Golden Rule, Morality and BDSM
Do not do unto others what you don’t wish done to yourself
And with that quote I wish to cover a bit about what morality should be. The above statement holds ground in most scenarios with even those that enjoy pain in the form of BDSM. Although in the instance of BDSM to use as an example although they enjoy pain due to them deriving pleasure from it there is a limit such as safe words etc. So … can we say that this rule is where all morality should stem from?
And with that quote I wish to cover a bit about what morality should be. The above statement holds ground in most scenarios with even those that enjoy pain in the form of BDSM. Although in the instance of BDSM to use as an example although they enjoy pain due to them deriving pleasure from it there is a limit such as safe words etc. So … can we say that this rule is where all morality should stem from?
Comments (51)
I see that you are human like me, so we are basically the same, therefore should be treated the same.
See the evidence > equality > fairness > morality
simple
Morality has no existence beyond human behavior.
Very true! It doesn’t have to be dog eat dog out there, in the jungle the rules are different … and morality has nothing to do with predators and prey but we are human. Treat others how you like to be treated is the one rule that defines my life
Predator and prey exists on the instinct level, which is beneath the emotion mammal level.
Serotonin. Power seeing. Deeper drives
Hunger, sex, power, greed, flight or fight, etc....
Yes I covered this there are certain scenarios like these that slip through the gap of where the golden rule has its limits as a basis for morality, the best bet is using it in its negative form which negates most unlikeable outcomes such as homosexuality, BDSM or other negative effects that one does not wish upon oneself or others
This is an old criticism. The Golden Rule is a principle, not mere concrete wording, and generally it means we want our preferences and selves to be treated with respect. This, and almost no one wants to be murdered, stolen from or lied to. Moral behavior is performative, not a science. But of course, like most principles, you can always find a way to push them and distort the point.
There was a true story about a German man who wanted to be killed and another party who agreed to do it … would you consider this behaviour moral under the golden rule principle as long as two parties agree on something even if it borders on the absurd then it is moral?
Personally I think if two adult mentally competent individuals want to engage in BDSM of any of a number of other private personnel behaviors it is none of my business.
Likewise, I think competent adults who wish to end their own life, should have the right and maybe even to enlist assistance if needed (ALS or other limiting circumstance).
I have to wonder though under what general moral philosophical principal I am operating (certainly not the golden rule or the ten commandments).
Can we say then that morality is agreed behaviour between two or more parties ?
consenting adults in the privacy of their own dwelling and all that. I am sort of a libertarian.
Treat others as you’d like to be treated … that is do not take their land as this could cause a war…land grabbing has been the reasons for many wars throughout history … empires colonialism slavery etc…they were not following the golden rule…
This is actually a common text book example used to demonstrate one of the challenges with the Golden Rule - which is not a perfect solution. As I already said, the Golden Rule is not concrete - you can use your brain to respond to any situation that doesn't fit. The Golden Rule is an imperfect guide to moral behavior, but it is not moral behavior itself.
Big claim, Joshs. I admire the chutzpah of it. Can you expand on this perhaps with an example of it in action?
First I’d clarify the sense of the golden rule. Do unto ‘others’ only applies to others who are like you in certain key respects that pertain to their humanity. We don’t generally apply the golden rule to livestock, insects or plants, or to any other being that appears to us to be somehow less than fully human in the moral
sense. Thus we see how , at various times in human history, those who were regarded as only 2/3 human, evil, barbarian, heathen, pathological or demented were treated differently than we would want to be treated, without the golden rule being violated.
Interpretation is key to the Golden Rule. If people want to get concrete and literal about it, it can of course be open to the problems associated with individual differences in taste and moral behavior. That's fine. I would think the Golden Rule is meant as a general principle - essentially 'treat others with respect'. Sure there are some outliers with odd preferences but respect does not look all that different around the planet. Do not steal from others, lie to them, kill them, physically harm them.
The Golden Rule is not saying treat people like they share all your preferences (BDSM or fundamentalist Islam, say) it is 'treat people with different preferences with respect as you would want yours treated'.
The GR also has little to say about climate change or use and manufacture of vaccines.
I feel like BDSM is sort of like a certain clientele to a certain bar that I've been to, who dress in all black, stand in the back, and blow cocaine behind a curtain. Did they really want to do that with their lives or was their doing so just born out of some form of cult pathology? I don't know that I really believe that people can within the full breadth of their reason and autonomy, want to mildly torture one another during sexual intercourse. It seems to be both rather cliquish and cultish to me. I don't know, though. Maybe it's just not for me?
