• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Ethics & The Golden Rule

IchabodPlain

Graduate Poster
IchabodPlain
Joined
Nov 24, 2007
Messages
1,252
After some thought, I've come to the conclusion that the golden rule (or ethic of reciprocity) falls into the category of egoist ethics. Here's how:

Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The last part is the most important: As you would have them do unto you. This basically means that the Golden Rule only applies as far as someone wishes to have done to them. If you have disregard for yourself the ethic is useless. Whatever you are OK with happening to you, then that becomes "in bounds" in terms of action.

Thoughts?
 
Isn't this a rephrasing of the old argument between the masochist and the sadist? "Who does what to whom?" :duck:
 
There are many ethical frameworks, of which the golden rule is only one.
But if that was your only criteria for ethical decisions, and you did have no regard for yourself, then that would pretty much self-select yourself for ostracism among everyone else that does have regard for themselves, and so for others. And so a society would not bind together around your proposed attitude, and in societies that do live on, perhaps this is what prisons are for.
 
IchabodPlain said:
After some thought, I've come to the conclusion that the golden rule (or ethic of reciprocity) falls into the category of egoist ethics. Here's how:

Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The last part is the most important: As you would have them do unto you. This basically means that the Golden Rule only applies as far as someone wishes to have done to them. If you have disregard for yourself the ethic is useless. Whatever you are OK with happening to you, then that becomes "in bounds" in terms of action.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...

I don't see why it would be useless, it would just be an ethic that disregards others, and that is fine with others disregarding you. The idea of it would still be as strong or weak as ever, depending on how you view the idea itself for promoting or deciding ethical awareness or action.

Personally I think it's a good thing to consider. It is egoist ethics, but I don't know any that aren't. All opinion seems derived from the ego thinking the opinion has validity.
 
I always thought the whole point of it was that it is egoist ethics, and that's why there's some chance of its getting some actual use rather than just lip service. But it also depends a little on how you interpret it. You can see it as truly meaning to do to others as you wish they would do to you in a particular sense, or more generally to behave as you believe others ought to behave, with yourself as a reference.

I guess I've always assumed the golder rule calls for at least a little imagination beyond simple self-interest. If I like to smoke cheap cigars, I do not satisfy the golden rule by assuming that everyone else should tolerate the smoke because it's something I wouldn't mind. It's satisfied rather by thinking how I would feel if I did mind.
 
bruto said:
I always thought the whole point of it was that it is egoist ethics, and that's why there's some chance of its getting some actual use rather than just lip service. But it also depends a little on how you interpret it. You can see it as truly meaning to do to others as you wish they would do to you in a particular sense, or more generally to behave as you believe others ought to behave, with yourself as a reference.

I guess I've always assumed the golder rule calls for at least a little imagination beyond simple self-interest. If I like to smoke cheap cigars, I do not satisfy the golden rule by assuming that everyone else should tolerate the smoke because it's something I wouldn't mind. It's satisfied rather by thinking how I would feel if I did mind.
Click to expand...

Thank you for the cheap cigar reference, I think it demonstrates my point in a milder fashion (I should have thought of it, I smoke cigarettes, after all).

Following the Golden Rule, if you don't mind others smoke, they shouldn't mind yours. The "imagination" on your part is imagination, a bit like the whole "spirit vs. letter of the law" - namely that the "spirit" or imagination as you put it lies in the eye of the beholder, and still follows from the egoist perspective. It is in how you imagine it to be, not what is actually written. You're ascribing qualities that aren't there and instead modifying it to suit your needs (ETA: I don't mean to attack you here, sorry if it came out that way).
 
Last edited:
I've always thought that the Golden Rule was pretty dangerous when combined with Calvinism and the doctrine of Ultimate Depravity.

Basically, if you hate yourself, and treat yourself badly, then by the Golden Rule you will treat others badly too.

Or so it seems to me. I mean, I'm no expert.
 
Dragoonster said:
I don't see why it would be useless, it would just be an ethic that disregards others, and that is fine with others disregarding you. The idea of it would still be as strong or weak as ever, depending on how you view the idea itself for promoting or deciding ethical awareness or action.

Personally I think it's a good thing to consider. It is egoist ethics, but I don't know any that aren't. All opinion seems derived from the ego thinking the opinion has validity.
Click to expand...

I think maybe you are confusing ethical and psychological terms here. I agree with you that any ethic is something that an individual considers valid as an ethic, but that seems rather redundant, doesn't it?

I would disagree that, however, that all ethical positions are egoist in nature. Consider Deontology in which a central pillar is people as ends which states you must treat people as ends-in-themselves (not means to an end). This respect extends to everyone, not just those which you feel compelled to grant respect.
 
Gord_in_Toronto said:
Isn't this a rephrasing of the old argument between the masochist and the sadist? "Who does what to whom?" :duck:
Click to expand...

I thought it was:
"Whip me," said the masochist.
"No," said the sadist. ;)

As for : "Who does what to whom?", well...
There was a gay chap from Khartoum
took a lesbian lass to his room.
As she sat on the bed,
she looked up and said,
"Who does what, and how and to whom?"
 
IchabodPlain said:
The last part is the most important: As you would have them do unto you. This basically means that the Golden Rule only applies as far as someone wishes to have done to them. If you have disregard for yourself the ethic is useless. Whatever you are OK with happening to you, then that becomes "in bounds" in terms of action.
Click to expand...

That particular Golden Rule isn't part of my personal world view, but Hillel's Golden Rule states, "Do not do unto others what you do not want done unto you."

What do you think of that one?

I think Hillel's Golden Rule to be far more practical and doable than the other one.
 
I always thought the Golden Rule referred to the notion of having regard or respect for other people, in the same manner as you would wish them to regard or respect you. That is to say, since the typical person seems to prefer being treated with respect, courtesy, etc., it's only fair and reasonable for said person to give the same sort of treatment to others.

Or something like that.
 
badnewsBH said:
I always thought the Golden Rule referred to the notion of having regard or respect for other people, in the same manner as you would wish them to regard or respect you. That is to say, since the typical person seems to prefer being treated with respect, courtesy, etc., it's only fair and reasonable for said person to give the same sort of treatment to others.

Or something like that.
Click to expand...
I think in a way that's what I was trying to say here. How you interpret the rule depends a little on how specific you see the doing. If you see it at the level of "do not blow smoke in other people's faces unless you like it done to you, in which case go ahead and do it," then it is very limited in some areas, though it would still generally be useful for things like stabbing and raping and burning at the stake. If you view it as applying to general ideas like respect, it is somewhat less limited, although as it gains generality it also gains ambiguity.
 
HistoryGal said:
That particular Golden Rule isn't part of my personal world view, but Hillel's Golden Rule states, "Do not do unto others what you do not want done unto you."

What do you think of that one?

I think Hillel's Golden Rule to be far more practical and doable than the other one.
Click to expand...

Bolded for emphasis.


It still seems to me to fall into the egoist category, but however, it is slightly different (and seemingly incomplete) in that it doesn't give a method for action, only inaction.
 
Last edited:
The Golden Rule

I always thought it was "Whoever's got the gold, makes the rules."

(First saw it in a BC cartoon by Johnny Hart, I think.)
 
HistoryGal said:
That particular Golden Rule isn't part of my personal world view, but Hillel's Golden Rule states, "Do not do unto others what you do not want done unto you."

What do you think of that one?

I think Hillel's Golden Rule to be far more practical and doable than the other one.
Click to expand...


I didn't know Hillel stated it as a negative restraint. It's interesting because that's also how Confucius states it in the Analects. Mencius came along later with a positive version like Christ's.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom