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. — Harry Hindu

You don't even need to restrict your search to anthropological factors. Even in something as cold and unemotional as game theory, 'always cheat' basically always loses against any strategy more complex than 'always co-operate'. Even basic maths tells you that going around doing whatever you want is a strategy which fail.

As to the rationality, whatever your actions are motivated by there must exist some objective (otherwise you would do nothing), therefore it is possible to objectively state that your actions will not achieve your objective. No matter what meta-ethical position you take as to how one could determine what that objective really is, it is undeniably possible for your actions to fail at achieving it and for someone to call you out for behaving irrationally.

Perhaps, the main reason is that to apply the golden rule, the person has to be already in some sense 'enlightened' or capable of self-love. After all, self-love is prior to treating another with kindness and empathy. — Posty McPostface

Not so sure about this. Why couldn't I hate myself but treat someone else with kindness? I could certainly conceive of a situation where X believed he was lowly scum and considered Y a god who deserved to be treated with the utmost kindness and respect.

The same goes for empathy. Empathy is "the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another" (Dictionary.com). While I would certainly need to experience desires not to be harmed, disrespected, etc., in order to be able to vicariously experience those feelings in others, I could still experience those desires without believing I deserved to have them fulfilled because I was a vile, lowly creature --- i.e., I was filled with self loathing.

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

That will work for you until you're arrested for whatever crime you commit. *shrug*

retributive justice goes as far back as human nature has walks the earth, but its applications are according to who's judgements? in the case of biblical reference there is nothing to imply no one else could understand their creator's will. before Moses wrote it down according to the Lord his God's Judgements.

take the life that men experience, is it according to their own judgement, or God's?

biblically speaking not everything under the sun that was spoken to those whom God may have had a relationship with, was written. and there's no reason to think that God didn't lead men into certain concepts even without their awareness. and it doesn't change the view biblical that all is made but the Creator and Judge. hence where did man's abilities come from.

The Golden Rule
7.12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Eye for Eye
5.38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

Love for Enemies
5.43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

In your reasoning in the Golden Rule discussion, you were saying that if people truly followed the Golden Rule, then they would accept punishment e.g. if they murdered someone they would accept to get capital punishment too, for they would receive what they have knowingly and intentionally done unto others.
I think this is correct, and that the Eye for an Eye principle is not a contradiction of the Golden Rule. I think Jesus misinterpreted the rule in the Sermon of the Mount and carried it into an altruistic direction that we are still suffering confusion from to this day, by mixing it up with his other cheek and love all teachings.

What is good and what is evil? Whoever follows the Golden Rule, acts good. Whoever breaks the Golden Rule, acts evil. If all members of a society have decided to delegate the power of the individuals to judge and to punish to a common government, then it is not evil of society to punish a murderer. Neither is there an additional moral quality in turning the other cheek. You don't become better than good, by turning the other cheek. Just stick to the Golden Rule.

Kant's work, 2nd Critique, Critique of Practical Reason, for Kantian Ethics added sanity to the Golden Rule. Note.

Critique of Practical Reason, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Practical_Reason

Do you mean to say that the golden rule is in itself not a sane principle, or not a practical principle?

Crazy people may invoke the golden rule on false premises. Ideally, the golden rule works perfectly, but crazy people have weird ways with it, generating dangerous thoughts. And then you have the amoral, those not even trying...

Example:
If you became crazy as I am crazy, you would have committed these crazy actions too (against you)!

The Golden Rule mistakenly assumes that everyone likes being treated the same way.

The Golden Rule mistakenly assumes that everyone likes being treated the same way. — creativesoul

No.

Yes.

Yes. — creativesoul

Nuu, the golden rules assumes nothing without a principle of equivalence. Where it cannot be met, it fails.

It commands one person to do to another what that one person would have done unto themselves. Not everyone would do the same thing to themselves. So, in cases where the one is doing to the other what they would have done unto themselves, they could be doing something that the other would not be doing to anyone... including themselves.

