The Golden Rule Does Not Work

[MikeNovack]

Say you have two dudes. One dude is Elon Musk, and the other is Joe Bob, who just got laid off as a result of Doge and is a card carrying communist bastard.

Elon sees Joe Bob trying to push a dolly of two liter Pepsi through a door. Merely holding the door is not enough here to realize the golden rule. Why not. If Elon was Joe Bob, he'd want a million dollars from Elon, not a door held open for him by some scumbag he can't stand. Therefore, Elon would only be able to practice the golden rule if he gave Joe Bob a million dollars.

No, If Elon were pushing a loaded dolly toward a closed door he would want a person standing there to open the door for him. Not give him a million dollars (a drop in the bucket to Elon)

The version of Golden Rule you seem to be saying does not work would be "treat the other person as the other person would like to be treated by you". I would agree unworkable, but for a different reason. Morality is about making possible choices. You don't have access to "how the other person would like to be treated by you". See, in your example, why do you think Elon should think "he wants me to give him, a million dollars". You believe communists aren't "believers"? That Bob would sell out for a million dollars. Maybe what Bob would want was "drop dead, Elon". The point is, Elon CAN'T know what Bob would want so that version of the Rule unworkable.

[Walker]

The Golden Rule does work.
It works according to realistic cause and effect.

Because you can only do unto others as you would have them do unto you …
- then to wrongly do unto others
- means that you would have them do wrongly,
- unto you.

Cue research into self-sabotage for further understanding. Humanity is rife with self-sabotage.

One can only do unto others as one does unto oneself. The cause and effect of this is not bound by time.

The morality of Christianity, combined with the golden rule of causation, yields a God-fearing, peaceful and contented realm that appears in many other realms, including rationality rooted in reality.

Evil seeks to destroy this, and so Christians are persecuted, as current news reports from Africa.

*

Why would folks have people do them wrong?

Here's one view, explained.

How to Overcome Self Sabotage
(not a country song)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz5Q8qdDMb0

[MikeNovack]

The morality of Christianity, combined with the golden rule of causation, yields a God-fearing, peaceful and contented realm that appears in many other realms, including rationality rooted in reality.

Evil seeks to destroy this, and so Christians are persecuted, as current news reports from Africa.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz5Q8qdDMb0

Sorry, but I hope you realize that Non-Christians might find that amusing because of their long experience being at the receiving end of Christian love. Even the Golden Rule being applied ------ I wouldn't want to burn eternally in hell, would want somebody to save me by bringing me to Christ, even if that meant torture (because hell is ETERNAL torture).

I don't like to see anybody persecuted over religion. I'm not glad to see Christians persecuted for their religion. But can't help feeling a little of "so NOW you think it is wrong."

[Walker]

Other than as a thought, hell exists only now and when it does exist now, everything thought or done inadvertently causes one to remain in hell, which is why it is hell. No Exit. Nowhere to run to, nowhere to hide.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbBcL0z ... rt_radio=1

[Walker]

Not every Christian is a saint, so it comes down to intent.

I haven't heard of any Christians hollering "Praise Jesus!" before detonating their suicide vest to kill innocents, and if that should happen it would be the result of Christianity corruption, not interpretation of doctrine.

*

From what I know, Christians who pray to God before going into battle (sporting or real) pray for strength and courage, to measure up to the image that they are. Christians don’t pray to win, but rather, to not disappoint God. Folks pray to be worthy, not for outcome. The outcome is God's will, not human entreaty.

[MikeNovack]

I haven't heard of any Christians hollering "Praise Jesus!" before detonating their suicide vest to kill innocents, and if that should happen it would be the result of Christianity corruption, not interpretation of doctrine.

From what I know, Christians who pray to God before going into battle (sporting or real) pray for strength and courage, to measure up to the image that they are. Christians don’t pray to win, but rather, to not disappoint God. Folks pray to be worthy, not for outcome. The outcome is God's will, not human entreaty.

Both the Jew and the Muslim would agree, the second true for some branches of Christianity, but not all (some could pray for victory, etc.) Christianity is broad compared to both Judaism and Islam. But the first perhaps true, even if distorted. Both the Jew and the Muslim are supposed to die praising god (final words). No matter how they die. In other words, the suicide vest NOT RELEVANT in the case of the Muslim. For example, about to undergo a dangerous medical procedure, the Muslim might say "god is great" just before the ansthesia mask put on. The Jew would recite the Sh'ma.

