Golden Rule Breeds Intolerance
May 25, 2007
We’ve all been told to practice the golden rule, and on paper, it looks like a great theory.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. Short, sweet, and to the point, there is just no pleasing the person who is offended by this, right?
Yeah, lets see if we can blow this ideal out of the water.
Let’s start with an example: Jehovah’s Witness front-porch preacher is about to leave the Atheist’s home. JW says “I’ll pray for you”.
The Witness feels that this is a good way to show the Atheist that she cares about him, and hopes that in the future, he will be able to understand and adopt her faith as his own. If she were in the same situation as that Atheist - she lost her faith for some reason - she would want someone else to do exactly that, pray for her to find what she had lost.
A little more down to earth, (if a bit gruesome) is the EMT who has been stabbed in the chest. A passerby sees this, and, thinking that he would want the knife pulled out of his own chest in that situation, does so.
Or how about the little kid who doesn’t like black jellybeans, who saves his friend from having to eat them by eating them all himself. Except the friend only likes the black jellybeans.
In each scenario, a person practices the Golden Rule, and does unto another as he would have the other do unto him/her. In each scenario, the beneficiary of this activity is worse off because of that action.
The Atheist is angered by the Witness’s arrogance - he feels that she is thumbing her nose at his philosophy, declaring it ignorant and wrong.
The EMT is now dead - the knife was preventing massive hemorrhaging, and when it was removed, he bled to death within seconds. The EMT knew this would happen, but the overzealous passerby didn’t bother to listen to him before he took action. The kid suffered through dozens of jellybeans that his friend would have gladly eaten.
The Golden Rule has its uses only in a largely homogeneous society, where every member of that society desires the same thing. In a society that not only tolerates but encourages dissenting viewpoints, the Golden Rule breaks down.
Tolerance does not mean “do unto a person what you think is right”. In fact, that definition is pretty close to the definition of Intolerance.
The Platinum Rule
The key issue in each scenario above was that each person attempting to use the Golden Rule simply assumed that s/he knew what the beneficiary needed, based on the first person’s own desires. Notably lacking in each situation is communication and understanding.
The Platinum Rule states “Do unto others as they would have you do unto them” and explicitly requires both communication and understanding BEFORE the action is committed.
Back to our first example: The Witness could have said “May I pray for you?” which would show the Atheist that she did not arrogantly place her own beliefs ahead of his. They parted company as equals. The Atheist may further consider the Witness’s viewpoint, but he probably would’t think of her as arrogant and demeaning.
The passerby took a second to assess the situation, and the EMT was able to tell him how best to help. In this case, it was to grab his radio and call for help. The EMT lived, and the passerby was a hero, instead of a criminal.
The kid asked his friend if liked the black jellybeans, and when he said he did, the kid saved all of them for his friend.
The Golden Rule matches up with the old “Melting Pot” theory of diversity, that all people contribute to and take their flavor from the stew that is my country. Today, we celebrate both our unity as well as our diversity. We don’t force others to adopt our own lifestyle anymore, it is time to actively teach a method of fair-play that is not at odds with that philosophy.
Comments
47 Responses to “Golden Rule Breeds Intolerance”
Got something to say?
-
Atheist Blogroll
I call straw man.
The assumptions above are arbitrarily precise. You’ve arbitrarily chosen a straitjacket version of the golden rule. There is not a single golden rule user who knows that the EMT who would pull the knife.
If I was stabbed I would not want the knife pulled if it were going to kill me.
The platinum rule refuses to recognize that mistakes come from lapses in knowledge as well as reason.
You cannot expect everybody to use a rule properly. The platinum rule is unstable. All it would take is someone to refuse to accept a detail.
That Christian who called you a Christian would never believe that you don’t want the prayer. The platinum rule is powerless against that.
There is not a single golden rule user who knows that the EMT would die who would pull the knife.
That’s exactly the point. The passerby might not know that pulling the knife out would kill the EMT. I don’t really understand why you’re focusing on that particular portion of the post, it’s really only an additional method of clarifying the argument.
Rules and knowledge are separate axes.
No rule can adapt to lack of knowledge.
The platinum rule breaks in the same places the golden rule breaks for lack of knowledge.
I’m always bothered by the search for the last word on things. All it breeds is an attitude where you get up higher on the mountain and try keep everyone off that spot.
I prefer the golden rule combined with the undertanding that you can’t outlaw stupid. Stupid will come and break your rules without even trying.
What should happen is to ask “If I understood the world in a peculiar way and offered what I thought was a good thing, would I understand or appreciate someone hating me for my help?”
Now all that leaves then is the fact that people will be angry no matter what you do.
Seeking truce and peace should override trying to find a final theory of morality. One should be able to end an argument that isn’t productive and hurts those who try to help and the people they try to help.
The idea that the person meant no harm needs to override a completely imgined injury.
Not everybody is an EMT. What a person should first do is call for help removing the problem of death by golden rule.
you sir are an idiot. your examples are simple and ignorant. Do unto others does not mean that if you like your coffee with two sugars then your should serve it to a diabetic the same way.
The witness should be thinking of the rule not the door owner.
The jellybean’s didn’t need eating.
The knife victim would be perfectly happy with an ambulance call, but a well meaning moron like yourself who decides to pull the knife isn’t evil because of it. They just DIDN’T KNOW.
The platinum rule. assumes you know what the other person wants. If I’m lying unconscious in a pool of blood and you stop to ask if I need an ambulance then you are the same as a guy who pulls the knife. Your not wrong, you just don’t know any better. I hope that person will do what they think is best and not just stand there waiting for my approval.
To go on another tangent. What if the person stabbed thought it was a good idea to pull the knife out? Then a doctor comes along and through some psychic magic they know what the victim wants. Should they pull the knife despite their better knowledge.
1. Intelitary: Yes, I’ve straitjacketed the golden rule a bit. I’ll admit that the glden version is much better than the “Do whatever the hell you want” rule. Still, I did mention the conditions under which it would work well, and the conditions where it fails, namely in any setting where the wants or needs of the parties vary under identical conditions. That occurs quite frequently in today’s diverse society.
As far as the platinum rule’s instability, I’m talking about a new train of thought. One could not “refuse to accept a detail” about another and still follow the rule.
Of course, some ethical boundaries are necessary - The masochist can’t expect everyone to be comfortable with hitting him, for instance. And common sense plays a big part.
That Christian wasn’t exercising the platinum rule. If he was, he would respect my wishes. That is the point. As it is, he exercises his will over my will. He thinks he knows better than I how I should live my life. That is the EXACT message the Golden rule propagates.
2. Intellitary: I agree. But, the two parties (the trained passerby and the EMT) have the same needs in the same situation, so the Golden Rule is sufficient to the task. The untrained passerby in my scenario would say “There’s a knife in his chest. It doesn’t belong, so I should pull it out.”
