It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Is the Golden Rule flawed?

page: 2
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 04:46 PM
link   
I agree with your title but not necessarily with your arguments.

The golden rule is definitely flawed.

Take for example the person who hates all manner of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, everything. If he were to use those substances or be addicted he might want others to intercede and stop him, to save him from himself, even if it means locking him up in jail.

Others, freedom minded people, would not want to be saved from themselves nor put in jail to be saved from themselves

The golden rule obligates those who would want to be saved from themselves by others to save others from themselves in return.


I am a firm believer in "your body, your property, your choice", it obligates people to decide for themselves what they will do with their own life and forbids others from saving people from themselves against their will.


P.S. I hope all the pronouns weren't too confusing and you guys understood what I meant.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Bobbox1980]




posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Bobbox1980
 


I understand what you're trying to convey, but your analogy/example is off so we need to explore it.


Take for example the person who hates all manner of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, everything. If he were to use those substances or be addicted he might want others to intercede and stop him, to save him from himself, even if it means locking him up in jail.


This has nothing to do with doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 05:53 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


your argument is flawed. do unto others as you would have them do to you, not as you expect them to do...

you are creating simplistic scenarios to defeat the idea when you suggest that you would not treat a rapist with respect. what then would you do if you met someone who was a convicted (and even admitted) rapist? would you kill them? rape them?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


this is true, AFTER the Fact! I believe that, if bad people like that were treated with love and kindness from the beginning...not just, after they become rapists, or bad people...then the world would be a different place, and we wouldnt be having this discussion. Everyone wants to wait for someone to make the first step, but obviously there becomes a point when it is too late. Society in general I think is way too self absorbed, and it shows. If we were to love everyone unconditionally from day 1, then we would likely have alot less crime...I say likely, because I dont know for sure, but I feel it to be true...


I definitely see your point, I have an 18 yr old daughter, who I would kill to protect. Does that make me a bad person, or just a product of our society. I still think we are not living up to our potential, and could be a great society, and even get rid of all violent crime, but it wont happen overnight.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:12 PM
link   
reply to post by AKARonco
 


Riiight. So Hitler just needed a hug.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by EMPIRE
The O.P. is simply disguising his attack on Christianity and Jesus and just gave his/her hand (refer to the last paragraph). People such as the O.P. want to continue painting the picture that Jesus was some long haired hippy guy, with a lamb on his shoulders, that walked around spreading love and peace everywhere he went. WRONG. He went into the temple, turned the place upside down, and whipped people out of there. In addition, people who have no understanding of Judaism or Jewish culture misconstrue the "turning the other cheek" statements and make it seem as if he was weak, timid and calling for everyone to be a door mat.


It is actions like this which seem contradictory with his "love thy enemy" philosophy. However, in my opinion such an ideal is completly impractical to live, that I am not surprised Jesus slipped up now and again. I must admit I do get the impression Jesus was meek, more compassionate than he was wise. I have a lot of respect for Jesus by the way, but as I am not Christian, I don't think his philosophy is beyond scrutiny. No philosophy is beyond scrutiny.


You, Indigo_Child, said "The list you cite is just a collection of quotes taken out of context of their religions philosophy. I know this is true especially for Hinduism, as I am a Hindu. ", so I'd like to know which quotes were taken out of context. How was anything taken out of context when the person who originally posted the material here did so to disprove your claim about it being impractical and making it exlcusive to one religion? You mention being a Hindu, but why is it many adherents live in poverty? How come caste systems in India hindered economic and social progress?


That list also includes judaism which also teaches "An eye for an eye" It is basically a case of selective quote mining, ignoring the the actual philosophies of each religion.


So much for krsna and the philosophy being rational.


Look at my thread, "India: Ancient superpower" in the Ancient civilisations forum. Much less economic and social progress being hindered, it made huge progress. Its poverty today is a result of 300 years of colonialism that bled it economically to death.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doglord
Another problem with the golden rule, lets say (hypothetically) that I am a masochist, do you really want me treating you the way I want to be treated?


Yes this is correct but they get to go first, OK with you?



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 06:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by elvisofdallas
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


your argument is flawed. do unto others as you would have them do to you, not as you expect them to do...

you are creating simplistic scenarios to defeat the idea when you suggest that you would not treat a rapist with respect. what then would you do if you met someone who was a convicted (and even admitted) rapist? would you kill them? rape them?



