Golden Rule doesn't really lead to Moral or organized society

𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

Active Member
Orange Room Supporter
Golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

Let's say your Lebanese Taxi Driver Abu Hanna likes to cut other cars in his Ford أبو دعسي
But is fine having other cars also cut in front of him. As this is Lebanon and he likes the thrill.
This satisfies the golden rule "treat others as you want to be treated". But leads to a chaotic road and many people that dislike Abu Hanna and his buddies.

Let's say your Lebanese govt employee Abu Ali likes to get bribes in his position.
And he also likes to bride other Abu Alis to get his own papers done.
This satisfies the golden rule. But leads to bribery in governmental institutions.

Let's say your Lebanese neighbor Abu Omar likes men looking at his beautiful voluptuous wife.
And he also likes to look at other men's women in a lustful manner.
This satisfies the golden rule. But is a lustful and sinful act in his theistic morality.

Let's say your Lebanese friend @AtheistForJesus likes to use bots to win the forum elections.
And doesn't mind others like @lebonage botting his way to moderation.
This satisfies the golden rule. But goes against moral character.

If the counterargument is that is is ultimately harming others, and you don't want to harm others in the golden rule, as they then could harm you too in return, then that's not really true. There will be masochists who want to be harmed or people apathetic to being on the receiving end if it means they could harm others too.
 
  • Advertisement
  • The_FPMer

    The_FPMer

    Active Member
    It's implied that you need to abide by the ten commandments as well.
     
    Manifesto

    Manifesto

    Legendary Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    None of the examples you listed satisfies the golden rule of "treat others as you wish to be treated". Here's why:

    Golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

    Let's say your Lebanese Taxi Driver Abu Hanna likes to cut other cars in his Ford أبو دعسي
    But is fine having other cars also cut in front of him. As this is Lebanon and he likes the thrill.
    This satisfies the golden rule "treat others as you want to be treated". But leads to a chaotic road and many people that dislike Abu Hanna and his buddies.
    You're looking at this in a superficial way. Yes, maybe Abu Hanna doesn't mind having other cars cut in front of him, but I'm sure he doesn't like to to get hit by a reckless driver, either. This is where your argument becomes invalid.
    The golden rule is not a green light to 'consensually' engage in harmful activities. Reckless driving might lead to death. If you value your life and that of others, then you should abide by driving rules, no matter how many people share your taste for lawlessness.

    Let's say your Lebanese govt employee Abu Ali likes to get bribes in his position.
    And he also likes to bride other Abu Alis to get his own papers done.
    This satisfies the golden rule. But leads to bribery in governmental institutions.
    Again, the golden rule is not a pretext for two parties to makes deals that would benefit them at everyone else's expense.
    When Abu Alis bribe each other, they are denying law-abiding Charbels, Georges, Omars, and Makrams the right to expect honest service from their government. So there goes your second argument.


    Let's say your Lebanese neighbor Abu Omar likes men looking at his beautiful voluptuous wife.
    And he also likes to look at other men's women in a lustful manner.
    This satisfies the golden rule. But is a lustful and sinful act in his theistic morality.
    If Abu Omar likes men looking at his wife, that doesn't grant him the right to lust over other men's women without their permission.
    Now, if two people wish to engage in consensual voyeurism, then there's nothing wrong with that unless you believe extramarital sex is sinful and derive your morals your religious texts. But in theory, this does meet the golden rule of "treat others as you wish to be treated" since there's no third party involved who would get harmed as a consequence of this act.


    Let's say your Lebanese friend @AtheistForJesus likes to use bots to win the forum elections.
    And doesn't mind others like @lebonage botting his way to moderation.
    This satisfies the golden rule. But goes against moral character.
    No, it doesn't satisfy the golden rule. This, too, is an example of two people making deals at the expense of others.
    Every user deserves a chance at getting elected. Fair and free elections are a right guaranteed by Oroom.
     
    Last edited:
    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    "There will be masochists who want to be harmed or people apathetic to being on the receiving end if it means they could harm others too."
     
    eile

    eile

    Well-Known Member
    Golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

    Let's say your Lebanese Taxi Driver Abu Hanna likes to cut other cars in his Ford أبو دعسي
    But is fine having other cars also cut in front of him. As this is Lebanon and he likes the thrill.
    This satisfies the golden rule "treat others as you want to be treated". But leads to a chaotic road and many people that dislike Abu Hanna and his buddies.