3. Chris: Yes, Thank you!
4. Intelitary: You are correct, no rule can adapt to lack of knowledge. The platinum rule fails when additional knowledge cannot be obtained. If the EMT was passed out and nobody else was around, then the passerby could not be blamed for doing what he thought was right.
The platinum rule insists on gaining knowledge, instead of jumping to conclusions based on your pre-existing knowledge.
You say that people will get angry no matter what you do. I say that if you’re doing something for another person’s benefit, and they don’t want it, you shouldn’t be doing it. But how do you know? You ask the questions first, instead of just doing it AND begging forgiveness for it later.
As far as forgiveness for a person meaning no harm, if they didn’t bother to even discover that what they are doing IS causing harm, they should be responsible for forgiveness, not their victims.
The Platinum Rule only says “Do unto others how they would have you do unto them”. The golden rule says “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
Switch places for a moment: You meet a masochist. Do you want him to treat you the way he wants you to treat him?
Of course not. THAT is what I am talking about. The Platinum Rule is not a final theory of morality, but a methodology that should be consciously followed to avoid inadvertantly harming the person you are trying to help.
Neither the Golden nor the Platinum rules are strict, hard and fast “rules” - they are guidelines for behavior. I feel the “I was just trying to help” excuse is one that should be uttered VERY rarely, since it is almost completely avoidable with a little communication.
This is very silly and picky.
And it is very silly to say the Golden Rule breeds intolerance. You breed intolerance. =P
Rival you said:
“That Christian wasn’t exercising the platinum rule. If he was, he would respect my wishes. That is the point. As it is, he exercises his will over my will. He thinks he knows better than I how I should live my life. That is the EXACT message the Golden rule propagates.”
That Christian who wronged you is INCAPABLE of KNOWING that you don’t want him to pray for you. He truly believes he is doing something you would want. Even if you tell him otherwise his training will not allow him to accept it. He’ll think you’re just upset and confused.
You also have to consider that Christians are taught that they need to think of others and that they must do for others. They are not taught that they should do some research first.
You are trying to shove research into the golden rule. They’re independent activities. One should simply encourage researh + golden rule not try to fuse them together. You get weirdness if you do that.
Don’t let anybody fool you intolerance is active hate regardless what the excuses are. Pride is often the power source for it.
The fact that people’s understanding is based much upon their point of reference (not rules) is not intolerance it is simply bad mental habits not bad moral habits.
Tagris: Since we’re throwing ad hominems back and forth, instead of respectfully discussing the issue, I’ll see your “idiot” and your “moron” and raise you a “wanker”. Do you take it as well as you dish it out?
Ah, Coffee. Do you just assume that a person wants their coffee black, or do you ask them how they take it? That’s the Platinum rule, buddy, not the Golden one.
As for my scenarios, no, they weren’t perfect. They were adequate, though, to demonstrate the fallacy I was trying to point out. And, if you were watching, I did not call the passerby “evil”. But (unless you assumed the EMT was unconscious, which I did not) there were definitely better ways to handle the scenario. You know, actions he could have taken instead of causing the EMT’s death? I’m pretty sure that was my point.
The platinum rule assumes nothing. It tells you to ASK THE QUESTIONS and FIND OUT WHAT THE OTHER PERSON NEEDS.
That is the ENTIRE point of the Platinum rule. It eliminates the “Arrogant Assumption” in situations where no arrogance is warranted.
Yes, if you’re lying unconscious, a passerby can’t very well figure out what you have to say on the situation.
As for the doctor you mentioned, the platinum rule falls apart in situations where the parties do not start out as equals. The doctor clearly posesses knowledge superior to the patient.
But how about that Witness? Should she assume a superior role? How about the Muslim? The Mormon? The Baptist? the Catholic Priest?
Skyfort: Is it? Do I? I’m asking people to not just think about their actions, but to ask the “beneficiary” if those actions are tuly a benefit. The alternative is to just do it, and find out later if you were right or not.
Intelitary, That Christian who wronged you is INCAPABLE of KNOWING that you don’t want him to pray for you. He is INCAPABLE because he DID NOT ASK. That is my point: He simply assumed that I did not know what was best for me. Frankly, I don’t care if he prays for me or not as I consider that a pointless exercise. I care about his condescending tone and words.
I agree, Christians are not taught to do the research first. Repeating those mistakes over and over and over and over eventually leads to things like the KKK and the Westboro Baptist Church. Do you think either organization’s members believe they are evil? Both even claim to be Christian. Granted, these are VERY extreme examples…
You get weirdness if you do that Are you implying that there is something wrong with “weird”? I’d say that if normal sucks, it’s time to get weird.
I consider the two subjects (mental and moral habits) STRONGLY linked. Those bad mental habits lead to confusion, miscommunication, and bent feelings. Fix it. Actively seek out the true need, and resolve it. Try to avoid making the assumption.
Your comments are spurious and violate Occam’s razor (K.I.S.S.). The Golden Rule is the moral/social equivalent of Newton’s Second Law; For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. Everything that happens to us is the result of our own actions (like it or not). It applies to every human act and is not a matter of choice. Where the cognitive limits of human behavior are involved, it is also subject to the Law of Unexpected Consequences; Murphey’s Law, or S**t Happens. If you intrude on others, you will be intruded upon, one way or another.
Furthermore, The golden Rule preceded Jesus (assuming he ever existed) by centuries, if not millennia. It has, or had, its equivalent in virtually every culture across the earth. Jesus taught only a variant; Love thy enemy as ye love thyself. A choice requiring a determination beyond human capacity. That’s why we doom ourselves and our species daily.
Moral equivalent to Newton’s Law?
Morality is subjective. What I find to be morally correct is not necessarily what you will find to be morally correct. For some people, using a 4-letter word is not a big deal. For other people, using that same word is incredibly offensive.
Frankly, I think that banning books (especially literary classics) just because they utilize a few colorful adjectives is morally reprehensible. Yet some parents feel that their children will be injured by those same words.
I feel that “Of Mice and Men” and “Catcher in the Rye” would make excellent gifts to a young student interested in literature. Her parents might not agree, but until I talk to them about it or otherwise learn about that stance, I have no idea, and my “gift” could appear to be an insult, or an assault.
The reality is that the Platinum Rule is already the preferred rule among friends, colleagues, and other close-knit relationships. You don’t do to the other person what you want, you do what they want. If you continually do to them what you want done to you, and they disagree with you, eventually, they won’t be your friend anymore, because you don’t meet their needs.
Of course, your friends are all likely to do things you like to do anyway, and will want the same treatment that you want.
But when a priest, two boy scouts, a rabbi, an englishman, an irishman, a scotsman, two nuns, a family of WASPs, a black guy, a hispanic guy, an eskimo, and the 1986 Denver Broncos all walk into a bar, aside from a great punchline, you’ve got a wildly diverse group of people, each with their own prejudices, each with their own experiences. Without the open communication required by the Platinum Rule, feelings are going to get bent, and chances are fairly good that a fight will break out before too long.
