The Golden Rule versus the Platinum Rule

[Moridin]

Which is superior?

Golden Rule: Treat other people the same way you wish to be treated.
Platinum Rule: Make it better than it was before you got there, but not because you are waiting for return.

In my opinion, the Golden Rule is passé. Doing something good for others so that they will do good for you seems selfish. Platinum rules.

 

[Smurf]

Whats wrong with selfishness?

 

[guten]

Hi, I think this is interesting. This is my first introduction to the platinum rule. Could you point me to a link where I could read about it, I tried googling but it didn't lead to something applicable.

 

[DaveC426913]

Nitpicky point:
The golden rule is about people.
What's the platinum rule about? Housekeeping?

 

[baywax]

In my opinion, the Golden Rule is passé. Doing something good for others so that they will do good for you seems selfish.

You have completely mis-understood the golden rule, judging by your statement above.

"The golden rule" is a way of identifying any important rule...

like:

"the golden rule of teaching is to be clear"

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

or like:

...a command based on Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount; "Whatsoever ye would that men do unto you, do you even so unto them" (Matthew 7:12)

wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

In today's english you could say that what the bible says means "treat other people the way you would like them to treat you".

This is totally ethics 101. When people don't follow this rule, there is a lot of unbalance in their relationships.

I think your platnum rule could make "golden rule" status with the idea of making things better than they were when you found them.

But, in many cases, "better" is your judgement call that may not apply to the next person or environment.

It was Confusius who first made the golden rule
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you." He came up with it in China around 500 years before the Christians. Buddhists also embraced the idea

And George Bernard Shaw once said that "The golden rule is that there are no golden rules".

 

[JoeDawg]

It was Confusius who first made the golden rule
"do unto others as you would have them do unto you." He came up with it in China around 500 years before the Christians. Buddhists also embraced the idea

What if some doesn't want to be treated like you think you should be treated?

 

[Hell_SD]

Platinum Rule: Make it better than it was before you got there, but not because you are waiting for return.

...who's to say you made it better ?

I understand what you mean like 'the elves and the shoemaker' but I hate people messing with my stuff...

...down on my uncles farm the rule was "leave everything as you find it" otherwise you better not wait for him to return

 

[baywax]

What if some doesn't want to be treated like you think you should be treated?

Good point. One could only hope that some would let you know that the way you treat yourself is not how some would want to be treated.

 

[NeoDevin]

Do not unto others as you would have them do unto you, they may have different tastes.

For this reason the platinum rule is better.

 

[Smurf]

the platinum rule pre-supposes some objective form of 'better'. What if people like it the way it is?

 

[raolduke]

The platinum rule only exists because you or whomever created it is selfish and if a rule,such as, did exist no one would or should know about it if you actually followed it.

 

[baywax]

If the golden rule applied to the practice of invading other countries, the invaders will always be invaded. And I haven't seen a case where this rule has been broken, in the past.

 

[JoeDawg]

You can twist any 'rule'.

If you're a pacifist, you treat others kindly because you want them to treat you kindly.
If you're a warrior, you kill others who are weak, and want others to kill you if you become weak.

If you're a doctor, you can improve on a way to treat the sick, out of concern for others.
If you're a scientist, you can improve on the delivery system for a biological weapon, in order to help defend your country.

Asimov's three laws of robotics, although they sound good initially, were always creating problems. Rules are no substitute for thinking.

 

[baywax]

You can twist any 'rule'.

If you're a pacifist, you treat others kindly because you want them to treat you kindly.
If you're a warrior, you kill others who are weak, and want others to kill you if you become weak.

If you're a doctor, you can improve on a way to treat the sick, out of concern for others.
If you're a scientist, you can improve on the delivery system for a biological weapon, in order to help defend your country.

Asimov's three laws of robotics, although they sound good initially, were always creating problems. Rules are no substitute for thinking.

And thinking is no substitute for feeling.

If it feels good to treat others well... that is the reward.

If it feels good to blow people up, blow yourself up.

 

[HallsofIvy]

Which is superior?

Golden Rule: Treat other people the same way you wish to be treated.
Platinum Rule: Make it better than it was before you got there, but not because you are waiting for return.

In my opinion, the Golden Rule is passé. Doing something good for others so that they will do good for you seems selfish. Platinum rules.

