DRFseven

That's exactly how I see it, but this point must have occurred to Nietzsche, as well. I'd like to know why he wouldn't have agreed.

Eudaimonist

I'd like someone to explain to me how the Golden Rule actually solves any moral dilemma. Note: merely providing an answer isn't the same thing as providing a solution.

In what sense is the Golden Rule even a moral principle since it can mean different things to different people? For example, people with low self-esteem tolerate far more mistreatment than those of high self-esteem, and thus these two groups will apply the Golden Rule in different fashions.

It seems to me that the Golden Rule can be restated as treat others well. The reason it is so popular is because it is a meta-rule -- it is a rule that guides one in the generation of rules. It does not specify any standard of well-being, but instead asks people to supply their own understanding of such, based on life experiences, intuition, or whatever. In a sense, it's like a unzip program for your mind.

I personally find the Golden Rule to be woefully inadequate as an all-encompassing moral rule since it does not tell you how you should treat yourself. But I suppose this won't bother anyone who views morality as purely inter-personal.

DRFseven

Or, "People should try to treat people well." This is a lot different from saying "People should treat people any way they feel like treating them."

And, of course, it can't, because of the subjective nature of values. To be of any use as a moral guideline, it must, of necessity, be general. Otherwise, we'd see moral rules along the lines of "If a dog eats from thy plate, thou shalt wash thy plate in dirt seven times before thou eatest from thy plate again." Now, that's useful, ain't it?

Eudaimonist

Huh?!?

I'm not criticizing the Golden Rule for its generality. Any moral principle is general, and I'm all in favor of moral principles. I think we must be misunderstanding each other somewhere.

DRFseven

Didn't you say you found it "woefully inadequate as an all-encompassing moral rule"?

jpbrooks

I agree. But let me stretch myself and try to play the "devil's advocate".

I'm not sure that an ethical egoist who holds, for example, that it is "good" to obtain money from people, even through fraudulent practices (if one can get away with it), would want that "moral" rule to become a universal "maxim".
In fact, it doesn't seem likely that the (strict) ethical egoist would even want his most fundamental ethical principle (viz., that one should do "good" only for oneself) to become universally adopted.

Thus, this seems to represent a case in which the Golden Rule, applied in the usual way, would not yield a universal moral principle.

[ March 03, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

Ms. Siv

Not always, no. Depends on the proportion of exploiters in the population.

Who was it who said : "Do unto others as you would expect them to do unto you ? What if your tastes are not the same ?"

- Sivakami.

mac_philo

I think the reason he would not agree is because he would think it is beside the point that the Christian considers himself to be seeking pleasure and freedom. Here is what the Christian seeks: a bloody sacrifice, vulgar iconography, self denial, recognition of original sin, repentance, meekness, proselytizing, forgiveness (this is perhaps worst of all).

If the Christian, living in bad faith, considers these to be pleasurable and freedom-bestowing, that's fine. They are free to partake of any delusions they choose. It does not follow that treating others in accordance with these teachings, or encouraging others to have these values, is an act of sharing pleasure and freedom. These are self-negating values, and only through a supremely duplicitious act of denial can the Christian convince himself that they confer freedom upon him.

Nietzsche wants man to struggle to create his own standard; any Christian acting on the Golden Rule prevents that goal from being actualized.

Eudaimonist

I might not have been clear. By "all-encompassing", I meant that it would not serve well as the fundamental rule -- the basis -- of all morality. I've heard it said that the Golden Rule is the essence of morality and the rest is merely commentary. I disagree with this.

brahma

Sivakami,
look at my post in the middle of this thread.