(BTW, the punchline: “Bartender says “What is this, some kinda joke?”) {cue rimshot}
Rivar, this is the trouble with your argument. At each point you arbitrarily assume what the golden rule follower won’t do.
I don’t like getting something I wouldn’t enjoy so following the golden rule I would ask you what drink you would like.
There’s no reason to label that the platinum rule.
Doh! I shudda known you’d miss the point. There is no need for new rules where those that exist are adequate. You are still flogging a dead rat. The Golden Rule doesn’t breed intolerance ,,,people breed intolerance. We are Animals, posing as something more. Your argument is circular and demonstrates nothing except that you need to keep reading,,,lots. Maybe another 10 years. Anthropology, Logic, History, Biology, Physics, Psychology, Linguistics, General Semantics, etc, etc. And try rereading what I wrote earlier,,,until you get it. You need to learn the difference between a question with a real answer and mental self-abuse.
Interesting side-note unrelated to the above discussion; in the Confucian Analects there’s a sort of “anti-golden rule” that I have always found to be a much better guideline for our behavior:
“Don’t to others what you would not want done to you.”
It seems that this maxim would avoid all your arguments against the Golden Rule while avoiding the necessity of infallibility inherent in your Platinum Rule.
Arete, if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice. Not doing is still an action.
Besides doesn’t love your neighbor cove both do and don’t?
Jurgen: Again, The golden rule is ONLY adequate in a homogenous society, or when it is applied between people with similar wants and needs.
It fails miserably as soon as you throw in any significant diversity.
Drop the ad hominems. You failed in communicating your argument. If you don’t feel that I have undestood you correctly, it is time to restate, not repeat ad nauseum and accuse me of ignorance or stupidity.
Frankly, I don’t understand why this has become such a huge controversy. The Golden Rule can ONLY be practiced in ignorance. Once a person is aware of the other person’s needs, they don’t have to guess about them anymore. THAT is he platinum rule.
Arete: It’s a corollary to the Golden rule, and in practice, the two are largely identical. It works fine, until a person needs you to do something that you would not do for yourself. The EMT would still be dead, because the passerby would not allow the knife to remain in the EMT’s chest.
Yet again, though, you’ve missed the point of the Platinum Rule when you speak of the necessity of infallibility. Infallibility is NOT required. Communication, Tolerance, and Understanding are required, not infallibilitiy. You CANNOT practice the Platinum rule on an unconscious person without prior communication. You cannot know the person’s wants or needs without that communication.
Isn’t there a hierarchy of wants and needs for all people? Certainly I want my freedoms/rights (separate argument if you want to talk about their existence) to be respected above just about everything else; if I recognize this, and extrapolate to all people, then I will not act against their most fundamental and basic desires. The only homogeneity thus required would be a basic acceptance of what rights/freedoms we have. Though there are many, many arguments about the specifics, the most basic are almost universally agreed upon - rights to life, thought (and by extension [as argued brilliantly by Mill] speech, organization, and liberty [pursuit of the "good" as understood from thought]), and property are accepted by almost everyone.
If I acknowledge those rights and freedoms as the preeminent desires amongst all people, then I am essentially following the golden rule without necessitating homogeneity; neither does it necessarily follow that such an interpretation would lead to such offenses as listed earlier.
Socrates said that: I know that I know nothing. Which is obviously a logical contradiction. And yet it tells us something - it’s logical inconsistency does not void it’s meaning.
The same can be said of the golden rule… it is the understanding that other human beings are similar to myself and have desires and wants that makes it an interesting rule reformulated by many Ethicists since Jesus’ Death…
Including Kant. Who, although he dismissed it in a footnote, seems to have been incredibly influenced by it in his ethics.
“So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” ~Mat 7:12~
Instead of acting on our own self-importance and assuming we know how to meet another’s need or want, compassion declares that we take the time to find out what that is, and act accordingly.
Your Christian did not need to say a thing. The atheist’s need is surely to be prayed for, but they did not necessarily want to know about it. Announcing our good intentions in certain situations only serves to feed our own ego.
The Golden Rule requires that the passerby forego their own arrogance and listen to the person who has the needed information.
And the kid, if he were indeed living by the Golden Rule, would have asked the friend first.
In each of these situations, your examples are not illustrative of the Golden Rule, just the flaw of human egotism.
The only “Jesus myth” is the illusion that we, as imperfect human beings, could or should try to improve on the longstanding and infallible Word of God. You can’t reinvent that which has already been perfected.
15: Intelitary: The reason to label it is to demonstrate that the communication you mentioned is absolutely essential. Sure, a person can bend, twist, and contort the golden rule into the situations you’re talking about. The Platinum Rule explicitly states the requirement for communication, and doesn’t leave it up to the individual to discover and adopt.
20. Arete: The fallacy in your argument is that you are extrapolating data from a tiny sample, and generalizing that data across a large group. Basically, you tried to homogenize the group. Sure, everyone wants their freedom, but does everyone want to believe in the Judeo-Christian God? Does everyone need a car? Does everyone like McDonald’s hamburgers? Run the same experiment with diverse groups on a lesser need or want instead of the primary “I want my freedoms” need. When you do, your conclusions fall apart.
22. Melissa: The Golden Rule requires that the passerby forego their own arrogance and listen to the person who has the needed information. The biblical passage says nothing of the sort, that is your HUMAN interpretation of the golden Rule. I call that rule the Platinum Rule, to explicitly differentiate it from other HUMAN intepretations of the Golden rule.
The atheist’s need is surely to be prayed for, but they did not necessarily want to know about it. In your arrogant opinion, you honestly believe that the Atheist needs to be prayed for. You are placing yourself on a level above the Atheist, declaring you, a HUMAN, to be superier to the Atheist, another HUMAN.
And you’re justifying that stance by saying “Well as long as I don’t talk about it, it’s OK”
You have created a situation where your ego is fed twice, first by believing you are better, then by thinking that the Atheist will never know about your egotistical belief. You created an “Us and Them” situation, where all Christians are better than even the “best” atheist.
I discussed this kind of arrogance Here
rivalarrival: You’ve not understood my argument if you’re trying to go all slippery-slope on me.
My argument is thus: there is a hierarchy of wants and desires, atop this hierarchy are our basic rights and freedoms. We must always respect these rights and freedoms via the Golden Rule (more than anything, we want our rights and freedoms, thus we are to accept this as common among our fellows).
The Golden Rule thus applied negates your arguments. It is much more important to respect someone’s freedom of thought and pursuit of happiness than to attempt to force religion or McDonald’s hamburgers upon them.
