Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[ibshambat]

The people I've known whom I see as good people tend to credit their goodness to following the Golden Rule. Since they know more about being a good person than I do, I will not challenge that the Golden Rule works for them. I do not however necessarily see it working for everyone.

My concern is simply rational. People differ from one another, and they will all want to be treated in different ways. If I treat the next person the way that I myself want to be treated, I may not be treating them the way that they want to be treated. I run the risk of projecting myself upon the next person while dishonoring who the next person actually is himself.

There are some things that people may want to be treated that aren't good at all. If I was suicidal and wanted the next person to kill me, I would not be justified in killing the next person. If I was a sexual masochist and wanted to be chained and whipped, I would not be justified in doing that to the next person either. Even avoiding these extreme situations, there are all sorts of differences in how people may want to be treated; and treating the next person the way that you yourself want to be treated may not be congruent with the treatment that they themselves want to receive.

The Golden Rule works to the extent that people are all similar to one another. It does not work to the extent that people are different from one another. Different people will want to be treated differently; and while the Golden Rule works – sometimes extremely well – on matters in which people are similar to one another, it does not work as well on matters in which people differ.

I have been seen as an alien all my life, and I am skeptical of the idea that treating the next person the way that I myself want to be treated would be a workable proposition. I think that much better than that would be for me to figure out how the next person would want to be treated and act accordingly. That requires brainwork; but I think that the results would be worth it. That way one can make a meaningful difference in people's lives while sowing – and benefiting from – good will.

[Pattern-chaser]

The people I've known whom I see as good people tend to credit their goodness to following the Golden Rule. Since they know more about being a good person than I do, I will not challenge that the Golden Rule works for them. I do not however necessarily see it working for everyone.

My concern is simply rational. People differ from one another, and they will all want to be treated in different ways. If I treat the next person the way that I myself want to be treated, I may not be treating them the way that they want to be treated. I run the risk of projecting myself upon the next person while dishonoring who the next person actually is himself.

There are some things that people may want to be treated that aren't good at all. If I was suicidal and wanted the next person to kill me, I would not be justified in killing the next person. If I was a sexual masochist and wanted to be chained and whipped, I would not be justified in doing that to the next person either. Even avoiding these extreme situations, there are all sorts of differences in how people may want to be treated; and treating the next person the way that you yourself want to be treated may not be congruent with the treatment that they themselves want to receive.

The Golden Rule works to the extent that people are all similar to one another. It does not work to the extent that people are different from one another. Different people will want to be treated differently; and while the Golden Rule works – sometimes extremely well – on matters in which people are similar to one another, it does not work as well on matters in which people differ.

I have been seen as an alien all my life, and I am skeptical of the idea that treating the next person the way that I myself want to be treated would be a workable proposition. I think that much better than that would be for me to figure out how the next person would want to be treated and act accordingly. That requires brainwork; but I think that the results would be worth it. That way one can make a meaningful difference in people's lives while sowing – and benefiting from – good will.

The Golden Rule contains a mistake, whose consequences are as you describe. Instead of treating others as *we* would wish to be treated, we need to treat others as *THEY* would wish to be treated. As you say.

[Good_Egg]

My concern is simply rational. People differ from one another, and they will all want to be treated in different ways. If I treat the next person the way that I myself want to be treated, I may not be treating them the way that they want to be treated...

...If I was a sexual masochist and wanted to be chained and whipped, I would not be justified in doing that to the next person either.

Yes, people differ in the details. But they also have things in common. Otherwise they wouldn't be human.

If you meet a sexual masochist, do you have a moral duty to submit to being chained and whipped because that's what they want ? No. So substituting what they want - their fetish, if you will - for what you want doesn't solve the issue that you raise.

My understanding is that Kant solved this. By reformulating the Golden Rule as “I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law”.

Which is to say "Do as you would have everyone do to everyone". Which takes your and others' particularities out of it as far as possible.

[Pattern-chaser]

My understanding is that Kant solved this. By reformulating the Golden Rule as “I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law”.

Which is to say "Do as you would have everyone do to everyone". Which takes your and others' particularities out of it as far as possible.

What's so wrong with "Treat everyone as *they* (as opposed to "you") would wish to be treated"?

[Gertie]

The people I've known whom I see as good people tend to credit their goodness to following the Golden Rule. Since they know more about being a good person than I do, I will not challenge that the Golden Rule works for them. I do not however necessarily see it working for everyone.

My concern is simply rational. People differ from one another, and they will all want to be treated in different ways. If I treat the next person the way that I myself want to be treated, I may not be treating them the way that they want to be treated. I run the risk of projecting myself upon the next person while dishonoring who the next person actually is himself.

There are some things that people may want to be treated that aren't good at all. If I was suicidal and wanted the next person to kill me, I would not be justified in killing the next person. If I was a sexual masochist and wanted to be chained and whipped, I would not be justified in doing that to the next person either. Even avoiding these extreme situations, there are all sorts of differences in how people may want to be treated; and treating the next person the way that you yourself want to be treated may not be congruent with the treatment that they themselves want to receive.

The Golden Rule works to the extent that people are all similar to one another. It does not work to the extent that people are different from one another. Different people will want to be treated differently; and while the Golden Rule works – sometimes extremely well – on matters in which people are similar to one another, it does not work as well on matters in which people differ.

I have been seen as an alien all my life, and I am skeptical of the idea that treating the next person the way that I myself want to be treated would be a workable proposition. I think that much better than that would be for me to figure out how the next person would want to be treated and act accordingly. That requires brainwork; but I think that the results would be worth it. That way one can make a meaningful difference in people's lives while sowing – and benefiting from – good will.