?? The golden rule says nothing about "so they will do good for you"!

What if some doesn't want to be treated like you think you should be treated?

Yes, that's true. But the way you want to be treated is a good "first approximation".

 

[DaveC426913]

Doing something good for others so that they will do good for you seems selfish.

You're right, it does. But then again, that has nothing to do with the Golden Rule. As others have pointed out, you missed the point.

 

[baywax]

Re: poll. My chad was hinged. Can I vote again?

 

[baywax]

Yes, that's true. But the way you want to be treated is a good "first approximation".

So true. A first approximation will involve how you feel when your thirsty. You want a drink. If you have any sense of empathy or compassion and you see someone looking dehydrated... the subliminal thought process in your head says "when I feel like that guy looks I treat myself to a drink of water".

Then, based on that feeling and the assumption that the biological needs of the person you see (that's looking dehydrated and heat-stroked) are the same as yours... you offer them a drink of water and other means of cooling their biological systems.

If you are inexperienced, ignorant, lacking the skills involved with empathy and compassion you ignore their plight or, in extreme examples of idiocy, worsen their state.

 

[Moridin]

You're right, it does. But then again, that has nothing to do with the Golden Rule. As others have pointed out, you missed the point.

One could argue that it is the underlying purpose with the Golden Rule.

 

[JoeDawg]

And thinking is no substitute for feeling.

If it feels good to treat others well... that is the reward.

If it feels good to blow people up, blow yourself up.

I'm not sure what your point is here.

 

[baywax]

I'm not sure what your point is here.

Point being that it is not a thought process that justifys or qualifies the Golden Rule. Its how it makes you and everyone else feel about being alive. When you apply the rule to your social interactions, you get a good feeling but its not because of any reward other than the feeling itself. Its not a thought process that pats you on the back and credits your "good behavior" account. Its just a feeling of accomplishment that requires no reward because it itself is the reward.

As for the blowing up bit.. I think there is a logic that dictates each person's fate because their fate is tied to every action they make. The quality of each action determines the quality of their fate. (possibly a description of karma)

 

[JoeDawg]

Point being that it is not a thought process that justifys or qualifies the Golden Rule.

Actually, my point was that this is what is wrong with the rule. It can be used by a person in any emotional state and then have completely opposite results from one person to the next.

Without thinking, the end result is as random as an emotion, ie chaotic.

As for the blowing up bit.. I think there is a logic that dictates each person's fate because their fate is tied to every action they make. The quality of each action determines the quality of their fate. (possibly a description of karma)

Which is just more emotional rhetoric based on wishful thinking, rather than actual observed phenomena.

 

[Doc Al]

Golden Rule: Treat other people the same way you wish to be treated.
Platinum Rule: Make it better than it was before you got there, but not because you are waiting for return.

I always heard the "Platinum Rule" as: Treat others the way they want to be treated.

 

[JoeDawg]

I always heard the "Platinum Rule" as: Treat others the way they want to be treated.

Anyone can make up a rule... but if you want something that is really useful, look into 'game theory', specifically the 'prisoner's dilemma', and 'tit for tat' strategy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_Tat

When it comes to social interaction its a very solid strategy and it provides a thoughtful explanation for the origins of these sorts of rules without resorting to subjective emotionalism.

 

[baywax]

Which is just more emotional rhetoric based on wishful thinking, rather than actual observed phenomena.

Yes, no polls or blind or placebo studies done on this behavior. Just my observation.

I'm not sure the Golden Rule is described by "tit for tat". Tit for tat involves repayment of debt which is a form of cooperation etc... a natural sequence akin to reciprocol altruism. The Golden Rule, which as you say anyone could have made up and it is thought that Confusius did so, is comprised of a skill set of empathy, compassion and understanding and demands that these skills be learned before the "rule" can be implemented.

The Rule steps away from the naturally selected quality of "tit for tat" and relies heavily on the ability and complexity of a citizen's well evolved neuronal development. The Rule will not work in an uneducated society and this is why we don't see much evidence of it in certain areas of North American civilization.

