Is the Golden Rule a Relative Moral Law?

[DB]

as stated in the Bible, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" or simply "Treat others as you want to be treated." is the golden rule.

But since the way you wish to be treated is you're choice, would that make "Treat others as you want to be treated." a relative law?
Can't one conform to the golden rule by simply having his or her own feelings?

From wikipedia:"a criminal might argue before a judge that since the judge would not want himself to be sent to prison by anyone, the judge would violate the golden rule by sending other people, such as the criminal, to prison."

With no offense to anyone, my opinion is that moral relativism is nonsense and self-contradicting. The golden rule is seeming to me to be meaningless in an absolutist's perspective.

what do u guys think?

 

[DB]

maybe i should say that the golden rule is not a law, just a rule, forgive me.

 

[sameandnot]

From wikipedia:"a criminal might argue before a judge that since the judge would not want himself to be sent to prison by anyone, the judge would violate the golden rule by sending other people, such as the criminal, to prison."

this may be a strong argument, db. but really, in this capitalist, "get rich or die tryin'", "time is money", and "screw the planet and people, so long as i get paid" world that we have made for ourselves, when has the wisdom of such a remark ever been deeply explored and passed onto children and people as a Real value? it seems that almost no one really cares about another persons experience, unless it also affects them directly.

shouldn't the "golden rule" then be the highest value? the one which is the central "pivot" of all human endeavors? the hinge of all human understanding? wisdom comes at a price. you got to give up your self/selfish desires to It, in order to be endowed with wisdom. we do not find this important, to begin with.

why do we imprison people? we label tham as bad, but do not sincerely make an effort to mend their abused, disjointed or broken psyche's. retaliation is surely not the cure, as it only leads to more of the same; more retaliation.

the wise are the paragons of actualization and perfection. since the judges are not necessarily wise (furthermore, usually are not wise), and we are not a wise society, it is obvious that many people would condemn the judge for agreeing with the man.

the only Real Teacher, is the paragon on Wisdom. Those that pose as teachers only act on emotion and flawed logic; they are sophists. wisdom results, when one has completely "unfolded" their mind, and thereby can see the whole of it, without contradiction or hypocrisy. to see the Reality of "reality"

everything is connected, directly. we are our environment and our environment becomes what we are. if we are polluted in mind, we will pollute the environment. the "outer" is the expression of the "inner" and vice-versa. they are the same. i am sure the prison is not the most nourishing, cultivating and healing environment that one can find oneself. "eye for an eye" got us this far... and we are on the verge of self-destruction! (in geologic and species time, that is) :)

the Real Revolution will not be a societal movement, such as socialism or communism, or any other -ism. it will occur internally, through the individuals, whom compose society, unceasing striving for self-realization or actualization. wisdom will take over from the inside and work its way to the "outer". like a microwave from the inside out... or like a philosophical enema. :)

 

[sameandnot]

marginalization is the germ that makes a society "sick". marginalization is the action of "sick" individuals; dis-ease of the mind. flaky people make flaky societies. look at our administration.. (clears throat...) weak psyche's make weak people make weak relations make weak bonds make weak groups make weak society make weak species fall apart and self-destruct. thank you db.

 

[DaveC426913]

From wikipedia:"a criminal might argue before a judge that since the judge would not want himself to be sent to prison by anyone, the judge would violate the golden rule by sending other people, such as the criminal, to prison."

Judges and lawmakers do not CHOOSE to act the way they do (in the sense of the GR). They are doing their duty as appointed by our society to enforce laws that protect people. BTW, it also *protects* the criminal from getting abused by an overzealous judge or officer - they cannot CHOOSE to do more harm than we'll allow either.

 

[sameandnot]

get wise or die tryin'... yeah.

 

[Livingod]

The golden rule states that you must treat others the way they want to be treated, because you would treat yourself the way you would like to be treated, it does not state to treat them in any specific way that you would like to be treated. Just a tip: when reading the Bible, try to think as general as possible.

