Why has the golden rule failed?
The golden rule is perhaps the most well-known maxim that has emerged from the philosophy of ethics. It exists in many forms throughout various cultures. However, in many regards, the golden rule has been brushed aside or not taken into serious consideration in courts of law and such. An example would be the death penalty, which is not reconcilable in any way with the golden rule. In fact, most punitive measures at delivering justice are at odds with the golden rule.
Now, why is this so? Couldn't we do better than obeying the 'eye for an eye' maxim? After all, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." according to Gandhi who supposedly said it. The there's Martin Luther King who said, "The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind," "It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert."
Perhaps, the main reason is that to apply the golden rule, the person has to be already in some sense 'enlightened' or capable of self-love. After all, self-love is prior to treating another with kindness and empathy. Without self-love, then practicing good behavior or right conduct according to the golden rule is much harder to do. One is left with emulating the golden rule without self-love, a harder task to do in my mind.
Thoughts?
Now, why is this so? Couldn't we do better than obeying the 'eye for an eye' maxim? After all, "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." according to Gandhi who supposedly said it. The there's Martin Luther King who said, "The old law of an eye for an eye leaves everyone blind," "It is immoral because it seeks to humiliate the opponent rather than win his understanding; it seeks to annihilate rather than to convert."
Perhaps, the main reason is that to apply the golden rule, the person has to be already in some sense 'enlightened' or capable of self-love. After all, self-love is prior to treating another with kindness and empathy. Without self-love, then practicing good behavior or right conduct according to the golden rule is much harder to do. One is left with emulating the golden rule without self-love, a harder task to do in my mind.
Thoughts?
Comments (86)
Isn't this a bit like your last thread? :)
Quoting Posty McPostface
As I mentioned in the other thread, I think that's pretty much it. The golden rule begins with "the other" ("love your neighbor"), because the emphasis of the rule is "the other"; the emphasis is to love the other. But the foundation of the rule is self-love. Why the rule doesn't begin with self-love, I don't know. Maybe we in the 21st century West have lost something, have lost an intrinsic self-love that was apparent and not worth focusing on during Jesus' time, or whatever other religion. Actually, it does seem to me that if we need to "learn" self-love, then that must be a symptom of self-consciousness, and I think there might be arguments to be made that our level of self-consciousness is higher, and more neurotic than it was in the past. Just some thoughts.
Yeah, just the logical follow-up.
The quite depressing view though. In part inspired by Harry Frankfurt's, The Reasons of Love.
Notice that I said another neighbor, not myself. This other neighbor could be somebody I never even talk to, and I still want my murderous neighbor arrested and tried, and if found guilty, sent away.
So meaning that if you committed murder, you would want justice served to yourself, right?
Hopefully, if I have any decency. But I'm also prone to being self-interested, like everyone else. That's why I won't get to try myself or pass my own sentence.
Same deal if a loved one committed murder. I might want to see them get off or serve a lighter sentence. But I don't get to decide. That would be biased.
What I want, when self-interest and bias is removed, is for everyone to be held accountable for such crimes. That's the kind of society I prefer to live in.
What's the superior alternative? Someone robs, rapes, commits murder, defrauds customers, steals identities and ruins credit. What should we do about such crimes?
Jesus never went into detail about how the Golden Rule should or should not be applied in every situation. He's just recorded spouting off maxims and performing miracles.
But he never set down and wrote a treatise on how a society would be arranged around such maxims.
What if everyone let the dead bury themselves? Would that be a good maxim for society? Probably not.
The "eye for an eye" rule was a major step up in ethics. The non-ethical man visits unlimited devastation on those who harm his family, himself, his property. Insult my wife, you die. Injury my horse accidentally, I'll give you a whipping, etc.
The eye-for-an-eye rule limits action to proportional retribution. So, it's an advance.
The Golden Rule -- which existed before Jesus came along, of course, is a further advance. One would want maximum consideration and mercy for one's own misdeeds, so give maximum consideration and mercy to others' misdeeds.
The Golden Rule begin with the self because we can only know what guilt and punishment feel like for ourselves.
Then there is the other meaning of the Golden Rule: Them with the gold make the rules.
Part of retributive justice is being aware that if you decide that bashing your neighbor's head in and stealing their stuff is a tempting idea, there could be serious consequences for doing so.
That won't inhibit everyone, as some people aren't wired to worry too much about consequences. But my guess is your average person is somewhat inhibited from doing bad things on occasion because they know they could go to jail.
Agreed.
Quoting Marchesk
Right, that's a key aspect of rabbinical teaching; asking questions was more important than providing answers.