Thus...

It is merely a nicer way of rationalizing pushing one's own beliefs about how people ought be treated onto others.

Yes, yes, and yes!

I have never heard of the saying that an eye for an eye leaves one blind but it truly does make sense. Jesus even pointed out that we shouldn't go by an eye for an eye but that we should just learn to love and forgive. Certainly that does eliminate the death penalty that you mentioned. Jesus even stopped a death penalty from occurring by saving a woman who was about to be stoned to death. Places that don't have the death penalty still apply to the golden rule unless they lack in another area and do not quite have full sight.

Kant's work, 2nd Critique, Critique of Practical Reason, for Kantian Ethics added sanity to the Golden Rule. Note Critique of Practical Reason, Wikipedia — DrOlsnesLea

Given this from 1785......

“...Let it not be thought that the common "quod tibi non vis fieri" could serve here as the rule or principle. For it is only a deduction, though with several limitations; it cannot be a universal law, for it does not contain the principle of duties to oneself, nor of the duties of benevolence to others (for many a one would gladly consent that others should not benefit him, provided only that he might be excused from showing benevolence to them), nor finally that of duties of strict obligation to one another, for on this principle the criminal might argue against the judge who punishes him, and so on...”

...perhaps you could show me where the Critique “added sanity to the Golden Rule”, other than to refute its authority, insofar as a command imperative can never be a mere rule.

Hi Julia, yes, my point was that Jesus was against the death penalty because his teachings went beyond the golden rule, he wanted us to be better than just good and introduced an altruistic element in his Christianity. The prophet Mohammed can rightfully be labelled the Anti-Christ in that, because he did not accept that Jesus was the Christ and that that there could be such a thing as a Son of God, he reversed these altruistic teachings again, coming back to the simple Golden Rule and Eye for an Eye principle, the law of Moses and the unaltered Abrahamic religion.

Important: Neither the Golden Rule nor the Categorical Imperative are in themselves altruistic statements.

The Golden Rule mistakenly assumes that everyone likes being treated the same way. — creativesoul

Everyone wants to be treated respectfully, no?

I take it that you were talking about the means by which everyone likes to be respected isn't the same, which I would agree.

But, isn't it beholden upon the actor, practicing any moral code - the Golden Rule, or some other moral rule - to know the means by which any other wants to be respected, and to know that others may not like the same means as you.

Is any moral code about one's own wants and needs and projecting them out onto everyone else, or is it in being aware of our varying wants and needs relative to yours and navigating through that varying moral landscape?

So if the Golden Rule applied generally to doing things that people like and not doing things that people don't like and knowing what others like and don't like is a necessary requirement, because that is how you would want to be treated, rather than applied to a specific act, like singing to someone public, then it seems to work nicely.

Compare the Golden Rule from above with this, the Categorical Imperative:
"Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
Is this not an improvement to the Golden Rule? I think so.

The Improved Golden Rule (maxim):
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you while you at the same time will that this can be a universal law."

Right? See forming laws by the legislative bodies, that they are formed to be helpful and benevolent to all in the population who live under it.

One is certainly permitted to think whatever he likes, so if you think the C.I. is an improved golden rule, far be it from me to argue the thought.

Arguing the ground for it, is another matter, insofar as “Do unto others....”, even if considered a command of reason hence a subjective principle, can hardly be willed into law, much less a universal law governing moral agents in general, because that command is amended by another, separate subjective agenda which may be in conflict with it, re: “...as others would do...”. In other words, a legislative principle a priori, conditioned by something empirical, cannot be legislative at all. As much is said in the quote I gave above, from “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals”.

As to “forming laws by legislative bodies”, they are indeed helpful and benevolent to the citizenry to which they are given, and their universality is not altogether impossible, but they also incorporate their own consequences. Neither the C.I. nor the golden rule incorporate their own consequences, which seems to indicate an irreconcilable antinomy between empirical judicial law punishable by others in the form of e.g., incarceration, and rational moral law punishable one’s self in the form of disrespect.

