Information icon.svg The election booth for the RationalWiki 2019 Moderator Election is now open. Cast your votes today!

Talk:Golden Rule

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

I personally prefer "Do unto others, before they do unto you."Eye Eye.jpg See You 04:06, 6 August 2007 (CDT)

I always though the golden rule was "whoever has the gold, makes the rules" argh, where are the tildes on an iPad... Sorry, noob here :(

Request to Add The Fatal Flaw of the Golden Rule on the Article[edit]

I wish to include the following information under the Problems section of the Article

The Fatal Flaw and Death of the Golden Rule[edit]

The Fatal Flaw of the Golden Rule is exposed to an individual when they realize not everyone reciprocates in kind, usually from experience. When it's proven to them the Golden Rule rewards people not following the rule while it punishes those who do by restricting them from fighting back. This leads to the abandonment or "death" of the golden rule to someone who will no longer follow it because it is rightfully viewed as broken or flawed.

When people operate under the "Treat others as you want to be treated" logic at all times, they will inevitably end up rewarding bad behavior or doing nothing against a bad person because they wouldn't want it done to them. Even worse, a victim of abuse can end up blaming themselves, asking themselves "what did they do to deserve being abused" as opposed to "what gives anyone the right to abuse you!". Add some Wishful Thinking that maybe if they started treating their abuser better they wouldn't be abused anymore as a coping mechanism and you've got all the ingredients for Stockholm Syndrome.

The solution is to instead "Treat others as they deserve to be treated". If someone is being a bully, they don't deserve to be treated like an innocent. They deserve to be treated as a bully. Your rights end where my rights begin.

It is not a far stretch to think of the Golden Rule as one of if not thee most effective tried-and-true form of crowd control. Slave Logic intended to keep the slaves submissive under their masters. To have the Have-Nots remain obedient and willing to the Haves. Where the hypocrites can abuse all they please and when called out respond with "Don't call me names, you wouldn't want to be called names. If you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything at all! Follow the Golden Rule!"

Instead of following this slave logic, use fair/master logic.

To recap:

  • Slave Logic - Treat others as you want to be treated == [BAD LOGIC]
  • Master Logic - Treat others as they deserve to be treated == [USE THIS ONE]
  • MasterOfSlaves Logic - Everyone needs to treat me as I want to be treated == [YOU ARE A BAD PERSON AND PREY ON THOSE USING SLAVE LOGIC]

Do not use MasterOfSlaves logic which is pure entitlement and commonly found in those with criminal minds and children/adults who haven't matured yet. You can only be young once but you can be immature forever!

Some additional debate:

