"the golden rule" should probably be stated explicitly in the first post rather than assumed to be known. The same way acronyms should be spelled out once, with a parenthesis showing the acronym to be used later. Sez me.

The golden rule huh?

If you agree that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you, then, you also agree that what you do unto others, should be done unto you.

Therefore, if you murder someone, then what should be done to you? You see the golden rule doesn’t negate eye for an eye, does it?

Jesus is showing how to coexist within the context of eye for an eye. in the Christian context the same that gave the law of eye for an eye to Moses, was telling them what is called the golden rule.

Now, why is this so? Couldn't we do better than obeying the 'eye for an eye' maxim? After all, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." according to Gandhi who supposedly said it. The there's Martin Luther King who said, "The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind," "It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert." — Posty McPostface

An eye for an eye was part of the Mosaic Law, intended to maintain order to a growing nomadic nation stuck in the wilderness. The Golden Rule was instructed to perpetuate the forgiveness of God and spread love.

No!
The question is, what should be done to you, seeing you agree that what you are doing to others should be done to you.
There is no agreement in this case that says you should be forgiven the agreement.
You don’t agree to treat as you would be treated by treating others as you would not be treated. The agreement is to treat as one would be treated. Therefore, one should be treated as one treats others. Once the act is committed you have fulfilled what it is you expected, as in how to be treated.
Forgiveness is not a given, not even under grace.

However, in many regards, the golden rule has been brushed aside or not taken into serious consideration in courts of law and su — Posty McPostface

Actually, statutory interpretation applies the principle in common law that enables judges to consider whether meaning in statutes are actually adequate as per the purpose of the justice system; the conditions of justice is intended for the people, to help and serve justice, yet sometimes this does not occur because of the limitations of language or ambiguity of meaning, and legal precedents are there for that reason. Judges formulate sensible conclusions that legislation may not adequately do using the golden rule thesis by determining relevant statutes, caselaw, meaning and grammatical forms by judges and other senior practitioners, explained in Australia through the Acts Interpretation Acts as to how this is done. The 'Golden Rule' avoids taking the meaning of the statutes literally instead allowing judges to consider the purpose of the law. Here is a legal precedent in Australia:

The literal rule of construction, whatever the qualifications with which it is expressed, must give way to a statutory injunction to prefer a construction which would promote the purpose of an Act to one which would not, especially where that purpose is set out in the Act....as a matter of construction to repair the defect, then this must be done. However, if the literal meaning of a provision is to be modified by reference to the purposes of the Act, the modification must be precisely identifiable as that which is necessary to effectuate those purposes and it must be consistent with the wording otherwise adopted by the draftsman. [Section 15AA] requires a court to construe an Act, not to rewrite it, in the light of its purposes.

- Mills vs. Meeking

It sounded like the Amish punishment for rape was not very severe, to say the least. And in a society where you're allowed to kill a relative because you think they've been possessed by an evil spirit, there is no recourse. — Marchesk

This kind of frames the point of the OP, methinks, that in order to apply the Golden Rule, there needs to be an equivalent capacity and so at individual level, we need to have a strong understanding of justice and goodness but how that is contrasted with our community is vital and why we have the separation of powers to ensure that the body of justice remains fair. This still occurs in many countries around the world, by the way, and I wrote about Wahhabi law and Islamic jurisprudence and it was incredibly difficult taking off my Human Rights hat and focusing on what was. Very difficult.

Perhaps, it is too much to demand from a person that they are full of compassion and self-love to be able to apply the golden rule effectively? After all, the world can be a crummy place, and things do happen that make life less fun or appealing.

Then, would it be appropriate to ask that they simply have an attitude of care, with regards to other people?

Would that be sufficient to guarantee that the golden rule can be followed and practiced?

Restorative justice could be applied to older offenders and more serious crimes, too, but with more state involvement and likely still involve jail and/or a fine. — Bitter Crank

That's what Tutu and Mandela did in South Africa. They applied it to a whole population, some of whom did things you would think were unforgivable. It was one of the great moral acts in my lifetime.

No!
The question is, what should be done to you, seeing you agree that what you are doing to others should be done to you.
There is no agreement in this case that says you should be forgiven the agreement.
You don’t agree to treat as you would be treated by treating others as you would not be treated. The agreement is to treat as one would be treated. Therefore, one should be treated as one treats others. Once the act is committed you have fulfilled what it is you expected, as in how to be treated.
Forgiveness is not a given, not even under grace. — DPMartin

The Golden Rule is the most gracious possible ethical guide. Yours is the least gracious interpretation of it I have ever heard. It's also a misinterpretation of what the rule means. I have no problem with you believing what you describe, but it's not the Golden Rule.

