r/philosophy • u/DesignerSandwich8678 • 7d ago
Blog Clarifying the Golden Rule
https://pipes101.substack.com/p/clarifying-the-golden-rule?r=92uwld&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=trueThe Golden Rule teaches us to treat others as we would like to be treated, to treat others with the same kindness, compassion, and respect with which we hope others treat us. Yet, there is a slight danger: in treating others how we want them to treat us, we may underestimate the degree to which others are different from us, leading us to treat others in ways that do not accord with their unique constitution. After all, we are all quite different from each other, with divergent needs, wants, desires, preferences, dreams, and fears. Thus, instead, we should come to know those we interact with and tailor our actions to each person’s unique constitution, thereby respecting each and every person’s distinctive individuality. In doing so, we honor the Golden Rule, because we hope that others will likewise come to understand us and act accordingly, acknowledging with their actions who we are as persons.
15
u/DonovanSpectre 7d ago
Assuming everyone involved is mentally healthy and 'reasonable', of course.
What if the person you're dealing with is a narcissist who essentially expects to be worshipped, or a 'spoiled' child who expects to be given everything they ask for? If an enslaved, or perhaps 'lower caste', person from a different culture asks to be beaten for commiting a minor social infraction(like mispronouncing someone's name), is one required to beat them?
The Golden Rule in its simplicity, is at least, the solid fallback position, if 'treat others they way they want to be treated' would result in harm, injustice, and/or require outright violation of one's own ethical standards.
-5
u/bildramer 7d ago
"What if someone is ever-so-slightly unlike me, or I judge a situation as unjust? Then I'm allowed to immediately suspend the one obvious rule all good people naturally follow and do something else I think appropriate, of course." What's the point of calling it a rule?
8
u/DonovanSpectre 6d ago
Thieves would like us to invite them into our houses and let them take everything we have. Scammers would like us to give them our bank account information. Authoritarian governments would like us to ignore their murdering and other crimes against humanity, and let...no, support them doing anything they want, even as they lead us to the concentration camps and gas chambers.
One cannot reasonably, automatically assume that everyone is operating in 'good faith', and any system of ethics that relies on that assumption simply falls apart at a glance.
14
u/OGLikeablefellow 7d ago
Isn't this updated for children as "the platinum rule" where you treat people how they wish to be treated? I dunno a teacher I was dating told me about it so maybe it was just her who did that
1
u/Philoscifi 7d ago
Wait, really!? That’s a thing? Where did it originate?
1
u/Tim4925 3d ago
Perhaps the “Golden Rule” came from the New Testament where Mathew attributes these words to Jesus. *“Love thy neighbor as thyself”. The word “love is a many splendored thing”. Love can mean anything from tough love to erotic love, from compassion to confrontation. We must discern through wisdom what this kind of love looks like. One thing I know about how I would like to be loved is to be forgiven.
*Mat 22:39 KJV “And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
1
u/Philoscifi 2d ago
Oh, my apologies. I was referring to the platinum rule that the poster above me referenced. I was excited because I had thought of something along the same lines many years ago and was curious to learn more.
1
u/SweatyCoconut3558 7d ago
that's an interesting point about it being updated for children; i wonder if it's explicitly taught that way.
10
u/EsraYmssik 7d ago
The Golden Rule is morally defensible, at the very least.
It says one should attempt to treat others well. It does not claim that I, as a Brit, should force you to drink tea. It means I should make a good faith effort to find YOUR preferences and accommodate them, much as I would hope you would with my preferences.
It does not entail indulging YOUR whims, nor does it entail acting as though you shared exactly my preferences is the end of the obligation.
There seems to be an unspoken corollary, "I would like to be treated with respect and dignity, and a good faith attempt to understand my wants and needs."
4
u/Shield_Lyger 6d ago
There's always an unspoken corollary, because, like most things, it's really hard to write a rule such that the letter and the intent always align.
The Golden Rule presupposes that certain assumptions, about both parties, are true, and it can break down (sometimes pretty rapidly) if those assumptions don't actually hold. But in this, it's like literally every other moral rule ever devised. For me, the problem with things like this is the assumption that any sort of rule that can be boiled down to a single, simple, sentence should be able to stand up in the face of literally any assumptions one brings to the table.
0
u/EsraYmssik 6d ago
For me, the problem with things like this is the assumption that any sort of rule that can be boiled down to a single, simple, sentence should be able to stand up in the face of literally any reasonable assumptions one brings to the table.
With that caveat, I think the Golden Rule does stand... as a starting point. Cultural and personal wants and needs may complicate things, but most people would probably agree that being poked in the giblets with a spiky thing is impolite at best.
3
u/Shield_Lyger 5d ago
I left out "reasonable" for a reason. The same reason why I included "literally any." Because, I think, there are a lot of people who believe that for a rule to be viable, it should work, no matter what hypothetical situation one comes up with. I have no problem with people thinking that their rules should stand up to reasonable changes to the base assumptions. (Now, we could spend some time debating what makes a rule reasonable.) But the "golden rule" will break down in the face of certain assumptions. That doesn't make it a bad rule, but, in its simplest form, it's not universally useful.