Quoting Marchesk
You mean the walking dead, or what?
Luke 9:59-60:
He said to another man, "Follow me." But he replied, "Lord, first let me go and bury my father."
Jesus said to him, "Let the dead bury their own dead, but you go and proclaim the kingdom of God."
Jesus made quite a few statements that would not be good for society as a whole.
Well, one alternative is restorative justice. It's best applied for young offenders and relatively minor crimes. It involves bringing the offender and the victim together (in a structured setting) to help the offender understand what his actions meant, and then help him or her come up with a compensation of some kind -- not necessarily a fine, more likely some kind of work engagement with the victim.
Restorative justice could be applied to older offenders and more serious crimes, too, but with more state involvement and likely still involve jail and/or a fine.
Yes, I know the scripture. I was making a joke about your literal interpretation.
To a point, but I wonder what sort of restorative justice a rapist would do, since you don't want to further traumatize their victim. Or what you would have a murderer do that wouldn't be a total affront to the victim's family and friends.
"Your family business comes second to the Kingdom of God." or worse than second. It's a tough demand.
Or cut off your hand if it causes you to sin. Of course all of that can be interpreted in a non-literal sense, but it seems to be saying everything else is secondary to your calling. I'm not sure you can build a modern society on the back of Jesus's teachings.
(Y)
You're not actually interpreting that literally, right?
It's interesting to note how some tribes or primitive societies go about the whole ordeal. I'm on my cell and don't have the papers but it would seem that people in said primitive societies feel a much greater sense of.bond with their fellow kindsmen. I assume that would be another prerequisite for the golden rule to be maintained in practice.
Maybe so, but there was a show on how this Amish girl ended up going to the police because her brothers were repeatedly raping her, and the Amish community's punishment had not succeeded in stopping it.
She probably couldn't go back, but you realize that sometimes those small communities don't have a good way of handling certain situations.
Or take an actual tribe (I don't recall where this was, some jungle) where if you come to believe that your relative has been possessed by an evil spirit, you're supposed to kill them.
What is "calling"?
Sometimes Jesus speaks in very harsh terms, and I'm guessing that there was a cultural opening for that, and Jesus, of course, came from that culture. Other times he is very gentle.
What Bitter Crank said. Jesus was talking to people who expressed an interest in being his followers, which seemed to involve leaving your old life behind and follow him around and learn from his teachings.
All this because the Kingdom of Heaven was near, whatever Jesus meant by that.
Maybe he had a super trippy NDE? The disciples would probably be dying to hear about it.
Where?
Guess that depends on where he was hanging out while he was dead?
There was an X-Files episode where these idiots uncovered a genie who gave them three wishes. One idiot wished to be invisible, and then he got run over by a bus who didn't see him. So his friend/brother idiot wished for him to come back to life, and he came back as a walking corpse.
It's troubling when there's nobody around to enforce the rules of good conduct. However, I expect banishment from the society to be in general the most severe form of punishment or putative measure of choice in said primitive or such societies.
If you can't care for me, why bother with you?
It sounded like the Amish punishment for rape was not very severe, to say the least. And in a society where you're allowed to kill a relative because you think they've been possessed by an evil spirit, there is no recourse.
Yeah, there's that cultural relativism. Yet, the golden rule or the more refined version of it being Rawl's veil of ignorance still is valid given any culture and its norms.
The golden rule huh?
If you agree that you should do unto others as you would have them do unto you, then, you also agree that what you do unto others, should be done unto you.
Therefore, if you murder someone, then what should be done to you? You see the golden rule doesn’t negate eye for an eye, does it?
Jesus is showing how to coexist within the context of eye for an eye. in the Christian context the same that gave the law of eye for an eye to Moses, was telling them what is called the golden rule.
An eye for an eye was part of the Mosaic Law, intended to maintain order to a growing nomadic nation stuck in the wilderness. The Golden Rule was instructed to perpetuate the forgiveness of God and spread love.
No!
The question is, what should be done to you, seeing you agree that what you are doing to others should be done to you.
There is no agreement in this case that says you should be forgiven the agreement.
You don’t agree to treat as you would be treated by treating others as you would not be treated. The agreement is to treat as one would be treated. Therefore, one should be treated as one treats others. Once the act is committed you have fulfilled what it is you expected, as in how to be treated.
Forgiveness is not a given, not even under grace.