As I understand it, most Christians do not have specific last utterances required.

[Eodnhoj7]

I rather think we need to argue about what morality is for (for a social animal like ourselves)

If we concluded that the purpose of morality is to improve co-operation within the group, aid us in making predictions about behavior, etc. and the group better able to thrive (and so the individuals who make up the group) we MIGHT think "will not always work" is not a valid objection.

In other words, rules that worked only based on statistics might be enough (and no reason to expect better is possible)

Here we are considering the Golden Rule, treat others like you would want to be treated in like situations. Perfect, no, for reasons people have been giving. I might be mistaken the the other wanted the same as I, I might even be deceiving myself about what I would want, etc. But does that mean a useless rule? Am I likely to be deceiving myself? (most times when applying the rule) Am I likely to be mistaken about what the other would want? Maybe more likely than self deception, but how likely is going to depend on the details, the particular application.

For example "treat the other fairly because you want to be treated fairly". Likely to be on pretty solid ground with that. It is only barely possible the other would prefer being treated unfairly and you know you don't. But "have the other punished for his sin because you would want to be punished for yours" would be VERY SHAKY on both counts << unless you have very strong evidence based on past history, yours and theirs >>

The assertion that morality needs to be argued roots it in conflict.

[MikeNovack]

The assertion that morality needs to be argued roots it in conflict.

For a social animal, avoiding conflict can be important. But a successful social animal might need far more than the avoidance of wasteful conflict. It might need fostering co-operation (singly none of us can bring down a moose, working together we can). Fighting singly, a leopard could kill one of us, but won't tackle our band each helping defend the others. And might need "if a member of the group is NOT acting according to this necessary group morality, act in ways to induce them to return to it". Just examples.

We are not born knowing a language. But the neural net that is our brain comes with initial settings for "learn a language", initial settings for "learn your culture". A system of morality will be in common, main parts probably in common for all human cultures, but some tweaks.

That is why I believe we DO have an intuitive moral system. BUT, the initial settings to "learn it" MIGHT (probably) only have recognizers for the interactions possible growing up in a group of about 50 individuals, all of whom ou know, and with whom you expect to interact accordingly. How we have lived for almost all of the last few million years, time for those initial settings to evolve. Not necessarily useful fir the way we live now, vastly larger groups, interacting with strangers, most of whom we will never meet again. So we need a more rationalized moral system.

We expect of a properly working moral system that for two situations where we can see no morally relevant difference, for a choice of action we should get the same answer right or wrong. But we can conduct "experiments" where sometimes we get different answers, or in one situation feel uncomfortable with our rational answer. I suggest this can be explained by a different sort of difference between the situations, how closely matches what is a possible situation in the primal group. Because if matches, brings our intuitive moral system into play << if both situations match or both don't, no problem; but if one matches and one doesn't, then our intuitive system awake in one case and asleep in the other.>>

I think the "Runaway Trolley Car" problem is an example of this effect (where we get different judgement of actions from apparently small, not morally relevant changes in the situation). I think it explains a "game" where an individual will choose to punish unfairness (at some economic cost) but a group player, forced to rationally discuss the matter, will choose best interest even though an unfair distribution.

[Eodnhoj7]

The assertion that morality needs to be argued roots it in conflict.

For a social animal, avoiding conflict can be important. But a successful social animal might need far more than the avoidance of wasteful conflict. It might need fostering co-operation (singly none of us can bring down a moose, working together we can). Fighting singly, a leopard could kill one of us, but won't tackle our band each helping defend the others. And might need "if a member of the group is NOT acting according to this necessary group morality, act in ways to induce them to return to it". Just examples.

We are not born knowing a language. But the neural net that is our brain comes with initial settings for "learn a language", initial settings for "learn your culture". A system of morality will be in common, main parts probably in common for all human cultures, but some tweaks.