If you consider BDSM within a situational context, I don't think it really violates the Golden Rule. Someone who works with someone else at a psychiatric institute couldn't really hook some electric device up to someone's nipples and claim that there was nothing wrong with their doing so because of that it is what they derive sexual pleasure from. The caveat, in bed, aside from the arcane order established through BDSM, eliminates any ethical predicaments.
You seem to have this kvetch about the Kantian stealing example, but I do think that we are in agreement, though my perhaps too sensational example was more from their perspective than otherwise. It's an oft-levelled charge against various forms of Ethics, usually with the quote unquote masochist, which I don't think really holds up.
Masochist: Beat me.
Sadist: No!
I have a kvetch about the Kantian lying and killing too. :razz: I also think we largely agree.
Isn't it shù?" , "What you do not want yourself," , "Don't do to others." (XV:23/24) (Confucius).
———————————————————
Also the so called “golden rule” or diamond rule as @TheMadFool explained above.
One of the big problems inside this ethical rule is that no always all the people want to respect it. There are a lot of selfish and vicious persons that literally enjoy the act of harming others. It is cruel.
Also, keep in mind that others will act as fake and try to absorb your humility. Be careful... I guess the accurate situation is stay neutral.
I thought I was talking about two entirely different approcaches:
1. The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would like others to do unto you (You're the measure of how you should act]
2. The Diamond Rule: Do unto others as others would like to do unto themselves (Others define your actions. You do what others want you to do to them. Others are the measure of your actions]
I prefer the Diamond Rule because it skirts the issue of how your personal idiosyncracies may throw a spanner in the works e.g. if you're a masochist, you might think hurting others is the right thing to do under the Golden Rule. The Diamond Rule, however, completely avoids such pitfalls as your actions will be tailored as per the likes/dislikes of the person who must face the consequences of your actions!
Me too. Apart from the same reason as yours, because I guess we should show something previously before we demand to others an action. It is important to have a good image in interior and exterior relations.
Quoting TheMadFool
Exactly. This is why we should act in the honorable way as much as we can do it. It is important also to not be misunderstood.
Good intentions, sometimes, do not help or matter...
I don't believe it's about having a "good image." It creates a information gap between what one is and the (good) image your project. To be honest many monsters dwell in that information gap. This information gap manifests in another pernicious way when a person has to deal with others - we don't know what other people want and hence the Golden Rule in which you measure others using yourself.
The Diamond Rule, praise the Good Lord, is about shedding light into that dark region (the information gap) and discovering as precisely as possible what others want so that we don't goof up!
:up:
Quoting TheMadFool
I never heard of this word until today. I translated into my language and it means tontear. This is why I love philosophy of language! Everyday I am learning something new about. Now I am understanding you and your argument better.
Old timer here!
I want others to treat me as I want to be treated, therefore I will treat others as they want to be treated
:up: Great manifesto. Where do I sign up? :smile:
No membership required. However, consider purchasing a good plated dime online to serve as a memento.
Like a serial killer? :scream:
Serial killers treat people the way they want to be treated to make them trusting and vulnerable, so that they can eventually treat them as they(the serial killer) wants to treat them.
So maybe the golden rule is better?
If taken to extremes this creates problems as well. What if I would like you to have sex with me? Are you duty bound to do so? Or perhaps I’m narcissistic and think you should greet me by bowing when I enter the room, and bid me farewell by kissing my ass on the way out. Is that acceptable?
As an alternative, let’s try the Platinum Rule: Treat others however you want, but adjust your behavior when asked to do so (trial and error).
:lol:
Rules are meant for everyone. The narcissist who wants people to bow before faer and kiss faer ass must consider the fact that other people don't want to bow to faer or kiss faer ass. Thus, a narcissist shouldn't demand such things.
This doesn’t seem to jive with the Diamond Rule though, at least as you’ve described it, or perhaps as I’ve (mis)understood it.
If we’re to let others define our actions, that holds us accountable for treating them the way they want to be treated independent of how we actually want to treat them. I don’t see where the obligation of the narcissist to consider others wants when he decides how he wants to be treated is derived from.
Perhaps we can compare the golden rule with the diamond rule to see how they stack up against each other.
First off, understand rules are meant for everyone.
1. The golden rule is formulated on the preferences of the person who wants to know how fae should act towards another person. Put simply, your personal idiosyncracies and peculiarities will manifest in your actions i.e. if you're of unsound mind (sick) you might hurt people e.g. a masochist might go around inflicting pain (most people avoid pain).
