Morality is nothing but fairness, and fairness basically just comes from equality, and equality basically just comes from evidence:

I see that you are human like me, so we are basically the same, therefore should be treated the same.

See the evidence > equality > fairness > morality

simple

Morality has no existence beyond human behavior.

Morality has no existence beyond human behavior. — hope

Very true! It doesn’t have to be dog eat dog out there, in the jungle the rules are different … and morality has nothing to do with predators and prey but we are human. Treat others how you like to be treated is the one rule that defines my life

The Golden Rule is a recipe for immorality, because it can be used to justify whatever prejudice one harbors. For instance, ‘if I were a homosexual, I would want you to treat me as abnormal’. That prejudice justifies discriminating against others, without violating the Golden Rule.

predators and prey — Deus

Predator and prey exists on the instinct level, which is beneath the emotion mammal level.

Serotonin. Power seeing. Deeper drives

Hunger, sex, power, greed, flight or fight, etc....

The Golden Rule is a recipe for immorality, because it can be used to justify whatever prejudice one harbors. For instance, ‘if I were a homosexual, I would want you to treat me as abnormal’. That prejudice justifies discriminating against others, without violating the Golden Rule. — Joshs

Yes I covered this there are certain scenarios like these that slip through the gap of where the golden rule has its limits as a basis for morality, the best bet is using it in its negative form which negates most unlikeable outcomes such as homosexuality, BDSM or other negative effects that one does not wish upon oneself or others

So … can we say that this rule is where all morality should stem from? — Deus

This is an old criticism. The Golden Rule is a principle, not mere concrete wording, and generally it means we want our preferences and selves to be treated with respect. This, and almost no one wants to be murdered, stolen from or lied to. Moral behavior is performative, not a science. But of course, like most principles, you can always find a way to push them and distort the point.

There was a true story about a German man who wanted to be killed and another party who agreed to do it … would you consider this behaviour moral under the golden rule principle as long as two parties agree on something even if it borders on the absurd then it is moral?

There was a true story about a German man who wanted to be killed and another party who agreed to do it … would you consider this behaviour moral under the golden rule principle as long as two parties agree on something even if it borders on the absurd then it is moral? — Deus

Personally I think if two adult mentally competent individuals want to engage in BDSM of any of a number of other private personnel behaviors it is none of my business.
Likewise, I think competent adults who wish to end their own life, should have the right and maybe even to enlist assistance if needed (ALS or other limiting circumstance).
I have to wonder though under what general moral philosophical principal I am operating (certainly not the golden rule or the ten commandments).

Can we say then that morality is agreed behaviour between two or more parties ?

I believe that every major act of violence in history was committed by an individual or group who thought themselves to be following the golden rule, just as today we incarcerate and punish people based on the golden rule.

Maybe private morality, but public behavior or morality may be a different thing?
consenting adults in the privacy of their own dwelling and all that. I am sort of a libertarian.

Treat others as you’d like to be treated … that is do not take their land as this could cause a war…land grabbing has been the reasons for many wars throughout history … empires colonialism slavery etc…they were not following the golden rule…

There was a true story about a German man who who wanted to be killed and another party who agreed to do it … would you consider this behaviour moral under the golden rule principle as long as two parties agree on something even if it borders on the absurd then it is moral? — Deus

This is actually a common text book example used to demonstrate one of the challenges with the Golden Rule - which is not a perfect solution. As I already said, the Golden Rule is not concrete - you can use your brain to respond to any situation that doesn't fit. The Golden Rule is an imperfect guide to moral behavior, but it is not moral behavior itself.

I believe that every major act of violence in history was committed by an individual or group who thought themselves to be following the golden rule, just as today we incarcerate and punish people based on the golden rule. — Joshs

Big claim, Joshs. I admire the chutzpah of it. Can you expand on this perhaps with an example of it in action?

Big claim, Joshs. I admire the chutzpah of it. Can you expand on this perhaps with an example of it in action — Tom Storm

First I’d clarify the sense of the golden rule. Do unto ‘others’ only applies to others who are like you in certain key respects that pertain to their humanity. We don’t generally apply the golden rule to livestock, insects or plants, or to any other being that appears to us to be somehow less than fully human in the moral
sense. Thus we see how , at various times in human history, those who were regarded as only 2/3 human, evil, barbarian, heathen, pathological or demented were treated differently than we would want to be treated, without the golden rule being violated.

Yes, the Golden Rule is all about the interpretation - but what isn't? If you are going to cherry pick what is meant by 'others' then the Golden Rule isn't useful. This is raised in the New Testament too. Jesus making the point that even the loathsome Samaritan understood that a person's neighbor can include the 'enemy'.

Interpretation is key to the Golden Rule. If people want to get concrete and literal about it, it can of course be open to the problems associated with individual differences in taste and moral behavior. That's fine. I would think the Golden Rule is meant as a general principle - essentially 'treat others with respect'. Sure there are some outliers with odd preferences but respect does not look all that different around the planet. Do not steal from others, lie to them, kill them, physically harm them.