Let's hope no one has been raped or wants to rape anybody.
Might be a personal experience here that requires more psychology than the thread can deliver.
I agree with you that the simplicity of the English language is being abused here.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:05 PM
link   
Why do you not see dispensing punishment as love? There are many ways to give others what they deserve.

Your love cannot encompass all unless it is logical, and sometimes kindness is the awnser



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:12 PM
link   
reply to post by WTFover
 


On Ahinsa: Ahinsa in Hinduism has a different meaning from ahinsa in Buddhism and Jainism. The difference is basically between pacifism and non pacifism. As you can probably tell I am not pacifist and I consider such philosophy to be self-destructive. In Hinduism, the religion of Aryans, you are expected to be noble and encourage peace, compassion and wisdom, but if there is an injustice taking place then you are expected to fight against it as well. To maintain cosmic law.

On justice: In Hinduism justice is the same as truth. That which is rational is just. Krishna teaches Prince Arjuna to use his rationality. His argument is simply that he should not base his decision to not fight on something that is only temporaily true; he should base his decision on what is absolutely true: cosmic law. Arjuna has a duty to fight because he is a warrior and he sworn to protect his people. He hestitates from fighting because his enemy consists of his own kin and relatives who have sided against him in the war. Krishna teaches Arjuna that his relationships with these people are temporal and he should not be attached to the temporal. He should see the wider cosmic picture. These people are not really his relatives, they are souls playing certain roles and one day their roles will end - because everything that is born will die. So Arjuna's fears about killing them are irrelevent, because they will leave their bodies anyway eventually. It's an inevitable outcome. Greater than Arjunas personal anxieties of killing his kin is his duty to protect his people. If he refuses to fight then his people will come under the rule of unrighteous people and this has lasting consequence to social order - to dharma. The future generations will condemn Arjuna for his selfish acts - for not doing what was right and incur huge karmic costs.

The situation is very similar to say you have a friend who you know has commited a terrible crime. Do you keep quiet about your friend out of loyalty to your friend or do you do the right thing and turn your friend in so he punished for his crime just as any other criminal would? Krishna would tell you to do the right thing. Logic would dictate the same. There is no room for emotions in justice. If you did not do the right thing then Krishna explains you will incur karma because it is an egoic act clouded by your emotional attachments to your friend. The selfless thing to do is turn your friend in and for that you gain positive karma.

Krishna's philosophy is cosmic as opposed to humanistic. For us our human body is so special and precious, but from Krishna's cosmic perspective it a mere blip in space-time. We should live our laws according to the eternal cosmic laws because they endure, and we don't. We must humble ourselves before cosmic law. Rationality is a part of cosmic law and thus our actions should be in accordance with it.

Sure enough it probably makes sense on some level to you that blind compassion without justice is irrational. We cannot just treat everybody by some happy hippe new-age ideal of love. Everybody is an individual and needs to be treated as an individual. A rapist does not deserve love; they deserve punishment. Respect needs to be earned, it is not just given away for free.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 07:26 PM
link   

I definitely see your point, I have an 18 yr old daughter, who I would kill to protect. Does that make me a bad person, or just a product of our society. I still think we are not living up to our potential, and could be a great society, and even get rid of all violent crime, but it wont happen overnight.


You have confirmed my point. If somebody tried to rape your 18 year older daughter, you would kill them to protect her. This is the perfectly natural and right thing to do. If you did nothing when you could and your daughter was raped, then you would live the rest of your life in guilt of not saving your daughter and your daughter would never forgive you.

When we react with love to situations that do not deserve love, we are acting irrationally and without wisdom.

By the way who told you that love always has to be compassionate? Sometimes we have to do harmful things to people we love, this does not mean we do not love them,.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 08:05 PM
link   
it seems that the OP wants to state that there is a better way than the Golden Rule. and that is to live, coexist and react aggressively to life's challenges. how different is this from the way the human race has been doing things since time immemorial? seems to me like we've been reacting all this time to whatever troubles we have at the moment. how about we do it differently? how about instead of waiting for something negative to happen to us (like being bullied), we counteract that scenario by undermining the contributory circumstances that might lead to that situation. isn't that what our necks are for? to hold our heads up, so we can use our brains .. right?

all this talk about whether the golden rule is wrong or not, is just talk for the sidelines. the real issue here is "do we continue living like we've always had and keep having these confrontations and negative interactions with our fellowmen or do we begin to live as humans and start coming up with solutions instead of just bickering like kids and chimps?" i am not a jewish brown asian redneck african eskimo, i am human!; and i'm starting to get sick of looking at my fellow human brothers and sisters acting like monkeys, bragging about who's got the best and biggest what.