2. The diamond rule is crafted to circumvent the problem of the golden rule - your personal quirks won't be something other people have to deal with. This rule essentially treats people the way they wanted to be treated. So, yes a narcissist may want you to treat faer in odd ways but he can't demand it of you because fae has to act in ways that you want and you want to be treated with respect, the normal kind, and so won't want to constantly bow and kiss ass.
:up: You should've told me this about 20 years ago! I wouldn't have made as many mistakes as I have. :sad:
Ok, but why does the person’s wants the narcissist encounters trump his own? The narcissist demands X (ass kissing), the other person demands Y (respect), but only Y is honored.
Good question. X wants ass-kissing and Y wants no ass-kissing. So, what happens when the two of them meet? X would think, I can't let Y kiss my ass. Y would think, I have to kiss X's ass. This'll happen: Y will try and kiss X's ass but X won't let Y kiss ass. Both are happy!
So first, mind your own business. Then, only help those that can't help themselves, and want to be helped. And even then, aim at helping them help themselves.
I'm paraphrasing Simone Weil. It is obvious when you think about it!
To be honest, when I read this I felt the same way as a famished homeless person would have felt when fae finds a half-eaten 2-day-old hotdog at the end of a desperate hour of going through the trash. Mayhaps it's just an illusion but still, I quite like that feeling. :smile:
:lol:
But seriously, the narcissist can’t both want Y to kiss his ass, and not want Y to do so. You’re assuming X wants to treat Y as Y wants to be treated, but that isn’t the case. It results in an imbalance. Y gets what Y wants (respect), but X doesn’t.
Maybe in cases like these, where how one wants to be treated conflicts with how someone else wants to be treated, the Golden Rule should be used as a Plan B? X doesn’t want to be forced to kiss someone’s ass, so shouldn’t force Y to do so. Problem solved!
You're on the right track.
A few points:
1. Rules, their raison de'tre, is to achieve some kind of order and one requirement for that is a rule must either apply across the board or to the majority. Let's keep it real and ignore the rare/impossible - the former - and focus our energies on the latter (rules must apply and make sense to the majority).
If so, given the majority seems to express identical or very similar likes/dislikes, formulating a rule seems feasible.
That, however, isn't what I want to discuss. Once we concentrate our efforts on a (moral) rule for the majority, the minority is being deliberately sidelined, ignored i.e. the few oddballs that exist in every group, community, or society are to be taken out of the moral equation. Ergo, trying to critique/fault the golden rule or the diamond rule using masochism and narcissism respectively is to misunderstand the rationale behind such rules. They were never designed for ALL, they were crafted for the MAJORITY, the underlying assumption being most people have a good handle on morality. To hell with the minority, they don't matter! seems to be the rather rude sentiment being expressed herein.
Given what I said above, which of the two rules (the golden rule/the diamond rule) is the better?
The golden rule presupposes that
1. A person X belong to the majority and possesses an adequate understanding of right and wrong
2. The person X is dealing with another person Y who too is in the majority and has knowledge of good and evil that deserves a passing grade.
Isn't that why X decides how to act towards Y based on X's own feelings/beliefs/etc.? This is the essence of the golden rule.
So far so good.
Let's see how the diamond rule fares.
2. The diamond rule, at the very least, makes no assumptions about ourselves. Indeed, you maybe the most erudite moral theorist in the whole god damn world but all that means zero for the diamond rule. What matters is how other people want done unto them.
At this juncture, it must be pointed out that the diamond rule is the mirror image of the golden rule; one treats the self as the benchmark of conduct, the other considers others as the same. Insofar as the majority and how that notion is based on identity/similarity of those in that section of the population is concerned, there's no difference between someone using the golden rule and another person adhering to the diamond rule.
3. However, what's special about the diamond rule is it acknolwedges the minority - the oddities, the quirks that define minorities. For instance, a person who's following the diamond rule is making the statement "you may be different" when fae meets a masochist/narcissist; after all, the diamond rule is about how others may want to be treated.
The golden rule fails in this respect.
Golden
In the same way that you don't want to be harmed, you yourself should refrain from harming others.
Diamond
In the same way that you don't want people to ignore your preferences, you yourself should not ignore the preferences of others.
In this case, the diamond rule seems to clarify what not harming entails. It entails paying attention to other people's specific needs or preferences.
It could be useful but sometimes “good intentions” don’t matter at all and even the other person can feel intimidated for asking some questions.
I guess the diamond rule can fit better if we just respect other’s privacy and businesses