"a criminal might argue before a judge that since the judge would not want himself to be sent to prison by anyone, the judge would violate the golden rule by sending other people, such as the criminal, to prison."

If one does not respect the Rule, then the Rule does not apply to them.
The criminal is not subject to the golden rule, because (s)he has violated it and thus become a criminal. So, the judge is doing nothing wrong in sending the criminal to jail.

 

[sameandnot]

Just a tip: when reading the Bible, try to think as general as possible. If one does not respect the Rule, then the Rule does not apply to them.
The criminal is not subject to the golden rule, because (s)he has violated it and thus become a criminal. So, the judge is doing nothing wrong in sending the criminal to jail.

maybe a good tip... but, no, no, no man. the rule is The rule. it applies always and everywhere or not at all. the golden rule can't become the silver rule, in place of a rule you deem to be more Golden for the circumstance. Golden is Golden, is always #1. see? there is no higher "rule", if there are to be rules at all.

 

[Livingod]

So, you're saying forgive wrongdoers?

 

[Livingod]

Well, that is what the Bible says, turn the other cheek

 

[sameandnot]

word.

One Love.

 

[Livingod]

Too bad that mentality of this country is not "God is always watching"...
So, the criminal justice system is basically the golden rule plus the little amendment: If one does not respect the Rule, then the Rule does not apply to them.

The crux of the justice system is: treat people good (the Rule, basically), and if you treat them bad, we will treat you bad.

 

[DB]

I apreciated your replies. I think because of Livingod's statement, this discussion could take a turn to meta-ethics:

The crux of the justice system is: treat people good (the Rule, basically), and if you treat them bad, we will treat you bad.

What is "good" treatement? Can we simplify the rule to "treat people good"?
The Golden (not silver) rule is "treat others as you want to be treated." My question is, isn't this rule (statement) an example of moral relativism?

The way I see it is by replacing the words "as you want to be treated" by the word "good" we have totally changed the way the rule is followed. I feel as if the rule has now gone from relative to absolute. The way you want to be treated is your preference and can also be affected (corrupted) by your unbringing. Whether the way you want to be treated is moral or immoral, you can still conform to the rule by treating people in that same way. Therefore, in my opinion the golden rule doesn't solve much in applied ethics, the rule only does any good with absolute thinking..."treat others as you want to be treated, as long as it's good (moral)."

I'm a begginer to philosophy so sorry if I made really wrong statements, its just the way I see things with my knowledge in philosophy now.

 

[mugsby]

the golden rule: he who has the gold rules.

 

[sameandnot]

mugsby has a point here. this is the tendency and the history and seemingly, will be, the future of humanity.

who will learn?

"he who reacts, is reactionary; he who transcends, is wise beyond measure."

 

[Livingod]

No doubt that you would want to be treated in a fashion that you consider good, so you must treat others in a fashion that they consider good, because that is how you would like to be treated. So I sum up the Rule into the phrase "treat others good", though the "good" I'm talking about is what they would consider good.

 

[sameandnot]

Everything's connected. you know?

 

[John_Charles_Webb]

With no offense to anyone, my opinion is that moral relativism is nonsense and self-contradicting. The golden rule is seeming to me to be meaningless in an absolutist's perspective.
what do u guys think?

The Golden Rule is a 'metaphysical' natural law.
Basically, what we dish out comes back to us, be it nice or not.
In your example it can be presumed that the person being sentenced had already violated the 'Golden Rule'.
Perhaps the judge, about to sentence the criminal, would best resort to fairness under the circumstances of the crime.
You can see the Golden Rule operating frequently. Go into a biker bar and start pushing people around!

 

[Livingod]

I think the Golden Rule should be expanded to "what goes around, comes around, so 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.' "

In that case, the judge would not be voilating the Rule, he would only be enforcing it because the crimial did something bad, so he must have something bad done to him.

P.S. Is there something like "what goes around, comes around" in the Bible? Not being christian, I don't really know.