[edit on 12.29.09 by toreishi]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 08:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 

We will never reach a loving state if we withold it from anyone. Why should we judge anyone as being worthless and not deserving of Love?

If we have not lived their life then we cannot know what has caused behaviours we do not like that we may avoid doing ourselves.

This so called Golden Rule is a yardstick, something so basic for all humans to use in daily life, yet most avoid it like the plague for the same reasons you provided in the OP.

Treat all people the same way, as People, as human beings and you will always get the best they can be with what they have, whether we perceive it or not.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 09:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Indigo_Child
 


No flaw.

Treat everyone how you want to be treated.

Love is the only way to peace. Period.

Does that mean we have to accept what people have done?

No.

Do not love the person's actions. Love the person.

Sometimes my children do something wrong, and need to be punished. That does not mean that I don't love them. I love them unconditionally. I do not love their actions.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 09:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by toreishi
it seems that the OP wants to state that there is a better way than the Golden Rule. and that is to live, coexist and react aggressively to life's challenges. how different is this from the way the human race has been doing things since time immemorial? seems to me like we've been reacting all this time to whatever troubles we have at the moment. how about we do it differently? how about instead of waiting for something negative to happen to us (like being bullied), we counteract that scenario by undermining the contributory circumstances that might lead to that situation. isn't that what our necks are for? to hold our heads up, so we can use our brains .. right?

all this talk about whether the golden rule is wrong or not, is just talk for the sidelines. the real issue here is "do we continue living like we've always had and keep having these confrontations and negative interactions with our fellowmen or do we begin to live as humans and start coming up with solutions instead of just bickering like kids and chimps?" i am not a jewish brown asian redneck african eskimo, i am human!; and i'm starting to get sick of looking at my fellow human brothers and sisters acting like monkeys, bragging about who's got the best and biggest what.

[edit on 12.29.09 by toreishi]


And your do unto others easy to read and
remember motto in IS?????
Being to confused to make one up don't count.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 09:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh



Do not love the person's actions. Love the person.


It depends how you define the person. If its somebody personality then sorry some personalities are just not acceptable - such as sadists, obnoxious, criminal and haughty people.


Sometimes my children do something wrong, and need to be punished. That does not mean that I don't love them. I love them unconditionally. I do not love their actions.


Well there you go then. You would do unto them(punishment) as you wouldn't have them do unto you. You are doing what I said in the OP: Do unto others as they are. If you children are being wrong, you behave in a manner with them that is befitting. In response you do not expect your children to punish you back for punishing them


I may sometimes have to treat people as I would not want to be treated myself. For example I might have to be harsh to certain people but not expect others to be harsh to me. I would be harsh to that person because they deserve it.

Treat people how they deserve to be treated. Nobody is getting my love and respect for free. They are going to have to earn it.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 10:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child

It depends how you define the person. If its somebody personality then sorry some personalities are just not acceptable - such as sadists, obnoxious, criminal and haughty people.


A person is not his personality. A personality can define his actions. You love them because they are human.




Well there you go then. You would do unto them(punishment) as you wouldn't have them do unto you. You are doing what I said in the OP: Do unto others as they are. If you children are being wrong, you behave in a manner with them that is befitting. In response you do not expect your children to punish you back for punishing them


No, I would expect punishment if I did something wrong. Most wrongs come from them not following the golden rule.


I may sometimes have to treat people as I would not want to be treated myself. For example I might have to be harsh to certain people but not expect others to be harsh to me. I would be harsh to that person because they deserve it.


You do not HAVE to be harsh. You choose to be harsh.


Treat people how they deserve to be treated. Nobody is getting my love and respect for free. They are going to have to earn it.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by Indigo_Child]


And that is selfishness and pride, which is the root of all the problems in the world.



posted on Dec, 29 2009 @ 11:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
reply to post by WTFover
 


Respect needs to be earned, it is not just given away for free.


