The golden rule is quite a powerful rule to live by. But is it infallible?

[aliensalmon]

The golden rule basically states to treat others as how you would want them to treat you.

I personally think it's a powerful guiding principle to stand by. But is it infallible? Can you think of any weaknesses or criticisms to this rule, or ways to strengthen it?

[Alice Liddell]

Some people like to be treated like trash so I am not too sure about this one.

[Midori]

What if I wanna be mistreated because I'm a freak or something? hypothetically

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Main weakness is that almost nobody actually does this.

[MinionJoe]

Originally posted by aliensalmon:

The golden rule basically states to treat others as how you would want them to treat you.

Is it? I always thought it was, "He who has the gold, makes the rules."

[Plaid]

FAFO

[aliensalmon]

Originally posted by Alice Liddell:

Some people like to be treated like trash so I am not too sure about this one.

Originally posted by Midori:

What if I wanna be mistreated because I'm a freak or something? hypothetically

I think those are good counter-arguments. Thanks.

Originally posted by Rumpelcrutchskin:

Main weakness is that almost nobody actually does this.

Yeah, people don't practice what they preach I guess.

Originally posted by MinionJoe:

Originally posted by aliensalmon:

The golden rule basically states to treat others as how you would want them to treat you.

Is it? I always thought it was, "He who has the gold, makes the rules."

That's true in a lot of situations....

[Marmarmar34]

The only people that would fail on would be literal psychopaths due to their inability to comprehend other people's wellbeing.

[aliensalmon]

Originally posted by Marmarmar34:

The only people that would fail on would be literal psychopaths due to their inability to comprehend other people's wellbeing.

Yep, that's true.

[Tonepoet]

I thought the golden rule was "Whoever has the gold makes the rules[medium.com]", and that's why Donald Trump is President of the U.S.A.

[trash nyan]

Originally posted by Tonepoet:

I thought the golden rule was "Whoever has the gold makes the rules[medium.com]", and that's why Donald Trump is President of the U.S.A.

damn, how much do you charge him to live in your head

[Grimble Grumble]

One issue with the traditional, elegant formulations is that it places the subjective measure on the subject (the one acting) on the object (the one being acted upon).

I like to think of it more in the terms of "do unto to others as they would like others to do unto them so long as it is reasonable compared to what else we all do unto each other already"

Just doesn't have the same ring to it.

[Triple G]

I mean that golden rule is quite old, and certain people already thought about it. So according to Kant, the better golden rule would be:

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law"

But it´s of course also connected to the question what "good" is to begin with, and doesn´t really include the thought that someone would be totally fine with killing all people and himself in the process. It would only show that people, who don´t follow that rule act irrational. And people who act in a way which the majority of people wouldn´t agree - would be called mentally ill, or criminal, or "bad" / "evil".

Ultimately morals are subjective - and there´s no way to make a rule, so that morals become objective. One always needs goals or statements, which are pulled out of the ass. Which is why there are endless discussions about morals / ethics. And even if people agree on a few goals - these are still questioned or not put into practice, like e.g. human rights, which are only like 30 ethical goals to tell how humans should be treated, and should be actual universal laws.

So i assume people don´t want any universal laws, because these don´t say that a certain person, or certain peoples, is much better than the rest - and that´s something which a couple people couldn´t live with, because a lack of confidence, which they try to cover up with having power.

[aliensalmon]

Originally posted by Grimble Grumble:

One issue with the traditional, elegant formulations is that it places the subjective measure on the subject (the one acting) on the object (the one being acted upon).

I like to think of it more in the terms of "do unto to others as they would like others to do unto them so long as it is reasonable compared to what else we all do unto each other already"

Just doesn't have the same ring to it.

Good point, and the rule you suggested is a stronger version of the Golden rule.

[EndangeredPootisBird]

It's a dangerous rule that puts you at a constant disadvantage in the real world.

[aliensalmon]

Originally posted by Triple G:

I mean that golden rule is quite old, and certain people already thought about it. So according to Kant, the better golden rule would be:

"Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law"

But it´s of course also connected to the question what "good" is to begin with, and doesn´t really include the thought that someone would be totally fine with killing all people and himself in the process. It would only show that people, who don´t follow that rule act irrational. And people who act in a way which the majority of people wouldn´t agree - would be called mentally ill, or criminal, or "bad" / "evil".

Ultimately morals are subjective - and there´s no way to make a rule, so that morals become objective. One always needs goals or statements, which are pulled out of the ass. Which is why there are endless discussions about morals / ethics. And even if people agree on a few goals - these are still questioned or not put into practice, like e.g. human rights, which are only like 30 ethical goals to tell how humans should be treated, and should be actual universal laws.

So i assume people don´t want any universal laws, because these don´t say that a certain person, or certain peoples, is much better than the rest - and that´s something which a couple people couldn´t live with, because a lack of confidence, which they try to cover up with having power.

Interesting. You make good points about how morals are subjective and that universal rules would not be wanted.