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

originally posted by: crayzeed
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.

I agree with you about the philosophers!

I'm going to bring out my conciliatory side here.

I do fully understand that most modern adherents of say christianity
probably have no idea, that the entire reason for the religion seems
to have been to increase the power of Rome, and that in fact few
if any of the characters in the new testament existed at all.

In fact, if you look carefully at the new testament, much of it
revolves around obeying caesar and paying ones taxes to
caesar.. to 'turn the other cheek'.. to not resist the government..

imagine that.. if I made a new religion for my empire, i'd be
certain to put those rules in place.

Some very credible people think that Josephus Flavius in fact
wrote important parts of the new testament. (He was a respected
part of the royal family).

Now, where I'm going here, is to say, that yes, many modern
christians say, may be big believers in love and truth and
all sorts of good moral virtues.

But in fact if you look at the history of christianity from
it's earliest days to the modern day, a more blood-drenched
and psychologically disturbed narrative you could not find
elsewhere.

People simply have no idea what they are part of, and like
to mouth platitudes they have not researched.

I do not blame these uneducated folk with good hearts
for being sucked into a massive, 'evil' system of
control and destruction of all life on earth.

There was a time back 45 years ago or so that my own
ignorance of basic history led me astray. Hell, I still
work on a daily basis to lessen my own ignorance.

The world loves ignorant people and hates people who
can think or read a history book.

Kev

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I don't understand why most people don't adhere to this,but I always took it as be kind to one another, how many people don't want to be treated with kindness?

However even if you wanted to be treaded differently than kind, it still works,lol

a reply to: Stormdancer777

There are thousands of use cases where the 'rule' doesn't work.

Masochists for example want to be hurt.
'Fuzzies' want to dress up like animals and have sex.
'Raelians' want to castrate themselves.

Those are just 3 examples. I don't want ANY of those
people to 'do unto me'.

Now I could go into Catholic archive records and books
of other eras and discuss how the folks in charge of
the spanish inquisition wanted to 'save souls' by
torturing young girls as young as 12 years old on the
rack and this too is an example of the golden rule
in action.. (I'd want to be saved from hell at any
cost, so that gives me permission to be utterly
'evil').

But this simple little post is already losing my
interest as it's being taken so lightly, when in
fact the sixth great mass extinction on earth
is being caused by philosophies just like this
and people aren't even aware how badly they
have been had.

I'm unsubscribing.

Kev

It's about establishing consent, nothing more.

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

One could argue that this rule is the rule most promulgated, yet also the rule least adhered to

Thats subjective. We hear more about the unnice things people do to each other. When people are nice, its not "newsworthy".

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.

Also subjective. I know little ole lades prefer to have the door held for them rather than smashed in their face. So does everyone around at the time… including me.

You could try doing unto others then and see what happens. Pick a crowded store and the littlest little old lady you can find.

originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
There are thousands of use cases where the 'rule' doesn't work.

Masochists for example want to be hurt.
'Fuzzies' want to dress up like animals and have sex.
'Raelians' want to castrate themselves.

The tit-for-tat interpretation is broken of course, but that's an obviously weak and useless perspective on the principle.

I want to be allowed to enjoy the sensations I find pleasurable, therefore I allow masochists.

I want to be allowed my fantasies with consenting partners, therefore I allow furries.

I want to be allowed to break a leg skiing, therefore I allow body modification.

People with relatively dirty mirror neurons are likely to misfire this rule, but so do people with poor eyesight misdrive their vehicles. That doesn't mean high performance driving isn't still viable and able to be learned and put into tangible practice.

First, we can categorise what exactly one would have done to oneself, being things that the individual would accept as having done to them. This itself would encompass all "tastes" and "likes" of each individual, some individuals would be perfectly fine with some things that others would definitely not be comfortable with. Then, we must look at what an individual does, that being said, not everyone will do the same things, and in a similar respect, there are some things that some would do, that others would not.

Now, we have to cross-match all the people together, and we will find that indeed, as a reality, there are things that we experience from others, that we do not accept.

Weather or not that person perceives that you are acceptant, is also another issue, as many can get it "wrong".

If we somehow knew all the characteristics of each individual, then we could practice the "golden rule" however I doubt that the average person is able to conceive as such, even if they wanted to practice it.

It would require almost perfect empathy.

originally posted by: SystemResistor
It would require almost perfect empathy.

Wouldn't it be a kicker if all of the internet data harvesting is ultimately being plugged into an AI that is slowly sorting everyone according to their public and private activities? Thus allowing us to eventually re-structure our systems around matching people with who they actually are and shatter much of the pretending to avoid consequences?

a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Actually, you are misquoting the scripture.

Matthew 7

7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Put your comments into context with the whole thought, then revise your OP. Verse 12 is a conclusion to asking from the Father's hand. Doing to others is a matter of asking for the gifts we then give to others. Altruism is about giving and receiving, never taking. This verse points out that the Law and Prophets had one point: the will of God is to give and for us to receive. Taking marks the thief, which is outside the will of God and outside the will of the individual taking. Who wants to be taken from? No one. Do to others what you would have then to do to you.

