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.