Actually, statutory interpretation applies the principle in common law that enables judges to consider whether meaning in statutes are actually adequate as per the purpose of the justice system; the conditions of justice is intended for the people, to help and serve justice, yet sometimes this does not occur because of the limitations of language or ambiguity of meaning, and legal precedents are there for that reason. Judges formulate sensible conclusions that legislation may not adequately do using the golden rule thesis by determining relevant statutes, caselaw, meaning and grammatical forms by judges and other senior practitioners, explained in Australia through the Acts Interpretation Acts as to how this is done. The 'Golden Rule' avoids taking the meaning of the statutes literally instead allowing judges to consider the purpose of the law. Here is a legal precedent in Australia:
- Mills vs. Meeking
Quoting Marchesk
This kind of frames the point of the OP, methinks, that in order to apply the Golden Rule, there needs to be an equivalent capacity and so at individual level, we need to have a strong understanding of justice and goodness but how that is contrasted with our community is vital and why we have the separation of powers to ensure that the body of justice remains fair. This still occurs in many countries around the world, by the way, and I wrote about Wahhabi law and Islamic jurisprudence and it was incredibly difficult taking off my Human Rights hat and focusing on what was. Very difficult.
Then, would it be appropriate to ask that they simply have an attitude of care, with regards to other people?
Would that be sufficient to guarantee that the golden rule can be followed and practiced?
That's what Tutu and Mandela did in South Africa. They applied it to a whole population, some of whom did things you would think were unforgivable. It was one of the great moral acts in my lifetime.
The Golden Rule is the most gracious possible ethical guide. Yours is the least gracious interpretation of it I have ever heard. It's also a misinterpretation of what the rule means. I have no problem with you believing what you describe, but it's not the Golden Rule.
You can't demand compassion at all. The Golden Rule is not universally accepted, especially in cases of crime and punishment. Many people believe in retribution, punishment, not for practical reasons, but as a moral act of revenge. Justice. I have what I consider a more pragmatic approach - do what works best to stop the bad behavior or the consequences of it within the limits of acceptable human behavior.
I don't believe in retributive justice for three reasons 1) Maybe most important, it isn't fair. It isn't applied uniformly. The most socially vulnerable people get the worst of it. 2) Generally, it doesn't work to reduce crime. 3) I get no moral satisfaction from people getting what they "deserve." Many do get that satisfaction. I might support the death penalty some time in the future if it was as likely to be applied equally to rich and poor, white and black. I find it hard to believe that will ever happen. Even then I would be a hard sell.
So, how does that work in terms of the laws being applied uniformly and fairly? Putting that kind of flexibility in the hands of judges increases the risk of unfairness. It also increases the possibility of punishing people less than lawmakers want. In the US, laws with minimum penalties have been popular because they take the discretion out of the hands of judges. Now that approach is falling out of favor because of the high costs of keeping people in prison.
nope you have your interpretation and the bible the source of both eye for eye and what you call the golden rule state what they state
the source is the correct interpretation because its according to the source. if you are going to use what Jesus says then you must use all of what Jesus says. and according to the bible Jesus is the Word of God made flesh and it was the Word of God that spoke the law of eye for an eye to Moses, and it was also the same source, the Word of God, that spoke the golden rule, isn't it?
and according to the bible God doesn't change. so the golden rule is not without the eye for an eye rule. and the eye for an eye rule is not without the golden rule. or you miss understand the One who spoke it.
and actually the golden rule is how to live in a society that is an eye for an eye rule.
if you don't believe all of what the bible says, then why use it to justify your own judgement, unless you are out to deceive those who believe it but don't know it very well.
go by your own rules and be honest about it.
also forgiveness isn't an entitlement or its not forgiveness. so forgiveness isn't assumed only available if granted by the injured party the one who has the power to forgive. what is agreed.
if Jesus speaks a commandment like the "golden rule" its law, for those bond to it. if your not bond to it what does it matter to you? Jesus to the faithful is the everlasting covenant, also meaning agreement or contract. therefore all that He says is law to those in the Kingdom of God that He preached. also Jesus says He didn't come to eliminate the law (Torah) He came to fulfill it. so the law isn't null and void as many want to believe.
how did Apostle Paul say it:
Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.
It is my understanding that the eye for an eye principle was established before the dates of the old testament.
As for the Golden Rule, it's pretty clear - Treat others as you would like others to treat you. There's not much room there for misunderstanding. As far as I can tell, it is not uniquely associated with Jesus. Also, I'm not a Christian and I'm not restricted by what the Bible says.
The "eye for an eye" principle was first enunciated in Hammurabi's Code. He was the sixth king of the First Babylonian Dynasty, reigning from 1792 BC to 1750 BC.
It was published in cuneiform on this xxxxx large dildo for every one to observe. \\
If heathens, pagans and uncircumcised Philistines find something useful and humanizing in what Jesus said, they should be encouraged to make use of it, even if they don't buy the whole kielbasa.