When you then go back to the head of the chapter, you get the entire point.

7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

The way you treat others is the way you are then treated.

binal - Truth is a double-edged sword.

IMO this idea is at the core morality. Not morality dictated by scripture but by nature.

How so?

Because we all have experienced suffering, and do not like it, and there is no avoiding empathy when we recognize we have caused suffering for others. This I call conscience. In this sense I think it is inescapable, no matter how much others feel they can escape it. The conscience colors the experience of your life - whether for good or bad.

I think what is important is having a good will; while not doing onto others, what you .. would be near impossible. You do not want to be killed, yet you eat chickens or cows. Or may have a conflict of interest with others where you will pursue obtaining whatever it is to the detriment of another. But, I think even these things can be done with a good will. We may do something, like kill something to eat it, but we do it to avoid suffering for ourselves. We can still do these things with consideration, having a good will toward other beings and keep a clean conscience.

I can kind of understand how people use this as an ethical guidance when speaking of causing pain to another.

But in everyday exchanges, it is often brought up, in things that have no connection to physical pain.
Like in verbal exchanges? "Would you like someone to say this kind of thing to you? No? Then don't say to it them!"

Well that is fine for exchanges between two people who grew up in exactly the same environment and culture, they might share similar tastes in what is acceptable to them or not.

But as soon as you're dealing with anyone who doesn't have the same background, this is no longer so reliable as a guiding theme for choosing ethical behaviors.

That said, I still find it to have some value- As someone who desires to be ethical and respectful of others, I need to know how they would like to be treated. Just trying to guess, I am likely going to make some mistakes about that.

The best way for me to know is that they SHOW me. I tend to "mirror" individuals, I don't treat everyone the same, I will mimic their behavior back to them. That is the only way i have been able to figure out what is acceptable to them or not.


Like I said, for me, that is instinctual and natural, though I do not know if it is for everyone. But living in a foreign country, it has been my useful skill in figuring out how to behave in exchanges, without offending too much.

What I find is that as a relationship begins to grow, they also, begin to mimic some of my behaviors, and our ability to communicate effectively develops more. We may each get to behaviors that are too difficult to adopt, being so contrary to our own cultural conditioning, but if we can find enough ways we are willing and able to be flexible, we find a base from which we can exchange and have a relation of some kind.

But Les is right, in that it becomes a terribly mundane observation of human behavior- something we do anyway. Mimicry is the first way we begin interaction with others in life. But it also takes the back seat to other ways of communication as the self image (ego) grows, and seeks to break away from the conditioning we integrated as a child, to choose new or different behaviors.

Then you start to get those battles of will, in which the one to "give in" is seen as the weaker- the moment the one determined to stay peaceful explodes and answers hostility with same- they have "lost". Or the moment the one determined to stay aggressive bends to being sensitive and receptive, they have "lost".

We feel we have lost or integrity and character when we loose our predetermined intents for our own behavior.

It is much more useful to keep this sort of saying within the context of self discipline- you follow this for your own self respect- not because it will change or influence the behaviors of others toward you.

originally posted by: Stormdancer777
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

I don't understand why most people don't adhere to this,but I always took it as be kind to one another, how many people don't want to be treated with kindness?

However even if you wanted to be treaded differently than kind, it still works,lol

I use this example a lot, because it was an experience which made big impact on me, but when I came to France, I discovered people spend a lot of time critisizing each other, (I see you've gained weight! Whoa, you need to get that under control! You didn't do that well, you look like crap, ...). With time I learned they see this as a way of showing you care. That you are attentive to them, you are watching and paying attention.

Mocking each other is also seen as a sign of care and friendship. They have a saying that goes something like, "He who mocks someone a lot, likes that person a lot." (celui qui chatie bien, aime bien). Yes, they want you to do that back to them, and it is a social game of bonding.

If I follow this as a "rule" I end up with some problems. I don't want them to do that to me, so I don't do it to them.

So we end up with a misunderstanding, each of us trying to show we care, and each getting the impression the other doesn't at all.

I had to do away with the idea that others want to be treated as I want to be treated, in order to have effective communication!

Kindness is a feeling, but it has a myriad of ways of being expressed in action, which we don't all read the same way.

a reply to: AlephBet

actually, the phrase is much older than that. almost 2,000 years older than jesus. and most certainly not a product of christianity.

en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: AlephBet

Actually, you are misquoting the scripture.

I wasn't quoting scripture. Scripture is exceedingly tedious in my opinion, and not worth a second glance. Men of lesser divine instruction have written far greater books.

a reply to: arpgme

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.

It isn't. Key words here are "how you would like to be treated", not anyone else. Using one's own tastes and desires as a template to project onto others is the opposite of interest of others.