The hierarchy never falls apart, it will always be the case that these most basic, fundamental desires trump lesser desires. e.g., my desire to maintain my freedom of thought is far more important any desire I might have towards any religion - recognizing this, and applying the hierarchy to others, I would never attempt to force a religion upon another without their consent.
Now let us examine your Platinum Rule, that we should act to others according their wants. It is safe to assume that everyone’s primary desires are to maintain their most important freedoms and rights such as life, liberty, thought, speech, pursuit of “the good”, property, etc.
I don’t need to ask people if they want these rights; it is safe to assume that they do. Thus will I always respect their autonomy and not make decisions for them, as per their right to pursue their own idea of “the good”.
I explained earlier how this same mode of thinking is applied in the Golden Rule. I know that, to me, the most important thing I would have others do unto me is allow me to maintain my rights and freedom; thus will I act accordingly to others, always respecting their rationality, autonomy, and emotions. Accepting these rights as atop a hierarchy of wants and desires negates a need for modification to the rule - the Platinum Rule reaches essentially the same conclusion.
The primary difference is that the Platinum Rule will not inherently respect the fundamental rights; if a person is willing to waive them, they may be disavowed. However, it is inconceivable that one would voluntarily make the rational decision to ever waive these rights, so any forfeiture of said rights would be made under great duress. How does the Platinum Rule react to this? Am I to respect an irrational request from another person? What about a request that isn’t made voluntarily? This is a problem for the Platinum Rule that the Golden Rule, insofar as I maintain adherence to the universal hierarchy, atop which rights and freedoms preside, does not have.
24. Arete: Let me try to rephrase your argument, and tell me if I’ve gotten it wrong.
All people share the same top level needs. Thus, by doing unto others as we would have them do unto us, we are respecting those needs.
Is that more or less what you said?
My argument, then, is as follows: I’m throwing out the labels, because I don’t think “Rights and Freedoms” are the top of the hierarchy, and in any event, it is not specific: A woman’s right to live is much further up on the hierarchy than her right to abort her fetus.
So, we’re left with a theoretical set of common, top level wants and needs among all people. This group of people is homogenous. (Theoretical, because I can’t think of a single trait that ALL people would desire… Even life itself becomes more of a burden to some people than it is worth, which is why we have DNR orders and suicide)
Anyway, the group is homogenous in those desires, so every member can simply assume that every other member wants exactly the same thing.
Moving on. It’s a hierarchy of needs, not a single level. Much further down on the hierarchy is where it gets confusing. Once you’re past the basic life and death issues, and the universal freedoms and rights issues, you get out of the needs and into the wants.
Do you want the same thing as everyone else on the planet? And I’m no longer talking about the basic, fundamental, absolute necessities anymore. Do you want to live in a town house or a country house? Do you want children? How many? Are you married? How many kids does your husband want?
Remember, as soon as you talk to him about it, you’re not using the Golden Rule, you are using the Platinum rule.
25. Arete: And you yelled at me about slippery slopes. ;-P
The primary difference is that the Platinum Rule will not inherently respect the fundamental rights; if a person is willing to waive them, they may be disavowed. Yes, they can. We as a society already acknowledge that a person’s right to choose is paramount. I can choose to sign a DNR order, and when I stop breathing, nobody will do anything to save me. That would be my choice.
Applying the Golden Rule, my choice wouldn’t matter, someone else’s assumptions would matter.
How does the Platinum Rule react to this? Am I to respect an irrational request from another person? What about a request that isn’t made voluntarily?
Platinum Rule fails in cases of irrationality.
Let me ask you this: In your day-to-day life, are most of the people Rational, or Irrational. When dealing with an irrational person, what would they want you to do if they were thinking rationally?
In the Involuntary Request, the beneficiary is not communicating what he actually wants the other party to do. The rule didn’t break, the communication broke. You would, of course, have the same dilemma trying to use the Golden Rule.
You already do unto others as they want you to do unto them, why not SAY that? Why hide it in parable and subject it to misinterpretation?
rivalarrival R24: Your summary of my argument is sufficient, and I think I see where the disagreement is; furthermore, I think that further inspection will show that there is not so much disagreement after all. Also, we can certainly abandon the labels of rights and freedoms if they are ambiguous.
Plainly, then, here is what we are left with: Above all else, I want my rationality respected insofar as my actions affect myself; though you may disagree, this trait is almost certainly universal. So long as I make rational decisions, I ought to be allowed to make them, and so long as others make rational decisions, I ought to respect them.
(to answer your question of whether others are rational or not: though their reasons may be bad and their logic faulty, their decisions are rational and thus require their autonomy be respected. Only when one’s actions lead to harming others may I, or anyone, intervene and supersede the autonomous will of another person.)
Because this desire to maintain my autonomy is paramount and surpasses all other desires in strength and richness, it is to be respected above all others. No one may act upon me in such a way as to compromise my ability to make rational, voluntary decisions regardless of the “lesser” desires and wants such action may fulfill. They may not take my Jelly Beans from me, force religion (or hamburgers) down my throat, nor may they make decisions about my life & death against or without my consent.
Again, this interpretation of the Golden Rule is strikingly similar to your Platinum Rule, and I think that, due to the preeminence of the Golden Rule, it is your responsibility to explain why a change is in order when the old maxim accomplishes essentially the same goals.
Eh, I interpret the golden rule as a non-spiritual form of karma. This is nit-pickery.
By the way, if you scroll to the bottom, the Submit Comment control gets clipped.
Oh, I mean with float on.
R27-Arete
the reason, in my mind, that the platinum rule is an improvement is that, while you may value your reason and rights more than anything else, and therefore doing unto others as they would do unto you means respecting those rights and that reason, there are those who value other things much more, for instance those who value their lives above all else and would waive any right for a little bit of safety, and those who value their religion above all else. for these people, the golden rule means that they should push those beliefs onto others. so while your particular system of values puts those fundamental rights on top, the golden rule will break down for most other people who utilize it. it fails to be a boon when it is utilized in a heterogeneous society simply because there are those people who do not respect the same fundamental rights as others, and this is the precise reason this platinum rule exists. your interpretation of the golden rule is the platinum rule, and it is fallacy to treat it as the golden rule just because that is how you may think of it
this article is hilarious. the golden rule is much more general. it works somewhat like karma… the idea behind it is if your nice to people, they will be nice back. if you share, they will share ect ect.
this post misconstrues the goodness of the rule by interpreting it literally. i think thats ironic, because the poster probably hates Christians for various literal interpretations of a certain text.
if you are nice and tolerant of other people, perhaps they will be nice and tolerant of you. in practicing the golden rule myself, i have seen that that is true.
30 Jay - I fail to see any fallacy in calling my interpretation the Golden Rule. Please explain.
Additionally, my argument is that the fundamental rights I have talked about are actually universal, particularly the desire to exercise our rationality and autonomy; even religious people will recognize the necessity to _choose_ their religion and follow their faith; even people who value their life extraordinarily will recognize that the value comes very much from their rationality and autonomy.