Maybe Jesus is more important as the Word made flesh than for what He, as flesh, had to say. [As a Moravian hymn writer put it, "God lies in a manger, in flesh now appearing.) Jesus preached; he said a lot of things, no doubt. Some of them were remembered; most of them weren't. Most likely some people slept through the Sermon on the Mount. It doesn't matter.
It's the Incarnation as the Lamb of God that matters--according to Christian theology. Jesus did not say "you must remember everything I say. Woe unto you who didn't take copious notes. You will be cast into the darkness if your notes aren't complete." He also didn't say, did he, that you must swallow the whole thing hook line and sinker. After all, "the whole thing" didn't exist while he was alive. "The whole thing" started with Jesus but then various and sundry theological engineers built a giant gaudy (not Goudy) edifice on top of the Body of Christ.
One doesn't need to be a Christian to understand this.
Depends on the judicial system but here in Australia - as mentioned - we strictly observe the separation of powers between the judicial, legislature and the executive so as to avoid corruption (working in contrast to the judicial system of the United States) and we have the Acts Interpretations Act that regulates how interpretation of this kind occurs by codifying such concerns that you mention. I am very critical of this sort of thing as I strictly adhere to and advocate Human Rights and I can say to you that I love the judicial system of my country and in particular of my state.
It is that intrinsic moral motivation that you have that matters, the authenticity and rationale behind the judgements that you make. You could be motivated to be kind to others only because your mother is dominating and the actual reason why you are motivated to be kind is because of some unconscious fear of and desire to please your mother. The nature of "goodness" is especially puzzling, whereas ethical acts are normative or rational. The reliability of what one would call a 'moral act' depends on this nature, this consciousness and the very characteristics that motivate us to be good or virtuous.
So the world can be crummy, the people you know and are surrounded by can be nasty, you can own little or next to nothing, but if you have that intrinsic quality of "goodness" you will not sway from that compelling, intuitive force to be good and kind. My life was tipped downside once several years ago, so many bad people and so many bad things happened to me but it only compelled me to improve, to do good, to give to charity etc as I was motivated to fight the good fight. This very motivation is the guarantee but it is very difficult to ascertain the existence and authenticity of this internalism. I personally appreciate the Kantian view that our will is autonomous - or that it must be autonomous - for there to be any authenticity of moral agency, a transcendental freedom that enables reliable properties of moral judgements to manifest.
No, it's easy to. Do (kill people very strongly suspected of murder) unto others (the others in this case being the population of society as a whole) what you would have them (the population of society as a whole) do (kill people very strongly suspected of murder) to you. Some people (not me) would like to live in a society where no-one strongly suspected of murder lived (just to be on the safe side).
The maxim suffers from exactly the same problem as any other maxim, it's sounds great but only if you already have a moral idea of what you want the outcome to be. Like Kant's anti-lying principle (I've lost count of the number of times people have tried to crowbar his principle into the 'hiding Jews from the Nazis' example, just so that it accords with what they already know is the right thing to do).
Take giving to a beggar, What does the Golden Rule actually help us with here? Do (give a pound) unto others (the beggar) as you would have them (the beggar) do (give a pound) unto you. Well I don't want the beggar to give me a pound do I?
So already we're modifying it. Now it's do unto others as you would have them do to you (if you were in their circumstances).
So back the the beggar with my newly modified maxim. If I were a beggar I would want me to give a pound, if I were a beggar I would want me to give all the money in my wallet, my clothes, my house, my car. After all, I wanted those things, that's why I've got them, so it stands to reason the beggar would want them too, especially as he's been so long without them. So do we have to presume the beggar is reasonable in his expectations? Or maybe we assume that he knows that just being given a load of stuff might make him complacent, or perhaps he wouldn't want me to be without all my stuff because he's a nice guy deep down.
So now we've got; do unto others as you would have them do to you (if you were in their circumstances (and they were a reasonable sort of person who didn't wish you any suffering in return)).
Back to the beggar. How much should I give him? How does the newly modified golden rule help us here? I'm imagining I was him (a definitely reasonable and kind version of him) and trying to work out what I would want me to do. I would want me to give a reasonable proportion of my money to him in a way that was definitely going to help get me out of my predicament. Brilliant, we made it to the answer we all knew was right in the first place. But how did we know what the beggar would want if the beggar was a reasonable, kind person? We didn't apply the Golden Rule (that would end up in an unresolvable circularity), we only got out of it by seeming to know what a kindness (on the part of the beggar) would be all along.