    Let's say your Lebanese govt employee Abu Ali likes to get bribes in his position.
    And he also likes to bride other Abu Alis to get his own papers done.
    This satisfies the golden rule. But leads to bribery in governmental institutions.

    Let's say your Lebanese neighbor Abu Omar likes men looking at his beautiful voluptuous wife.
    And he also likes to look at other men's women in a lustful manner.
    This satisfies the golden rule. But is a lustful and sinful act in his theistic morality.

    Let's say your Lebanese friend @AtheistForJesus likes to use bots to win the forum elections.
    And doesn't mind others like @lebonage botting his way to moderation.
    This satisfies the golden rule. But goes against moral character.

    If the counterargument is that is is ultimately harming others, and you don't want to harm others in the golden rule, as they then could harm you too in return, then that's not really true. There will be masochists who want to be harmed or people apathetic to being on the receiving end if it means they could harm others too.

    invalid view. objectivity or universality of the golden rule (and therefore the validity of the rule itself expressing the essence of a universal morality 'even if no two men in the world had any needs or tastes in common') is inherently preserved. the reason for this is that any human being with no less than two neurons in their head would immediately reckon that a) "doing as you would be done by" includes 'taking into account the other's tastes as one would that the other should take his into account', and b) the rule itself is self-applicable (the rule applies to itself, to the method of its application) and is thus self-correcting; we wouldn't want other people to apply the golden rule in such ways (e.g ignoring differences in taste, in situation, and so forth) that lead to a behavior which we object to, it therefore follows that we should not do so ourselves - according to the golden rule
     
    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    invalid view. objectivity or universality of the golden rule (and therefore the validity of the rule itself expressing the essence of a universal morality 'even if no two men in the world had any needs or tastes in common') is inherently preserved. the reason for this is that any human being with no less than two neurons in their head would immediately reckon that a) "doing as you would be done by" includes 'taking into account the other's tastes as one would that the other should take his into account', and b) the rule itself is self-applicable (the rule applies to itself, to the method of its application) and is thus self-correcting; we wouldn't want other people to apply the golden rule in such ways (e.g ignoring differences in taste, in situation, and so forth) that lead to a behavior which we object to, it therefore follows that we should not do so ourselves - according to the golden rule
    Assumes people are rational agents.
    Assumes masochists / sadists don't exist.
     
    NewLeb

    NewLeb

    New Member
    Golden rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”

    Let's say your Lebanese Taxi Driver Abu Hanna likes to cut other cars in his Ford أبو دعسي
    But is fine having other cars also cut in front of him. As this is Lebanon and he likes the thrill.
    This satisfies the golden rule "treat others as you want to be treated". But leads to a chaotic road and many people that dislike Abu Hanna and his buddies.

    Let's say your Lebanese govt employee Abu Ali likes to get bribes in his position.
    And he also likes to bride other Abu Alis to get his own papers done.
    This satisfies the golden rule. But leads to bribery in governmental institutions.

    Let's say your Lebanese neighbor Abu Omar likes men looking at his beautiful voluptuous wife.
    And he also likes to look at other men's women in a lustful manner.
    This satisfies the golden rule. But is a lustful and sinful act in his theistic morality.

    Let's say your Lebanese friend @AtheistForJesus likes to use bots to win the forum elections.
    And doesn't mind others like @lebonage botting his way to moderation.
    This satisfies the golden rule. But goes against moral character.
    It’s all about intention, which moral character is rooted in. The action is entirely irrelevant.

    If the counterargument is that is is ultimately harming others, and you don't want to harm others in the golden rule, as they then could harm you too in return, then that's not really true. There will be masochists who want to be harmed or people apathetic to being on the receiving end if it means they could harm others too.

    This is a logical fallacy called “appeal to extremes.”
     
    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    This is a logical fallacy called “appeal to extremes.”
    Not true.

    I have a valid reducto ad absurdum. Appeal to extreme necessitates erroneous extension.
     
    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    𓍝𓂀𓄃𓇼

    Active Member
    Orange Room Supporter
    I’ll give you that.
    Thanks.

    I think the thread itself is weak.
    I'm going to present the XY argument against robust moral realism in another thread.
    It would be more grounded.
    But i need to collect my thoughts.
     
    Top