rule in just this way!

Thus, because there are NO biblical verses directly FORBIDDING inhumane
actions such as torture and slavery, St. Augustine was able to effectively
SHORT-CIRCUIT the basic message of the Golden Rule. In the process, the SILVER
Rule--which outright forbade individuals to take action which could harm
others (and was therefore more difficult to twist using spiritual metaphors)--
was ALSO abandoned. The result was that under this "interpretation" of the
Golden Rule, others could now be harmed--although persecutors could claim
this was a "loving" action, and divinely sanctioned by God.

In contrast to the Golden Rule, the Silver rule speaks in terms of
FORBIDDING harmful actions against others:

"Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you."

The difference is that the Silver Rule, in itself, gives NO MORAL
justification for taking ANY actions against our neighbor. Therefore, in
testing how the Silver Rule could be interpreted by a person with a perverted
or inhumane system of morals (such as a masochist, sex offender, Inquisitor,
or slaveholder), it can be seen that the Silver Rule gives an individual no
moral justification for taking any action against another person.

Instead the focus for the believer, is to morally prevent him/her from
taking any HARMFUL action against the individual. This is unlike the Golden
Rule which divinely EMPOWERS the believer to perform "loving" acts against
all others.

Of course in the hands of an ideologue, even the Silver Rule can be
perverted to allow for the harm of others--unless such action is explicitly
forbidden--say inhumane actions such as torture or slavery.

More at:
<a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/ETHICS2.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/ETHICS2.TXT</a>

Sojourner

[ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]

phaedrus · 03-20-2002, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by DRFseven:


That was elegant and beautiful, Phaedrus. It reminds me of a much less beautiful, but apropos quote by John Wayne regarding his simple belief in the cowboy mythology; I heard this a few days ago on an NPR piece. John Wayne lived in a simple black and white world, where good and evil were easily discernable; where good was sought and evil punished. When confronted with the confounding contention that 'all is not black and white', he answered, "Well, why the hell not?"

Ahh if life could be a movie, everything would work to a script

Quote:

When everything feels like the movies
Yeah, you'd bleed just to know you're alive -Goo Goo Dolls

Reasonable

Danke

03-13-2002, 08:44 AM	#33
Jayhawker Soule Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Chicago Posts: 1,777	Anyone know who came up with the term "Golden Rule"? Just curious ... In any event, it seems the ethic of reciprocity is best stated as a prohibition, e.g.: Brahmanism: "This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 Confucianism: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23 Judaism: "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a (from <a href="http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm" target="_blank"> This Site </a>)