The Golden Rule contains a mistake, whose consequences are as you describe. Instead of treating others as *we* would wish to be treated, we need to treat others as *THEY* would wish to be treated. As you say.

That's called 'The Platinum Rule' and imo works as a better rule of thumb if your morality is grounded in Wellbeing.

The issue remains that if others want to exploit, rob, cheat, lie, do harm etc then should I be morally obliged to facilitate that? Imo that too has to be put to the test of Promoting Wellbeing. And the answer will generally be no. Not always necessarily, but as a rule of thumb.

Either way you need a moral foundation such as Promoting Wellbeing to test any rule of thumb against, otherwise such rules aren't rooted in morality.

[Sy Borg]

The Golden Rule is excellent, a simple way of encouraging empathy. While it does not cover all situations, such a simple maxim covers far more ethical territory than any equivalent. A person could live their life by it and pull the right reign most of the time.

[Pattern-chaser]

The Golden Rule contains a mistake, whose consequences are as you describe. Instead of treating others as *we* would wish to be treated, we need to treat others as *THEY* would wish to be treated. As you say.

That's called 'The Platinum Rule' and imo works as a better rule of thumb if your morality is grounded in Wellbeing.

The issue remains that if others want to exploit, rob, cheat, lie, do harm etc then should I be morally obliged to facilitate that?

As many here already know, I was raised by religious cultists. In my case, Roman Catholics. They taught me the Golden Rule; I assume they didn't know about the Platinum Rule. The Rule was offered to me, not as God's word, but as simple guidance on how I should act if I wished God to see me as a good and decent person.

That I should "facilitate" the seemingly un-Godly wishes of others was never even considered. Only that I should treat others decently. I don't understand why anyone would interpret this guidance as you describe. I suppose this is what comes if we treat such things literally? For myself, it never occurred to me that God might require that from me. God is not an idiot; God is God.

And for those who treat the Rule as a thing separate from God, the reasoning still works. The Rule is what you follow if you are a decent person. With the above caveat: you are not expected to act in a way that is clearly not decent, or to help others not to be decent.

The Golden Rule is excellent, a simple way of encouraging empathy. While it does not cover all situations, such a simple maxim covers far more ethical territory than any equivalent.

Yes, that's pretty much what I was taught, and what I believe.

P.S. The one bit I did not retain from my cultist teachers was the link to their God. I retain the Rule becuse of its intrinsic decency, as I see it. It's how decent people behave.

[Good_Egg]

My understanding is that Kant solved this. By reformulating the Golden Rule as “I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law”.

Which is to say "Do as you would have everyone do to everyone". Which takes your and others' particularities out of it as far as possible.

What's so wrong with "Treat everyone as *they* (as opposed to "you") would wish to be treated"?

What's wrong with it is the bit of my earlier post you omitted. Which I screwed up by typing "masochist" when logic requires "sadist". Any Rule which subjects a person to the sadism of others is flawed.

Literally doing unto others as they would wish means losing every competition to gratify the other person's desire to win, and co-operating with their every fetish.

We all have moral intuitions; we all have empathy. The issue here is trying to codify those intuitions into a rule that will guide us when our intuitions are contradictory, or overwhelmed by our passions. Or when we have to judge between Alfie and Bruno with their different desires, having empathy for both.

A Rule which depends on a concept (such as "harm" or "decency) that is left undefined is no use at all.

Another dimension of this is whether a Rule should draw a distinction between acting and failing to act. Some people's philosophy draws no such distinction, insisting that failing to act is a form of acting. Others see a difference, interpreting a Rule framed as "Do not do things that..." as priviliging inactivity - saying that one should do nothing unless some condition for action is met.

[Pattern-chaser]

My understanding is that Kant solved this. By reformulating the Golden Rule as “I ought never to act except in such a way that I could also will that my maxim should become a universal law”.

Which is to say "Do as you would have everyone do to everyone". Which takes your and others' particularities out of it as far as possible.

What's so wrong with "Treat everyone as *they* (as opposed to "you") would wish to be treated"?

What's wrong with it is the bit of my earlier post you omitted. Which I screwed up by typing "masochist" when logic requires "sadist". Any Rule which subjects a person to the sadism of others is flawed.

Literally doing unto others as they would wish means losing every competition to gratify the other person's desire to win, and co-operating with their every fetish.

I think (hope) I already answered this:

As many here already know, I was raised by religious cultists. In my case, Roman Catholics. They taught me the Golden Rule; I assume they didn't know about the Platinum Rule. The Rule was offered to me, not as God's word, but as simple guidance on how I should act if I wished God to see me as a good and decent person.

That I should "facilitate" the seemingly un-Godly wishes of others was never even considered. Only that I should treat others decently. I don't understand why anyone would interpret this guidance as you describe. I suppose this is what comes if we treat such things literally? For myself, it never occurred to me that God might require that from me. God is not an idiot; God is God.

And for those who treat the Rule as a thing separate from God, the reasoning still works. The Rule is what you follow if you are a decent person. With the above caveat: you are not expected to act in a way that is clearly not decent, or to help others not to be decent.

[Pattern-chaser]

A Rule which depends on a concept (such as "harm" or "decency) that is left undefined is no use at all.

This topic concerns morality, not physics. There are no laws or rules that govern morality, as there often seem to be in physics. Morality is created, somewhat randomly and arbitrarily, by humans, for their/our own purposes, whatever they may be. There are no rules. So your plea for certainty, above, cannot be satisfied, I'm afraid. There is no "Rule" that can be composed in advance, that will guarantee your conduct is always moral if you follow it. Morality isn't like that. Real life isn't like that.

Oh, and we all know what "harm" and "decency" are, with sufficient precision for our current needs, in real life, and here in this topic. That knowledge has always been sufficient for us (humans), and I believe it remains so.