Interesting thinking, though.

Carry on.

Thanks for posting the excerpt from the original text.


Translating the Categorical Imperative into everyday language:
"Whatever you do, only do things of which you think they are in accordance with a law by which everybody should abide"

I think this is great, but does it imply a moral duty to oneself, or a duty of benevolence to others?
Would such a benevolence be prescribed by the universal law? Do we want e.g. a duty to charity prescribed as a law? And why would a law need to prescribe a moral duty to oneself that goes beyond the simple Golden Rule?

What it does, is that it would enforce a principle of strict obligation to one another. I think the example with the criminal and the judge is the main thought that prompted Kant to theorize how to make the Golden Rule into a Universal Law. However I argue here that the Golden Rule if it literally were a law would do exactly that, it enforces a principle of obligation to one another.

If the law literally read: "Do unto others, as you would have them do to you", a thief could not object to having to give an additional object to the person he stole from, in addition to returning the stolen goods. A murderer could not object to having his own life taken. The judge is not judging on behalf of his own person, but on behalf of the wronged person and as part of the leviathan, on behalf of the whole society, based on the Golden Rule.

I think this is great, but does it imply a moral duty to oneself, or a duty of benevolence to others?
Would such a benevolence be prescribed by the universal law? Do we want e.g. a duty to charity prescribed as a law? And why would a law need to prescribe a moral duty to oneself that goes beyond the simple Golden Rule? — TheArchitectOfTheGods

Kant's answer to that would be that it had already just been answered by Locke, in Essay of Human Understanding, on Power, forrmulated as natural rights in the USA by Jefferson, as follows:
* All people are created equal in the eyes of God
* Emprically, pleasure is continually self renewing as appetites are sated and return, for which reason God has made us mortal, that we require food, drink, and other bodily needs, for which reason we are granted the natural right of life.
* Satiation of pleasure by itself is meaningless unless life has purpose, for which reason we are gratned the natural right of liberty to find that in the wolrd which gives us true happiness.
* Acting for the greater good creates a more permanent, perfect happiness than any other pursuit, for which reason we are granted the natural right to pursue happiness
* When people pursue happiness by acting for the greater good, society benefits and improves, for which reason the natural rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness should be granted to all under the concept of 'positive law,' extending Aquinas' idea of divine possible law into the realm of secular politics.

Of course, one may disagree with soceity at all, and advocate anarchy instead, but otherwise, Locke does may a fairly real argument that acting benelovently is in accordance with universal law.

I see why you brought up the matter of self-love vis-a-vis the golden rule; after all, one projects one's own fears and hopes onto others when employing the golden rule - the self, what it likes and dislikes, becomes the standard of conduct towards other individuals.

I wouldn't call a moral code that transcends social, geopolitical, and culutural borders, as you yourself stated in your opening remarks, a failure. Wouldn't that count as a success story for an idea?

As for punitive practices like capital punishment being at variance with the golden rule, I can only say that punitive measures come into play only after a moral code is violated. For this discussion it means that all punishment are simply consequences of the golden rule being broken. To hope for some form of reprieve from a death sentence incurred by moral transgression, invariably involving breaking the golden rule, by appeal to very same rule one has just breached may require a level of compassion our fellow humans simply don't possess. In short, once a moral code has been violated, the culprit loses the protection offered by the golden rule.

As for punitive practices like capital punishment being at variance with the golden rule, I can only say that punitive measures come into play only after a moral code is violated. For this discussion it means that all punishment are simply consequences of the golden rule being broken. To hope for some form of reprieve from a death sentence incurred by moral transgression, invariably involving breaking the golden rule, by appeal to very same rule one has just breached may require a level of compassion our fellow humans simply don't possess. In short, once a moral code has been violated, the culprit loses the protection offered by the golden rule. — TheMadFool

I could not agree more. This reciprocity of accepting to have done to ourselves how we treated others is inherent in the Golden Rule.

