Gensler at least is trying to give people some guidance as to how to live ethically.

My question for him is: What is meant by "the same situation," since I hold that very situation is unique. How can any situation be "the same"? Wouldn't a time factor alone make the situation different?

Don't get me wrong; I'm all for consent. But who has time, on the spot, to ask themselves all those four questions if one is encountered urgently by someone else? We need a better principle than the one he offers.

How about asking oneself quickly just this one axiogenic inquiry: How can I, here and now, best create some value in this interaction?
p.s{The life-coaches at the Axiogenics site on the web speak of this notion as "The Central Question of Life and Logic." More exactly, it is: What choice can I make at this moment to create the greatest value?"}

Here are some examples of what to keep in mind before one's next encounter: Can I offer a sincere compliment? Can I give a good tip which will be of value, be useful to this person? Can I fulfill a need this party has? How can I, in some way, help this person rise? In what specific way can I be of service?


p.s. Here is a link to an early scribble I co-authored: some food for thought....
http://wadeharvey.myqol.com/wadeharvey/Living_The_Good_Lifef.pdf


What say you?

Gensler at least is trying to give people some guidance as to how to live ethically. — Marvin Katz

Yep. :up: Gensler's treatment is fair enough.

On the other hand, I'm thinking there's a kind of futility in devising such rules — not as rules-of-thumb, but as morality-defining rules.
(Another example could be the Hippocratic oath.)
So, we ought to cultivate and nurture moral awareness towards individual autonomous moral agency; easier said than done.

(Thanks much for the comment; will read the document you linked as time permits.)

The Golden Rule, Gensler's included, has to do with

1. Solipsism (We can only know ourselves, not too well I imagine; Temet nosce)

2. Principle of Uniformity of Nature (Others will like/dislike what I like/dislike respectively)

My guesstimate is that that Golden Rule and its spinoffs were never meant to work 100% of the time, but hey, if it does its job in 90% of cases, I'm all for it. Something is better than nothing, ja?

Gensler at least is trying to give people some guidance as to how to live ethically.

My question for him is: What is meant by "the same situation," since I hold that very situation is unique. How can any situation be "the same"? Wouldn't a time factor alone make the situation different?

Don't get me wrong; I'm all for consent. But who has time, on the spot, to ask themselves all those four questions if one is encountered urgently by someone else? We need a better principle than the one he offers.

How about asking oneself quickly just this one axiogenic inquiry: How can I, here and now, best create some value in this interaction?
p.s{The life-coaches at the Axiogenics site on the web speak of this notion as "The Central Question of Life and Logic." More exactly, it is: What choice can I make at this moment to create the greatest value?"}

Here are some examples of what to keep in mind before one's next encounter: Can I offer a sincere compliment? Can I give a good tip which will be of value, be useful to this person? Can I fulfill a need this party has? How can I, in some way, help this person rise? In what specific way can I be of service?

What say you?

People are made to be loved.

Things are made to be used.

A major confusion in the world today

Is that people are used

And things -- such as guns -- are loved.

____________Inspired by B. J. Thomas.

The Diamond Rule

Do unto others as others want done unto them.

?

I prefer the original.
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a biblical concept spoken by Jesus in Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12; it is commonly referred to as the "Golden Rule."

Not every word or phrase in the bible is total BS. Only most of it.
For me, the golden rule is a humanist fundamental. Something every human should strive towards, except of course when it is used by the masochist or the masochistic rapist who might and have used the phrase in a warped ironic sense, to justify their behavior.

The idea behind the Golden Rule is to encourage empathetic reasoning. Put yourself in the shoes of another and ask yourself if what you intend is something you would like in the same circumstances. Would you like aggression, indifference, dismissal, and/or vituperation? Or, would you like at the very least some clucking and expressions of dis-ease over your plight if not something more structural and constructive?

It is a way of orienting yourself to events outside of the space between your ears. Nobody is compelled to act the way it suggests one should, but one shouldn't complain if he/she finds herself the subject of unwelcome, or at best indifferent, behaviours in similar circumstances.

IOW, you will most likely, never assuredly, get out of life what you put into it.

the masochistic rapist — universeness

A masochist rapist?

The Diamond Rule

Do unto others as others want done unto them. — Agent Smith

The antimatter (about $62.5 trillion a gram) rule, also called the anti golden rule:

What you don't experience as wrong or bad, you can do to others.

The antimatter (about $62.5 trillion a gram) rule, also called the anti golden rule:

What you don't experience as wrong or bad, you can do to others. — Xodarap

:chin: Nice!

The negative formulation of the golden rule.

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to anyone."
— Hillel the Elder, 1st c. BCE — 180 Proof

Whatever is harmful to our species, do not cause to happen to anyone by action or inaction; and help reduce harm whenever doing so foreseeably harms another less than it helps another.
— an Epicurean corollary to Hillel's maxim — 180 Proof

Bravo!

A point to make: The Golden Rule makes evolutionary sense, don't it? A species' survival depends on individuals being alike in terms of likes/dislikes; what is painful/enjoyable must be shared among all members of a species so that consistency in responses/reactions (patterns) can enable both cooperation and conflict (resolution) in ways that are reliable (repeatable).

If so, any outlier (an individual who differs from the group e.g. a sadist/masochist) would immediately stand out like a sore thumb and be in so many ways banished, overtly or covertly, from the gene pool. In other words, homogeneity is both inevitable (inclusion/expulsion from the group) and necessary (for survival).

The Golden Rule will be 100% effective sometime in the future when the oddballs would've all died out. :snicker:

Whaddaya know! The Golden Rule was futuristic, it was way ahead of its time; presently, as was in the past, it's a good rule of thumb! Watch out for exceptions! They'll go extinct, yes, but we have to be on our guard, for now!