Tit for tat is fine for algae, lichen and primal forms of life like that but applied to large numbers of people spread over large areas, there is a tendency for people to just take what they want and move... or even... throw a "tea party" and break tradition. A rule that teaches empathy (if you know what that is) is a seed that lends itself toward self-governance in each and every individual. Wishful thinking or not, universal education is the only way toward a utopian society.

 

[JoeDawg]

.
I'm not sure the Golden Rule is described by "tit for tat". Tit for tat involves repayment of debt which is a form of cooperation etc

No, it does not. Tit for tat's default move, its starting point, is always cooperation. Its only after a betrayal that it self-modifies and then only as long as the betrayals continue. One on one, a betrayer always wins more, because tit for tat always forgives previous bad behavior when good behavior is present. The initial move repays nothing, and tit for tat doesn't seek to 'pay back' bad behaviour. There is no 'debt' model in tit for tat.

The golden rule derives from an understanding of how that initial move leads to cooperation, increased benefit for all.

Rules are based on observation, a good rule is something that describes and addresses a pattern, something already present. It is a description of how things work. Gravitation describes a pattern of behavior, one we then apply to new things.

We apply 'golden' rules because they benefit us, even if we don't understand why, or think to attribute the rule to the supernatural, gods, karma etc... The golden rule is no different in this sense, it simply describes the basis of a winning strategy, one that derives from the strategy of 'tit for tat'. Its not the only strategy, you don't have to use it or even all the time, but it is the most successful one, long term. Those looking for short-term gain... also benefit from the rule being used by others. They can take advantage of them, at least some of the time. One can still benefit in the prisoners dilemma by always betraying, just not as much as with tit for tat, and tit for tat only works successfully within integrated groups over the long term, as with social animals or people interested in building communities, religious or otherwise.

Altruism and self-interest are not simple opposites, they both are aspects of the same continuum of behavior and influence each other. If you insist on emotional conceptualizations, the two operate in dynamic opposition, as in: yin and yang.

 

[baywax]

If you insist on emotional conceptualizations,

Please provide an example of "my" "emotional conceptualizations".

 

[JoeDawg]

Please provide an example of "my" "emotional conceptualizations".

You seem earnest in what you are saying, like a preacher, as opposed to analyzing the arguments.

fate, karma, utopia, empathy... these are not empirical words, they are words people use when they have strong feelings about something.

You also made a sweeping unsupported generalization about the effect of education.

And the golden rule is simple for a reason, its designed specifically to be understood by people without a lot of education. Its not a complicated philosophical statement, its the equivalent of a TV sound-bite.

 

[baywax]

You seem earnest in what you are saying, like a preacher, as opposed to analyzing the arguments.

First off, I'm not saying anything, I'm writing. How you interpret my writing is determined by your experience with certain words. Arguments? I haven't seen an argument here, only discussion. Your experience in life may have caused you to interpret discussion as argument but, that's as far as your interpretation goes.

fate, karma, utopia, empathy... these are not empirical words, they are words people use when they have strong feelings about something.

This is a philosophy thread in a the philosophy section. Fate is another word for outcome. I questioned using the word but when you're being too redonkulous about decorum in a philosophy disscussion it can be experdeepassperating! Having strong feelings about something is the motivation behind many of the empirical and humanistic endevors in history.

When I said that the quality of a person's actions determines the quality of their fate... it should be obvious to you that this describes the natural sequence of events for all things, living or not. Do you have an empirical term for "quality"?

You also made a sweeping unsupported generalization about the effect of education.

Like I pointed out, this is philosophy. Philosophy is a study of individual modes of living. Sometimes these modes apply to many people, sometimes not. If you would like supporting evidence for my opinions, just ask for them and I'll see what I can do for you, as I would have you do for me (Golden Rule)

And the golden rule is simple for a reason, its designed specifically to be understood by people without a lot of education. Its not a complicated philosophical statement, its the equivalent of a TV sound-bite.

You base your conclusions on what? Do you have any empirical evidence to support these statements?

 

[JoeDawg]

First off, I'm not saying anything,

No, you're not. On this we agree.

 

[baywax]

No, you're not. On this we agree.

That's a pretty emotional response for someone who demands empiricism.

Ivan mentioned how we have to "approximate" the condition that someone other than ourselves is experiencing. That takes empathy. Empathy attains a greater and greater degree of accuracy with education. The kind of education I'm talking about is empirical in terms of accurate accounts of biology, physics, neuropsychology, social studies... etc... coupled with life experience. Accurate empathic approximations don't just happen out of the blue. It demands training if not by way of example then by study and much introspection.