That is why I believe we DO have an intuitive moral system. BUT, the initial settings to "learn it" MIGHT (probably) only have recognizers for the interactions possible growing up in a group of about 50 individuals, all of whom ou know, and with whom you expect to interact accordingly. How we have lived for almost all of the last few million years, time for those initial settings to evolve. Not necessarily useful fir the way we live now, vastly larger groups, interacting with strangers, most of whom we will never meet again. So we need a more rationalized moral system.

We expect of a properly working moral system that for two situations where we can see no morally relevant difference, for a choice of action we should get the same answer right or wrong. But we can conduct "experiments" where sometimes we get different answers, or in one situation feel uncomfortable with our rational answer. I suggest this can be explained by a different sort of difference between the situations, how closely matches what is a possible situation in the primal group. Because if matches, brings our intuitive moral system into play << if both situations match or both don't, no problem; but if one matches and one doesn't, then our intuitive system awake in one case and asleep in the other.>>

I think the "Runaway Trolley Car" problem is an example of this effect (where we get different judgement of actions from apparently small, not morally relevant changes in the situation). I think it explains a "game" where an individual will choose to punish unfairness (at some economic cost) but a group player, forced to rationally discuss the matter, will choose best interest even though an unfair distribution.

For morality to exist there is a requirement of good and evil, and with it conflict for them to be distinct for if they are not distinct there is no good or evil and with it no morality.

[Eodnhoj7]

The Golden Rule does work.
It works according to realistic cause and effect.

Because you can only do unto others as you would have them do unto you …
- then to wrongly do unto others
- means that you would have them do wrongly,
- unto you.

Cue research into self-sabotage for further understanding. Humanity is rife with self-sabotage.

One can only do unto others as one does unto oneself. The cause and effect of this is not bound by time.

The morality of Christianity, combined with the golden rule of causation, yields a God-fearing, peaceful and contented realm that appears in many other realms, including rationality rooted in reality.

Evil seeks to destroy this, and so Christians are persecuted, as current news reports from Africa.

*

Why would folks have people do them wrong?

Here's one view, explained.

How to Overcome Self Sabotage
(not a country song)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sz5Q8qdDMb0

If that is the case mass murder/genocide is morally permissible to a suicidal person.

There is no law that states a person should or should not value themselves. There is no law to value other than value occuring.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

Sure it's imperfect for many reasons. Hence the Platinum Rule, treat others as they would want to be treated.

So Morality is driven by desire and thus is an impulse.

Of course. Evolution knows what it's doing.

[MikeNovack]

Say you have two dudes. One dude is Elon Musk, and the other is Joe Bob, who just got laid off as a result of Doge and is a card carrying communist bastard.

Elon sees Joe Bob trying to push a dolly of two liter Pepsi through a door. Merely holding the door is not enough here to realize the golden rule. Why not. If Elon was Joe Bob, he'd want a million dollars from Elon, not a door held open for him by some scumbag he can't stand.

Stop repeating this thinking you are voicing an objection to the Golden Rule. I have seen various wordings of the Golden Rule, both positive and negative. But I have never seen a version "treat the other person like the other person would like to be treated" << useless, requires information you do not have >>

[Eodnhoj7]

Sure it's imperfect for many reasons. Hence the Platinum Rule, treat others as they would want to be treated.

So Morality is driven by desire and thus is an impulse.

Of course. Evolution knows what it's doing.

If morality is desire driven than effectively everyone is right that acts on desire.

[Martin Peter Clarke]

So Morality is driven by desire and thus is an impulse.

Of course. Evolution knows what it's doing.

If morality is desire driven than effectively everyone is right that acts on desire.

Right? Where does that fallacy come from?

[Age]

The so-called 'golden rule' simply just does not work because it is expected people do onto others from what people want done onto "themselves". Which is just another form of self-centerdness. Doing so does not allow for any empathy, and it is from empathy where the Right knowledge comes from and it is through empathy when one does the Right things, in Life.

Now, how and when the 'golden rule' does work, perfectly, for every one is when one does onto others when one is 'in the other's shoes', as it is said.

In creating a Truly peaceful and harmonious world for every one, as One, then, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you', only works when ' 'you' put "yourself" into the shoes of others ', as it is said and written.

The 'golden rule' only works, and works very simply and very easily I will add, when the proviso, 'If you were in their place', is added to the agreement or statement, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'.

So, the 'golden rule' does work. But, just not without the proviso and thus just not in the previous old form.