 

[sameandnot]

isn't that really just "an eye for an eye?"

yes, there is a reference like that in the bible, jesus says, "tit for tat".

jesus, though, knew that he was not the one who judges and thereby issues tit for tat. that is held for the highest progenitor of justice.

jesus was the manifestation of the actualization of the golden rule. jesus was/is the way, to "heaven on earth".

eye for an eye, was the strict enforcement of control.
the golden rule "goes around" force and brings about control naturally, through freedom and respect and love. right?

 

[Jameson]

I interpret the phrase "do unto others as they would do unto you" a little differently than "an eye for an eye". The latter phrase is very clear in matching an action X, deemed to be bad, with a punishment as severe X. Kill someone, be killed. Steal someone, get your hand off. Of course some subjectivity is required to interpret the severity of the action, but the "eye for an eye" mentality is pretty clear nonetheless.

You could look at the Golden Rule in context of the Bible when Jesus said it, or you could simply look at the rule. Either way, it doesn't seem as concrete. Do unto others as they would do unto you? I take that other's have said as treating all people with a basic respect for human life.

Now to address an earlier example of a judge sentencing someone to jail. To say that the judge should not send a criminal to jail because of the golden rule is a fairly literal translation of the rule. I would think that if the judge treated the criminal with respect, gave him/her the chance to express him/herself as rightfully as possible in the court of law, and then made a fair judgment according to law, then that judge is following the Golden Rule.

To never punish, never scold, never reprimand anyone or anything would result in a chaotic society and would only work under ideal conditions.

Thoughts?

 

[sameandnot]

i see your intention jameson, but you have misquoted the rule. as a result, your conclusions are invalid; if we are talking about the Golden Rule, and not some variation of it, then your conclusions are false.

"Whatsoever ye would that men do unto you, do you even so unto them" (Matthew 7:12)

perhaps in clearer english: whatever you would have men do unto you, do the same unto them.

of course, the original proclamation is such for a reason, and not merely a matter of syntax.

thus, the golden rule stands. it is the way.

 

[Jameson]

Thank you for your response.

I don't see your explanation of the Golden Rule as something contradictory to my interpretation. It doesn't say "if a man does X action to you, do X action back." That would be taking it out of context. We can debate the origin of the intentions of the Biblical verse, but that doesn't interest me as much as the validity of the concept of an eye for an eye or treating others as you would want to be treated.

 

[sameandnot]

you are welcome.
very well. we must examine one aspect which is of absolute necessity in this topic: namely, the idea that "the ends justifies the means"

you will agree that this is fundamentally important.
do the "means" lead to the desired "end," in this case?

we will have to look to an equivalent example of "eye for an eye" which is: peace is acheived through war.

you may already see, if you are very perceptive, where i am going with this.

conflict, as is apparently clear, leads to further conflict; conflict breeds conflict. peace is never achieved.

so, i will jump to a further point, which is: the means and the end are the same, essentially.

if we are to achieve a state of mutual respect, understanding, compassion, peace, freedom and love, then the means must be understanding, peace, freedom and love.

so, the golden rule is equivalent to the latter and "an eye for an eye" is equivalen to the former (conflict breeding conflict; unrest.

we bring about peace and order through the institutions of respect and love for the "other" as one wishes for themself.

some say that this is impossible and would be "moving backward" in the present state of the world. that notion is inherent in the "eye for an eye" mentality. the only way out of the circle of conflict-->conflict, is to step outside of it and stop "feeding it." the golden rule is the means and the end of "ending the causal chain of conflict-->conflict."

this is difficult to actualize or accept, due to the deeply ingrainedness of "eye for an eye" in the historicity of world affairs.

one must transcend the circle to end it.

so, the golden rule is both the means and the end.

i hope this makes sense, words are often difficult and elude me, but the understanding is present, and i hope that it can be extracted from this short and fragmented discourse.

 

[Livingod]

Wait a second,

"Whatsoever ye would that men do unto you, do you even so unto them" (Matthew 7:12)

It does not say, "do unto others as you would have others do unto you" it says, "do unto others as others would do unto you" In that case if others steal from you, you steal back. An eye for an eye. And so the judge is only aiding the victim in doing something the victim cannot, bringing the criminal to justice, which the victim is permitted to do.