I don't mean to be condescending, but there are quite good reasons why entire libraries of books have been written about ethics, it's because it can't easily be reduced to a single principle, not even close.
I mean, don't you? (This could be a litmus test of your morals.) ;)
Isn't that sort of an auto-expectation of anyone with some moral awareness as we know it?
Also codified by whatever historical documents, including (emphasis mine):
And (emphasis mine):
So, this stuff sets a default anchor for the Golden Rule (as opposed to self-interest), where violation may entail forfeiture of some or all (morals are generally social matters).
I'd prefer masochists not follow the Golden Rule blindly.
Of course the complexities of life entails much more complex regulations and injunctions and whatnot.
Maybe we can't reduce morals to a simple declaration. Wouldn't that make us "less human" anyway...?
one may not need to be Christian to understand what you've said. but if something is as available as the bible is today, then context counts doesn't it?
also, the people He was speaking to at that time lived in the covenant ( +- the teachings the may have suffered) set by the hand of Moses, so they did understand where Jesus was coming from on that. and we who are not of the Israeli culture don't get it, unless we have the basics, and that info is available.
and again, didn't Christ finish the statement with:
KJV: Mat 7:12 Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
so really in context, its nothing new under the sun is it?
I mean I understand non-believes must go by their own judgement and they use whatever to construct the same, but if one intends to understand what the text is, then context counts. and its not always "good" that people use scripture though it may seem so, because many are deceived in their own interpretations and never find what the text is for. what good is a half truth if it leaves your soul for dead anyway. might as well know the whole of the truth and maybe live.
X-)
You ought not steal.
Why?
Because you wouldn't want someone stealing from you!
This literally doesn't even make sense. I'm not the one being stolen from. I am the thief. The argument only makes sense if the person making it *assumes* universal standards for moral behaviour. That is, stealing is wrong whether you do it, or I do it.
Where's the argument for this? Why should I hold myself to the same moral standard to everyone else?
Why can't I just decide it's okay for me to steal from you, but not you from me?
It's just assumed that the morality of actions are universally applied. Why should I accept this? Argue for it, or I steal your wallet!
Hence why I said it is the lack empathy that enables a person to steal without consideration or compassion to the person you are stealing from. This internalised "goodness" is motivated by a moral consciousness as you feel sad, at a loss, angry even when things are stolen from you and that makes you see the bigger ethical picture and your role in that. I think you need to make an argument for the value of being a thief without caring about the person or people or the ultimately consequences of this and not the other way around.
Why? You are taking 'universal standards for moral behaviour' as an axiom (as in, what's wrong for you is wrong for me), whereas I am not.
Why is the onus on me to prove my case? Simply because that is what your intuition tells you? Examine those intuitions.
I have found that when people are mean or disrespectful and you mirror that behavior back at them they usually get the clue and won't behave like that around you anymore. It's all about providing consequences for people's bad behavior in order to change their bad behavior.
There is no universal prescription because I could understand that though you stole from me, you were stealing because you are hungry that renders further moral consideration. You, however, are claiming that there is no immorality in the act of stealing just because you feel like it or you can. If you are claiming that you are justified to be this thief, you are making an assertion that such standards of moral behaviour is wrong; explain.
Nevertheless, the categorical imperative indeed attempts to demonstrate that being rational would mean that one should not contradict themselves by being irrational and immorality is irrational and self-contradictory. To steal the property of another person could consequently lead to retaliation; do you want to take that risk?
My explanation is simply that people can universalize their moral standards of behavior all they like. But there's nothing at all irrational in me personally opting out of this. Prove that moral standards for behavior should be universalized. Why should I not hold others to a population wide standard of moral behavior, while personally opting out of it. I get the best of best worlds. People choose not to steal from me, and yet I choose to steal from them. Is there a god saying we all ought act in x particular way? Is there some sort of mind-independent moral fact that must behavior ought correspond to? No.
To steal the property of another person could consequently lead to retaliation; do you want to take that risk?
Are you going to stop me? There's millions of people just like me.
So, in essence, you are claiming that there is no necessary duty for you to uphold because you are assuming it to be some teleological moral claim whereby the consequences of your actions are irrelevant. You are clearly in denial of the golden mean which could be considered virtue ethics, thus this motivation or 'goodness' is, to you, non-existent. If you fail to care about value and outcomes, so what then motivates you to steal? The categorical imperatives claims that if you declare that stealing is permissible, it becomes an action that must objectively be necessary and it doesn't need to have a purpose or an end, but necessary. Tell me, why is it necessary for you to steal?
Quoting antinatalautist
Quite. That is why we need the law and law enforcers. Ring of Gyges; fear appears to motivate people to behave, largely because of this lack of empathy.