As I’ve said, these desires and rights are universal, no matter how heterogeneous the society. If you want to argue, that’s where the disagreement may, or may not lie.
31 Matt - I agree with you. However, this seems to have become a philosophical discussion, and we philosophers are notoriously specific (just a euphemism for nit-picky, I suppose).
R32
the fallacy, as i see it, in your interpretation of the golden rule is not so much your interpretation, as your assumption that this way of looking at morality is unnessecarry simply because it already meshes with your golden rule. it’s not that you interpret it wrongly, but simply that your interpretation is one of the few that is already part of the platinum rule, without furthur motivation. for the child with the jellybeans, for instance, i feel like he would value(in the most abstract sense) his likes and dislikes above his fundemental rights simply because either he does not really know about them, or is not of age to excersize them in everyday life. this means that without a sort of platinum rule, the child would go through and eat all the black jellybeans for his friend’s sake, because he does not enjoy the fundamental right to choose as much as he enjoys the colored jellybeans.
this may be a sort of extreme example, but somthing more pressing would be if, for instance, a very religious family took in an orphan. they would likely censor the amount of profanity, promiscuity, and progressiveness that the child would experience because they value their ticket to heaven more than they value their freedom of speech, their freedom of choice, and their freedom to pursue happiness.
so, as i stated above, it’s not that your interpretation of the golden rule is faulty, but that you assume that someone like you is the rule, rather than the exception when it comes to this interpretation of the rule.
R33: First and foremost: It’s a mistake to consider children moral agents; they have not fully developed as rational, emotional, or autonomous people. Let us consider examples relating to children to be faulty examples. I don’t want to ascribe certain rights to children that I would to adults because they do not have the capacity to fully understand the breadth of their rights and freedoms, nor that these rights are equal amongst others.
As far as my interpretation of the Golden Rule being the “exception”: whether or not the majority of those who would claim to follow this rule do as I have suggested, I submit my interpretation is the most accurate, and therefore best available definition of the Golden Rule. Your example is difficult, again, because children are not full moral agents to whom we ascribe full rights.
Let us consider this somewhat less convoluted example: two adults are in a longterm relationship. One is nonreligious while the other is a practicing Hindu. One day, the Hindu says to the other partner, “If you do not convert to Hinduism, I will leave you and never speak with you again. You are wasting your life by not seeking the Atman within you, and I will no longer tolerate it; for your own good I must insist that you convert!”
It may seem that the Hindu is acting in accordance with the Golden Rule, but in reality he is not. Although his religion and its beliefs are incredibly important to him, upon investigation, he would admit that his ability to seek the good for himself is most important; he has found the good to be Hinduism; Brahman, Atman, and the like; nonetheless, he would admit that despite the great importance of his religion, it would likely be meaningless if he were not free to find its truth and seek it voluntarily.
The above example is illustrative of my premise: rationality and autonomy outweigh any other desire; applying the Golden Rule, one must always respect another’s rationality and autonomy above any other perceived desire. This interpretation is the most accurate understanding of the Golden Rule and makes the Platinum Rule unnecessary. If others interpret the Golden Rule differently, or act contrary to this interpretation, than I suggest that they have failed to understand the significance of their desire to maintain their rationality and autonomy.
Arete: You stated the reason why I think the Golden Rule should be replaced when you said “Again, this interpretation of the Golden Rule is strikingly similar to your Platinum Rule” - The Golden Rule is not only open to interpretation, it demands it. As demonstrated above, a literal interpretation is a recipe for intolerance. Ideally, everyone would share your interpretation of the rule. Frankly, I shared that interpretation, until I started thinking about it in conjunction with the situation I faced, similar to the first scenario I used as an example. (I wrote about that scenario ;Here) Several people have commented that the Golden Rule is a generalization. Several people have thumbed down this article in Stumble because I’m using a literal interpretation of something that they believe should be treated as a generalization. They are right, I am doing exactly that, because there are many situations where one person feels oppressed, demeaned, or discriminated against solely because another person is giving them exactly what that second person would want. The phrase “It’s the thought that counts” is used far too often. As they say, “The road to hell is paved with good intentions”.
Matt: “this post misconstrues the goodness of the rule by interpreting it literally. i think thats ironic, because the poster probably hates Christians for various literal interpretations of a certain text.” I would ask you to not put words in my mouth. I don’t hate Christians in general.
There are VERY few people I truly hate. As far as religious figureheads, Jerry Falwell made my list, as does Ann Coulter, Bill O’Reilly, Fred Phelps and most of the Westboro Baptist Church. These people use the same words as most Christians, and manage to use those words to spread a message of hate. They can do this simply by reinterpreting various parts of the Bible to spread a message of hate. To the vast majority of the population, (regardless of religion) these people demonstrate the problem with using generalizations and parables as a moral guide.
Arete: “I submit my interpretation is the most accurate, and therefore best available definition of the Golden Rule.” - You and everyone else would make this statement. Because it is subject to interpretation, you and everyone else - regardless of their personal philosophy - would be right. Including the Catholic Priest who practically kidnaps a young woman out of fear for her soul. Including the Front-Door Preacher who arrogantly tells everyone that they are going to hell, and that she will pray for them. Some people can justify, within the confines of this rule, websites like Godhatesfags.com.That you interpret the Golden Rule to be identical to the platinum rules does not make that interpretation the only one, or even the prevalent one. The Platinum Rule is much more specific than the Golden. It has problems in the face of irrationality (Age (old or young), mental defect, head injury, alcohol, overmedication, undermedication, etc) and situations where communication is impossible, but no broad guideline is going to be able to handle those situations.
Which rule offers a better summarization of your philosophy on this issue?