 

[sameandnot]

how, exactly, does "turn the other cheek" apply here, then?

 

[Livingod]

you only have two cheeks, so it is like a two-strike system: If someone hits you once, strike one, warn them and "turn the other cheek", if they do it again, strike two, then hit them back.

 

[sameandnot]

the golden rule is not a game. it is not baseball rules. i mean, it's a good try, but are we, then, to say that baseball rules are higher than the golden rule, cause they get 3 strikes?

ya know?

i think that "turn the other cheek" is a metaphor for what we might called, "stepping out of the circle"; the cycle of conflict. to act from peace and love rather than retaliation. jesus would most surely say that god is the one who issues justice and punishment, and that he is here only to love god through loving His creation, no matter what.

 

[emrandel]

as stated in the Bible, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" or simply "Treat others as you want to be treated." is the golden rule.
But since the way you wish to be treated is you're choice, would that make "Treat others as you want to be treated." a relative law?
Can't one conform to the golden rule by simply having his or her own feelings?
From wikipedia:"a criminal might argue before a judge that since the judge would not want himself to be sent to prison by anyone, the judge would violate the golden rule by sending other people, such as the criminal, to prison."
With no offense to anyone, my opinion is that moral relativism is nonsense and self-contradicting. The golden rule is seeming to me to be meaningless in an absolutist's perspective.
what do u guys think?

Well, I would have to agree. I'd be interested in hearing anyone justify them disagreeing with what you've said. The "Golden Rule" is just a children's tale used to justify bull**** ideas that make no sense if proper thought is put to it.

 

[sameandnot]

if we really understood the nature of cause-effect, especially in relation to conflict, then we might understand the golden rule.

conflict breeds conflict.. war breeds war.. hate breeds hate.

these are cycles. peace is the end of war, the end of conflict, the end of hate.

this can only be acheived by transcending the cause of conflict, war and hate. so really, we must find out the source of conflict, war and hate.

until we know the source, we can no longer discuss this issue. so who thinks that they know the source? and can therefore identify the way out of the cycle. first, one side's up and the other's down... then, through revolution, the lower is now the higher and the higher the lower. here comes another revolution... these cycles go round and round, by the nature of duality. what is duality? (perhaps is the place to begin).

 

[Jameson]

This thread has kind of wandered off into much bigger and broader topics, which is fine with me :), but the original post of this thread was on "The Golden Rule as Relative Law".

if we really understood the nature of cause-effect, especially in relation to conflict, then we might understand the golden rule.

You are stating that the universe is one of casuality, which is not completely accepted and debatable. I don't really understand your point on locating the source of "hate". This sounds very Biblical personifying ideas like "love" and "hate" as entities. Could you explain more perhaps?

Well, I would have to agree. I'd be interested in hearing anyone justify them disagreeing with what you've said. The "Golden Rule" is just a children's tale used to justify bull**** ideas that make no sense if proper thought is put to it.

Why do you call the Golden Rule bull****? Do you see no validy in treating others in the same manner that you wish to be treated?

 

[DB]

The source of conflict, war and hate? First, I don't think war can be so easily associated with hate, because wars are caused mostly by conflict and selfishness. Either way, would you agree that conflict leads to war, as well conflict may lead to hate?

If so, the we are looking for the source of conflict. Which
I believe is the lack of virtue and rational thought within gouvernments, societies and people. The virtue of justice is the perfect moderation between selflessness and selfishness. If everyone possessed this virtue (which I believe is only possible, if possible, with wisdom, temperance and courage) then it is possible that all conflicts could be resolved. But this is not likely. Nor is it likely that the virtue be attainable. But, I believe the virtue's existence (if you believe it) could be looked at as a perfect example of the ability to resolve all conflicts, as well motivation to oneself in being a just person.

 

[DB]

Why do you call the Golden Rule bull****? Do you see no validy in treating others in the same manner that you wish to be treated?