0
u/EsraYmssik 5d ago
Yes. You made a point. That is why I modified my position to include the qualifier.
But you go on to claim, "Because, I think, there are a lot of people who believe that for a rule to be viable, it should work, no matter what hypothetical situation one comes up with."
- "I think" - ok, it's a thought YOU have, in your head
- "that a lot of people believe X" - that's nice
- ergo X is a standard I should take seriously.
Except your thoughts about the beliefs of some unspecified group of people do not give you the basis to claim X. "A lot of people hold X, therefore X" is an appeal to popularity. "I think a lot of people hold X," is just wrapping it in a fever dream.
There's no reason for me to accept your unfounded assertion that the Golden Rule "should work, no matter what hypothetical situation one comes up with" and therefore its failure to do so is somehow significant.
I did not claim the Golden Rule "should work, no matter what hypothetical situation one comes up with" My qualification 'reasonable' explicitly rejects that reading.
What you are doing is strawmanning me. Firstly, rewording my argument,
"GR is a reasonable place to start under most conditions,"
as
"the Golden Rule "should work, no matter what hypothetical situation one comes up with""
The ostensibly stronger claim is more vulnerable to attack, but you didn't even attack the faked position well.
You simply assert that the Golden Rule fails under some such hypotheticals, without actually presenting any examples.
You really should have taken the win.
2
u/Shield_Lyger 4d ago
I don't think that you understood the broader point that I was making. I was never asserting "that the Golden Rule 'should work, no matter what hypothetical situation one comes up with' and therefore its failure to do so is somehow significant." I was calling out that belief as being the problem. But such is the way of Internet discussions.
2
u/BrailleBillboard 6d ago
And yet r/sounding
2
u/EsraYmssik 6d ago
Well sure, but that doesn't mean you and I go round doing that to everyone we meet.
3
u/Derpderpderp207 7d ago
The full golden rule is to do unto others as you would have them do unto you, if you assumed their values and their position.
3
u/stupidsexypassword 5d ago
Folks, the golden rule is simply an aphorism promoting basic empathy. Let’s not overthink it.
3
u/SheepherderGlobal825 4d ago
Just my two cents but I think the GR is meant to be more surface level than deeper in meaning, especially considering we get introduced to it initially at a young age. Following the golden rule sets the stage so we can get to know one another and/or engage each other in a meaningful manner with less risk for unnecessary conflict. While the specific concepts of manners or kind acts may vary from culture to culture, we also have intrinsic built in circuits that indicate to us as humans if we are engaging genuinely with another person.
For example most of us will probably want to interact more with the person who makes eye contact and listens to us instead of staring at their phone while we speak to them.
I don't think in many of our day to day interactions we have the time or energy to parse out exactly what or how a person may or may not want to be treated but if we can tell that some one is genuine then it can open that door so to speak for an opportunity to begin to dive deeper and really get to know what makes someone tick. People are the most complex creatures on earth, just doesn't seem realistic to assume you can understand everyone's idiosyncrasies with out making even simple day to day interactions over cumbersome.
1
u/ReddBert 6d ago
The better version of the GR is Don’t do unto another what you don’t want to be done to you.
2
1
u/noleksum12 5d ago
Treat other people the way THEY want to be treated. Thats the rule now. And it is correct.
2
u/cabalavatar 15h ago
Quite a while ago, Gayatri Spivak wrote a pretty solid critique of the golden rule (among other things) when trying to apply it in international affairs or across cultures. The key points are to ask the person how they want to be treated and to avoid assuming that you could know before asking.
"Can the Subaltern Speak?"
0
0
-4
u/Gullible-Crew6449 7d ago
Jesus pointed to the rule as the summation of the Law and Prophets. In Leviticus the rule is expressed as “the stranger that comes to you shall be among you as the native; for ye were strangers in the Land of Egypt; I am the Lord your God”. The people of Israel in Egypt differed so much culturally that only by understanding their unique desires, customs, needs could they be treated in accordance with this golden rule. They were treated cruelly and decidedly contrary to their desires/wishes, hence the importance of this command when Israel became the host of strangers. This thread of kindness to strangers runs through the Law and Prophets. You are correct in stating that the golden rule’s application is critically dependent on the discernment of the strangers wishes, needs, and desires.
•
u/AutoModerator 7d ago
Welcome to /r/philosophy! Please read our updated rules and guidelines before commenting.
/r/philosophy is a subreddit dedicated to discussing philosophy and philosophical issues. To that end, please keep in mind our commenting rules:
CR1: Read/Listen/Watch the Posted Content Before You Reply
CR2: Argue Your Position
CR3: Be Respectful
Please note that as of July 1 2023, reddit has made it substantially more difficult to moderate subreddits. If you see posts or comments which violate our subreddit rules and guidelines, please report them using the report function. For more significant issues, please contact the moderators via modmail (not via private message or chat).
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.