 

[turbo]

To the OP: The Golden Rule asks that we treat others as we would want to be treated. That is the basis for ethics, and it is the most nasty point of contention between a certain prominent ME prophet and the "rule of law" that governed the society in which he was raised. There is NO implied personal pay-back from this ethical behavior, other than the improvement in the peace and fairness of our societies. I happen to subscribe to this rule without coercion from any religious/philosophical pressures. When I do good things for people, I feel better about myself, and when some of them want to "get me back" with a favor in return, it makes me feel great about them and we bond a little tighter.

 

[JoeDawg]

That's a pretty emotional response for someone who demands empiricism.

Emotional? If you say so. Is boredom an emotion?

 

[JoeDawg]

To the OP: The Golden Rule asks that we treat others as we would want to be treated. That is the basis for ethics, and it is the most nasty point of contention between a certain prominent ME prophet and the "rule of law" that governed the society in which he was raised. There is NO implied personal pay-back from this ethical behavior, other than the improvement in the peace and fairness of our societies.

Which benefits the individual in society, ie its easier for me to focus on procreating if someone is not trying to kill me for my shoes.

The golden rule just codifies something, that as social animals, has been with us quite a long time.

 

[baywax]

Emotional? If you say so. Is boredom an emotion?

Welcome back :zzz:... you say "codifies" (makes it fishy?) I say identifies (something to do with teeth)

{edit}Lets identify what empathy is because it appears to me to be a major root of the Golden Rule.

I had a class for two years that emphasized getting to know empathy. It is not an emotional response. It is a measured response to stimulus. It is an exciting thing... and not boring at all... once you understand what it means.

The funny thing about empathy is that you can apply it to non-living things. Take music, line, form, light, dark, imagery in general... for example.

edit2)

Empathy

1. Identification with and understanding of another's situation, feelings, and motives.

2. The attribution of one's own feelings to an object.

http://www.answers.com/topic/empathy?cat=health

With number 1 we begin to see the mechanism involved with gathering an empathetic stance with regard to another person's situation.

The best way to do this is, of course, by having experienced the situation being experienced by the other person. If, by chance, this is not in our experience then we definitely need the tools to make an intellectual approximation of their situation so that we may ascertain a "feeling" for what it is they are experiencing. This, I believe, is the basis for the Golden Rule and the only way for it to act as an efficient social "adhesive". Tune in next time for another boring lecture on deriving empathy from and exploring one's responses to objects, sounds and motion.

 

[JoeDawg]

Welcome back :zzz:... you say "codifies" (makes it fishy?) I say identifies (something to do with teeth)

Codify, to write down, as in a law or rule. It affirms that some practice is desirable. Boring is in the eye of the beholder.

The funny thing about empathy is that you can apply it to non-living things. Take music, line, form, light, dark, imagery in general... for example.

Which would be an over-application or misapplication of empathy. A side effect of our large brains, nothing more.

The best way to do this is, of course, by having experienced the situation being experienced by the other person.

Maybe but you cannot learn empathy, you either have it, some degree of it, or you are a sociopath. You don't need the golden rule to have empathy, although experience may help one empathize more with any specific situation.

The golden rule only reaffirms that empathy is valued by the society that values the golden rule. It doesn't create empathy.

 

[baywax]

The golden rule only reaffirms that empathy is valued by the society that values the golden rule. It doesn't create empathy.

Boring is as boring does. No one is forcing you to read or participate here.

The example set by a society that values empathy and any favorable results ceated by that value and practice will create an interest and the application of empathy in the members of the society and any proximal societies observing the favorable results achieved. This is something you can research on your own by googling "learning by example" or "creating empathy".

edit) Empathy requires sensory input. Usually its visual but aural and tactile information is also useful in attaining an understanding of one's subject. This is why empathy can apply to visual stimulus and why empathy is applied to understanding the effects of certain uplifting or downturning lines, how different forms affect the psyche and how various motions affect the mood of the observer. Having some knowledge about the empathic effects of these and other stimuli is a founding basis of effective marketing and of effective teaching at all levels of education. Some excercises have been established to strengthen this kind of empathic activity if anyone wishes to look them up or ask me about them.