I do, BUT, the way you wish to be treated is your wish, and your wish alone. Ill agree that most people would like to be treated in a good and just manner, but, what is "good" and what is "just" is no longer absolute if you use one single person's opinion of the two. Do you see what I'm saying?

What I believe is good and just treatment, may not be what you believe is good and just treatment. The death penalty for example. Are you for it or against it? (rhetorical) But who's opinion is valid? Who is right? What is correct justice? The Golden Rule doesn't solve our dillema...

 

[sameandnot]

of course, every question, that is asked, will have "tangent questions" that arise with the purpose of clarifying an idea/concept, which is not already examined and sufficiently clear or stated or understood, in the original question.

more often than not, we argue over claims or questions without sufficient clarity about what it is that we are arguing about (the concepts/ideas). we do this by assuming a shared understanding about the particular concepts/ideas, and, in doing so, we fail to communicate effectively, and rarely make progress.

for example:
is the golden rule a relative rule?
|
|
what is the golden rule?
|
|
"Whatsoever ye would that men do unto you, do you even so unto them" (Matthew 7:12)
|
|
what does this really say? (this may go on for some time)
|
|
how is it that this rule is considered "golden"?
|
|
why is it considered "golden"?
|
|
(etcetera.)

this is only a very crude map of he question. we can assume that even the few tangent questions here, upon answering, would yield further questions about the answer (what is the "answer," or proposed answer, really saying?)

surely, we can consider this map "un-folding" quite vastly.
it is entirely possible that such a question yields an infinity of tangents... in a similar fashion as fractals, perhaps; yielding more and more questions of self-similar characteristics of the initial question.

this makes Answering any question very difficult, unless we can reach an understanding, from which, to base our examination upon. we must first, all, accept some primal propositions, in order to continue talking about the "problem" meaningfully.

if it is so that the question "fractals" into an infinity, it is very possible that all questions run into every other question at some point. it is then possible that all "questions/problems" are really only One "question/problem", which, upon understanding and dealing with, we can, by association, "deal with/answer" all problems.

this is very "far-out," and i am now considering forming my thesis upon this issue.

so in answer of your question: we are off topic, from the original question, but are we Really off-topic? or are we developing the topic (unfolding reason) in the only meaningful way?

 

[sameandnot]

it is important to note that all tangent question will have tanent questions, which branch out in all directions. i guess all questions in this sense would have do be 3 dimensional fractals.

 

[sameandnot]

If so, the we are looking for the source of conflict. Which
I believe is the lack of virtue and rational thought within gouvernments, societies and people. The virtue of justice is the perfect moderation between selflessness and selfishness. If everyone possessed this virtue (which I believe is only possible, if possible, with wisdom, temperance and courage) then it is possible that all conflicts could be resolved. But this is not likely. Nor is it likely that the virtue be attainable. But, I believe the virtue's existence (if you believe it) could be looked at as a perfect example of the ability to resolve all conflicts, as well motivation to oneself in being a just person.

then we must ask: what is the source of irrationality and lack of virtue?
why do people act irrationally and without virtue?

 

[sameandnot]

it appears that conflict often arises between two-sides. not only that, but it appears to arise where there is the mentality of concernedness, by those whom compose one-side, for only those who share the same side; they, then are "set against" the other side. possibly...(usually), for individual/personal gain (of any and every kind).

"if you're not with us, you're against us."

we are almost forced to choose conflict, when raised in a place where this mentality is present.

so, retaliation and conflict seem to go hand-in-hand.

 

[Livingod]

What I believe is good and just treatment, may not be what you believe is good and just treatment. The death penalty for example. Are you for it or against it? (rhetorical) But who's opinion is valid? Who is right? What is correct justice? The Golden Rule doesn't solve our dillema...

Well, that is our quest as humans. What is the point of any religion? to find the absolute truth. If you know the absolute truth of the universe, or if you at least know the right way people are to be treated, then it does not matter what they think, because if they don't approve, then they are wrong. But, if you are wrong, well, you won't know that you are wrong, but you are going to hell anyway so you don't matter.