I wouldn't call a moral code that transcends social, geopolitical, and culutural borders, as you yourself stated in your opening remarks, a failure. Wouldn't that count as a success story for an idea? — TheMadFool

I think the Golden Rule can work effectively only in democratic society under rule of law and an independent judiciary. If a tyrant can exempt himself from suffering the consequences of the rule, then it will break down. That is why even though the idea persists, it can be put into effective practice only in parts of the world. And even in democratic countries with independent judiciary, the rule is diluted by mercy justice, which exactly exempts the perpetrators from the consequences of the actions they have done to others.
And on a last note, the laws of deuteronomy that we still observe in practice today in some countries with muslim law, are of course themselves gross violations of the Golden Rule, in that the prescribed punishments are completely out of proportion with the deed, e.g. stoning for adultery.

And on a last note, the laws of deuteronomy that we still observe in practice today in some countries with muslim law, are of course themselves gross violations of the Golden Rule, in that the prescribed punishments are completely out of proportion with the deed, e.g. stoning for adultery. — TheArchitectOfTheGods

I misspoke in my previous post. The golden rule seems to be an overarching principle of conduct and should apply to the law and its punitive system as well.

However, do take notice of the fact that the issue you and the OP have with some punitive measures (death penalty and stoning for adultery) can be well explained by a well-known flaw in the golden rule - that the way we'll behave towards others will be determined by our values (that determine how we expect to be treated). Maybe a man or woman in ancient Arabia would desire to be stoned for adultery or wish death upon himself/herself for a crime that carries the death penalty in an Arabian society. So, these laws seem unfair to us only because we have different views and values but such laws maybe the ideal of fairness in the societies they exist in. I'm not saying this is the correct explanation though but it is an explanation nevertheless.

Perhaps a different formulation of the golden rule is in order here: Do unto others, not as you'd want others to do unto you but as others would want to do unto themselves. In this version of the golden rule, you give due respect to the culture and religion - sources of values that decide conduct - of the people you're dealing with. Perhaps then you may find the death penalty and stoning for adultery not so morally alien to you and even if you do, it's your values vs the values of others and true to the original golden rule, as you would like others to respect your values, you should show an equal amount of respect for the values of others.

I'm a bit concerned here because the golden rule seems to be endorsing moral relativism by directing people to respect the practices values of others just as we would like others to respect our practices and values. Any objection we may have about the laws and punishments prescribed by these laws of other societies goes out the window.

"I think ... the Eye for an Eye principle is not a contradiction of the Golden Rule. I think Jesus misinterpreted the rule in the Sermon of the Mount and carried it into an altruistic direction that we are still suffering confusion from to this day, by mixing it up with his other cheek and love all teachings."


If Jesus was who he said he was, or even somewhat like that, it's unlikely he would have misinterpreted anything. "Turning the other cheek" doesn't contradict "an eye for an eye". It totally supersedes it. That old law was just a transitory phase. An "eye for an eye" is a pretty unsatisfactory arrangement. Too often ego gets in the way - anger, greed - and people will try to take both your eyes for the one they've lost.

"Turning the other cheek" points to a realisation, a step forward in our spiritual evolution, where ego and the need for vengeance no longer have a place. No need for vengeance, no need for any act that gives rise to vengeance. It's pointing to a higher dimension of our being, one that lies beyond ego.

May we all get there one day.

I agree 'misinterpreted' was not the best choice of words, since of course Jesus expanded the concept of the golden rule knowingly into a more altruistic and non-violent direction. Arguably however, an effect of talking about both concepts in the same sermon that persists down to this day is that the Golden Rule is falsely seen by many as a kind of altruistic principle in itself. Kant thought that the criminal could argue for forgiveness based on the Golden Rule, but to forgive and not punish is a moral principle that goes beyond the Golden Rule as you have correctly stated. The Golden Rule would have the criminal punished, since he offended against it.