The Golden Rule is not saying treat people like they share all your preferences (BDSM or fundamentalist Islam, say) it is 'treat people with different preferences with respect as you would want yours treated'.

The GR also has little to say about climate change or use and manufacture of vaccines.

I feel like BDSM is sort of like a certain clientele to a certain bar that I've been to, who dress in all black, stand in the back, and blow cocaine behind a curtain. Did they really want to do that with their lives or was their doing so just born out of some form of cult pathology? I don't know that I really believe that people can within the full breadth of their reason and autonomy, want to mildly torture one another during sexual intercourse. It seems to be both rather cliquish and cultish to me. I don't know, though. Maybe it's just not for me?

If you consider BDSM within a situational context, I don't think it really violates the Golden Rule. Someone who works with someone else at a psychiatric institute couldn't really hook some electric device up to someone's nipples and claim that there was nothing wrong with their doing so because of that it is what they derive sexual pleasure from. The caveat, in bed, aside from the arcane order established through BDSM, eliminates any ethical predicaments.

The GR assumes that people choose to treat each other with disrespect. Because it focuses on intent, it also assumes that disrespect drives differences in interpretation of the GR. But I think intent is not the crux of the issue when it comes to moral behavior. Rather, the issue is precisely interpretation. That is to say, sincere differences in interpreting or making sense of other cultural values is at the root of violence and what we call immorality, not bad intent or desire to disrespect.Limits in our understanding of each other, not a bad attitude, drives what we call iimmorality.This makes the GM a truism.

Yes, a person's enjoyment of BDSM doesn't mean they will overlook being beaten up and robbed.

You seem to have this kvetch about the Kantian stealing example, but I do think that we are in agreement, though my perhaps too sensational example was more from their perspective than otherwise. It's an oft-levelled charge against various forms of Ethics, usually with the quote unquote masochist, which I don't think really holds up.

So … can we say that this rule is where all morality should stem from? — Deus

Masochist: Beat me.

Sadist: No!

You seem to have this kvetch about the Kantian stealing example, — thewonder

I have a kvetch about the Kantian lying and killing too. :razz: I also think we largely agree.

I suppose your point boils down to the diamond rule: Do unto others as others would like done unto them. The catch is how to find out what "others would like done unto them."

Isn't it shù?" , "What you do not want yourself," , "Don't do to others." (XV:23/24) (Confucius).
———————————————————
Also the so called “golden rule” or diamond rule as @TheMadFool explained above.
One of the big problems inside this ethical rule is that no always all the people want to respect it. There are a lot of selfish and vicious persons that literally enjoy the act of harming others. It is cruel.
Also, keep in mind that others will act as fake and try to absorb your humility. Be careful... I guess the accurate situation is stay neutral.

“golden rule” or diamond rule — javi2541997

I thought I was talking about two entirely different approcaches:

1. The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would like others to do unto you (You're the measure of how you should act]

2. The Diamond Rule: Do unto others as others would like to do unto themselves (Others define your actions. You do what others want you to do to them. Others are the measure of your actions]

I prefer the Diamond Rule because it skirts the issue of how your personal idiosyncracies may throw a spanner in the works e.g. if you're a masochist, you might think hurting others is the right thing to do under the Golden Rule. The Diamond Rule, however, completely avoids such pitfalls as your actions will be tailored as per the likes/dislikes of the person who must face the consequences of your actions!

I prefer the Diamond Rule because it skirts the issue of how your personal idiosyncracies may throw a spanner in the works — TheMadFool

Me too. Apart from the same reason as yours, because I guess we should show something previously before we demand to others an action. It is important to have a good image in interior and exterior relations.

Others define your actions — TheMadFool

Exactly. This is why we should act in the honorable way as much as we can do it. It is important also to not be misunderstood.
Good intentions, sometimes, do not help or matter...

Me too. Apart from the same reason as yours, because I guess we should show something previously before we demand to others an action. It is important to have a good image in interior and exterior relations. — javi2541997

I don't believe it's about having a "good image." It creates a information gap between what one is and the (good) image your project. To be honest many monsters dwell in that information gap. This information gap manifests in another pernicious way when a person has to deal with others - we don't know what other people want and hence the Golden Rule in which you measure others using yourself.

The Diamond Rule, praise the Good Lord, is about shedding light into that dark region (the information gap) and discovering as precisely as possible what others want so that we don't goof up!

:up:

we don't goof up! — TheMadFool

I never heard of this word until today. I translated into my language and it means tontear. This is why I love philosophy of language! Everyday I am learning something new about. Now I am understanding you and your argument better.

I never heard of this word until today — javi2541997

Old timer here!

Golden Dime rule:
I want others to treat me as I want to be treated, therefore I will treat others as they want to be treated