The Golden Rule Reconsidered
This came up in the "Ayn Rand / Bible" topic in "Ask the Gulch."
(Full discussion on that is here: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Posted by $ Solver 4 days, 14 hours ago
Except it seems to assume that each individual seems to value the same things the same way.
Posted by $ prof611 4 days, 14 hours ago
As an objectivist for over 50 years, I would say that the only part of the bible I find relevant is the "Golden Rule". It seems to be applicable to just about any philosophy.
Posted by $ CBJ 4 days, 12 hours ago
The "Golden Rule" is not applicable to any religion that advocates the use of force against non-believers. It also does not apply to philosophies such as nihilism or subjectivism, or philosophies that advocate unconditional obedience to authority.
Posted by lrshultis 4 days, 10 hours ago
My problem with the 'Golden Rule' is that it is not a good governing rule. It calls for one to become a nuscience to those whom one deals with. Much better is the 'don't do to others what you do not like' which is a governing rule. It is like saying do not harm others and not like saying to doing something to others which can be harmful but is just great for those into sadomasochism.
Posted by $ MikeMarotta 19 hours, 30 minutes ago
No. Literally, yes, it does apply to "just about any philosophy" but it does not apply to Objectivism. See Solver's one-liner in reply. The error in the so-called Golden Rule is the assumption that everyone values the same things in the same way.
Have you never done a favor for a friend who did not appreciate it? If not hostile (friendship being the context), they were ambivalent and unappreciative. Their values were not yours.
As a literal statement the Golden Rule fails.
You may want to interpret it as a broad intention for justice. We call it the equal recognition of the rights of others. But realize that it is very easy to construct social situations in which that does not apply. You buy a seaside site and build your home on it. Someone comes along and buys the shoreline and puts up a skyscraper that blocks your view. Do you go to the Planning Commission? Do you sue in court? Do you sell and and move on? What you do has not much to do with their rights. Hell, Howard Roark blew up a building... Could you do that to protect your highly putative "property rights" to a seaside sunset?
Yes, if someone were drowning and if you were qualified and prepared, you might choose to jump in and save them, perhaps on the assumption that if it were you then you would want the same. Myself, I am a volunteer first responder (not for swimming) but I signed up and got trained and go to drills not because I would want someone to do the same for me. I can take care of myself and I am prepared to do so. My motivation is expressed in Atlas Shrugged where Ragnar and Miidas explain that it is in their self-interest to see society rebuilt as soon as possible. So, too, for me. I am capable, competent, and trained to respond to a large-scale disaster. The sooner we all get back to normal, the better it is for me. Their happiness is not my concern.
Moreover, as for the drowning victim, some curmudgeon here might reply, "If I am stupid enough to be drowning in the first place, then let me go because I am unworthy of living." (Just sayin'...).
Posted by $ Solver 17 hours ago
Interesting though provoking post. It is a topic in of itself.
(Full discussion on that is here: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Posted by $ Solver 4 days, 14 hours ago
Except it seems to assume that each individual seems to value the same things the same way.
Posted by $ prof611 4 days, 14 hours ago
As an objectivist for over 50 years, I would say that the only part of the bible I find relevant is the "Golden Rule". It seems to be applicable to just about any philosophy.
Posted by $ CBJ 4 days, 12 hours ago
The "Golden Rule" is not applicable to any religion that advocates the use of force against non-believers. It also does not apply to philosophies such as nihilism or subjectivism, or philosophies that advocate unconditional obedience to authority.
Posted by lrshultis 4 days, 10 hours ago
My problem with the 'Golden Rule' is that it is not a good governing rule. It calls for one to become a nuscience to those whom one deals with. Much better is the 'don't do to others what you do not like' which is a governing rule. It is like saying do not harm others and not like saying to doing something to others which can be harmful but is just great for those into sadomasochism.
Posted by $ MikeMarotta 19 hours, 30 minutes ago
No. Literally, yes, it does apply to "just about any philosophy" but it does not apply to Objectivism. See Solver's one-liner in reply. The error in the so-called Golden Rule is the assumption that everyone values the same things in the same way.
Have you never done a favor for a friend who did not appreciate it? If not hostile (friendship being the context), they were ambivalent and unappreciative. Their values were not yours.
As a literal statement the Golden Rule fails.
You may want to interpret it as a broad intention for justice. We call it the equal recognition of the rights of others. But realize that it is very easy to construct social situations in which that does not apply. You buy a seaside site and build your home on it. Someone comes along and buys the shoreline and puts up a skyscraper that blocks your view. Do you go to the Planning Commission? Do you sue in court? Do you sell and and move on? What you do has not much to do with their rights. Hell, Howard Roark blew up a building... Could you do that to protect your highly putative "property rights" to a seaside sunset?
