The Golden Rule Reconsidered
This came up in the "Ayn Rand / Bible" topic in "Ask the Gulch."
(Full discussion on that is here: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Posted by $ Solver 4 days, 14 hours ago
Except it seems to assume that each individual seems to value the same things the same way.
Posted by $ prof611 4 days, 14 hours ago
As an objectivist for over 50 years, I would say that the only part of the bible I find relevant is the "Golden Rule". It seems to be applicable to just about any philosophy.
Posted by $ CBJ 4 days, 12 hours ago
The "Golden Rule" is not applicable to any religion that advocates the use of force against non-believers. It also does not apply to philosophies such as nihilism or subjectivism, or philosophies that advocate unconditional obedience to authority.
Posted by lrshultis 4 days, 10 hours ago
My problem with the 'Golden Rule' is that it is not a good governing rule. It calls for one to become a nuscience to those whom one deals with. Much better is the 'don't do to others what you do not like' which is a governing rule. It is like saying do not harm others and not like saying to doing something to others which can be harmful but is just great for those into sadomasochism.
Posted by $ MikeMarotta 19 hours, 30 minutes ago
No. Literally, yes, it does apply to "just about any philosophy" but it does not apply to Objectivism. See Solver's one-liner in reply. The error in the so-called Golden Rule is the assumption that everyone values the same things in the same way.
Have you never done a favor for a friend who did not appreciate it? If not hostile (friendship being the context), they were ambivalent and unappreciative. Their values were not yours.
As a literal statement the Golden Rule fails.
You may want to interpret it as a broad intention for justice. We call it the equal recognition of the rights of others. But realize that it is very easy to construct social situations in which that does not apply. You buy a seaside site and build your home on it. Someone comes along and buys the shoreline and puts up a skyscraper that blocks your view. Do you go to the Planning Commission? Do you sue in court? Do you sell and and move on? What you do has not much to do with their rights. Hell, Howard Roark blew up a building... Could you do that to protect your highly putative "property rights" to a seaside sunset?
Yes, if someone were drowning and if you were qualified and prepared, you might choose to jump in and save them, perhaps on the assumption that if it were you then you would want the same. Myself, I am a volunteer first responder (not for swimming) but I signed up and got trained and go to drills not because I would want someone to do the same for me. I can take care of myself and I am prepared to do so. My motivation is expressed in Atlas Shrugged where Ragnar and Miidas explain that it is in their self-interest to see society rebuilt as soon as possible. So, too, for me. I am capable, competent, and trained to respond to a large-scale disaster. The sooner we all get back to normal, the better it is for me. Their happiness is not my concern.
Moreover, as for the drowning victim, some curmudgeon here might reply, "If I am stupid enough to be drowning in the first place, then let me go because I am unworthy of living." (Just sayin'...).
Posted by $ Solver 17 hours ago
Interesting though provoking post. It is a topic in of itself.
(Full discussion on that is here: https://www.galtsgulchonline.com/post...
Posted by $ Solver 4 days, 14 hours ago
Except it seems to assume that each individual seems to value the same things the same way.
Posted by $ prof611 4 days, 14 hours ago
As an objectivist for over 50 years, I would say that the only part of the bible I find relevant is the "Golden Rule". It seems to be applicable to just about any philosophy.
Posted by $ CBJ 4 days, 12 hours ago
The "Golden Rule" is not applicable to any religion that advocates the use of force against non-believers. It also does not apply to philosophies such as nihilism or subjectivism, or philosophies that advocate unconditional obedience to authority.
Posted by lrshultis 4 days, 10 hours ago
My problem with the 'Golden Rule' is that it is not a good governing rule. It calls for one to become a nuscience to those whom one deals with. Much better is the 'don't do to others what you do not like' which is a governing rule. It is like saying do not harm others and not like saying to doing something to others which can be harmful but is just great for those into sadomasochism.
Posted by $ MikeMarotta 19 hours, 30 minutes ago
No. Literally, yes, it does apply to "just about any philosophy" but it does not apply to Objectivism. See Solver's one-liner in reply. The error in the so-called Golden Rule is the assumption that everyone values the same things in the same way.
Have you never done a favor for a friend who did not appreciate it? If not hostile (friendship being the context), they were ambivalent and unappreciative. Their values were not yours.
As a literal statement the Golden Rule fails.
You may want to interpret it as a broad intention for justice. We call it the equal recognition of the rights of others. But realize that it is very easy to construct social situations in which that does not apply. You buy a seaside site and build your home on it. Someone comes along and buys the shoreline and puts up a skyscraper that blocks your view. Do you go to the Planning Commission? Do you sue in court? Do you sell and and move on? What you do has not much to do with their rights. Hell, Howard Roark blew up a building... Could you do that to protect your highly putative "property rights" to a seaside sunset?
Yes, if someone were drowning and if you were qualified and prepared, you might choose to jump in and save them, perhaps on the assumption that if it were you then you would want the same. Myself, I am a volunteer first responder (not for swimming) but I signed up and got trained and go to drills not because I would want someone to do the same for me. I can take care of myself and I am prepared to do so. My motivation is expressed in Atlas Shrugged where Ragnar and Miidas explain that it is in their self-interest to see society rebuilt as soon as possible. So, too, for me. I am capable, competent, and trained to respond to a large-scale disaster. The sooner we all get back to normal, the better it is for me. Their happiness is not my concern.
Moreover, as for the drowning victim, some curmudgeon here might reply, "If I am stupid enough to be drowning in the first place, then let me go because I am unworthy of living." (Just sayin'...).
Posted by $ Solver 17 hours ago
Interesting though provoking post. It is a topic in of itself.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
(We shoiuld have a discussion on paradoxes. They present epistemological problems.)
Imagine more people using the “prohibitive form” of the Golden Rule.
This one seems to be the one the politicials follow.
Find out what they intend to do to you, then do it to them first.
Yes I like it for the rhetoric and humor over the logic, it does not work in a strict sense unless everyone values the same things in the same way.
Given that, it suits those who are initiators rather than reactive.
Interpreted loosely it could justify forward defense, the removal of known enemies before they strike when it is too late.