Now that I reread my post, it seems... what's a good adjective to describe that last paragraph.

 

[DB]

then we must ask: what is the source of irrationality and lack of virtue?
why do people act irrationally and without virtue?

Here's the unfolding you mentioned:

You ask what is the source of conflict, I say the lack of virtue and rationality. You then ask, what is the source of lack of virtue and irrational thought?

I do believe that this is the only meaningfull way to answer the tough questions in life, at least to attempt to answer.

So, what is the source of lack of virtue and irrational thought? I can only ask more questions...

What is human nature? Why are we selfish? Are we corrupted? Spoiled? If so, what is it to be pure? Why do we want more then what we need?

 

[sameandnot]

What is human nature? Why are we selfish? Are we corrupted? Spoiled? If so, what is it to be pure? Why do we want more then what we need?

db, i have written several responses to you, for this post alone. this has been exceedingly difficult, on me, and i have become greatly troubled as a result of this endeavor, as i will attempt to show, now.

•it appears i may have over-looked an aspect of the search.•
i asked about the source of irrationality and lack of virtue without asking what they were. we do not have a sufficent definition for "virtue" or "irrationality".

i had applied a definition of "virtue", here, and of course that raised more questions. namely: what is "goodness" or "good"... this led to more questions. concerning "value", primarily.

certainly, if there is absolute "objective/conceptual" truth to be known and proven, this is the only way of discerning it; of this i have no doubts. but, upon the grounds, of the nature of this examination, i have doubts about this methods ability to bring about "objective truth". i will be unable to offer further insight into this endeavor, for at least some time, and will retire from this topic for a while, and engage myself in meditation and work.

i can only offer one suggestion, for now: that you find the way to punch through the fractal and arrive at the other side, where you can see the meaning of this very endeavor, in its wholeness and totality.

shoot for The Source with one-pointed determination.

this is all that i can say, for now.

 

[Dawguard]

It is easy to take the Golden Rule at face value, but like everything else in this world we must strive past the first galnce to truly understand it. How would you want to be treated? Does it really matter? You must see past the immedieate action you might desire and see the purpose that drives it. This is the cause of our actions, and it is that to which the rule must be applied or it is worthless. Thus it is the intentions of the acter, i.e. the person trying to please you, that matter for him. The rule is the exact same regardless of the person, and it is the actions that the rule creates that change.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry I missed this before and sorry if I'm coming in late, but I think this is a good question...

as stated in the Bible, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" or simply "Treat others as you want to be treated." is the golden rule.
But since the way you wish to be treated is you're choice, would that make "Treat others as you want to be treated." a relative law?
Can't one conform to the golden rule by simply having his or her own feelings?

Actually, I think the golden rule can be used as a basis for logic-based moral absolutism. (yes, I'll explain...)

From wikipedia:"a criminal might argue before a judge that since the judge would not want himself to be sent to prison by anyone, the judge would violate the golden rule by sending other people, such as the criminal, to prison."

That scenario ignores the fact that the criminal has already violated the golden rule and the judge only sends criminals to prison. The judge is simply fulfilling the second half of the golden rule by making the criminal's actions have consequences. So there is no violation of the golden rule by the judge.

With no offense to anyone, my opinion is that moral relativism is nonsense and self-contradicting. The golden rule is seeming to me to be meaningless in an absolutist's perspective.

I agree that relativism is nonsensical and self-contradictory, but let me lay out my case for the golden rule as a logical basis for moral absolutism...

First and foremost, we need to start with a definition of what morality is, or rather, what a moral society should look like. I define a morality's impact on society according to stability, prosperity, peace, and happiness. So a moral society would be one who'se morality causes these things while an immoral society's morality causes the opposite.

Now, the application of the Golden Rule has an obvious impact on how I define happiness. Two gang leaders who'se application of the golden rule means murder and retribution to the opposing gang are clearly misusing the golden rule to create death, destruction, chaos, etc. But two neighbors lending each other a helping hand - say, giving a jump when the other's car battery dies, or borrowing each other's tools - obviously has a positive impact on society.