 

[JoeDawg]

Boring is as boring does. No one is forcing you to read or participate here.

Empathy is not created by the golden rule. You either have the ability or not. Whether one can empathize in a certain situation depends on both the completely natural level, or presence, of that ability and on one's experience with the situation.

Having rules is about giving people direction, assuming they are interested, and capable of taking that direction.

Repeating myself is boring. So you're right, time to stop.

 

[baywax]

Empathy is not created by the golden rule. You either have the ability or not. Whether one can empathize in a certain situation depends on both the completely natural level, or presence, of that ability and on one's experience with the situation.

Having rules is about giving people direction, assuming they are interested, and capable of taking that direction.

Repeating myself is boring. So you're right, time to stop.

Lets say that empathy is related to or rooted in the altruistic genetic instinct that I cover in the thread "altruism". If this were to be proven true then in every living thing, including humans, there would be shown to be a high potential for empathy.

That doesn't mean it is exhibited automatically. For instance, new born birds don't learn how to use their hunting instincts nor do the cubs of a lion until given examples of that sort of behavior. Then, through learning by example and excercising responses, they learn how to hunt on their own. Similarily, empathy would only be attainable by learning how to excercise the trait through learning by example and practice.

 

[JoeDawg]

That doesn't mean it is exhibited automatically. For instance, new born birds don't learn how to use their hunting instincts nor do the cubs of a lion until given examples of that sort of behavior.

When a situation presents itself where the instinct applies... you act instinctively. You might learn how to suppress an instinctive behaviour, but its there whether it ever needs to be used or not.

Hunting techniques may be learned, if its learned, its not instinctive, by definition. Humans have instincts to verbalize their feelings, they cry, but if a baby is deaf, it never learns to talk... language is a technique, not an instinct.

You seem to be conflating learned behaviour with instinct. They are not the same.

Rules are ways to control larger groups of people. As social animals our instincts have evolved to deal with small familial/tribal groups. As societies grow, its important to reaffirm that what is instinctive for small groups should be applied to the greater group.

Sometimes our instincts mislead us and we not only treat other people in our group with empathy but inanimate objects as well... this is where idol worship and religion come into play. Its an instinctive feedback loop.

 

[baywax]

When a situation presents itself where the instinct applies... you act instinctively. You might learn how to suppress an instinctive behaviour, but its there whether it ever needs to be used or not.

Hunting techniques may be learned, if its learned, its not instinctive, by definition. Humans have instincts to verbalize their feelings, they cry, but if a baby is deaf, it never learns to talk... language is a technique, not an instinct.

You seem to be conflating learned behaviour with instinct. They are not the same.

Rules are ways to control larger groups of people. As social animals our instincts have evolved to deal with small familial/tribal groups. As societies grow, its important to reaffirm that what is instinctive for small groups should be applied to the greater group.

Sometimes our instincts mislead us and we not only treat other people in our group with empathy but inanimate objects as well... this is where idol worship and religion come into play. Its an instinctive feedback loop.

The hunting instinct is one of the most basic instincts of mankind.

http://hunting.about.com/library/weekly/aa022899.htm
Q

Cats raised by there mothers hunt small rodents, insects, and other creatures. cats raised in isolation from other cats generally do not hunt these things. Do you think hunting in cats is learned or instinctual? WHy?

A1

It is incorrect to oppose instinct to learning. Hunting is " an instinct to acquire an art ". As above, in the first answer, getting food for an obligate carnivore must be instinctual, as it is in you. What food and how to take it is what can be called " learned ", though you could have a lively discussion on what constitutes learning.

A2

The hunting ability of cats is both instinctual and learned.

Kittens are born with a natural hunting instinct, but if the mother cat is on hand to teach her kittens the necessary skills, they will be able to become more proficient hunters. A cat's hunting ability and enthusiasm depends primarily on instinct and on whether its mother taught it to hunt.

http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index.php?qid=20070713190313AAqd6Se

It appears that you have an instinct to oppose pretty well everything I write about. Yet what you write is only instinctual and lacks in research, study and learning (and empathy) .

 

[gabee]

The Platinum Rule sounds oddly like the most basic of our laboratory rules.

