Golden Rule: Pure Garbage? (page 7)

Splash

"Gary Ridgway, what do you have to say in your defence?"

"I followed the Golden Rule, your honour."

I don't think they're skippable, Vivian. I'd start by asking would I like someone else to skip them for me? (the GR) The Golden Rule serves as a starting point when you know little or nothing about someone. You can't do to them as they'd like to have done if you don't know them, so you start with little knowledge and use the Golden Rule to guide your way forward.The caveats aren't caveats to the rule, they arise by asking "Would I like this done to me"? (the GR)

I'm not sure if you're kidding Splash, but if Gary Ridgway were following the Golden Rule, the first thing he'd have to think of is "Would I like to be brutally assaulted and killed"?

Viviane

I don't think they're skippable, Vivian.

They aren't in the golden rule. They are things YOU are adding. They are completely skippable by anyone else.

I'd start by asking would I like someone else to skip them for me?

Again, that's YOU. Not everyone would interpret it that way.

You can't do to them as they'd like to have done if you don't know them, so you start with little knowledge and use the Golden Rule to guide your way forward.

The golden rule doesn't say to do unto them as they would like. You've got what it says exactly backwards.

OnTheWayOut

Rather than assume people want the same thing you want, you could always ask them.

I think the Golden Rule doesn't omit this. I would want someone to ask me how I would like to be treated instead of just assuming. This is in line with the Golden rule.

Flag Dislike LikeI have to go with that. The Golden Rule is short and simple, but allows for "Assume you don't want what they want and ask what they want." It's not garbage, it's just not completely everything in all situations. It's a great place to start when you need a place to start.

alexei954

What you're calling caveats are derived from the GR, specifically from asking oneself "Would I like it if this were done to me?". If it fails that test, then whatever action you're taking is not the Golden Rule.

The Golden Rule is a maxim, it does not attempt to spell out concrete actions. It provides a means of testing potential actions by placing yourself in the other persons shoes and asking "Would I like to be treated this way?"

In this sense, it's similar to "What would (Jesus/Buddha/Dad) do?" that others may use as an aid to help determine some moral question. No concrete action is spelled out, just a litmus test for actions one is considering or perhaps as a suggestive guiding question.

The Golden Rule isn't something you can cherry-pick, deciding what you will follow and what you won't. This isn't my caveat, definition, or interpretation: It derives from my following the Golden: "Would I like someone else to decide to follow the Golden Rule for some things but be inconsiderate towards me if they prefer?"

I my answer is "No." yet I skip such things as respect and empathy for the other person, I am not acting according to the Golden Rule. It's possible I may fail to consider it; the rule is no guarantee against genuine error, but if I am aware of it and skip it anyway, then I'm not treating the other person as I would like to be treated i.e. I'm no longer following the Golden Rule.

The Golden Rule does not attempt to place you over the other; it is specifically designed to counter that by asking you to place yourself in the shoes of the other person. ("Would I want this done to me?").

Maybe another way some have of looking at it would be more useful: "Would it matter to me which person I was in the interaction"? If you're treating the other person as well as you'd like to be treated, it should make no difference.

> You can't do to them as they'd like to have done if you don't know them

I should have clarified I was speaking of the Platinum rule. I don't think it's as helpful of a maxim because I think it's less intuitive to ask the question: "How would they like to be treated". It does not provide any reference to anything other than possible preconceived ideas inherent in oneself or one's culture. The Golden Rule references back to me and I can ask myself "Would I like to be treated like this?" I think the The Golden Rule is especially more helpful when trying to overcome cultural or personal bias.

As an example, say I lived in the south in the 1920's. Raised in that culture, I may not be aware of having any ingrained disrespect for "Negroes". I may honestly think I treat them well, especially compared to many others who treat them worse. If I ask the question "How would they like to be treated?" I primarily have my culture and tradition to consider as references to answer that question. Due to intimidation, I don't think asking someone would get me an honest answer. I'd probably continue to blindly conclude that I treat them pretty well. On the other hand, if I ask myself "Would I like to be treated like this?", I think it give me more insight. My reference is now to me, not society, the dominant culture or tradition. It would help make me aware of the implicit racism that I hold within me as part of the dominant culture.

cultBgone

If you feel the need to have a rule for guidance, try the Kindness rule: make it your goal to treat each person you meet with kindness.

Eliminates all the fuss.

Viviane

What you're calling caveats are derived from the GR, specifically from asking oneself "Would I like it if this were done to me?". If it fails that test, then whatever action you're taking is not the Golden Rule.

What I am calling caveats are actual, literal caveats. They also aren't from the golden rule. The golden rule, at best, allows for asking that, but it doesn't say to do that. You are adding on to the golden rule to make it work and no amount of pretending the golden rule says something it doesn't will change that.

The Golden Rule is a maxim, it does not attempt to spell out concrete actions. It provides a means of testing potential actions by placing yourself in the other persons shoes and asking "Would I like to be treated this way?"

Do, no does not. It literally does the opposite, saying to do to people what you would want done to you. Any concern for the other person's wishes is outside of the golden rule. You are pretending the golden rule says something it does not.

The Golden Rule does not attempt to place you over the other; it is specifically designed to counter that by asking you to place yourself in the shoes of the other person. ("Would I want this done to me?").

Again, the golden rule doesn't say that at all. It literally says to do the opposite of that.

stillin

I really don't think that the Golden Rule would have endured the test of time if it was as stupid as some here are trying to make it seem.

It's actually obvious. I'm hungry, so I want YOU to eat something. So I can follow the Golden Rule. Come on, people. It's a good rule. Quit bickering about every little thing.

Viviane

I really don't think that the Golden Rule would have endured the test of time if it was as stupid as some here are trying to make it seem.

Most people rarely follow the golden rule. Instead, they follow generally accepted customs in their society and defer to other people's wishes and desires.

It's actually obvious. I'm hungry, so I want YOU to eat something. So I can follow the Golden Rule. Come on, people. It's a good rule. Quit bickering about every little thing.

The golden rule is one of those things that sounds great until you actually think about what it's saying and follow it to it's logical conclusion. As far as bickering, sounds like you're the one with the problem, so feel free to exit the thread or quit partaking. What you aren't free to do is to tell me what to do.

stillin

That's what I'm talking about

Golden Rule: Pure Garbage?

Share this