rivalarrival: I don't interpret the Golden Rule and Platinum Rule to be identical; there are several inconsistencies, which I will get to momentarily. First, I want to argue that my interpretation of the Golden Rule is, in fact, correct, regardless of others' claims to have other, equally correct interpretations.First and foremost, your claim, "You and everyone else would make this statement. Because it is subject to interpretation, you and everyone else… would be right," is not necessarily the case. Your argument is flawed in that it assumes that simply because there are various interpretations of the rule, that none of them are more true than the other. Let's assess that argument:Tom and Sue have both recently read Franz Kafka's Metamorphases and are now discussing the story. Tom believes that the story is Kafka's version of "negative transfiguration," a literal opposite to the Catholic idea of transubstantiation, wherein bread and wine are literally the body and blood of Christ. Sue, meanwhile, interprets Kafka's story to be a tale about the futility of modern living, an exploration into the lives and reactions of family during times of crisis, among other secular themes. Now, each has interpreted the story differently, but surely one can be more correct than the other; we must look at the arguments. In so doing, it will become quickly apparent, after examining Kafka's intentions, thoughts, and feelings from his journal, that the story has nothing to do with Catholicism; it is unlikely that Kafka gave religion much thought at all at the time. We can conclude that although the story can be interpreted in many ways, Sue's interpretation is more accurate than Tom's.In light of this, I feel fully justified in my claim that there is a correct interpretation of the Golden Rule, and that I have already claimed what that is. I have provided arguments as to why I think my interpretation is correct. If there is a better interpretation, it must have better arguments; if there is an equal, different interpretation, its arguments must be as good as mine. The problem with the Golden Rule that you have detailed arises out an interpretation of the Golden Rule whose arguments are weaker than mine, and I therefore claim that mine is better and more accurate. I'm sure we can agree that different interpretations does not necessarily mean that there is no correct answer; if I interpret the Bible in such a way that promotes hatred, bigotry, and murder, I have probably interpreted it incorrectly (incidentally, your hate list is similar to mine) because my arguments would not be well supported. If your interpretation is better than mine give me arguments, don't just claim that there are other interpretations, none of which are any more accurate. Part Two: Differences between the Platinum and Golden Rule, will follow this post soon.As to your question, "Which rule offers a better summarization of your philosophy on this issue?" I'm afraid I honestly don't know to which issue you are referring. It's probably a failure on my part, but please be more specific so I can give your question a worthy response.
Moving on, differences between Golden and Platinum Rule:
Let’s start, once again, with the Golden Rule as I have interpreted it, in it’s most clear form:
What all people want, above all else, is to achieve the “good” in their life.
To achieve this good, people need two things: the ability to decide what “the good” is, and the ability to act upon this decision, i.e. to follow through with that which they believe will bring them closer to the good.
To facilitate those two needs, a person requires their rationality and autonomy to be respected.
Thus, if we truly “do unto others as we would have them do unto us” we will always respect their autonomy and rationality.
This is different from your Platinum Rule in several ways; The only time one’s actions are restricted under this Golden rule are when they interfere with another’s rationality and autonomy or harm the person in some other way. However, the Platinum Rule, as you have explained it, would prohibit others from even offending other people.
Let’s examine your first example of the atheist and Jehovah’s Witness. According to my Golden Rule, the JW’s actions are totally permissible; he has neither harmed the atheist nor restricted his autonomy or rationality. Under your Platinum Rule, however, the JW has acted in appropriately because he would rather not be prayed for, and was offended by the comment.<p> While your Platinum Rule is willing to restrict someone’s actions based upon offense, the Golden Rule is not. I swear when I stub my toe, Joey hears me and is offended; have I done anything wrong? Absolutely not, according to the Golden Rule, but if I were a Platinum Rulist (?) I would have asked Joey if he would mind hearing my curse, and hearing no, would have either acted rightly (not sworn) or acted wrongly (curse my brains out). However, I have not prevented Joey from achieving “the good” in his life whatsoever, and so I maintain that I have done nothing wrong.
While there are a great deal of similarities between the Golden Rule as I have explained it and the Platinum Rule, this is the primary difference: GR prohibits harm and limitation of rationality and autonomy; PR (unless I have misinterpreted) prohibits harm and offense. Because I am not willing to lead my life and compromise my search for the good in respect to someone’s mere preferences, I find the Golden Rule to be rather superior to the Platinum Rule.
But this is not a discussion of which is better. You claimed that the Golden Rule breeds intolerance. I claimed you misinterpreted the Golden Rule, and offered a better explanation which certainly is not conducive to intolerance insofar as everyone’s right to pursue the “good” is respected.
Yes, when the admins switched to this new format, some things got broken. There are some bugs in the comment section. I am going to manually fix the blocking in your comments later this evening. I'm sure I'll have to fix it in mine as well.
"Your argument is flawed in that it assumes that simply because there are
various interpretations of the rule, that none of them are more true
than the other." - The Golden Rule is subjective. We agree that it should not be taken perfectly literally in all situations. We agree that a human interpretation is required, and you have provided exactly that: One Human Interpretation. (An interpretation that I largely agree with)
Do you deny that other people interpret the rule differently? What makes your interpretation inherently better than theirs?
My argument assumes that MOST interpretations are equally valid. The Golden Rule does not state anything about rights and freedoms being paramount, and the three scenarios I provided are all interpretations of the Golden Rule. If you were to ask Jerry Falwell, or Fred Phelps to interpret the Golden Rule, you would probably end up with an interpretation that not only permitted but demanded the denigration of homosexuals. If you asked Reverend Briggs, the interpretation would likely insist on the elimination of Atheism in America.
Moving on to your second comment:
The purpose of the Platinum Rule is to reduce INADVERTANT offensive behavior by forcing communication before action, so you are partially correct in your assessment.
Your example of cursing when you stub your toe is flawed, as it is not a situation where you would have employed the Golden Rule to begin with: You were not intentionally interacting with Joey. You have applied a double standard.
The Golden Rule does not explicitly prohibit harm, your intepretation of it is what prohibits harm. As I mentioned before, bigots like Jerry Falwell, Fred Phelps, and E.W. Briggs would likely have their own interpretations that moderate people would consider harmful to certain groups.
In any event, both rules are guidelines. You're not going to be fined or jailed for breaking either one. But, it is MUCH harder to interpret the Platinum Rule as intolerant than the Golden Rule. If we, as a society, set our moral standards to the Platinum Rule, it becomes much more difficult to JUSTIFY harmful actions as moral imperatives.
Adopting the Platinum Rule standard denies bigots and haters the comfort of moral justification for their bigotry and hate.
“Do you deny that other people interpret the rule differently? What makes your interpretation inherently better than theirs? ” I certainly do not deny that others interpret the rule differently, just as I would not deny that people interpret the constitution, the bible, poetry, or film differently. It is certainly the case that people interpret things differently, but it is not the case that all interpretations are equally correct; case in point my interpretation of the Golden Rule is superior to others’…When we say that we want others to treat us as we would like to be treated, what does it mean? Simply, it implies that we want people to respect our desires. Now, paramount amongst all of our desires (and I contend that this is universal among all people), is the desire to find “the good” in our lives. Because this is our most prominent desire, we we would like people to respect this above all other desires (it just so happens that in virtue of respecting this desire, they also adhere to many of our other desires).
When we apply the Golden Rule to this, we arrive at my previously stated interpretation which is superior because it recognizes the universally most-important desire: to find “the good”. Other interpretations are weaker because they do not recognize this desire, either in themselves or in others, to be of primary importance.