Perhaps, it is too much to demand from a person that they are full of compassion and self-love to be able to apply the golden rule effectively? After all, the world can be a crummy place, and things do happen that make life less fun or appealing. — Posty McPostface

You can't demand compassion at all. The Golden Rule is not universally accepted, especially in cases of crime and punishment. Many people believe in retribution, punishment, not for practical reasons, but as a moral act of revenge. Justice. I have what I consider a more pragmatic approach - do what works best to stop the bad behavior or the consequences of it within the limits of acceptable human behavior.

I don't believe in retributive justice for three reasons 1) Maybe most important, it isn't fair. It isn't applied uniformly. The most socially vulnerable people get the worst of it. 2) Generally, it doesn't work to reduce crime. 3) I get no moral satisfaction from people getting what they "deserve." Many do get that satisfaction. I might support the death penalty some time in the future if it was as likely to be applied equally to rich and poor, white and black. I find it hard to believe that will ever happen. Even then I would be a hard sell.

The 'Golden Rule' avoids taking the meaning of the statutes literally instead allowing judges to consider the purpose of the law. — TimeLine

So, how does that work in terms of the laws being applied uniformly and fairly? Putting that kind of flexibility in the hands of judges increases the risk of unfairness. It also increases the possibility of punishing people less than lawmakers want. In the US, laws with minimum penalties have been popular because they take the discretion out of the hands of judges. Now that approach is falling out of favor because of the high costs of keeping people in prison.

nope you have your interpretation and the bible the source of both eye for eye and what you call the golden rule state what they state


the source is the correct interpretation because its according to the source. if you are going to use what Jesus says then you must use all of what Jesus says. and according to the bible Jesus is the Word of God made flesh and it was the Word of God that spoke the law of eye for an eye to Moses, and it was also the same source, the Word of God, that spoke the golden rule, isn't it?

and according to the bible God doesn't change. so the golden rule is not without the eye for an eye rule. and the eye for an eye rule is not without the golden rule. or you miss understand the One who spoke it.
and actually the golden rule is how to live in a society that is an eye for an eye rule.

if you don't believe all of what the bible says, then why use it to justify your own judgement, unless you are out to deceive those who believe it but don't know it very well.

go by your own rules and be honest about it.


also forgiveness isn't an entitlement or its not forgiveness. so forgiveness isn't assumed only available if granted by the injured party the one who has the power to forgive. what is agreed.


if Jesus speaks a commandment like the "golden rule" its law, for those bond to it. if your not bond to it what does it matter to you? Jesus to the faithful is the everlasting covenant, also meaning agreement or contract. therefore all that He says is law to those in the Kingdom of God that He preached. also Jesus says He didn't come to eliminate the law (Torah) He came to fulfill it. so the law isn't null and void as many want to believe.

how did Apostle Paul say it:
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.

it was the Word of God that spoke the law of eye for an eye to Moses — DPMartin

It is my understanding that the eye for an eye principle was established before the dates of the old testament.

As for the Golden Rule, it's pretty clear - Treat others as you would like others to treat you. There's not much room there for misunderstanding. As far as I can tell, it is not uniquely associated with Jesus. Also, I'm not a Christian and I'm not restricted by what the Bible says.

It is my understanding that the eye for an eye principle was established before the dates of the old testament. — T Clark

The "eye for an eye" principle was first enunciated in Hammurabi's Code. He was the sixth king of the First Babylonian Dynasty, reigning from 1792 BC to 1750 BC.

It was published in cuneiform on this xxxxx large dildo for every one to observe. \\

if you are going to use what Jesus says then you must use all of what Jesus says. and according to the bible Jesus is the Word of God made flesh and it was the Word of God that spoke the law of eye for an eye to Moses, and it was also the same source, the Word of God, that spoke the golden rule, isn't it? — DPMartin

If heathens, pagans and uncircumcised Philistines find something useful and humanizing in what Jesus said, they should be encouraged to make use of it, even if they don't buy the whole kielbasa.

Maybe Jesus is more important as the Word made flesh than for what He, as flesh, had to say. [As a Moravian hymn writer put it, "God lies in a manger, in flesh now appearing.) Jesus preached; he said a lot of things, no doubt. Some of them were remembered; most of them weren't. Most likely some people slept through the Sermon on the Mount. It doesn't matter.

