Philosophy Now Forum

Your seeing or not seeing things only points to the contradictory nature of establishing an ethical system as sight is subjective and the Golden Rule is a means of interpreting experience.

The Golden Rule is moral chaos. There is no law as to how or what a person should value within themselves or even themselves. The Golden rule is grounded in value. There are countless things to value and countless means to value them. What we see, and value, as "self" is purely a mental construct accorded by how we choose to ascribe meaning and identity. It just spontaneously appears, the identity, and the interpretation of it that gives it definition. If you don't believe that then observe the spontaneity of your internal and external experiences.

Technically everyone is following the golden rule as they treat others according to the paradigm they see as themselves. It is because of self value that others are not valued. To treat others according to how one values themselves thus justifies morality ambiguity if a person ceases to value themselves. Their is no law that says you have to value yourself...thus the Golden rule is subject to a foundation that is without law.

Good and evil are ascribed meanings so to have distinct values that are sensical. The sensicality of thing is driven by the desire to know and to know is to have power. Values are rooted in a desire for power as what is valued is but an interpretation of how reality should revolve around one of an innumberable number of phenomena. To say something is good and another evil is to place value on something so to direct intention and action in a way to make the valued thing exist or propagate in time and space. What is valued is viewed as good and what is evil is not valuable, and with value comes the direction of attention on it.

As to good and evil. Good is a distinction. If Good is indistinct then it ceases to be a distinction and with it ceases to exist for existence is distinction. What is not distinct does not exist. For Good to be distinct it must stand apart from what it is not. Evil is what it is not. Good must stand apart from evil in order to be distinct as Good and yet in the necessity of it standing apart, so as to have distinction, evil occurs. The distinction of Good necessitates evil.

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

the golden rule works fine

he who has the gold makes the rules

-Imp

It does for me. It is its own reward. As a rule of thumb.

lol

LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 7:54 am 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.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 02, 2025 3:13 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 7:54 am 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.

It can be driven by desire and (separately) it can be impulsive. Of course it can not be also.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Sat Aug 02, 2025 8:32 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 02, 2025 3:13 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Aug 01, 2025 7:54 am 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.

It can be driven by desire and (separately) it can be impulsive. Of course it can not be also.

So the rule is divided.

If you Google "golden rule pros and cons" you get this: https://www.google.com/search?q=golden+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

Here's one assessment pertaining to law:

"Pros and Cons of Golden Rule August 23, 2024

The Golden Rule of statutory interpretation is a modified version of the Plain Meaning Rule (also known as the Literal Rule or textualism), primarily used in common law jurisdictions. It serves as a safeguard against the rigid application of the Literal Rule, allowing courts to avoid outcomes that are absurd, illogical, or contrary to the intent of the legislature. The Golden Rule instructs judges to interpret the words of a statute according to their ordinary meaning unless doing so would lead to an absurd result, in which case a more flexible approach may be adopted to avoid such an outcome. This rule is widely regarded as a balance between textual fidelity and practical reasoning, providing a more nuanced interpretive tool that accounts for both the language of the statute and its broader purpose.

Pros of the Golden Rule

1. Flexibility in Interpretation
One of the primary advantages of the golden rule is its flexibility. Unlike the rigid Plain Meaning Rule, the golden rule allows judges to modify the literal interpretation of statutory language when it leads to an absurd, unreasonable, or impractical result. This flexibility ensures that legal interpretations are not strictly bound by the text, enabling the courts to adapt the law to real-world circumstances and maintain fairness in legal outcomes. The Golden Rule allows for a more just application of the law by prioritising reasonableness over strict literalism

2. Prevention of Absurd Outcomes
The Golden Rule is particularly valuable in preventing absurd outcomes that could result from a strict literal interpretation of statutory language. Sometimes, the literal meaning of a statute, when applied to specific circumstances, can produce results that are contrary to common sense or the intent of the legislature. The Golden Rule offers a corrective mechanism by allowing judges to depart from the literal meaning when it would lead to an absurd or unjust conclusion. This ensures that the law remains functional and serves its intended purpose, even when the language is imperfect.

3. Balance Between Text and Intent
The Golden Rule strikes a balance between adhering to the plain text of the law and considering the broader legislative intent. It respects the importance of the statutory language while acknowledging that words can have multiple interpretations or may be imprecisely drafted. As the Golden Rule provides a middle ground between strict textualism and more purposive approaches, it allows the judiciary to maintain fidelity to the text without sacrificing the purpose and spirit of the law. This balance helps maintain public confidence in the legal system by demonstrating that the courts are both principled and pragmatic in their decision-making.