I'm pretty sure that's because it's both wrong and dumb. A neo-Nazi may truly believe that Jewish people deserve to be murdered, and on that basis, they could choose to kill a Jewish person and remain fully within the moral framework (which would be ridiculous to any sane person). Spriggina (prat) (insatser) @ 22:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Allow me to provide a counter-example, a judge may truly believe that a person on trial deserves to be sentenced, and on that basis, they could choose to find the defendant guilty and remain fully within the moral framework.
This line of reasoning isn't getting to the crux of the matter. The logic "treats others as they deserve to be treated" isn't about belief but rather that you know (beyond a reasonable doubt) what they deserve. Be it from personal experience or hard/empirical evidence. Kinda like how Judges do things.
This logic, like the Golden Rule, is NOT a substitute for Critical Thinking. However this logic does avoid the trap of being taken advantage of those who don't follow the Golden Rule where you would be breaking the Golden Rule by fighting back.
I was inspired by GrapplingIgnorance on his video The Devil's Five Rules where the fifth rule is Reject the Golden Rule.
However his replacement logic was "treat others how they want to be treated". The user Aryador made a comment on the video exposing what is problematic with that:
"Because you see this open a can of worms: because someone can be polite(#1) and honest(#3) while also demanding that you treat them like a god when you interact with them. Not because they're actual gods but because they genuinely think that they're much better then you which may actually be true(#2). Such a person would still mind his own business by not seeking you out at all.(#4)"
"Therefore such rules would allow someone to act like a piece of shit to someone provided that they somewhat fit such a description. It do not take a rocket scientist to know for sure that such a behavior is not okay no matter how you try to spin it."
When it comes to a bully, you can choose to not fight back because it would be breaking the Golden Rule and even considered immoral. I, on the other hand, will fight back in self defense as I treat others accordingly and see nothing immoral about that.
CodeNoEvil (talk) 14:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
And who determines how someone "deserves" to be treated without simply using that as a justification to be a jackass, especially when you, a person who cannot know everything about why a given person acts as they do, are the one who decides what qualifies as "beyond a reasonable doubt"? It's a recipe for abuse and self-righteousness- your "Master Logic" will inevitably become indistinguishable from your "MasterOfSlaves Logic", whether you realize it or not. Furthermore, a judge who has already decided whether or not a person should be sentenced before the trial begins is doing the exact opposite of what their duty requires them to do (i.e. setting aside their beliefs and making a decision based on the evidence and nothing else). It's flat out prejudice- literally "pre-judging".
Also, it clearly has not occurred to you that the Golden Rule is better understood as a guideline or an ideal, and not an inflexible rule to be followed blindly at all times. So no, this little screed has no business being on the page.--Logos (talk) 15:58, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
(Hopefully) You determine how to treat someone based on everything that you know about the person. Has the person treated you good, that's nice, seems like they are a good person. Have they done things for others, wow, they helped others. etc.
Obviously a person will need to base their knowledge on that instead of prejudice belief which is not based on reason or actual experience. A good start is asking yourself what they deserve for doing X.
A judge cannot be impartial and 100% objective, they still have to make a decision on the evidence present if it is beyond a reasonable doubt or not. This too is not addressing the main issue which is the fatal flaw of the golden rule "I wouldn't want to be sentenced so I can't sentence someone without breaking the Golden Rule.".
Master Logic is about treating others accordingly, it's nothing about how you yourself should be treated, it can only be followed with no entitlement, no feeling of being owed.
You claim it's "A recipe for abuse"... I am willing to sum that logic up as Jumping to conclusions
Rules such as Zero Tolerance Policy against Violence are blindly enforced to be followed at all times regardless if you fight back in self defense, you are always to be punished even when the attacker was the one who started the fight unprovoked. I cannot help but think it's an extension of the Golden Rule.
The "Sometimes the Golden Rule shouldn't be followed" special pleading is an invalid excuse for following the rule the rest of the time and reminds me of pirates who "follow" their code when it suits them. Which means never, they do what they want and sometimes their actions fall in line with the rules.
I also noticed you resorted to attacking my intelligence.
"An ad hominem attack often is an important signal indicating that the attacker is wrong, very wrong indeed. It is nothing else than an open admission by 'the other side' that they have no more reasonable arguments, that they are resorting to unreasonable notions, and that they have lost not just the plot but also the debate. In other words, being personally attacked in this way is a compliment and an unfailing sign of victory – and, if that is so, we should be proud of every single ad hominem attack we get after a well-reasoned debate." -- Edzard Ernst, MD, PhD
CodeNoEvil (talk) 18:04, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
No one is taking this quote as seriously as you. Your trying to solve a problem that doesn't exist in reality. ☭Comrade GC☭Ministry of Praise 18:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)
  1. Perhaps that's why they failed to debate the merit of the argument and resorted to fallacious reasoning.
  2. Your opinion backed by no evidence is noted.
  3. Your lack of debating my claims is noted.
  4. Gaslighting rarely works on me. Especially propositions that stink of ignorance and fear from self projection.
  5. I am here for rational debate so try not to make general claims about things without evidence
CodeNoEvil (talk) 21:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Better in negative form?[edit]

Wouldn't it be more effective in a negative form, eg.:"Do not do unto others what you would not be done unto you". So I don't kill because I don't want to be killed, but if I wanted to be killed then the rule wouldn't be saying that I should kill others.