I disagree. Before today, you and I have never conversed. However, I have the utmost respect for you and the opinions you've expressed. And, you deserve that respect, until such time that you do or say something that causes me to retract that respect. Sorry if that sounded confusing.

That is my interpretation of the "Golden Rule", as expressed in the varied "religions". And, I believe it is not in contradiction with what you've expressed. When I come into contact with another human being, I believe I should treat them as I want to be treated. That is, until they demonstrate they are undeserving of compassion.

Taking the rapist into consideration. If you met him, for the first time, not knowing he has committed the crime, you will not treat him as a rapist. He is just a person, deserving of your respect. And, if throughout your entire relationship, you never learn of his crime and he never again commits a crime, your respect shoud continue to be extended.

When posting the article on Ethics of Reciprocity, I did not intend to infer that I believed it is the basis of the world's religions. I do, however, find it interesting it is one common thread among them.

[edit on 29-12-2009 by WTFover]

[edit on 30-12-2009 by WTFover]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:11 AM
link   

Originally posted by Indigo_Child
I want to be loved, respected and accepted, but I certainly would not love, respect and accept a rapist. I would do unto them as I would have them not do unto me.


If you woke up in a life where you were truly a rapist, how do you think you should be treated? This is how a good judge should think in your example. Give to your neighbor as you give to yourself. If you cannot understand that this should take into consideration all the different factors that makes each person different, then you are not able to judge well. In the end, the sum of the two greatest commandments can be shortened to; Good Judges have many children and they are eternal while Pride and Chaos die natural deaths.

And to the person who replied to you;
Christ, the Son of God who came down from the Eternal, did not die for those who are Sons of Darkness, but He did take on our sin in order to lift it off of the Sons of God who are/were raised up from the Void. This is far more important to understand than most doctrines.



If you do not judge well, it is because you do not observe well.
If you do not observe well, it is because truth is not in you.
If truth is not in you, truth is yet made known through you.
If you judge well, it is because you observe well.
If you observe well, it is because truth is in you.
If truth is in you, truth is yet made known to you.

Pride is the inverse of Order and the opposite of Charity.
Chaos is the inverse of Charity and the opposite of Order.

Those who understand Order, understand Charity. Those who understand Charity, understand Order.
These are the Sons of God, the Light and Salt of the world. They manifest OrderCharity in to this world for OrderCharity is in them.
Those who do not understand Charity, do not understand Order. Those who do not understand Order, do not understand Charity.
These are the Sons of Darkness, the animal-man whose end is with the dust of the earth. They return to the Void from where we, who are of this realm, were created from and Pride and Chaos is in them.


Give to OrderCharity with all of your heart, mind, and soul. Give to your neighbor as yourself.

This all being said, understand;
GRACIOUS JUDGMENT
not
Condemnation/Pride
not
Disorder/Chaos

A rapist must be dealt with, but imagine that you are that rapist before deciding how they should be treated. Gracious Judgment as Elohim are the Good Judges. Or you are not elohim.

[edit on 12/30/2009 by Dasher]



posted on Dec, 30 2009 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by EMPIRE
reply to post by Bobbox1980
 


I understand what you're trying to convey, but your analogy/example is off so we need to explore it.


Take for example the person who hates all manner of drugs, alcohol, tobacco, everything. If he were to use those substances or be addicted he might want others to intercede and stop him, to save him from himself, even if it means locking him up in jail.


This has nothing to do with doing unto others as you would have them do unto you.



Sure it does, I think perhaps I wasn't clear:

Person A despises drugs, use and abuse, and would want others (the community) to stop him (Person A) from doing drugs even if it meant putting him (Person A) in jail.

Person B dislikes drugs but would not want others (the community) to stop him (Person B) from doing drugs.


The golden rule applied would result in different outcomes depending on whether or not you were dealing with Person A or Person B.


If Person C came along who was addicted to drugs, Person A would stop Person C to the point of having Person C imprisoned because Person A would want the same done to him (Person A) if he (Person A) was the addict.

Person B on the other hand would not stop Person C because Person B would not want to be stopped from doing drugs against his (Person B) will.


Both person A and Person B would be doing unto others as they would have others do unto them. The Golden Rule results in 2 different outcomes in this example. The Golden Rule does not require the respect of freedom or individual liberty, the golden rule can be used to justify tyranny.


My principle "your body, your property, your choice" can not be used to justify tyranny, it respects individual liberty.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join