Cons of the Golden Rule

1. Subjectivity and Uncertainty
While the Golden Rule provides flexibility, it can also introduce a level of subjectivity into judicial interpretation. Deciding what constitutes an absurd outcome is often a matter of judicial discretion, which can vary significantly between judges. This subjectivity can lead to inconsistencies in legal interpretations and unpredictability in judicial decisions. The Golden Rule’s reliance on a judge’s assessment of absurdity risks creating uncertainty in the law, as different judges may reach different conclusions on whether a particular outcome should be avoided.

2. Potential for Judicial Overreach
Another significant criticism of the Golden Rule is that it may encourage judicial activism or overreach. By allowing judges to depart from the literal text of a statute based on their perception of what is reasonable, the Golden Rule can empower judges to effectively rewrite laws in certain situations. This blurs the line between interpretation and legislation, undermining the principle of separation of powers. Critics argue that such discretion should be exercised with caution, as it opens the door for judges to impose their own views or policy preferences under the guise of avoiding absurd outcomes.

3. Inconsistent Application
TheGolden Rule’s flexible nature can lead to inconsistent application across different cases and jurisdictions. Unlike the Plain Meaning Rule, which offers a clear and uniform standard, the golden rule is inherently dependent on the context of each case and the particular judge’s interpretation. This inconsistency can create confusion in the law, making it difficult for individuals, lawyers, and lawmakers to predict how statutes will be interpreted in different situations. Such variability can undermine the stability and reliability of legal principles, which are essential for effective governance and rule of law.

In practice, the Golden Rule is applied selectively, typically in cases where the literal meaning of a statute would produce a result that is clearly at odds with reason or justice. For instance, in R v. Allen (1872), the court applied the golden rule to interpret the word "marry" in a way that avoided an absurd legal outcome. While the golden rule is often effective in correcting obvious problems in statutory language, it is used sparingly to prevent judges from overstepping their interpretive role. Most courts first attempt to apply the plain meaning of a statute, only resorting to the golden rule when necessary to avoid a problematic interpretation." UOLLB

In other words, not unlike other assessments revolving around value judgments, we will need an actual set of circumstances in which to connect the dots ourselves between what we believe we should do or not do unto others, what others believe they should do or not unto us.

The part I root existentially in dasein, and others root instead in one or another "my way or the highway" -- "my way or else?" -- rendition of the One True Path to Enlightenment. And, for others, much, much more.

Your own perhaps?

iambiguous wrote: ↑Sat Aug 02, 2025 10:04 pm If you Google "golden rule pros and cons" you get this: https://www.google.com/search?q=golden+ ... e&ie=UTF-8

Here's one assessment pertaining to law:

"Pros and Cons of Golden Rule August 23, 2024

The Golden Rule of statutory interpretation is a modified version of the Plain Meaning Rule (also known as the Literal Rule or textualism), primarily used in common law jurisdictions. It serves as a safeguard against the rigid application of the Literal Rule, allowing courts to avoid outcomes that are absurd, illogical, or contrary to the intent of the legislature. The Golden Rule instructs judges to interpret the words of a statute according to their ordinary meaning unless doing so would lead to an absurd result, in which case a more flexible approach may be adopted to avoid such an outcome. This rule is widely regarded as a balance between textual fidelity and practical reasoning, providing a more nuanced interpretive tool that accounts for both the language of the statute and its broader purpose.

Pros of the Golden Rule

1. Flexibility in Interpretation
One of the primary advantages of the golden rule is its flexibility. Unlike the rigid Plain Meaning Rule, the golden rule allows judges to modify the literal interpretation of statutory language when it leads to an absurd, unreasonable, or impractical result. This flexibility ensures that legal interpretations are not strictly bound by the text, enabling the courts to adapt the law to real-world circumstances and maintain fairness in legal outcomes. The Golden Rule allows for a more just application of the law by prioritising reasonableness over strict literalism

2. Prevention of Absurd Outcomes
The Golden Rule is particularly valuable in preventing absurd outcomes that could result from a strict literal interpretation of statutory language. Sometimes, the literal meaning of a statute, when applied to specific circumstances, can produce results that are contrary to common sense or the intent of the legislature. The Golden Rule offers a corrective mechanism by allowing judges to depart from the literal meaning when it would lead to an absurd or unjust conclusion. This ensures that the law remains functional and serves its intended purpose, even when the language is imperfect.

3. Balance Between Text and Intent
The Golden Rule strikes a balance between adhering to the plain text of the law and considering the broader legislative intent. It respects the importance of the statutory language while acknowledging that words can have multiple interpretations or may be imprecisely drafted. As the Golden Rule provides a middle ground between strict textualism and more purposive approaches, it allows the judiciary to maintain fidelity to the text without sacrificing the purpose and spirit of the law. This balance helps maintain public confidence in the legal system by demonstrating that the courts are both principled and pragmatic in their decision-making.