I couldn't care less about the millions like you. If you are the one that stole from me, prepare for some dire consequences. People like you tend to not recognize that one day you're going to wrong someone that you wished you hadn't.
By stealing from others, you show that you like to be stolen from, or that it's okay to steal from you. Prepare to lose some your stuff and please don't whine about it when your stuff is stolen, hypocrite.
You may say that stealing from you is of no consequence. You will continue to steal from me and others. At that point it's just a matter of me finding that consequence that makes you change your behavior. What if your hands were cut off as a consequence of you stealing?
Quoting antinatalautistI could say the same thing about murder. What about when you steal from someone who has no quarrel about killing thieves?
Quoting antinatalautist
Read The Selfish Gene by Dawkins. He shows that cheaters don't make out as well as the non-cheaters in any human society. Humans have a longer memory and are better at making distinctions between individuals allowing them to hold those cheaters responsible and naming them for others so that the rest of us can avoid you or keep an eye on you.
Quoting Harry Hindu
You don't even need to restrict your search to anthropological factors. Even in something as cold and unemotional as game theory, 'always cheat' basically always loses against any strategy more complex than 'always co-operate'. Even basic maths tells you that going around doing whatever you want is a strategy which fail.
As to the rationality, whatever your actions are motivated by there must exist some objective (otherwise you would do nothing), therefore it is possible to objectively state that your actions will not achieve your objective. No matter what meta-ethical position you take as to how one could determine what that objective really is, it is undeniably possible for your actions to fail at achieving it and for someone to call you out for behaving irrationally.
Not so sure about this. Why couldn't I hate myself but treat someone else with kindness? I could certainly conceive of a situation where X believed he was lowly scum and considered Y a god who deserved to be treated with the utmost kindness and respect.
The same goes for empathy. Empathy is "the psychological identification with or vicarious experiencing of the feelings, thoughts, or attitudes of another" (Dictionary.com). While I would certainly need to experience desires not to be harmed, disrespected, etc., in order to be able to vicariously experience those feelings in others, I could still experience those desires without believing I deserved to have them fulfilled because I was a vile, lowly creature --- i.e., I was filled with self loathing.
That will work for you until you're arrested for whatever crime you commit. *shrug*
retributive justice goes as far back as human nature has walks the earth, but its applications are according to who's judgements? in the case of biblical reference there is nothing to imply no one else could understand their creator's will. before Moses wrote it down according to the Lord his God's Judgements.
take the life that men experience, is it according to their own judgement, or God's?
biblically speaking not everything under the sun that was spoken to those whom God may have had a relationship with, was written. and there's no reason to think that God didn't lead men into certain concepts even without their awareness. and it doesn't change the view biblical that all is made but the Creator and Judge. hence where did man's abilities come from.
[i]
The Golden Rule
7.12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Eye for Eye
5.38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’ 39 But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. 40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.
Love for Enemies
5.43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.[/i]
In your reasoning in the Golden Rule discussion, you were saying that if people truly followed the Golden Rule, then they would accept punishment e.g. if they murdered someone they would accept to get capital punishment too, for they would receive what they have knowingly and intentionally done unto others.
I think this is correct, and that the Eye for an Eye principle is not a contradiction of the Golden Rule. I think Jesus misinterpreted the rule in the Sermon of the Mount and carried it into an altruistic direction that we are still suffering confusion from to this day, by mixing it up with his other cheek and love all teachings.
What is good and what is evil? Whoever follows the Golden Rule, acts good. Whoever breaks the Golden Rule, acts evil. If all members of a society have decided to delegate the power of the individuals to judge and to punish to a common government, then it is not evil of society to punish a murderer. Neither is there an additional moral quality in turning the other cheek. You don't become better than good, by turning the other cheek. Just stick to the Golden Rule.
Kant's work, 2nd Critique, Critique of Practical Reason, for Kantian Ethics added sanity to the Golden Rule. Note.
Critique of Practical Reason, Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critique_of_Practical_Reason
Do you mean to say that the golden rule is in itself not a sane principle, or not a practical principle?
Crazy people may invoke the golden rule on false premises. Ideally, the golden rule works perfectly, but crazy people have weird ways with it, generating dangerous thoughts. And then you have the amoral, those not even trying...
Example:
If you became crazy as I am crazy, you would have committed these crazy actions too (against you)!
No.
Yes.
Nuu, the golden rules assumes nothing without a principle of equivalence. Where it cannot be met, it fails.
Thus...
It is merely a nicer way of rationalizing pushing one's own beliefs about how people ought be treated onto others.