It's the Incarnation as the Lamb of God that matters--according to Christian theology. Jesus did not say "you must remember everything I say. Woe unto you who didn't take copious notes. You will be cast into the darkness if your notes aren't complete." He also didn't say, did he, that you must swallow the whole thing hook line and sinker. After all, "the whole thing" didn't exist while he was alive. "The whole thing" started with Jesus but then various and sundry theological engineers built a giant gaudy (not Goudy) edifice on top of the Body of Christ.

One doesn't need to be a Christian to understand this.

So, how does that work in terms of the laws being applied uniformly and fairly? Putting that kind of flexibility in the hands of judges increases the risk of unfairness. It also increases the possibility of punishing people less than lawmakers want. In the US, laws with minimum penalties have been popular because they take the discretion out of the hands of judges. Now that approach is falling out of favor because of the high costs of keeping people in prison. — T Clark

Depends on the judicial system but here in Australia - as mentioned - we strictly observe the separation of powers between the judicial, legislature and the executive so as to avoid corruption (working in contrast to the judicial system of the United States) and we have the Acts Interpretations Act that regulates how interpretation of this kind occurs by codifying such concerns that you mention. I am very critical of this sort of thing as I strictly adhere to and advocate Human Rights and I can say to you that I love the judicial system of my country and in particular of my state.

Perhaps, it is too much to demand from a person that they are full of compassion and self-love to be able to apply the golden rule effectively? After all, the world can be a crummy place, and things do happen that make life less fun or appealing. — Posty McPostface

It is that intrinsic moral motivation that you have that matters, the authenticity and rationale behind the judgements that you make. You could be motivated to be kind to others only because your mother is dominating and the actual reason why you are motivated to be kind is because of some unconscious fear of and desire to please your mother. The nature of "goodness" is especially puzzling, whereas ethical acts are normative or rational. The reliability of what one would call a 'moral act' depends on this nature, this consciousness and the very characteristics that motivate us to be good or virtuous.

So the world can be crummy, the people you know and are surrounded by can be nasty, you can own little or next to nothing, but if you have that intrinsic quality of "goodness" you will not sway from that compelling, intuitive force to be good and kind. My life was tipped downside once several years ago, so many bad people and so many bad things happened to me but it only compelled me to improve, to do good, to give to charity etc as I was motivated to fight the good fight. This very motivation is the guarantee but it is very difficult to ascertain the existence and authenticity of this internalism. I personally appreciate the Kantian view that our will is autonomous - or that it must be autonomous - for there to be any authenticity of moral agency, a transcendental freedom that enables reliable properties of moral judgements to manifest.

The golden rule mistakenly presupposes that everyone likes being treated the same way. Familial and cultural values show that not everyone agrees with how one should should be treated in different kinds of circumstances. If person A treats person B in a way that person A finds acceptable in a given situation and person B doesn't agree, then... well...

the golden rule has been brushed aside or not taken into serious consideration in courts of law and such. An example would be the death penalty, which is not reconcilable in any way with the golden rule. — Posty McPostface

No, it's easy to. Do (kill people very strongly suspected of murder) unto others (the others in this case being the population of society as a whole) what you would have them (the population of society as a whole) do (kill people very strongly suspected of murder) to you. Some people (not me) would like to live in a society where no-one strongly suspected of murder lived (just to be on the safe side).

The maxim suffers from exactly the same problem as any other maxim, it's sounds great but only if you already have a moral idea of what you want the outcome to be. Like Kant's anti-lying principle (I've lost count of the number of times people have tried to crowbar his principle into the 'hiding Jews from the Nazis' example, just so that it accords with what they already know is the right thing to do).

Take giving to a beggar, What does the Golden Rule actually help us with here? Do (give a pound) unto others (the beggar) as you would have them (the beggar) do (give a pound) unto you. Well I don't want the beggar to give me a pound do I?

So already we're modifying it. Now it's do unto others as you would have them do to you (if you were in their circumstances).

So back the the beggar with my newly modified maxim. If I were a beggar I would want me to give a pound, if I were a beggar I would want me to give all the money in my wallet, my clothes, my house, my car. After all, I wanted those things, that's why I've got them, so it stands to reason the beggar would want them too, especially as he's been so long without them. So do we have to presume the beggar is reasonable in his expectations? Or maybe we assume that he knows that just being given a load of stuff might make him complacent, or perhaps he wouldn't want me to be without all my stuff because he's a nice guy deep down.

