The Empty Verses: "Do unto others..."

The Empty Verses:

DO UNTO OTHERS

AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU

“How dare you?” you ask. “How dare you mar one of our most self-evident and important principles?”

Indeed, this principle is widespread. Self-evident? Not so much. One could argue that this rule is the rule most promulgated, yet also the rule least adhered to. I personally wish this was so, but against my best hopes, the rabble does what it wants. Given that this "rule" has a lengthy history, and is consistently found in various forms within most ethical doctrines, we might ask why it hasn't worked thus far. History shows us that this so-called golden rule, as if gilded by the finest jewelry makers of antiquity, has little bearing on actual states of affairs, and in fact, has done nothing to bring about peace where ethics are concerned. It is gilded not in gold, but in blood, fire and lies. I wonder if inquisitors and crusaders ever once considered this dear maxim as they set their brothers ablaze or fell them beneath their hungry swords. The sad part about it is, they did.

The reason this golden rule is supposedly found in various forms throughout various religions is not because it is the result of spiritual wisdom, but because it is an absurdly banal observation of human conduct, akin to saying we should laugh when we find something funny. Not only the most wise of prophets and sages, but the most stupid of men and women, could create such a truism. However, as is common among the common, this saying is sold as a self-evident mark of true altruism and empathy under the impression that no one will consider its implications, where it is actually another loop-hole where one can perpetuate his own egoism. It is within this contradiction that the principle isn't a principle at all, but an empty verse.

People treat others how they wish to be treated all the time, without once inferring or even assuming how others wish to be treated. The opposite is the case, and one infers and assumes in accordance with this rule that others wish to be treated like himself. Therefor, the golden rule is not a sign of empathy, but of self-centeredness and egoism, the expecting of others to align to our own tastes and feelings, doing away with their own moral and mental autonomy, leaving us to decide how they shall be treated. In fact, expecting others to wish to be treated how we wish to be treated negates the act of empathy altogether, thereby repudiating the individuality of others in favor of our own. Only one person in the entire universe wishes to be treated how he wishes to be treated, and when he expects that others wish to be treated like him, he makes that selfish error.

The answers to questions such as “How would you feel if you were in their position?” would differ in every case, by virtue of the fact that every person is different and reacts differently to various situations. As is common in religious principles, rarely does reality align to their doctrines. One prefers to be treated one way, and another, another. If we were chosen to decide what’s best for a comatose patient, we would of course apply this principle, deciding not what’s in the patients best interests, but what’s best for our own interests if we were to be in that very situation, ethics be damned. Not only that, but in its various forms, this “do unto others” creates a world of oppression, as when those who consider themselves the world police dive into another country so as to free it from oppression, it does so under the assumption that it wants and requires their benevolence, that this country would do the exact same thing if the tables were turned.

This banal truism is a scar on the face of ethics, a form of solipsistic egoism, taking into account not the feelings, autonomy, tastes and minds of other individuals, but that of our own. As such, this empty rule should be amended, so as to refute one’s own egoism in favor of more empathic version. In the words of George Bernard Shaw, “Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same”.

Thank you for reading,

LesMis

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Yup. That phrase is also part of the 'evil' control loop.
The original, non-corrupted phrase which actually worked
was The Silver Rule.

Genuine ethics and morality are automatic and in-built in the human
animal. The 'control loop versions' are purposely designed to override
the genuine instincts and replace them with something that cannot
possibly work and which leads to an avalanche of negative
consequences.

For example, the european settlers followed the golden rule to
'civilize the american Indian savages'. 'They knew what was best
for them', which in this case was to take their land, murder them,
kidnap their children and force their religion and culture on them
against their will.

If they had followed the silver rule -- they would not have done
ANY of those things.

An entire book could be written about the extreme 'evil' of this
one 'rule' alone. Insidious evil; world destroyer in scope.

Kev

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Most of the Mitzvahs of the Old Testament come as positives and negatives. This is a basic study of what the Jews call Halakhah (Law). It would be sensible for any modern rules stemming out of a derivative religion to follow the same form.

For me, "Do as thou wilt, but harm no one," is the most sensible of all being a compound positive and negative statement, it defines the limits of the full scope of our liberty.

a reply to: Nechash

I don't think anyone alive would say that the purpose of religion is to be sensible.



Kev

originally posted by: Nechash

For me, "Do as thou wilt, but harm no one," is the most sensible of all being a compound positive and negative statement, it defines the limits of the full scope of our liberty.

Thanks you very diplomatically worded what I would have ranted...

It's just a longer more elegant version of "don't be a dick", how can one argue against that?

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

I do... I'm a live. Whatch out the mind controlled zombies are after you.

originally posted by: Peeple

originally posted by: Nechash

For me, "Do as thou wilt, but harm no one," is the most sensible of all being a compound positive and negative statement, it defines the limits of the full scope of our liberty.