Cons of the Golden Rule

1. Subjectivity and Uncertainty
While the Golden Rule provides flexibility, it can also introduce a level of subjectivity into judicial interpretation. Deciding what constitutes an absurd outcome is often a matter of judicial discretion, which can vary significantly between judges. This subjectivity can lead to inconsistencies in legal interpretations and unpredictability in judicial decisions. The Golden Rule’s reliance on a judge’s assessment of absurdity risks creating uncertainty in the law, as different judges may reach different conclusions on whether a particular outcome should be avoided.

2. Potential for Judicial Overreach
Another significant criticism of the Golden Rule is that it may encourage judicial activism or overreach. By allowing judges to depart from the literal text of a statute based on their perception of what is reasonable, the Golden Rule can empower judges to effectively rewrite laws in certain situations. This blurs the line between interpretation and legislation, undermining the principle of separation of powers. Critics argue that such discretion should be exercised with caution, as it opens the door for judges to impose their own views or policy preferences under the guise of avoiding absurd outcomes.

3. Inconsistent Application
TheGolden Rule’s flexible nature can lead to inconsistent application across different cases and jurisdictions. Unlike the Plain Meaning Rule, which offers a clear and uniform standard, the golden rule is inherently dependent on the context of each case and the particular judge’s interpretation. This inconsistency can create confusion in the law, making it difficult for individuals, lawyers, and lawmakers to predict how statutes will be interpreted in different situations. Such variability can undermine the stability and reliability of legal principles, which are essential for effective governance and rule of law.

In practice, the Golden Rule is applied selectively, typically in cases where the literal meaning of a statute would produce a result that is clearly at odds with reason or justice. For instance, in R v. Allen (1872), the court applied the golden rule to interpret the word "marry" in a way that avoided an absurd legal outcome. While the golden rule is often effective in correcting obvious problems in statutory language, it is used sparingly to prevent judges from overstepping their interpretive role. Most courts first attempt to apply the plain meaning of a statute, only resorting to the golden rule when necessary to avoid a problematic interpretation." UOLLB

In other words, not unlike other assessments revolving around value judgments, we will need an actual set of circumstances in which to connect the dots ourselves between what we believe we should do or not do unto others, what others believe they should do or not unto us.

The part I root existentially in dasein, and others root instead in one or another "my way or the highway" -- "my way or else?" -- rendition of the One True Path to Enlightenment. And, for others, much, much more.

Your own perhaps?

Good article.

My take?

Given the golden rule is rooted in a percieved sense of self identity the law gives rise to innumberable expressions given the numerous contexts by which we percieve ourselves....even the context of how or what one see as themselves, a bootstrapping identity so to speak that is pulled from "thin air".

In simpler terms the law is purely circumstantial, not just through the limits of various moral dilemmas that arise in time and space as all moralities are, but to how and what people percieve things and themselves. Given the diversity of contexts that synthesize to form self identity the law is not absolute as one can claim an identity that further claims the golden rule is unnecessary...while still following the golden rule.

In even simpler terms, one can argue against the golden rule and still follow it thus making a divided psyche and still be "moral" in doing so and further justifying anything while doing so.

Given the inherent subjective state of meaning application to actions a moral chaos ensues by degree of clashing meanings.

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 >>

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.

Listen. Elon doesn't get to decide that Joe Bob shouldn't despise him; that's part of Joe Bob, what he is. Elon doesn't get to say, "I'm practicing the golden rule by merely holding the door so i don't have to give him a million dollars." That's not what Elon would want himself to do if he were Joe Bob... so this golden rule stuff is inapplicable nonsense.

... and for so many other logical reasons. But that's just a quick exercise to demonstrate how stupid the idea is.

Holy crap though. Have you ever seen such a quick take-down of the Golden Rule before? Like these professors will write whole books about this junk and then i come along and kill it in one post. I'm sayin', bro.

Are yuns even pickin' up what I'm puttin' down?

For Elon to do to Joe Bob what he would have himself do if he were Joe Bob, he has to feel about an Elon how Joe Bob feels about an Elon in order to know what to do to exercise the Golden Rule.

If part of what Joe Bob is is the belief that an Elon should redistribute his wealth or fuck off, then an Elon can't theoretically be a Joe Bob (because he wants to neither fuck off nor redistribute his wealth) and the Golden Rule duddint even get off the ground. It's illogical nonsense.