So now we've got; do unto others as you would have them do to you (if you were in their circumstances (and they were a reasonable sort of person who didn't wish you any suffering in return)).

Back to the beggar. How much should I give him? How does the newly modified golden rule help us here? I'm imagining I was him (a definitely reasonable and kind version of him) and trying to work out what I would want me to do. I would want me to give a reasonable proportion of my money to him in a way that was definitely going to help get me out of my predicament. Brilliant, we made it to the answer we all knew was right in the first place. But how did we know what the beggar would want if the beggar was a reasonable, kind person? We didn't apply the Golden Rule (that would end up in an unresolvable circularity), we only got out of it by seeming to know what a kindness (on the part of the beggar) would be all along.

I don't mean to be condescending, but there are quite good reasons why entire libraries of books have been written about ethics, it's because it can't easily be reduced to a single principle, not even close.

Well, we can assume that anyone (including non-humans, but not rocks) likes freedom and dislikes harm by default.
I mean, don't you? (This could be a litmus test of your morals.) ;)
Isn't that sort of an auto-expectation of anyone with some moral awareness as we know it?

Also codified by whatever historical documents, including (emphasis mine):

Liberty consists of doing anything which does not harm others: thus, the exercise of the natural rights of each man has only those borders which assure other members of the society the fruition of these same rights. These borders can be determined only by the law. — Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789, Article IV

And (emphasis mine):

Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers. — The Universal Declaration of Human Rights of 1948, Article 19

So, this stuff sets a default anchor for the Golden Rule (as opposed to self-interest), where violation may entail forfeiture of some or all (morals are generally social matters).
I'd prefer masochists not follow the Golden Rule blindly.

Of course the complexities of life entails much more complex regulations and injunctions and whatnot.
Maybe we can't reduce morals to a simple declaration. Wouldn't that make us "less human" anyway...?

one may not need to be Christian to understand what you've said. but if something is as available as the bible is today, then context counts doesn't it?

also, the people He was speaking to at that time lived in the covenant ( +- the teachings the may have suffered) set by the hand of Moses, so they did understand where Jesus was coming from on that. and we who are not of the Israeli culture don't get it, unless we have the basics, and that info is available.

and again, didn't Christ finish the statement with:

KJV: Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

so really in context, its nothing new under the sun is it?

I mean I understand non-believes must go by their own judgement and they use whatever to construct the same, but if one intends to understand what the text is, then context counts. and its not always "good" that people use scripture though it may seem so, because many are deceived in their own interpretations and never find what the text is for. what good is a half truth if it leaves your soul for dead anyway. might as well know the whole of the truth and maybe live.

I'd prefer masochists not follow the Golden Rule blindly. — jorndoe

X-)

Lots of folk do not like it when someone with strong religious convictions pray for them. I'm reminded of all the thoughts and prayers that are professed to be with victim's families after a mass shooting. I'm particularly reminded of how those responsible for gun laws are always ready to pray for the victims, but never quite ready to figure out that being well regulated isn't being nearly unregulated.

This 'rule' always strikes me as nothing more than an intuition pump, that only people with conventional ethical standards would already be inclined towards. It seems redundant to me.

You ought not steal.
Why?
Because you wouldn't want someone stealing from you!

This literally doesn't even make sense. I'm not the one being stolen from. I am the thief. The argument only makes sense if the person making it *assumes* universal standards for moral behaviour. That is, stealing is wrong whether you do it, or I do it.

Where's the argument for this? Why should I hold myself to the same moral standard to everyone else?

Why can't I just decide it's okay for me to steal from you, but not you from me?

It's just assumed that the morality of actions are universally applied. Why should I accept this? Argue for it, or I steal your wallet!

This literally doesn't even make sense. I'm not the one being stolen from. I am the thief. The argument only makes sense if the person making it *assumes* universal standards for moral behaviour. That is, stealing is wrong whether you do it, or I do it. — antinatalautist

Hence why I said it is the lack empathy that enables a person to steal without consideration or compassion to the person you are stealing from. This internalised "goodness" is motivated by a moral consciousness as you feel sad, at a loss, angry even when things are stolen from you and that makes you see the bigger ethical picture and your role in that. I think you need to make an argument for the value of being a thief without caring about the person or people or the ultimately consequences of this and not the other way around.

I think you need to make an argument for the value of being a thief without caring about the person or people or the ultimately consequences of this and not the other way around. — TimeLine

Why? You are taking 'universal standards for moral behaviour' as an axiom (as in, what's wrong for you is wrong for me), whereas I am not.