Thanks you very diplomatically worded what I would have ranted...

It's just a longer more elegant version of "don't be a dick", how can one argue against that?

That's my personal religion "don't be a dick".
Anything more complex than that feeds into
all the toxic melodrama in the world.

Kev

a reply to: Peeple

Tell me something I don't know.

Kev

I've always seen that as something we all do instinctively.

I think it becomes something useful when a person is not being very aware of their own subconscious drives in behavior, though.

Like when someone moans and groans that everyone is being so distant or cold to them,
Without noticing it is because that is how they are being to others first.

Contemplation on this could stimulate some reflection upon their own behavior towards others, and perhaps a conscious effort to change their behavior.

Because I think that our behaviorisms are like habits, that we can change with conscious effort. With enough practice, they become integrated and automatic.



I observe that when two people who desire a very different kind of exchange interact, there is sometimes a sort of battle of wills, to see whose preference will win out; Who will influence the other to behave and communicate in the way they would like to.

But as far as an ethical rule, I don't think it provides any clear universal guidance. But I don't think any such divine rule exists.

a reply to: Bluesma

Brilliant!

I notice the same in my own life.

lesmisanthrope, as much as i enjoy your threads, this one comes across as facetious to the point of being obnoxious. i get the point you are trying to make, i really do, but i feel that you once again dismiss the baby as being a product of the bathwater and out they both go.

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear
Cripes! That's been my motto for ages and I'm not evil or anything, I'm not a world destroyer or anything, in fact I'm rather a benign sometimes foolish individual whose mouth sometimes runs away with me. But philosophers, well If sometimes they kept their mouths shut at the right times there would be less trouble in the world.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Care to provide a reason why you feel this way? This post was written in haste. Perhaps I overlooked something.

DO UNTO OTHERS AS YOU WOULD HAVE THEM DO UNTO YOU

Perhaps there is some missing text and that is why it seems to be senseless and empty. It may be that the saying is not as general as we perceive it to be. How about this way? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but remember to keep that in context. An example, you see someone who is being tricked and lied to and not realizing that at all that is what is really happening. If that was happening to you , what would you like the observer who sees it to do? let you learn the hard and long way or perhaps give you a hint to realize for yourself. I Feel that is the general intention with this saying. This is my hint.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm

Care to provide a reason why you feel this way? This post was written in haste. Perhaps I overlooked something.

lets start here.

The reason this golden rule is supposedly found in various forms throughout various religions is not because it is the result of spiritual wisdom, but because it is an absurdly banal observation of human conduct, akin to saying we should laugh when we find something funny.

im sure i dont have to point out how much common sense is not actually common.

However, as is common among the common, this saying is sold as a self-evident mark of true altruism and empathy under the impression that no one will consider its implications, where it is actually another loop-hole where one can perpetuate his own egoism. It is within this contradiction that the principle isn't a principle at all, but an empty verse.

i think the phrase assumes that those adhering to it are not literalist morons. and thats where my rebuttal ends.

a reply to: TzarChasm

What do your think the phrase does assume?

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope
a reply to: TzarChasm

What do your think the phrase does assume?

that common sense is in fact common. which you are not assuming.

i am inclined to suggest you have deliberately misinterpreted the phrase purely for the purpose of finding fault with it. i have never met anyone who had so much difficulty understanding such a simple concept. do you want me to steal from you? then you shouldnt steal from me. do you want to die? then dont kill me or my friends.

its really exactly that simple. and anyone with an ego isn't going to give a crap about "treat others as you would be treated" because there ARE no others. just that one person. thats how an overwhelming ego like what you seem to be describing is.

so either way you make leaps to form your point.

originally posted by: Nechash
a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

Most of the Mitzvahs of the Old Testament come as positives and negatives. This is a basic study of what the Jews call Halakhah (Law). It would be sensible for any modern rules stemming out of a derivative religion to follow the same form.

For me, "Do as thou wilt, but harm no one," is the most sensible of all being a compound positive and negative statement, it defines the limits of the full scope of our liberty.

really? killing people is what you wanted them to do to you? you both have completely missed the point of that phrase on purpose. making yourself look kind of ignorant in the process..

Egoism is about self-interest. Treating others how you would like to be treated is not about self-interest, but instead about the interest of others, in the best way you know how.

Sure, you don't know if some people around you may actually like pain and suffering, but some things tend to be universal and most humans do not like pain and suffering, so treating people fairly and compassionately (as you would like to be treated) is a useful rule to follow.

Some one mentioned this:

"the european settlers followed the golden rule to 'civilize the american Indian savages'.

But, do you actually believe that The European Settlers would have liked for their families to be killed, raped, and have the land majority of the land taken away from them? I don't think so, so that was not treating others as they would like to be treated.

a reply to: MikeHawke

Did you mean to reply to me in this? I don't see how I advocated killing anyone. Are you speaking allegorically about spiritual death?