03-19-2002, 10:21 AM	#39
Sojourner553 Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Southern US Posts: 817	Which is REALLY better-- the Golden or Silver Rule? The Silver Rule was summarized by the Jewish rabbi Hillel the Elder, (first century C.E.), "What is hateful to you", wrote the famous rabbi, "do not to your friend. This is the entire Torah. The rest is commentary. Go forth and learn." Jesus' "GOLDEN" Rule The Golden Rule treats people from the POSITIVE--going beyond refraining from doing evil--to LOVING everyone as ourselves. An early version of the Golden Rule can be found in the famous Old Testament verse: "...you shall love your neighbor as yourself". (Leviticus 19:18) Still, this verse specifically refers to one's "NEIGHBORS", and could thus possibly EXCLUDE one's "enemies". Jesus expanded the scope of this moral rule to apply to EVERYONE: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even do to them." (Matthew 7:12) In addition to loving our enemies, Jesus' taught that NO resistance should be given to our enemies: "But I say to you that hear, LOVE YOUR ENEMIES, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. TO HIM WHO STRIKES YOU ON THE CHEEK, OFFER THE OTHER ALSO; AND FROM HIM WHO TAKES AWAY YOUR CLOAK DO NOT WITHHOLD YOUR COAT AS WELL. Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods, do not ask them again. And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them." (Luke 6:27-31, emphasis mine.) Matthew's version of the Sermon on the Mount, also demonstrates this PASSIVE element in loving one's enemies: "Offer the wicked man no resistance. On the contrary, if anyone hits you on the right cheek, offer him the other also". (Matthew 5:39-40). Because of these and other sayings, Jesus is generally recognized as one of the great moral leaders in the world--by BOTH believers and non-believers! How the Golden Rule was "Twisted" to Allow Tortures, Slavery, and Religious Wars When Orthodox Christians came into power in the Roman Empire during the fourth century C.E., a controversy arose among Christians as to whether the Golden Rule allowed them to go to war against the barbarian enemy.--For a LITERAL interpretation of the Golden Rule, would seem to imply that good Christians should not take up arms against ANY enemy. Orthodox Christians were thus anxious to find an interpretation that would assure the devout that it was not sinful to take up arms to go to war. St. Augustine of Hippo (late fourth century C.E.) writings were heavily relied on to justify aggression against an "Enemy". According to Augustine's doctrine of original sin, there was a need for a strong authoritarian power (interpreted to mean both religious AND secular leaders) to control corrupted, evil humans. St. Augustine reconciled his view with the Golden Rule-- by interpreting the Golden Rule along a SPIRITUAL plane, so that it was no longer relevant towards our affairs on EARTH! A "just" war could and should be waged by Christian authorities against a recognizable evil. St Augustine's reinterpretation of the Golden Rule was based on the following rational argument: Because our EARTHLY lives are INSIGNIFICANT when compared to eternal life in HEAVEN, then there could be no loftier deed that we could want others to do for us, than to SAVE OUR ETERNAL SOUL. From this reasoning, it follows that the act of saving souls is so important, that it SUPERCEDES EVERYTHING ELSE! Inhumane actions such as wars and even torture could thus be reconciled to the Golden Rule, because of the necessity of maintaining a strong Christian society under the leadership of a powerful Church-- whose primary goal was to save souls for heaven. Using this interpretation, persecution could now be defined as a "righteous" act--performed out of "love" for the soul of the heretic. ... Comparison of the Golden Rule with the Silver Rule One important reason why St. Augustine and others were able to interpret the Golden Rule along this new spiritual plane is because the Golden Rule speaks in terms of the believer doing what s/he feels is "best" for the other person. In other words, the Golden Rule does NOT state: "Do unto others as THEY [ie, the other people] would like", Instead, the Golden Rule states: "Do unto others as YOU would have them do unto YOU." (emphasis mine.) Thus, the person who JUDGES what is "good" for the individual is the believer, and NOT the other person. Assuming the believer has a good moral framework, this should not make much difference.--That is, the rule would NOT be interpreted as taking an INHUMANE action against another--such as torturing, killing, raping, or enslaving--under the pretense of "loving" these individuals. However, real life experience has shown that one CANNOT ASSUME everyone to have a good basis of morals! And such an individual can conceivably PERVERT the Golden Rule by claiming that they are acting towards others as they themselves would "like" to be treated. Examples would include a masochist who feels empowered by the Golden Rule to hurt others, (ie, because s/he himself wants to be inflicted with pain); a sex offender who wants to sexually abuse others (again because s/he wants to be so abused), and a religious zealot who believes s/he would rather die if they felt they were straying from their "perfect" dogma. Because there are OTHER explicit laws in the form of the Ten Commandments, believers are prevented from interpreting the Golden rule along lines of sodomy, theft, etc. However, THERE ARE NO EXPLICIT OLD OR NEW TESTAMENT LAWS DIRECTLY FORBIDDING TORTURE, SLAVERY, POGRAMS, AND WARS! Therefore, these latter items (ie torture, slavery, etc) could RATIONALLY be justifiable acts under the Golden Rule--IF(?) defined in such a way that the believer is inflicting these out of "love" for the eternal souls of others. This discussion is no mere exercise in logic, because during the Dark Ages, Catholic Inquisitors tortured and burned heretics after interpreting the Golden Rule in just this way! Thus, because there are NO biblical verses directly FORBIDDING inhumane actions such as torture and slavery, St. Augustine was able to effectively SHORT-CIRCUIT the basic message of the Golden Rule. In the process, the SILVER Rule--which outright forbade individuals to take action which could harm others (and was therefore more difficult to twist using spiritual metaphors)-- was ALSO abandoned. The result was that under this "interpretation" of the Golden Rule, others could now be harmed--although persecutors could claim this was a "loving" action, and divinely sanctioned by God. In contrast to the Golden Rule, the Silver rule speaks in terms of FORBIDDING harmful actions against others: "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you." The difference is that the Silver Rule, in itself, gives NO MORAL justification for taking ANY actions against our neighbor. Therefore, in testing how the Silver Rule could be interpreted by a person with a perverted or inhumane system of morals (such as a masochist, sex offender, Inquisitor, or slaveholder), it can be seen that the Silver Rule gives an individual no moral justification for taking any action against another person. Instead the focus for the believer, is to morally prevent him/her from taking any HARMFUL action against the individual. This is unlike the Golden Rule which divinely EMPOWERS the believer to perform "loving" acts against all others. Of course in the hands of an ideologue, even the Silver Rule can be perverted to allow for the harm of others--unless such action is explicitly forbidden--say inhumane actions such as torture or slavery. More at: <a href="http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/ETHICS2.TXT" target="_blank">http://mac-2001.com/philo/crit/ETHICS2.TXT</a> Sojourner [ March 19, 2002: Message edited by: Sojourner553 ]</p>

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

03-12-2002, 10:40 PM	#31
Mu Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Mu Posts: 8	i recognize the possibility that i am the only thinking being in the universe (since after all I don't inhabit others minds, only my own) and everyone else is some sort of organo-robot or an illusion. hypothetically, if this was true than the golden rule might be useless.

03-13-2002, 03:12 AM	#32
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	If I see hitler getting killed should I rescue him, since i expect him to resuce me in the same situation? Am i not putting my faith in his probable action? If I rescue him am I morally responsible for any future deaths that could occur because of him? Why yes. The way I read the Golden Rule, it does not encumber the other party with a reciprocal burden. Only oneself. "Do unto others...." says nothing about the obligations of the other party, right?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.