Why is the onus on me to prove my case? Simply because that is what your intuition tells you? Examine those intuitions.

The way I see it is that everyone is following the Golden Rule. The way people treat you is how they want to be treated. If they treat you nicely, you treat them nicely because that is how they want to be treated. If they are mean to you, you return the favor because that is how they like to be treated.

I have found that when people are mean or disrespectful and you mirror that behavior back at them they usually get the clue and won't behave like that around you anymore. It's all about providing consequences for people's bad behavior in order to change their bad behavior.

Why? You are taking 'universal standards for moral behaviour' as an axiom (as in, what's wrong for you is wrong for me), whereas I am not. — antinatalautist

There is no universal prescription because I could understand that though you stole from me, you were stealing because you are hungry that renders further moral consideration. You, however, are claiming that there is no immorality in the act of stealing just because you feel like it or you can. If you are claiming that you are justified to be this thief, you are making an assertion that such standards of moral behaviour is wrong; explain.

Nevertheless, the categorical imperative indeed attempts to demonstrate that being rational would mean that one should not contradict themselves by being irrational and immorality is irrational and self-contradictory. To steal the property of another person could consequently lead to retaliation; do you want to take that risk?

If you are claiming that you are justified to be this thief, you are making an assertion that such standards of moral behaviour is wrong; explain. — TimeLine

My explanation is simply that people can universalize their moral standards of behavior all they like. But there's nothing at all irrational in me personally opting out of this. Prove that moral standards for behavior should be universalized. Why should I not hold others to a population wide standard of moral behavior, while personally opting out of it. I get the best of best worlds. People choose not to steal from me, and yet I choose to steal from them. Is there a god saying we all ought act in x particular way? Is there some sort of mind-independent moral fact that must behavior ought correspond to? No.

To steal the property of another person could consequently lead to retaliation; do you want to take that risk? —

Are you going to stop me? There's millions of people just like me.

Why should I not hold others to a population wide standard of moral behavior, while personally opting out of it. I get the best of best worlds. People choose not to steal from me, and yet I choose to steal from them. Is there a god saying we all ought act in x particular way? Is there some sort of mind-independent moral fact that must behavior ought correspond to? No. — antinatalautist

So, in essence, you are claiming that there is no necessary duty for you to uphold because you are assuming it to be some teleological moral claim whereby the consequences of your actions are irrelevant. You are clearly in denial of the golden mean which could be considered virtue ethics, thus this motivation or 'goodness' is, to you, non-existent. If you fail to care about value and outcomes, so what then motivates you to steal? The categorical imperatives claims that if you declare that stealing is permissible, it becomes an action that must objectively be necessary and it doesn't need to have a purpose or an end, but necessary. Tell me, why is it necessary for you to steal?

Are you going to stop me? There's millions of people just like me. — antinatalautist

Quite. That is why we need the law and law enforcers. Ring of Gyges; fear appears to motivate people to behave, largely because of this lack of empathy.

To steal the property of another person could consequently lead to retaliation; do you want to take that risk? —


Are you going to stop me? There's millions of people just like me. — antinatalautist

I couldn't care less about the millions like you. If you are the one that stole from me, prepare for some dire consequences. People like you tend to not recognize that one day you're going to wrong someone that you wished you hadn't.

By stealing from others, you show that you like to be stolen from, or that it's okay to steal from you. Prepare to lose some your stuff and please don't whine about it when your stuff is stolen, hypocrite.

You may say that stealing from you is of no consequence. You will continue to steal from me and others. At that point it's just a matter of me finding that consequence that makes you change your behavior. What if your hands were cut off as a consequence of you stealing?

My explanation is simply that people can universalize their moral standards of behavior all they like. But there's nothing at all irrational in me personally opting out of this. Prove that moral standards for behavior should be universalized. Why should I not hold others to a population wide standard of moral behavior, while personally opting out of it. I get the best of best worlds. People choose not to steal from me, and yet I choose to steal from them. — antinatalautist

I could say the same thing about murder. What about when you steal from someone who has no quarrel about killing thieves?

Is there some sort of mind-independent moral fact that must behavior ought correspond to? No. — antinatalautist

Read The Selfish Gene by Dawkins. He shows that cheaters don't make out as well as the non-cheaters in any human society. Humans have a longer memory and are better at making distinctions between individuals allowing them to hold those cheaters responsible and naming them for others so that the rest of us can avoid you or keep an eye on you.