Well, you must also consider that others might not consent to being killed, even though the hypothetical you wants to be killed. So "do unto others as you would have done unto yourself" would imply that you should inflict consented death upon others as you would want them to inflict consented death unto you. As others decline consent, you should be respecting that. Nullahnung (talk) 14:29, 8 September 2013 (UTC)


Strictly speaking Utilitarianism is a form of collectivism especially in the original formulation of the "greatest good for the greatest number." The Golden Rule is individualistic in the sense that it puts for universality: rules and principles should be applied equally to every individual. Thus, deontology and utilitarianism, while being rival ethical approaches, aren't two competing view on the Golden Rule. The original comparison, libertarianism vs. egalitarianism, is indeed two approaches to universality and therefore two contrasting view on how the Golden Rule is implemented in society. Instead of the silly textbook examples about projecting one's tastes as a guide for universality (style, cuisine, of other minor matters) I thought a more substantial contrast that is real and important might show how the Golden Rule isn't enough. JasonP (talk) 21:03, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

For those of us who aren't acquainted with this libertarianism/egalitarianism conflict, could you explain how they provide two contrasting views on the Golden Rule? Cheers. Nullahnung (talk) 03:11, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
"Individualistic in the sense that it puts for universality: rules and principles should be applied equally to every individual" How is that exactly libertarian? Are you talking about the rule of law or economics, specifically? Osaka Sun (talk) 03:19, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Libertarian and egalitarian dispositions are two tendencies to apply moral principles universally, i.e. obey the Golden rule. The libertarian disposition focuses on process. It’s best to give examples. Everyone should be free to engage in trade; everyone can try to sell the product of his labor; everyone can speak and express themselves; 15 minutes of fame, etc. Freedom to act is seen as a “live and let live” implementation of the Golden Rule. The egalitarian disposition notes that “liberty to act” doesn’t yield equal results. Inequity is seen as a violation of the Golden rule. Everyone should have equal housing, healthcare, working hours, healthy diets, etc. Egalitarian distribution insures a “don’t want what your neighbor can’t have” type of Golden rule.

Both advocate consistent application of moral rules across society. Neither exempts themselves from these rules. Neither is a hypocrite. Both sides often see the other as being inconsistent when they fail to understand the differences in approach to rule making. And there is nothing about the universality of moral rule that tells us which disposition is correct. It is often noted that “universality isn’t enough” to yield specific moral principles. JasonP (talk) 12:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations. I would like to see what other people think of this, but personally I think if you want to write out this disparity in the article, you should put an explanation much like what you wrote here just now, to stave off confusion.
Also, I don't really understand what you are talking about with universality. I would like to note that according to our article (see "In general, many agreements are difficult to reach on what should be universal."), universality of moral rule isn't supposed to indicate correctness of disposition. Quite the other way around. Correctness of disposition is supposed to tell us what moral rule should be universal. Just to clear that up. Nullahnung (talk) 13:29, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Torah date[edit]

There's simply no extant evidence to suggest the torah texts date from as early as 3200-3500 years ago. The only evidential terminus a quo for these texts is c.167 BCE (see the works of Thomas L Thompson, Niels Lemche, Phillip Davies, Ingrid Hjelm for starters). Scherben (talk) 17:20, 22 August 2015 (UTC) Same with the Mubharratta (spelling), which was thought to be compiled in 400 CE BUT originates from texts written in 900-800 BC. In conclusion, go away.

What a splendid refutation; I bow to your superior intelligence. Or I would if I knew who had written that. Before I scrape too low, could you explain how that's relevant? (if, of course, it's correct [the mahabharata date].) Scherben (talk) 22:44, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The eloquent peasant[edit]

Is not the golden rule. The Eloquent Peasant says "do to the doer to make him do". This is the du ut des principle (I give so that I am given), not the Golden rule. There's a distinction. Also, Babylon's retributive justice (tit for tat) is not the Golden Rule either. It appears you guys distort the meaning of the rule just so as to not make Christians happy. But the text is Jewish, not Christian, so claiming it for Christianity is still absurd.

It's you again, isn't it? Did I upset a cherished belief of yours? That emotion of anger you're feeling: it's not evidence. Scherben (talk) 22:48, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The second application of Golden Rule[edit]

Criticism of this rule faces inconsistency. Why should somebody, applying this rule, while confronted to somebody else visibly (or audibly) having a different viewpoint about what is desireable and what is not, stop applying the golden rule and carry on or force unreverseable things ? Or does this person like to be done sudden, unreverseable things in the first place, or being denied his voiced conflicting desires ? The Golden Rule can be misused only by such people. I do not think rational people can like those things. And so, the criticism falls short upon second application of the golden rule: Why is "Do unto other what you would like to be done when you don't agree with what you are being done" not contained in the Golden Rule. Why don't the criticizers think of this ? They are just admitting to liking not being respected. — Unsigned, by: / talk