[2012-Jul-06] Do not do unto others

[ReasonablyDoubtful]

I brought up this issue with the Golden Rule a while back (it's been mentioned a thousand times before) and an interesting counterargument was given to me: Would you want someone to apply the Golden Rule so thoughtlessly to you?

In other words, you'd want them to put some thought into it, so you should put some thought into it, too.

[DonRetrasado]

It's a gross oversimplification.

EDIT: A better adage might be "if you want to be treated well, treat others well" or "treat others how they want to be treated and they will treat you how you will want to be treated"

[bgrunge]

The joke doesn't work because Jesus never actually quoted the golden rule; what he actually said was "Love others as you would be loved", which is significantly different. To paraphrase, it means something like "value the well-being and happiness of others as much as you value your own." This is less specific than the golden rule, and more fundamental, since it accounts for different perspectives.

[Kaharz]

The joke doesn't work because Jesus never actually quoted the golden rule; what he actually said was...

So you where there? What were Jesus and apostles really like? I suspect Matthew was secretly kind of a dick.

[Salacious Schoolmate]

John on the other hand, was a professional wrestler.

[Ivan]

Sure there are perfect ethical laws. e.g. The initiation of use of force is wrong.

[ChaoticBrain]

Sure there are perfect ethical laws. e.g. The initiation of use of force is wrong.

So, if I'm walking across the street with a friend, and a car suddenly swerves out of control, it would be wrong to exert the force necessary to push her out of the way of the car?

[Ivan]

So, if I'm walking across the street with a friend, and a car suddenly swerves out of control, it would be wrong to exert the force necessary to push her out of the way of the car?

Oh the bullshit extraordinary situations again. What next, the boat in the middle of the pacific and asking whether it's right to eat someone?

[coolcalx]

Oh the bullshit extraordinary situations again. What next, the boat in the middle of the pacific and asking whether it's right to eat someone?

that's not even an extraordinary situation..

[Matt]

So, if I'm walking across the street with a friend, and a car suddenly swerves out of control, it would be wrong to exert the force necessary to push her out of the way of the car?

Oh the bullshit extraordinary situations again. What next, the boat in the middle of the pacific and asking whether it's right to eat someone?

It is the bullshit extraordinary situations that really test an ethical rule. If it breaks down, then it isn't perfect. The initiation of the use of force isn't always wrong, therefore that isn't a perfect rule. Heck, you could have countered his comment with the claim that he was (likely intentionally) using a different definition of force than you intended. Still, he could have easily said, "What if there is a psychotic gunman with a very real intent to kill numerous people. Is it then wrong to shoot him with the aim of incapacitation, or to tackle him to the ground?" Point being: the use of force still has purposes, and blanket statements are often wrong (remember, only a Sith deals in absolutes).

As for the Golden Rule, I've always gone by (or tried to go by...admittedly I can be a dick sometimes) the version, "Do unto others as they would do unto themselves". This is pretty much encapsulated within the, "Love others as they would be loved," so perhaps that version is better (and really, who cares who said it. Jesus, Hitler, it doesn't matter. It is still a good rule).

[Salacious Schoolmate]

I have another situation, it's really great. "The president, he's gone mad and is ABOUT to push the button. I only have a gun and I'm 10m away."

The problem with ignoring extraordinary situations is you don't test your rule. What if I said all numbers were multiples of two? Why, I can think of so many numbers that fit that pattern, 4, 38, 1090, 52. You have to try to think of things that don't fit the pattern.

[Matt]

I have another situation, it's really great. "The president, he's gone mad and is ABOUT to push the button. I only have a gun and I'm 10m away."

The problem with ignoring extraordinary situations is you don't test your rule. What if I said all numbers were multiples of two? Why, I can think of so many numbers that fit that pattern, 4, 38, 1090, 52. You have to try to think of things that don't fit the pattern.

Well. (Pi/2) * 2 is also a multiple of two

[bgrunge]

The joke doesn't work because Jesus never actually quoted the golden rule; what he actually said was...

So you where there? What were Jesus and apostles really like? I suspect Matthew was secretly kind of a dick.

Just referencing the bible, since, you know, we're talking about Jesus and he's pretty much exclusively defined by it. Figured it was relevant. Too many people willing to discuss the subject though haven't read word one about it, which is disturbing.

P.S. It's "were", not "where", and you need a "the" or perhaps "his" in front of "apostles". Smartass posts only work if you actually look/are smart.

[Salacious Schoolmate]

I have another situation, it's really great. "The president, he's gone mad and is ABOUT to push the button. I only have a gun and I'm 10m away."

The problem with ignoring extraordinary situations is you don't test your rule. What if I said all numbers were multiples of two? Why, I can think of so many numbers that fit that pattern, 4, 38, 1090, 52. You have to try to think of things that don't fit the pattern.

Well. (Pi/2) * 2 is also a multiple of two

natural numbers natural numbers natural numbers

[ChaoticBrain]

What if I said all numbers were multiples of two? Why, I can think of so many numbers that fit that pattern, 4, 38, 1090, 52. You have to try to think of things that don't fit the pattern.

Better yet, what if I said all numbers were multiples of one? Until fractions and decimals were invented, humankind believed that this was the case. It was only by thinking outside of that pattern that allowed mathematics to develop beyond arithmetic and multiplication.