Yes, if someone were drowning and if you were qualified and prepared, you might choose to jump in and save them, perhaps on the assumption that if it were you then you would want the same. Myself, I am a volunteer first responder (not for swimming) but I signed up and got trained and go to drills not because I would want someone to do the same for me. I can take care of myself and I am prepared to do so. My motivation is expressed in Atlas Shrugged where Ragnar and Miidas explain that it is in their self-interest to see society rebuilt as soon as possible. So, too, for me. I am capable, competent, and trained to respond to a large-scale disaster. The sooner we all get back to normal, the better it is for me. Their happiness is not my concern.
Moreover, as for the drowning victim, some curmudgeon here might reply, "If I am stupid enough to be drowning in the first place, then let me go because I am unworthy of living." (Just sayin'...).
Posted by $ Solver 17 hours ago
Interesting though provoking post. It is a topic in of itself.
For example: Zi gong (a disciple of Confucius) asked: "Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?"
The Master replied: "How about 'shu' [reciprocity]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?"
--Confucius, Analects XV.24, tr. David Hinton. I think The Golden Rule can be read as an admonition against hypocrisy, and as advocating having an objective code of morality which one applies equally and fairly to oneself and to others.
Wikipedia's "Criticism" section addresses some of the objections raised here. An excerpt: Walter Terence Stace, in The Concept of Morals (1937), wrote:
Mr Bernard Shaw's remark "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may be different" is no doubt a smart saying. But it seems to overlook the fact that "doing as you would be done by" includes taking into account your neighbour's tastes as you would that he should take yours into account. Thus the "golden rule" might still express the essence of a universal morality even if no two men in the world had any needs or tastes in common.
This one seems to be the one the politicials follow.
As it was in the beginning, is now, and ever shall be.
I have The Feregni Rules of Acquisition on my shelf with my business books.
https://necessaryfacts.blogspot.com/2...
Find out what they intend to do to you, then do it to them first.
Yes I like it for the rhetoric and humor over the logic, it does not work in a strict sense unless everyone values the same things in the same way.
Given that, it suits those who are initiators rather than reactive.
Interpreted loosely it could justify forward defense, the removal of known enemies before they strike when it is too late.
(Just sayin'.,..)
Confucius was on tour. The question was asked,
Sir, some say that kindness should be repaid with kindness, but how should unkindness be repaid?
Confucius answered,
Yes, kindness is to be repaid with kindness. Unkindness should be repaid with justice.
This use of the word justice corresponds, in my view, to Objectivism in that it is easy to deal with good intentions, but bad behavior should generate a response based on good first principles and proper understanding of the situation.
This is why economics calculations are always written to assume that money measures "objective value". At least money does make it possible to observe objectively that I'm willing to pay more for X than you are, when that is so.
You dont take my stuff or attack me, and I wont take yours or attack you- so we can then get on to cooperating for our mutual benefit.
That does assume that all people actually want to cooperate as equals. There are some people who just want to take others' stuff, but dont want them to take theirs. Not very logical, but some people arent strapped by logic and its conclusions.'
Some neighbors will borrow and never return, but never loan out their stuff for example. Very shortly they lose the ability to borrow from others in the neighborhood who are ON to how they think.
For more normal people, I believe that the Golden Rule is completely applicable. What person wouldn't want to get a good deal on something they need yet also want the vendor to be able to continue to supply for those needs?
And despite all that, she married me. ;)
Imagine more people using the “prohibitive form” of the Golden Rule.
The problem with an absolute rule is that is it not objective. Absolute moralities say that you must always do (or refrain from) some action regardless of context.
Objectivism recognizes absolutes, but they tend to be in the metaphysical realm, not the world of human action.
(We shoiuld have a discussion on paradoxes. They present epistemological problems.)
The Golden Rule is likewise a meta-rule. It does not itemize specific preferences that should have the same value to all individuals. It lets each individual assign their own value and interact with others accordingly. It means being what used to be called considerate of others. The extreme case of inverted values, as in S&M, is not the ruling condition, just as lifeboat situations are not the standard by which to measure everything else.
Ayn Rand's version of the Golden Rule is Galt's Oath.
For my interest in ancient Greek numismatics, I got a Greek New Testament. Then I found out that it was translated into Koine Greek from modern texts. No actual Koine New Testament exists. It is a set of manuscripts. Different places have different archives. Mostly the same. They say...
Imagine an SJW thinking, “I like punching Nazis. I’m not a Nazi, but if I was a Nazi I’d want somebody to punch me.”
Now image a mob of those.
It usually works better when two people know each other, have a good idea of each other’s values and share many values.
He who has the gold, makes the rules.....