 

[JoeDawg]

http://hunting.about.com/library/weekly/aa022899.htm

I guess its your reading comprehension skills that are to blame here, because I never said there wasn't an instinct to hunt.

An instinct to hunt however CANNOT BE LEARNED. You either have an instinct or not. Hunting technique can be learned. You don't seem to understand the difference, even though, ironically one of your quotes says just that.

Either that or you're just trolling. I should know better by now.

 

[baywax]

I guess its your reading comprehension skills that are to blame here, because I never said there wasn't an instinct to hunt.

An instinct to hunt however CANNOT BE LEARNED. You either have an instinct or not. Hunting technique can be learned. You don't seem to understand the difference, even though, ironically one of your quotes says just that.

Either that or you're just trolling. I should know better by now.

Here's what you wrote

Hunting techniques may be learned, if its learned, its not instinctive, by definition.

You're pitting instinct against learned behavior when they actually support each other.

So, you might now agree that empathy, if proven to be part of the altruistic instinct, can be taught? The tendency is present but honing the skill is necessary. Just like hunting.
How about this as a rule?

Treat others the way they treat you.

The way a person treats you is probably the best indicator of how they want to be treated.

What would this rule be called? The wooden rule? The brass rule? The dirt rule? or what?

OR

Treat others the way they treat others. This is another indicator of what they want out of a relationship.

So when I see someone whacking the crap out of an old lady, guess how I'm going to treat them?

 

[fresnelspot]

I know another golden rule :
"the one who keeps gold , he rules "

 

[Tattva]

Hello evervybody.

Actually, I think non of these rules is good enough for this "new era" we are getting into. You have proved both to be incomplete.

I think that the main problem is to believe that the individual is "mature" enough as to determine what is good and what is bad (for golden rule), or else what is better (for platinum rule).

But we must think about this: may be the individual must be good enough himself, before he can discern good for others.

So what I propose is this:

The individual must find himself, be true to his uniqueness and personality, before trying to do any good to others. Being truly "himself", I think, is the only way to become an ethic person.

I am a psicologist, so I point out the personal, psicological aspect. You must all know that we don´t know ourselves totally. It is hard to explain, but you must know something about "unconscious" and its role in our mind. So a good ethics start by the conscience of the individual, his self-knowledge.

What you think about this?

 

[Quatl]

I always thought that the golden rule was intended to make us think about empathy. If I don't like being "done unto" in a certain way, then it's reasonable that others wouldn't appreciate it much either (to the extent that people are similar anyway.) I don't think it was meant to be read as a command of action, rather as a command of how to think about the results of your actions. That is "consider how your actions affect other people."

Another way to think about it is as a statement about justice. If it is appropriate for you to do a thing to the other guy, then it's moral for him to respond in kind. So you should be careful about how you set the rules. By killing a person and taking their sandwich, you imply that this is allowed under the rules.

"Leave things better than you found them" is a good thing to do too, however the golden rule should still mediate this. As several folks above have said "beterness" is always subjective. To use another cliche "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Many a war has started because the sides disagreed on "beterness."

 

[Moridin]

Many a war has started because the sides disagreed on "beterness."

Poor argument. The same goes for the golden rule if applied in such way.

 

[Quatl]

Poor argument. The same goes for the golden rule if applied in such way.

Of course it does. The golden rule does not try to prevent unpleasantness, rather it tries to restrict unpleasantness to "just" grounds only. Self defense is an example of this. "If you try to kill me I'll kill you" vs "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" I don't see inconstancy here.

The difference i was trying to show though is that a person must determine "betterness" subjectively. The golden rule, if interpreted as a statement about just expectations isn't subjective.

I don't think I said that the golden rule was better. The golden rule in my opinion doesn't imply a value assessment at all. I don't think that the p-rule and g-rule relate to the same thing at all.

 

[JoeDawg]

The difference i was trying to show though is that a person must determine "betterness" subjectively. The golden rule, if interpreted as a statement about just expectations isn't subjective.

Its just as subjective. What I want for myself is invariably different from what others want for themselves. There may be many cases where we all want the same things for ourselves, but that doesn't make it less subjective.

What would make it 'less subjective' is asking the other person what they want, but that's just 'less', since even asking means we're going to interpret their response.