Yes, yes, and yes!
Given this from 1785......
“...Let it not be thought that the common "quod tibi non vis fieri" could serve here as the rule or principle. For it is only a deduction, though with several limitations; it cannot be a universal law, for it does not contain the principle of duties to oneself, nor of the duties of benevolence to others (for many a one would gladly consent that others should not benefit him, provided only that he might be excused from showing benevolence to them), nor finally that of duties of strict obligation to one another, for on this principle the criminal might argue against the judge who punishes him, and so on...”
...perhaps you could show me where the Critique “added sanity to the Golden Rule”, other than to refute its authority, insofar as a command imperative can never be a mere rule.
Hi Julia, yes, my point was that Jesus was against the death penalty because his teachings went beyond the golden rule, he wanted us to be better than just good and introduced an altruistic element in his Christianity. The prophet Mohammed can rightfully be labelled the Anti-Christ in that, because he did not accept that Jesus was the Christ and that that there could be such a thing as a Son of God, he reversed these altruistic teachings again, coming back to the simple Golden Rule and Eye for an Eye principle, the law of Moses and the unaltered Abrahamic religion.
Important: Neither the Golden Rule nor the Categorical Imperative are in themselves altruistic statements.
Everyone wants to be treated respectfully, no?
I take it that you were talking about the means by which everyone likes to be respected isn't the same, which I would agree.
But, isn't it beholden upon the actor, practicing any moral code - the Golden Rule, or some other moral rule - to know the means by which any other wants to be respected, and to know that others may not like the same means as you.
Is any moral code about one's own wants and needs and projecting them out onto everyone else, or is it in being aware of our varying wants and needs relative to yours and navigating through that varying moral landscape?
So if the Golden Rule applied generally to doing things that people like and not doing things that people don't like and knowing what others like and don't like is a necessary requirement, because that is how you would want to be treated, rather than applied to a specific act, like singing to someone public, then it seems to work nicely.
Compare the Golden Rule from above with this, the Categorical Imperative:
"Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law."
Is this not an improvement to the Golden Rule? I think so.
The Improved Golden Rule (maxim):
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you while you at the same time will that this can be a universal law."
Right? See forming laws by the legislative bodies, that they are formed to be helpful and benevolent to all in the population who live under it.
One is certainly permitted to think whatever he likes, so if you think the C.I. is an improved golden rule, far be it from me to argue the thought.
Arguing the ground for it, is another matter, insofar as “Do unto others....”, even if considered a command of reason hence a subjective principle, can hardly be willed into law, much less a universal law governing moral agents in general, because that command is amended by another, separate subjective agenda which may be in conflict with it, re: “...as others would do...”. In other words, a legislative principle a priori, conditioned by something empirical, cannot be legislative at all. As much is said in the quote I gave above, from “Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysics of Morals”.
As to “forming laws by legislative bodies”, they are indeed helpful and benevolent to the citizenry to which they are given, and their universality is not altogether impossible, but they also incorporate their own consequences. Neither the C.I. nor the golden rule incorporate their own consequences, which seems to indicate an irreconcilable antinomy between empirical judicial law punishable by others in the form of e.g., incarceration, and rational moral law punishable one’s self in the form of disrespect.
Interesting thinking, though.
Carry on.
Translating the Categorical Imperative into everyday language:
"Whatever you do, only do things of which you think they are in accordance with a law by which everybody should abide"
I think this is great, but does it imply a moral duty to oneself, or a duty of benevolence to others?
Would such a benevolence be prescribed by the universal law? Do we want e.g. a duty to charity prescribed as a law? And why would a law need to prescribe a moral duty to oneself that goes beyond the simple Golden Rule?
What it does, is that it would enforce a principle of strict obligation to one another. I think the example with the criminal and the judge is the main thought that prompted Kant to theorize how to make the Golden Rule into a Universal Law. However I argue here that the Golden Rule if it literally were a law would do exactly that, it enforces a principle of obligation to one another.
If the law literally read: "Do unto others, as you would have them do to you", a thief could not object to having to give an additional object to the person he stole from, in addition to returning the stolen goods. A murderer could not object to having his own life taken. The judge is not judging on behalf of his own person, but on behalf of the wronged person and as part of the leviathan, on behalf of the whole society, based on the Golden Rule.
Kant's answer to that would be that it had already just been answered by Locke, in Essay of Human Understanding, on Power, forrmulated as natural rights in the USA by Jefferson, as follows:
* All people are created equal in the eyes of God
* Emprically, pleasure is continually self renewing as appetites are sated and return, for which reason God has made us mortal, that we require food, drink, and other bodily needs, for which reason we are granted the natural right of life.