'Don't be a d**k' - or the post, post Bill&Ted gen...'be excellent to each other'...probably more apt, but essentially mirroring the mot (verse?) do unto others...control or achievable common ground? Forum site allows these threads to be posted...not adhering has its consequences...control, or consensual agreement to terms and conditions of engagement?
Notwithstanding the amorphous 'empathy' blanket...the rule forms a guide of conduct - and, of course, there is the freedom to plumb the permutations and combinations of meaning and intent, or how that conclusion can produce contradictory results...
Having respect for anothers' experience, as you require that others have of yours...achievable through 'di'alogue - 'as you would be done by' assumes that you know what others require, as if they were you...some are better equipped to negotiate that minefield than others...some love to complicate its meaning...yet, like Luddites - proposing the most eloquent arguments using technology, we can use a forum site, agreeing to treat others with the respect we might also require, agreeing to consensual conditions (by pressing 'Agree') to posit (as eloquently) the inanity of its spirit...I'd find that a somewhat compromising position to be in...and if I'd followed the mot, I wouldn't have replied...

Å99

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

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.

S&F.
Such keen deduction! I applaud this fresh analysis of our long-beloved Golden Rule. I conclude that your words are true.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

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.

I am in favor of amending this ancient concept. Although, this may require more than a mere jesting of ideas, for there is much to consider in redefining this moral principle.

For example, who are "others"? Are "others" our kindred countrymen, those of like-mind and like-belief, or all of mankind? Should we treat peaceful, passive, aggressive, and violent "others" all the same? Are animals included in this moral equation? What about plants,... waterways,... the air,.. and Earth?

Although the best truth is short and simple, any amendments to the Golden Rule must be a bit more explanatory, for the sake of empathy.

Thank you again for turning another shared truism on its head for fresh philosophic meanderings! Peace.

Variables such as, relativity, subjectivity, different accumulations of experience, perceptions, knowledge, understandings, and opinions,... and the very essence of 'difference,' makes this task one of great immensity!


For example, I am of the opinion that good and evil are aspects of the same quality, being beyond duality. For morality's sake, what is good and evil? Because even as separate dual principles, good and evil remain subjective opinions.





As another example, I am of the opinion that existence, being, life, consciousness, awareness, and sentience are synonymous with spirit, the self, the divine, and god. This is an inner-realization I share with others, in unison with an understanding and acknowledgement of the "oneness" and "wholeness" of reality, through a fully interconnected mesh of cause-and-effect, elemental/atomic co-origination, and the utter co-dependent nature of natural forces, systems, and organisms.

With this brief and broad intellectual conceptualization, I am under the persuasion of universal love, peace, kindness, compassion, and empathy to all "others," with the inclusion of mankind's entirety, all of the animals of the world, and also all of the plants. But even in this, I observe the destruction of one organism to feed another. This, in itself, almost negates the pure essence of empathy and altruism,... for the animals and plants respond to suffering, pain, and death, and all seek to preserve their own life, in favor of becoming the meal of another. If there is no evil in the dietary limitations of carnivores,... to what extent do we justify any death which perpetuates the existence of one above another?





Even when edicts are intended for the pure pursuit of the Greatest Good,... placing rules, restrictions, and guidelines on the morals of others is an infringement and stagnation of free will, personal understanding, and personal development. In this instance, I am almost drawn to accept Crowley's, "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law. Love is the Law, love under will."

Once again, we are torn by the subjective interpretation and implementation of "Love" and "Will."

This edict accepts and allows for both good and evil to exist, which must exist to compliment and sustain each other. However, there is a very strong urge within me that would like to see good promoted above evil, which I once again realize is an attachment to duality. And in my understanding of duality, to hold on too tightly to any one dual quality above another is simply an adherence to one's own ego.





These examples are not statements for my defending or debate. Simply, I am illustrating the vastness of considerations that are found lacking in 'Golden Rule.'

a reply to: KellyPrettyBear

The "Golden Rule" applies to normal sane people, not insane lunatics or people with weird fetishes.

It works good for people with basic morals for example one man won't steal another mans wife if he doesn't want his wife stolen. Of coarse the women have to agree to it as well, when they do, it's ok, but all the other guys are "Jerks" who do it, funny how that works.

But that isn't even a religious concept it's just basic common sense.
I am sure many non-religious people feel this way. Don't mess around with another persons spouse.

The "Silver Rule" is just an extension of the "Golden Rule" because logic says that it is already embedded conceptually.

originally posted by: AlephBet
a reply to: LesMisanthrope

Actually, you are misquoting the scripture.

Matthew 7

7 “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 8 For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened.

9 “Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? 10 Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? 11 If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him! 12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.

Put your comments into context with the whole thought, then revise your OP. Verse 12 is a conclusion to asking from the Father's hand. Doing to others is a matter of asking for the gifts we then give to others. Altruism is about giving and receiving, never taking. This verse points out that the Law and Prophets had one point: the will of God is to give and for us to receive. Taking marks the thief, which is outside the will of God and outside the will of the individual taking. Who wants to be taken from? No one. Do to others what you would have then to do to you.

When you then go back to the head of the chapter, you get the entire point.

7 “Do not judge, or you too will be judged. 2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.

The way you treat others is the way you are then treated.

binal - Truth is a double-edged sword.

Well Said...