The Philosophy Now Forum

That's why he was so confuced. The maxim should be "do onto other before they do some shit unto you."

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2026 10:04 am That's why he was so confuced. The maxim should be "do onto other before they do some shit unto you."

Hmmm...well, that rule isn't "golden," and isn't even "silver"...so maybe we call it "the brown rule."

de do do do

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uk5Hd_hMG7g

-Imp

I think Mr. Shaw settled the matter. Do not do unto to others etc etc because you might not have the same tastes!

Doh! It was that simple? Why all the fuss, then?

Also, get out of this problem, cap. The GR can't be practiced between an employee and employer or a renter and a landlord. If the employer and landlord were to be true to it the first would give me unadulterated raises and the second would lower tf out of my rent.

Likewise, if i were to be true to it, i would offer to work for peanuts and beg my landlord to raise my rent.

You may begin. Put your pencils down and turn your papers over when you're finished.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2026 8:56 pm I think Mr. Shaw settled the matter.

Do you know what an evil little eugenicist creep Mr. Shaw was?

The GR can't be practiced between an employee and employer or a renter and a landlord.

It's for everybody. There are no exceptions given.

How do you sleep at night knowing you endorse an economic system in which countless millions will FAIL the GR daily for the rest of their lives?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2026 9:27 pm How do you sleep at night knowing you endorse an economic system in which countless millions will FAIL the GR daily for the rest of their lives?

How do you sleep, knowing you endorse a pseudo-economic ideology that has robbed, tortured and killed more human beings than anything else in history?

It would be one thing if all I was offering was hopelessness, as you suggest. But Christ gives forgiveness, help, hope and a future. It's pretty easy to sleep when that's what you're offering.

I'm a nihilist, Lebowski. I sleep just fine in the worst of all possible worldz. Like Liebniz but different.

"It would be one thing if all I was offering was hopelessness, as you suggest. But Christ gives forgiveness, help, hope and a future"

I would never aks to be forgiven for wanting a raise from my employer... and yet if i do want a raise, I'm not treating him like i would like to be treated if i were him.

Are you following any of this? This is logic, mate. Nevermind Jesus H. for a second. He can't save you or your employers here.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2026 9:59 pm I would never aks to be forgiven for wanting a raise from my employer... and yet if i do want a raise, I'm not treating him like i would like to be treated if i were him.

Think of it this way: if you were him, and you had an employee whose work was good but who was being undervalued, even accidentally, wouldn't you want to know? Or would you rather not know, and your employee becomes dysfunctional or quits?

Which is the right way to treat him, then?

Or consider the scenario where your boss isn't a fair man. He doesn't respect the GR. He's totally secular, not interested in anything Jesus taught, and maybe he's a devotee of Ayn Rand, or Nietzsche, or something like that. He's selfish, and thinks it's a virtue.

He underpays all his employees. But they're all frightened to say anything about it, because they don't want to loose their jobs. But you know they're all unhappy, and things are not going well. What is the right way to love your neighbour in that scenario?

How about (perhaps) risking your own position to speak up for those too afraid to do so? If you know you would like to be more appropriately valued, what about them?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 9:43 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 9:38 pm
I will refer you to the commentaries. There is a reason why Hillel used the negative.

Sure. It's much less demanding.

No IC, it is much less likely to be a wrong action. You are much more likely to be correct judging what the other would not want based upon what you do not want than judging what the the other would want baesd upon what you want.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2026 3:20 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 9:43 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 9:38 pm
I will refer you to the commentaries. There is a reason why Hillel used the negative.

Sure. It's much less demanding.

No IC, it is much less likely to be a wrong action. You are much more likely to be correct judging what the other would not want based upon what you do not want than judging what the the other would want baesd upon what you want.

Actually, yes...MUCH less demanding. Instead of me having to think about the positive good of my neighbour, I can satisfy Hillel's rule merely by doing nothing for my neighbour at all. All I do is leave him alone, and I haven't done anything to him I didn't want done to me.

I don't have to care about him. I don't have to think of his good. I don't have to help him with his situation. I don't have to give him anything. I don't have to make a single sacrifice. It costs me absolutely nothing.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2026 3:30 pm

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2026 3:20 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sun Sep 27, 2026 9:43 pm
Sure. It's much less demanding.

No IC, it is much less likely to be a wrong action. You are much more likely to be correct judging what the other would not want based upon what you do not want than judging what the the other would want baesd upon what you want.

Actually, yes...MUCH less demanding. Instead of me having to think about the positive good of my neighbour, I can satisfy Hillel's rule merely by doing nothing for my neighbour at all. All I do is leave him alone, and I haven't done anything to him I didn't want done to me.

I don't have to care about him. I don't have to think of his good. I don't have to help him with his situation. I don't have to give him anything. I don't have to make a single sacrifice. It costs me absolutely nothing.

I('m). N(ailed). R(ight). I(n).

-Imp

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2026 3:30 pm Actually, yes...MUCH less demanding. Instead of me having to think about the positive good of my neighbour, I can satisfy Hillel's rule merely by doing nothing for my neighbour at all. All I do is leave him alone, and I haven't done anything to him I didn't want done to me.

I don't have to care about him. I don't have to think of his good. I don't have to help him with his situation. I don't have to give him anything. I don't have to make a single sacrifice. It costs me absolutely nothing.

That's right, IC, you wouldn't have to think of my good, but at lest you would not be doing something to me "for my good" that I in fact find hateful.

For example, IC, according to your beliefs it would be FOR MY OWN GOOD that I be confined, subject to endless proselytizing of your one true faith. After all, the only way i can be saved from endless damnation. You sincerely believe "for my own good" because from your perspective (as a Christian) you believe you, were you still a Pagan, you (yourself) would want to be brought to the one true faith.

Can you not see this? That your judgement of "good" is more at risk of error than your judgement of what is hateful to you.

In any case, Hillel's answer goes on to "the rest is commentary, study it". The expectation that the positive actions will then follow.

MikeNovack wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2026 10:09 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Sep 29, 2026 3:30 pm Actually, yes...MUCH less demanding. Instead of me having to think about the positive good of my neighbour, I can satisfy Hillel's rule merely by doing nothing for my neighbour at all. All I do is leave him alone, and I haven't done anything to him I didn't want done to me.

I don't have to care about him. I don't have to think of his good. I don't have to help him with his situation. I don't have to give him anything. I don't have to make a single sacrifice. It costs me absolutely nothing.

That's right, IC, you wouldn't have to think of my good, but at lest you would not be doing something to me "for my good" that I in fact find hateful.

What would that be?

For example, IC, according to your beliefs it would be FOR MY OWN GOOD that I be confined, subject to endless proselytizing of your one true faith.

Codswallop.

By what are you "confined"? Who has "subjected" you to anything. You're here of your own free will, and can leave anytime, or speak to other people if you wish. Nobody's constraining you one bit.

I'm always amused when people say somebody's "forcing" something on them whenever they are merely politely disagreed with. It makes me feel they're much too timid and fragile for social life, let alone for philosophy.

Goodness! They might melt in the first hard rain!

In any case, Hillel's answer goes on to "the rest is commentary, study it".

Yes, I remember. "The rest is commentary" doesn't say anything. But maybe you can fill out that "commentary."