by Joel Marks
https://philosophynow.org/issues/49/The ... Rule_Redux
The Golden Rule Redux
Re: The Golden Rule Redux
"The Golden Rule now invites me to reflect (or ‘bend back’). Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (e.g., Matthew 7:12). In an early column (‘Testing Your Moral Metal,’ four years ago in Issue 29) I considered many artificial forms the rule can take, such as “Do unto others so that they will treat you the same way.” My intent was to exhibit the Rule in its purity, to rid it of misunderstandings that can utterly pervert its meaning and, hence, its practical import. When it is spontaneously grasped or else its essence revealed by analysis, the Golden Rule is a marvelous rule of life.
Or is it? From a certain point of view the Golden Rule appears to be devoid of content. This is because it leaves completely open what you would have them do unto you. This is why the Rule falls prey to the Masochism Objection, since, taking the Rule literally, a masochist would be obligated to treat others sadistically. Now I am pointing out that the objection runs deeper than that. Logically speaking, the Rule offers no general guidance regarding right and wrong behavior whatever."
The Rule is an excellent rule of life because it directs the actor to consider the interests of other people, or to consider the effects of the actor's actions on other people. The Rule, as a guide to action, counsels against the tendency to be a narcissist.
Second, the Rule can have content without articulating such content in detail. That content, both positive and negative, are the particular actions that are appropriate to each unique situation as directed by right reason. When our children were young and we took them out in public, at the start, my wife and I would remind the kids of some guides to action. Specifically, usually I would say: "Now, mind your manners. Act like ladies and gentlemen.
We left it up to each child to determine his or her conduct.
-
artisticsolution
- Posts: 1933
- Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 1:38 am
Re: The Golden Rule Redux
I am a big fan of the golden rule. Of course nothing is perfect, but it at least makes one think about putting themselves in another's shoes. Something I don't think comes naturally to most people.tbieter wrote: When our children were young and we took them out in public, at the start, my wife and I would remind the kids of some guides to action. Specifically, usually I would say: "Now, mind your manners. Act like ladies and gentlemen.
We left it up to each child to determine his or her conduct.[/color]
However, I must say, the golden rule had a negative effect on me in one respect. It made me ultra introverted because I was sure that I was annoying so I had a tendency to not engage with people so to save them from having to listen to my boring drivel. Thank God I got over THAT! lol
I always told my kids to mind their manners...but never taught them the golden rule. They are very attentive and confident/well spoken when having conversations. I am proud and envious of that.
-
Immanuel Can
- Posts: 27612
- Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm
Re: The Golden Rule Redux
The Golden Rule is said to prevent narcissism.
But on what basis is it able to do so, and why would we be justified in concluding it should?
As a "Desirist," Mr. Marks by definition does not believe the GR has any objective, authoritative force. So why should we think that narcissism is not a commendable impulse?
Even if we imagine it's less productive in some way than alternatives, (surely a rationally contestable claim, if not an entirely wrong one) if a person has considered and on balance finds it desirable, as Nietzsche did, then by what strange twist of logic can we justify depriving the narcissist of his/her pleasure in himself/herself or the advantages that come with self-seeking behavior?
Furthermore, even on a collective level, if my ultimate motive for seeking the welfare of a "neighbor" is the potential long-term benefit accruing to me for doing it, then really, is not all morality actually grounded in the narcissistic impulse? In which case, to resist narcissism is to resist the truest and deepest motive of morality, is it not? So how would we justify something so counterproductive as resisting the motive for morality by imposing the GR instead?
Why then, in a world devoid of ultimate authority, should we blithely conclude that the Golden Rule was something desirable? And how shall we speak to doubters to justify its authority?
Even if we advocate no *other* moral perspective, and simply adopt a perspective of neutral skepticism, the exercise of advocating the GR looks gratuitous apart from reference to an objective moral authority.
But on what basis is it able to do so, and why would we be justified in concluding it should?
As a "Desirist," Mr. Marks by definition does not believe the GR has any objective, authoritative force. So why should we think that narcissism is not a commendable impulse?
Even if we imagine it's less productive in some way than alternatives, (surely a rationally contestable claim, if not an entirely wrong one) if a person has considered and on balance finds it desirable, as Nietzsche did, then by what strange twist of logic can we justify depriving the narcissist of his/her pleasure in himself/herself or the advantages that come with self-seeking behavior?
Furthermore, even on a collective level, if my ultimate motive for seeking the welfare of a "neighbor" is the potential long-term benefit accruing to me for doing it, then really, is not all morality actually grounded in the narcissistic impulse? In which case, to resist narcissism is to resist the truest and deepest motive of morality, is it not? So how would we justify something so counterproductive as resisting the motive for morality by imposing the GR instead?
Why then, in a world devoid of ultimate authority, should we blithely conclude that the Golden Rule was something desirable? And how shall we speak to doubters to justify its authority?
Even if we advocate no *other* moral perspective, and simply adopt a perspective of neutral skepticism, the exercise of advocating the GR looks gratuitous apart from reference to an objective moral authority.