Golden Rule
- Thread starter Roman
- Start date
sorry roman but that phrase is used in many things "the golden rule" clarify wich golden rule then ile gladly comment on it. not bieng an ass man im actually confused.
peace
peace
If you believe that people should pay for their "sins and transgressions" and you are not a hypocrite, then "The Golden Rule" would very well equate to "and eye for an eye", because you would feel that's the punishment YOU deserve for YOUR sin, if you had done it, therefore others deserve the same.Light said:Not really, James. An eye for an eye would be more accurately described as meaning "Do unto others as they did unto you.
That sounds kind of convolted. Does it make sense?
I think it does, but doesn't necessarily HAVE to.
Do unto others as you WOULD HAVE THEM do unto you.
If I believed that child molestors should be castrated and had a strong sense of integrity, then I would believe that I should be castrated if I moleted a chld.
Therefore, if I molested a child, I would have people castrate me, according to my values and philosophy of punishment for crime.
Do unto others as you WOULD HAVE THEM do unto you.
If I believed that child molestors should be castrated and had a strong sense of integrity, then I would believe that I should be castrated if I moleted a chld.
Therefore, if I molested a child, I would have people castrate me, according to my values and philosophy of punishment for crime.
I just posted:
I think that it does not apply to others that commit crimes because I think that The Golden Rule is a religious tennet, and as such, speaks only to how you should act internally.
I think the dividing line between religion and politics is one of internal and external actions/beliefs, respectively.
For example, telling someone that they should treat others with respect is the realm of religion.
What to do to people that do not treat others with respect is one of politics.
What to do to someone who doesn't treat YOU with respect, is where the line gets gray for me, and I am still trying to discern where that line should be drawn.
Then deleted it.
I think that it does not apply to others that commit crimes because I think that The Golden Rule is a religious tennet, and as such, speaks only to how you should act internally.
I think the dividing line between religion and politics is one of internal and external actions/beliefs, respectively.
For example, telling someone that they should treat others with respect is the realm of religion.
What to do to people that do not treat others with respect is one of politics.
What to do to someone who doesn't treat YOU with respect, is where the line gets gray for me, and I am still trying to discern where that line should be drawn.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you represents the prisoners dilemma and a good rule for civilization.
Have you guys heard of the prisoners dilemma? It basically involves two people in a prison and they can either cheat or cooperate. If both cheat, there's no reward. If both cooperate, the reward is less than had only one of you cooperated and the other cheated.
The best way to play, it's been found, is always to cooperate in the first round. Do unto him as you'd have him do unto you. And if he cooperates back, you cooperate back. Otherwise, cheat.
In larger society, I'd think that the golden rule functions as powerful social cohesion, replacing blood ties. One doesn't hurt family a family is you, genetically. But by the golden rule, you treat everyone as if they were you, as if they were family. Treating everyone fairly and equitably, as you would like to be treated, is how we can all get along.
What interests me most about the golden rule, individual hypocrisy aside, is who society deems protected by the golden rule. Are Jews protected under the golden rule? Muslims? Blacks? Retards? Comatose people? Fetuses? Zygotes?
How do we decide who is deserving of treatment that we'd treat ourselves with?
Have you guys heard of the prisoners dilemma? It basically involves two people in a prison and they can either cheat or cooperate. If both cheat, there's no reward. If both cooperate, the reward is less than had only one of you cooperated and the other cheated.
The best way to play, it's been found, is always to cooperate in the first round. Do unto him as you'd have him do unto you. And if he cooperates back, you cooperate back. Otherwise, cheat.
In larger society, I'd think that the golden rule functions as powerful social cohesion, replacing blood ties. One doesn't hurt family a family is you, genetically. But by the golden rule, you treat everyone as if they were you, as if they were family. Treating everyone fairly and equitably, as you would like to be treated, is how we can all get along.
What interests me most about the golden rule, individual hypocrisy aside, is who society deems protected by the golden rule. Are Jews protected under the golden rule? Muslims? Blacks? Retards? Comatose people? Fetuses? Zygotes?
How do we decide who is deserving of treatment that we'd treat ourselves with?
The gold standard of business ethics is that he who has the gold make the rules.
Fraggle Rocker
Staff member
The Golden Rule is supposed to apply to everyone. Period. To the extent that it's a Judeo-Christian thing, the Bible makes it clear that a righteous person treats everyone decently even if they're a different religion. (Of course the last few dozen generations of Judeo-Christian leaders have occasionally lost track of that.)
The problem is that not everyone wants to be treated the way you do.
This entire bullshit about bringing democracy to the whole world. I've got news for the Moron-in-Chief: Not everybody WANTS democracy. I have a number of friends in Bulgaria. They were so tired of the Russians telling them they had to live in a socialist dictatorship. But no sooner was it over than the Westerners start telling they have to live in a capitalist democracy.
The Bulgarians were just hunky-dory living in a KINGDOM for about nine hundred years. Peaceful, prosperous, happy. They would really like to have their king back. Screw democracy!
The problem is that not everyone wants to be treated the way you do.
This entire bullshit about bringing democracy to the whole world. I've got news for the Moron-in-Chief: Not everybody WANTS democracy. I have a number of friends in Bulgaria. They were so tired of the Russians telling them they had to live in a socialist dictatorship. But no sooner was it over than the Westerners start telling they have to live in a capitalist democracy.
The Bulgarians were just hunky-dory living in a KINGDOM for about nine hundred years. Peaceful, prosperous, happy. They would really like to have their king back. Screw democracy!
Roman said:
I don't think so.
Basing ethical arguments on mutuality implies the beliefs that
1. we need others in order to be happy and safe,
and that
2. we are per default responsible for eachother's well-being.
None of these two is apriori true; they are ethical stances that we can either decide to accept or to reject.
However, we can also live by never making this decision, thereby leaving ourselves vulnerable to others, hoping that "the system" would take care of us -- and this is where game theory and strategizing comes in.
water said:
I understand what you're trying to say but your basic premises are not accurate.
On both points: Few people can actually live without social interaction. And that means we must all more or less agree on conventions and parameters within which to execute that interaction. As a result, if we choose to not stay within those ethical bounds we can cause others to be unhappy, unsafe and threaten their well-being.
I believe you can easily see how that negates both statements.