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.
Originally posted by Bluesma
I often see people make reference to the Golden Rule. That is, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
This is often refered to as a reliable axiom in ethical matters, and in all respect I do see at first glance how that can seem so.
In fact, I agree that it can be very reliable and useful within a certain context-
when the other is of the same tribe as yourself.
If they have the same background and culture, they were instilled young with the same values, then this axiom can be quite useful!
BUT it fails miserably if applied in exchanges with people from other cultures, other backgrounds, or even just other social classes.
Originally posted by rollsthepaul
Those that are here for consciousness development, understand and largely live in this manner. Those that are imprisoned here because they don't play well, follow there Golden Rule "Do unto others and guilt only exists, if you get caught"
Originally posted by Skada
reply to post by Bluesma
Well, since we are not telepathic yet, perhaps sitting down and talking to people and getting to know the local culture would be a great benefit. It takes a village to raise a child, it still takes that same village to help raise your inner-child. We are social creatures and need companionship. Even the old hermit needs company once in a while.
Also, in reference to the interdependence vs. independence: Balance is key. It is "This AND That", not "This OR That." You need both, just not all the time. you wouldn't build a barn by yourself, although you could go fishing by yourself, but the other person may make the fishing trip more enjoyable. Change your paradigm, or the way you see things, and try to see things from the other villagers point-of-view, and you will see that you have much more in common then you realize.
I hope that makes sense, any one else want to add to that, make it more clear?
1- the Golden Rule is very limited as a reliable axiom for ethical behavior. It does not eliminate the necessity of actually paying very close attention to the other and being receptive ot who they are.
One person wants to have an exchange of friendliness and merging, the other wants to have an exchange of challenge and conflict
Originally posted by Bluesma
reply to post by Sissel
Maybe if you read my post above, it can giev a better idea of where I first began contemplation on this problem!
People here DO offer what they would like to recieve, but in many cases, I didn't want the same, so at first, I didn't recognize that. I thought they were not following that Golden rule- but they were.
Another example of culture clash-
It is also a tradition to begin some bonding through a ritual of debate or provocation.
Often at the dinner table, in fact, over a very controversial subject.
One person will invite the other to this verbal dance, through some provocative pokes on the subject,
(sometimes they don't even really mean it, it is said tongue in cheek and understood to be an invite),
and some snappy comebacks and debate is exchanged. This gets energy flowing between the two and at some point everyone just laughs and has a drink of wine together- now they know each other and are friends!
Now, in my country? Controversial subjects are no-no's at the meal table,
and debating is seen as hostile challenge- not friendly bonding.
There is also supposed to be a "winner" and a"loser" in a debate, so it doesn't end until there is one, and someone will walk away feeling bad or having submitted.
So you can see my misunderstanding when people I barely knew would do this to me?
And their misunderstanding when I refused to oppose and argue?
Both of us, in those choices, were doing what we'd like to be done to ourselves, and totally misunderstanding the deeper intent of the other- because of cultural education and habit!
Originally posted by Sissel
I did read it. Somehow you are stuck in this situation, for which I feel sorry for you. It seems your quandry is that that you are stuck.
This is not following the rule, then, if it is self serving.
The rule is for the common good. While they may end up laughing, that thorn is stuck in the side of somebody, so the rule where you are has a personal agenda.
I see your situation for what it is, disrespect for others, and their opinions, which is completely contrary to the rule.
I'd probably be stoned to death, or offed in some manner where you live, because nobody's life, opinions or really anything, are less than the next person to you at the supper table.
It must really suck to sit around a table eating a meal with people so self absorbed, and not for the common good. Best wishes to you in having to endure that.
Originally posted by DeReK DaRkLy
I don't think the Golden Rule is meant for the finer points of social interaction.
I think it's more of a guideline for not committing obvious offenses such as stealing and physical/emotional harm.
Originally posted by Bluesma
Oh goodness..... you don't get it at all!
It is a show of respect and care for others! It is a compliment that one wants to hear your opinion and invites you to share it with them,
it is a respect that causes them to not feel it must be "changed" to fit their own!
It is care that makes the fun play of words not a big deal, and something we can do and laugh with each other about.
Originally posted by Bluesma
My point is
1- the Golden Rule is very limited as a reliable axiom for ethical behavior.
It does not eliminate the necessity of actually paying very close attention to the other and being receptive to who they are. Just listening to your inner voices commands are not enough for effective exchanges!
Originally posted by jed001
reply to post by Bluesma
i have always said the golden rule is;
"once is funny; three or four times it just gets old"