* Satiation of pleasure by itself is meaningless unless life has purpose, for which reason we are gratned the natural right of liberty to find that in the wolrd which gives us true happiness.
* Acting for the greater good creates a more permanent, perfect happiness than any other pursuit, for which reason we are granted the natural right to pursue happiness
* When people pursue happiness by acting for the greater good, society benefits and improves, for which reason the natural rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness should be granted to all under the concept of 'positive law,' extending Aquinas' idea of divine possible law into the realm of secular politics.
Of course, one may disagree with soceity at all, and advocate anarchy instead, but otherwise, Locke does may a fairly real argument that acting benelovently is in accordance with universal law.
I wouldn't call a moral code that transcends social, geopolitical, and culutural borders, as you yourself stated in your opening remarks, a failure. Wouldn't that count as a success story for an idea?
As for punitive practices like capital punishment being at variance with the golden rule, I can only say that punitive measures come into play only after a moral code is violated. For this discussion it means that all punishment are simply consequences of the golden rule being broken. To hope for some form of reprieve from a death sentence incurred by moral transgression, invariably involving breaking the golden rule, by appeal to very same rule one has just breached may require a level of compassion our fellow humans simply don't possess. In short, once a moral code has been violated, the culprit loses the protection offered by the golden rule.
I could not agree more. This reciprocity of accepting to have done to ourselves how we treated others is inherent in the Golden Rule.
Quoting TheMadFool
I think the Golden Rule can work effectively only in democratic society under rule of law and an independent judiciary. If a tyrant can exempt himself from suffering the consequences of the rule, then it will break down. That is why even though the idea persists, it can be put into effective practice only in parts of the world. And even in democratic countries with independent judiciary, the rule is diluted by mercy justice, which exactly exempts the perpetrators from the consequences of the actions they have done to others.
And on a last note, the laws of deuteronomy that we still observe in practice today in some countries with muslim law, are of course themselves gross violations of the Golden Rule, in that the prescribed punishments are completely out of proportion with the deed, e.g. stoning for adultery.
I misspoke in my previous post. The golden rule seems to be an overarching principle of conduct and should apply to the law and its punitive system as well.
However, do take notice of the fact that the issue you and the OP have with some punitive measures (death penalty and stoning for adultery) can be well explained by a well-known flaw in the golden rule - that the way we'll behave towards others will be determined by our values (that determine how we expect to be treated). Maybe a man or woman in ancient Arabia would desire to be stoned for adultery or wish death upon himself/herself for a crime that carries the death penalty in an Arabian society. So, these laws seem unfair to us only because we have different views and values but such laws maybe the ideal of fairness in the societies they exist in. I'm not saying this is the correct explanation though but it is an explanation nevertheless.
Perhaps a different formulation of the golden rule is in order here: Do unto others, not as you'd want others to do unto you but as others would want to do unto themselves. In this version of the golden rule, you give due respect to the culture and religion - sources of values that decide conduct - of the people you're dealing with. Perhaps then you may find the death penalty and stoning for adultery not so morally alien to you and even if you do, it's your values vs the values of others and true to the original golden rule, as you would like others to respect your values, you should show an equal amount of respect for the values of others.
I'm a bit concerned here because the golden rule seems to be endorsing moral relativism by directing people to respect the practices values of others just as we would like others to respect our practices and values. Any objection we may have about the laws and punishments prescribed by these laws of other societies goes out the window.
If Jesus was who he said he was, or even somewhat like that, it's unlikely he would have misinterpreted anything. "Turning the other cheek" doesn't contradict "an eye for an eye". It totally supersedes it. That old law was just a transitory phase. An "eye for an eye" is a pretty unsatisfactory arrangement. Too often ego gets in the way - anger, greed - and people will try to take both your eyes for the one they've lost.
"Turning the other cheek" points to a realisation, a step forward in our spiritual evolution, where ego and the need for vengeance no longer have a place. No need for vengeance, no need for any act that gives rise to vengeance. It's pointing to a higher dimension of our being, one that lies beyond ego.
May we all get there one day.
I agree 'misinterpreted' was not the best choice of words, since of course Jesus expanded the concept of the golden rule knowingly into a more altruistic and non-violent direction. Arguably however, an effect of talking about both concepts in the same sermon that persists down to this day is that the Golden Rule is falsely seen by many as a kind of altruistic principle in itself. Kant thought that the criminal could argue for forgiveness based on the Golden Rule, but to forgive and not punish is a moral principle that goes beyond the Golden Rule as you have correctly stated. The Golden Rule would have the criminal punished, since he offended against it.