So this implies a test of an application of the Golden Rule. Take any action and ask the question: Does this action, if taken by everyone, positively or negatively impact society?

This question is, in fact, the test for rational moral absolutism. As a matter of fact, the golden rule itself is almost the definition of an absolute moral principle: ie, for a principle to be absolute, it must be possible to apply it universally - and that's what the golden rule does, it forces you to consider the consequences of applying your rule universally.

 

[DB]

That scenario ignores the fact that the criminal has already violated the golden rule...

In what way has he violated it? Most, probably the criminal would like to be treated with respect, goodness and justice. But what does he know about respect, goodness and justice? Does he know exactly as much as the judge? The jury? Anyone? How can the way you want to be treated be universal? How can your perception of good treatment be universal?

Sure, the criminal must pay the price of prison time, but the Golden Rule says nothing about that. Especially in the literal sense.

"an eye for an eye" would fit much better.

First and foremost, we need to start with a definition of what morality is, or rather, what a moral society should look like. I define a morality's impact on society according to stability, prosperity, peace, and happiness. So a moral society would be one who'se morality causes these things while an immoral society's morality causes the opposite.

In a teleological sense, yes. But what is society's purpose, what are its goals? How do you know they are to be stable, peaceful and prosper, and to keep everyone happy. I am not going to disagree with you (you did say that "I" define morality's impact...), I do agree, but we can never be sure. The Golden Rule doesn't gives us any certainty. It doesn't indicate how society should be.

What makes you happy? Is it the same as what makes me happy? What made Ed Gein happy? Is what makes Ed Gein happy not the oposite of what makes us happy? Sure it is, we are not cannibals. But whose definition of happiness is more valid? Do we not need an absolute standard of "happiness" to compare to? Where is this standard in the Golden Rule? It's not there. I don't think The Golden Rule gives any indication or basis for moral absolutism.

So this implies a test of an application of the Golden Rule. Take any action and ask the question: Does this action, if taken by everyone, positively or negatively impact society?

But does everyone know the answer to the question they've just asked themselves? Would you agree that selfishness may corrupt them in making the right decision? Do we all have the same amount of selfishness? Not at all. We all think differently about what would effect society in a positive way and a negative way. That's politics. After all, "I" am a part of society. I cannot say what is truly for the better of society without my selfishness corrupting my answer. And the the key word in ""Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is "you".

This question is, in fact, the test for rational moral absolutism. As a matter of fact, the golden rule itself is almost the definition of an absolute moral principle: ie, for a principle to be absolute, it must be possible to apply it universally - and that's what the golden rule does, it forces you to consider the consequences of applying your rule universally.

Sure, you can apply it anywhere to anyone. But the once it's applied, opinion and perpective are the only way of defining what is right or wrong. For example:

Imagine a world where we all lived by the Golden Rule, and only the Golden rule. Gouverments, justice systems, society etc. Suppose a thief named Daniel was on trial. The judge says, "Daniel, you violated the Golden Rule." Daniel, in his attempt to be let of the hook for his crime, simply says, "No I didn't your honor, I actually would like people to steal from me, I believe it is good treatment, I believe people enjoy owning something they didn't pay for..."

What would the judge say next? Wouldn't he have to create some absolute standard to define Daniel's action as immoral? Such a standard is nonexistent in the Golden Rule. As I read on Wikipedia, George Bernard Shaw said that "The golden rule is that there are no golden rules".

Forget the fact that the story isn't realistic. It still imply's that the Golden Rule doesn't say much about true morality. It imply's that it's based on opinion, up-bringging, and perspective. Thus is relativism.