“Adopting the Platinum Rule standard denies bigots and haters the comfort of moral justification for their bigotry and hate.”You are correct, but at what expense? You don’t want Father Andrew preaching to you the virtues of the Catholic religion, and attempting to convert you, nor do you want him to depart, saying he will pray for you. Fair enough; I can see how that’s annoying. However, I would never condone any set of guidelines that says Father Andrew’s actions are wrong. Annoying? Sure. Pushy? Maybe. Wrong? Never.If such an action as that were wrong, what about Ms. Vegan trying to persuade Mr. Omnivore to stop eating meat, while citing very good reasons for doing so? Surely Mr. Omnivore doesn’t want to hear these arguments; they make him uncomfortable, and some of Ms. Vegan’s remarks are downright disgusting. Still, doesn’t Ms. Vegan have a right to express her opinion? And furthermore, isn’t she justified in pursuing an end to meat-consumption? I thoroughly support her right to speak her mind and attempt to convert the meat-eater.
And what about the peace activist: Does he have a right to protest to war-mongering government? The government is deeply offended by the PA’s actions, and strongly desires that he not protest. Invoking the Platinum Rule, wouldn’t the PA be in the wrong?Understandably, you would like to limit bigotry and hate. I am with you. However, your Platinum Rule goes too far. Bigotry and hate are a byproduct of free speech - a freedom I will argue for to the end; if I say something that annoys, offends, etc. it is acceptable - only when my speech incites or advocates actual harm can I be fairly censored. Yet, it would seem that, as in your JW-example, the Platinum Rule would have us quiet our opinions in favor of avoiding offense.
case in point my interpretation of the Golden Rule is superior to others’
You completely avoided the question by repeating your previous statement, and supported that position with more of your opinions. We can continue this cycle ad nauseum, or you can address the unanswered question: Why is your interpretation inherently better than anyone else’s? Can you justify that position universally, or is that position subjective?
I hate to burst your bubble, but just because I happen to agree with you doesn’t make your opinion better than the opinion of any other person. I’m not willing to say that my own opinion on the Golden Rule is better than Jerry Falwell’s; I’m certainly not going to say that yours is the best interpretation possible.
“However, I would never condone any set of guidelines that says Father Andrew’s actions are wrong“.
Let’s twist the Father Andrew situation a little bit. How do YOU act as a guest in someone else’s home? Do you point out apparent flaws in your host? How do you treat guests in your own home? A guest insults you and your family: Do you ask them to return? Should I expect any less of Father Andrew than any other visitor?
Free Speech: I have the right to speak, you have the right to not listen. If I show up at your door, you can ask me to leave. If I’m standing on my soapbox on the corner, you have the right to walk away.
If I’ve understood your interpretation correctly, the peace activist wouldn’t be following it with regards to the government, which would demonstrate the double standard you are applying. In either your interpretaion or the Platinum rule, the peace activist could only be considered to be following either one with regards to the soldiers, their families, other peace activists, the general public, etc.
Offending people isn’t necessarily wrong and you’ve pointed out a couple instances. But to claim that these people are practicing the golden rule by offending people is irrational.
Was it Father Andrew’s intention to offend the Atheist? If so, he’s succeeded, and demonstrated his arrogance in the process. If his intention was NOT to offend the Atheist, then by simply asking if he could pray for the atheist, instead of stating that he would do so, would be one simple way of both proselytizing AND avoiding unintentional offense. By asking instead of assuming, he is respecting the fundamental right of the Atheist to make up his own mind.
"Why is your interpretation inherently better than
anyone else’s? Can you justify that position universally, or is that position
subjective?"
Once more, just for the fun of it. My interpretation is better than others'
because mine has better arguments. My arguments rest upon the universal
assumption that all people desire "the good" in their life - an
assumption which is almost certainly true, regardless of any other
circumstances in the person's life. As I have said, unless (1) you can show me
that this assumption is false or (2) you can show me other interpretations of
the Golden Rule whose arguments are as strong as mine, I will continue to
contend that my interpretation is superior. These are not opinions, mind
you, they are statements of fact. You may disagree with my factual statements
only by providing evidence that my statements are not, in fact, based on the
truth. My bubble's still in tact whether you agree with me or not.
Peace Activist, Father Andrew, and offense: In all of my examples, it was the
intention of the "offender" to promote "the good"; Father
Andrew believes that much good comes from his efforts to convert people to
Catholicism, the Peace Activist believes there is a great deal of good in his
demonstrations to end war. In these situations, they would consider their
ideals to be more important than the feelings of those they might offend.
You asked how I were to act as a guest. Though my personal opinions and actions
are somewhat irrelevant, I serve as yet another example along those lines; when
I visit a friend's house, and she eats meat, I tell her that what she is doing
is wrong - if she wishes to be a good, rational human being, she ought not to
eat meat. In so doing, I am acting permissibly according to the Golden Rule (I
am respecting her rationality and autonomy, and I am seeking an important
"good" in my life by attempting to limit animal suffering and the
environmental impact of meat-production), yet my actions would be inappropriate
according to the Platinum Rule.
I am arrogant, and when I know I'm right, I have every intention of telling you
- if Curt eat meat, I will tell Curt that what he's doing is wrong because I
have better arguments than him, every time. Curt's desire to not be offended
does not overwhelm my desire to make the world a better place. Without the use
of force, harm, or coercion, I will attempt to persuade him that my ideas are
correct - in so doing I will violate the Platinum Rule, a rule which I cannot
agree to for this very reason.
Also, I have not, and will not, avoid questions. If you
think I did not answer a question of yours, it was likely (1) an oversight on
my part that you had a question to address, (2) I forgot to answer your
question, or (3) I did answer your question, just not clearly enough. Please
don’t accuse me of actively avoiding questions.
Well, this is at least the third time you changed your interpretation, and mow it apparently means something completely opposite of what you started ou with.
If I recall correctly (I could look, but I'm feeling a bit lazy this evening) initially, you said that the proper interpretation of the golden rule required one to respect a person's freedoms and rights as paramount. Later, respect for their rationality and autonomy was added to the list. Finally, we're to "Doing good is paramount, even if it violates my earlier interpretations of the Golden Rule."
Thank you, though, for demonstrating the intolerance of the Golden Rule with your diatribe on meat consumption. Yes, your actions toward your carnivorous friends are against the platinum rule. They are also against the first two interpretations you provided for the Golden rule, yet you managed to reinterpret that rule to justify your own personal bigotry against meat eaters.
I'm not interested in arguing the merits of vegan vs. omnivorous diet, but suffice it to say that humans have eaten meat for as long as they have existed. I can't find fault with a person who chooses to continue consuming the basic diet that his ancesters have consumed for a hundred millenia.
You aren't respecting her rationality nor her autonomy. You aren't even practicing your first two interpretations of the Golden Rule, let alone the stricter Platinum Rule.
Do me a favor: Pick an interpretation to argue, and stick with it. You want to argue theory, that's fine too, I'll be happy to argue a different interpretation later, and then another after that, for as long as we're both actually communicating.