 

[sameandnot]

i want to say one thing: jesus never intended for it, what we refer to as the "golden rule," to be implemented in government and justice systems. otherwise, he would have directed his attention to the governors and law-makers. apparently, these were not the goals that he had in mind. he was not saying that we should have society based on "the rule". his efforts were directed specifically at the people that compose society; the individuals, in individual and "everyday" relations.

we must fight the urge to try and see this as something imposed on or by government or judge, because it was never intended, according to the image of his life that we have, to be imposed on the governing structure of society, but was intended to be considered, for implementation, in indivdual subjects, governing their individual lives.

i think that he was targeting the constituants of society; the individual people and their relationships with each other, right now. not in any abstract sense, but in a very real and immediate sense; to be actualized by "me", right here and now. not to worry about government or justice systems, abstractly, but how i govern myself and how i am in relation to acting justly.

i would like to add that, society is the reflection of the individuals that compose it. the individual is society. we the individuals to regard "the rule" and act accordingly, in time, the situations, that we refer to, in the institutions of judgment or government, would be fundamentally altered. that is to say, life would be different if people just started living by the "rule", and stepped outside of selfishness, in the face of "the rule". courts function on "eye for an eye" because the people, as a whole, do. sufficient numbers of people acting "rightly" towards one another, would alter the nature of social situations and social environments profoundly.

imagine a world where people were giving to those in want, simply because they were want of it. say, money or respect or love... poverty would be fundamentally changed and so would social separation and inequality; racism; environmental issues; marginalization of certain groups; the list goes on and on.

things would be different, so we cannot, rationally, consider this "rule" imposed or extended any farther than myself and my relations with other humans... perhaps even animals. would we still have animal cruelty criminals? who could think that animals would prefer us desicrating them for human consumption and production?

in summation, this rule was given to people, for personal aquiecence and actualization, rather than governments for the purpose of governing people. the people govern themselves in there relation to other humans and the government changes accordingly.

"The Revolution will not be televised."

it will come from "within." from the people that compse society, and not those who seek to impose their will on society.

 

[sameandnot]

he was trying to save souls, i think... and not societies.

there must be some transcending and shared knowledge which people have, for their motivation to act right. the knowledge he gave them/us was of God.

God was/is the "hindge," the central "pivot," upon which society revolves. no God, it seems, and chaos, disorder and destruction. maybe there is some other pivot, so we need not apply god as it, but perhaps there is not.

the catholic church imposed their will on society and continues to. they are applying their efforts wrongly. if everyone focused on their own actions and relations then there would be no need to implement on a large-scale, a single ideology over the rest. that never works. imposing one's will on another is not what the golden rule tells us. in this way, religious people are fanatical and zealots... and finally, hypocrites and destroyers of the ideals that they proclaim to hold dear and profess accordingly.

kierkegaard said, "the last christian died on the cross."

i think he was right... or at least, metaphorically right.

 

[DB]

sameandnot, the story of Daniel was just an example to prove that the Golden Rule was based on opinon and perspective. I didn't mean to imply that it was given to us to rule our societies and prove that it's flawed.

Basically, the way I see, is that the Golden Rule is relative to any person's opinion and perspective. I was just wondering what such a rule, given to us by God, would imply about morality...relative or absolute?

 

[sameandnot]

i understand, db. i just wanted to bring that to light, specifically, cause there have been posts, mostly early on, that considered it in light of the criminal and the judge; whether or not the golden rule applied, still.

can something relative, like "treat others the way you would like to be treated" (subjective), be an absolute when practiced in a world based on relativity?

if a relative rule, namely the golden rule, is applicable in a world of relativity (things can only be judged relative to other things), can it stand as absolute, through having fulfilled the essence of relativity, by actually being instating absolute harmony between subjects and within relationships, which are founded in relativity?

is the golden rule, the most perfect relative rule?

is it true that the world, and our objective understanding of it (the relativity between "object"<->"object" and "concept"<->"concept"), is subjectively relative?

if so, then the most perfect relative rule would absolutely be in accord with the relative nature of objectivity and subjectivity?

i'm trying to reconcile these two, here... out on a limb, perhaps...
this is what we get. when we try to pay with a lack of articulation ability.

i'll work on it, and get back to you.