I have put a lot of effort into being civil. It's not easy for me. Here's the problem: I have tried numerous ways to explain this to, each time making it more and more simple. Still, it doesnt' seem to get through to you. One more time with the explaination of the Golden Rule, which is absolutely the last time, and I'm going to spell it out as clearly as I possibly can, covering every step that I assumed you had followed along the way.#1 Universal want and desire: To seek the good#2 Necesseties to seek the good: Rights and Freedoms#3 Which Rights and Freedoms: Right to free though & speech, right to assemble assemble. Freedom to act upon the decisions made via thought, speech, and assembly (call it liberty)#4 Why these Rights and Freedoms? Because they protect our rationality and autonomy, such that we can decide what the good is, and act upon that decision.Conclusion: Because all human beings desire to seek the good, they require certain rights and needs. Because all human beings desire to seek the good above all other desires, this desire, and its necesseties are the most important.Insert Golden Rule: Because I want, above all else, to seek the good, and because this requires certain rights and freeoms, I will understand that, above all else, others want to seek the good and require certain rights and freedoms which I will then respect.There. Done. My interpretation doesn't get any more clear. If you still are having difficulty, email me, and I'll try again; I'm not doing it again on this forum. I've used the same interpretation throughout these comments, but altered how it was presented, I'm sorry if this caused confusion, maybe I just assumed that you were with me, when in reality I wasn't being very clear - very possible.Telling someone that they're wrong doesn't violate their rationality or autonomy. If I tell you that you're wrong, you may use your rationality to disagree with me. Furthermore, you may use your autonomy to not follow through with my suggestions. I have not violated either principle. Neither suggestion nor argumentation can force you to change your mind, or force you to act. You are wrong to say otherwise; disagree? Use arguments. Don't make baseless claims.Finally, your argument for meat eating can be summed up prettily as a perfect example of the Naturalistic Fallacy. Is implies ought, eh? Here is a rough summary of your argument: Because human beings have been eating meat for thousands of years, they ought to continue to eat meat. is this really a valid argument? Here is its form:Because x does/is y, x ought to y. so, if your argument is valid, it should work in any case:Because guns are made to kill, guns ought to be used to killBecause people have used drugs for thousands of years, people ought to continue to use drugs.Because murderers kill people, murders ought to kill people. Naturalistic Fallacy. Bunk. Next argument for meat?Call it arrogance, call it intolerance, call it what you like. I leave it to you, as a rational, autonomous human being to make up your mind. I will present the arguments in my favor, and allow you to decide if they make sense. Furthermore, when you provide me with arguments in your favor, I will decide if they make sense, and if they don't, I will tell you they don't, and explain why. This is why your Platinum Rule is unacceptable; this argumentation would would violate the principle because I'm not concerned with your feelings. In fact, I am concerned with your rationality - I believe that if you continue to eat meat, you are acting irrational. But you said you didn't want to make this argument about the omnivore's diet. Fine. Let's return to the Golden Rule, of which, you claimed my interpretation is not the best, but merely one among many. I have provided you a clarified version of the rule, and now ask you to show me where I've gone wrong, or another interpretation whose arguments are as strong - if you cannot, then I will maintain the superiority of my interpretation.
As I said before, I refuse to engage in an argument on the merits of omnivorous vs vegetarian diets in this thread. It has absolutely no bearing on the matter at hand. If you wish to discuss that moral issue in this venue, I suggest you exercise your Author priveleges and do so.
Back to this thread:
1. I have given you numerous examples of how you are applying a double standard in judging the Platinum Rule in comparison to the Golden as you have interpreted it.
2. I have repeatedly demonstrated that yours is NOT the only interpretation of the Golden rule. Depending on how you state your interpretation, you are either speaking of the Platinum rule, or some kind of intolerance.
3. You have given numerous SUBJECTIVE arguments for your interpretation, but you also recognize that other people can have differing interpretations. I provided several simplistic examples of alternative interpretations.
4. The Golden Rule AND the Platinum rule are not guides of moral behavior. They are guides of Fair Play only. If it is a person's intention to interact fairly with another person, and they apply the Golden Rule in a heterogenous situation, the opposite party will be harmed in some way shape or form. Even if that is "just" feeling offended. In that same heterogenous environment, but applying the Platinum Rule, there will be no room for offense.
5. Check your ego at the door. You are no better or worse than any other person. Your intelligence is not inherently better or worse, your sense of morality is not inherently better or worse. You can't submit additional opinions as proof of your argument any more than I need to provide my personal opinions to defend against your argument. If you have no empirical evidence or a rational line of thought that does not hinge on your own opinions, it is time to quit arguing.
The Universal Desire is to Seek the Good is ONLY your opinion. I can think of a few more fundamental desires - a drowning man will push his rescuer to the bottom, simply to get a taste of oxygen. I've been that drowning man, and I've been that rescuer, but you don't have to take my word for it, look at how lifeguards and rescue swimmers are trained to react to encounters with victims. I have no intention of providing one, but would you deny that an interpretation of the Golden rule that took this fundamental desire into account would be more correct than your own definition?
I don't envy you your position: You've taken to defend an entirely subjective guideline against one that is much more specific. You can't win by getting more specific, because each time you do, you alienate more and more people who claim to be following that rule. The only real route you have is to demonstrate the necessity of that generality, and I've already poisoned that well by demonstrating part of that generality as intolerant and bigoted.
I do appreciate the discussion, but I think we're long past the point of diminishing returns in this line of reasoning. Shall we get back to our other Authoring tasks?
There's a good argument hidden in that comment: (##)
"I think of a few more fundamental desires…" (##)
If you're correct, then perhaps my premise, seeking "the good" is a universally
paramount desire, is in danger. The drowning man will make every effort
to stay alive; yes, but is this really a desire? It seems that what you
have described is not so much a desire as it is an instinct. When a
squirrel gathers a supply of food for the winter, it is not a desire
per se (unless scientists have simply failed to ascribe squirrels their
due intelligence, which is unlikely), it is instinct. I contend that it
is accurate to interpret certain human actions, a drowning man fights
for air, a starving woman eats nearly anything substantial, etc., as
equally instinctual, and therefore not desires. (##)
You may be on to something, though. I don't think you're quite right
about the "desire" to stay alive, but if there are other desires that
could eclipse the desire to seek the good, I'd like to hear them to see
if my premise holds up. (##)
[note: I am ignoring the rest of your comment as it is full of
baseless commands, ad hominems (circumstantial and abusive), and a
general failure to understand what I've already said, previously.]
[...] Mercy & Empathy. Then again, I hope you all remember The Golden Rule. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This is a useful and essentially satisfying way [...]
All in all does it really matter… Golden rule… Platinum rule?
I don’t know, that’s why I ask. For some it may for others it may not.
I say “do what you want”. Just remember that there are consequences.