The Golden Rule is Not Enough

[noelic]

I've had this discussion with my coworkers for a few days now and I'm trying to convince them that the Golden Rule is actually pretty bad. Why?

What is the Golden Rule? It comes in different forms but it always goes along the lines of

Treat others the way you want to be treated.

It sounds great but when you get to the nitty and gritty of it, it really doesn't.

First, the Golden Rule assumes the way you want to be treated is the best way to treat others. We all know for a fact that our definitions of being treated well are different from one another. For example, and I know this is a bit polarizing but, if you fundamentally think that eating meat is how you want to be treated, try doing that to a vegan.

Next, since it makes us assume and therefor leads to becoming self-centered. Increased levels of self-focus can become unhealthy, and in turn leads lesser awareness of others. This goes against an implied meaning of the Golden Rule where it tries to teach harmony. It actually works against it.

Last, it doesn't promote diversity. If others liked what you would do unto you, and others abide by that then you may condition yourself into a group-think situation - it sounds like a bad idea, but the group likes it, therefore it must be good. Diversity goes against the rule because the whole world isn't like you.

I propose instead that you follow the Platinum Rule instead

Treat others the way they want to be treated.

This way, we embrace individuality, respect each other's difference, and leads to a more self-less attitude.

#platinumrule #leadership

[NYCstreetPhotog]

Now I champion learning to communicate effectively with others means using their preferred communication style, and I don't inherently dismiss someone elses preferred living style, but I can't see how this is possible or practicle.

I eat meat, but that isn't a way to be treated, so my interactions with vegans has nothing to do with their eating preferences.

Self centered? Every human being is self centered and selfish, that isn't a pessimistic view, it's an inherent fact. Everything we do is in it's own way beneficial to ourselves. Selfish isn't a good or bad word, the actions are, so it isn't automatically wrong to be selfish.

Diversity? Your aurgument is that it forces others to conform to your ideals, but then you just flip it and think that automatically changes the outcome. If the golden rule doesn't promote diversity, then neither will your rewritting of it.

Look, the golden rule is a basis for the individual, a moral pointer, nothing more, it's not an end all be all, it doesn't say everyone treat eachother exactly the same, it says you shouldn't hurt (kill, mame, cheat, etc.) someone else if you don't want them to do that to you. It doesn't stop that person from doing it, nor does it imply they have to treat you the same way.

No person can possibly know how every other person wants to be treated! You can only use your own personal moral norms to figure out the best possible assumption on it, and that's what the golden rule prescribes.

[noelic]

If we use the rule on communication techniques, it works wonderfully since effective communication requires that we adjust based on our audience. Good catch!!

[NYCstreetPhotog]

Except communication is a tool, while the golden rule is a basis for moral standing. That's like suggesting using an apple pealer to figure out how to fall in love. It may work, but it just isn't the right application.

[noelic]

You're unto something there! So if we were to use the rules on how we use tools, which one do you believe would work better?

[NYCstreetPhotog]

They both have their merits, but in the end the golden rule would be much more effective, no matter if you apply what can be learned from communication to it or not.

Self sacrifice is a nice platitude, but it is still selfish. There is always, always a personal benefit to everything we do. On top of that, it is impossible to know how someone else wants to be treated without communication between the two people, and that communication can't happen if there is any assumption or self indignance. Thus, the simplest way to facilitate that communication is to take up the mantle that the other person is no different than yourself. Does that mean they are? No of course not, nor does is force them to be.

Lets apply your idea though. Let's say I walk up to a guy, from the looks of him I'm going to assume he's a gay, vegitarian, Catholic. I start treating him the way he would like to be treated as a gay, vegitarian, Catholic, and low and behold, I've just offended him because I've made the number one faux pas in communication by assuming my communication method was right instead of testing the waters.

Further communication is limited, and as such I am unable to assertain the correct way in which he would like to be treated.

It's stepping backwards, not forwards.

[noelic]

In a manner, didn't you just make an assumption on how they'd like to be treated? This is actually one of the main failings of the Golden rule, it makes us assume as if we are the other, but we aren't. The platinum rule advocates for asking questions and establishing a clear line of understanding vs the golden rule just assumes that you have full understanding of others cause you can imagine them as you are.

[NYCstreetPhotog]

No, the golden rule doesn't. It's cut and dry, no assumptions, no projection. Simple to the point. It states: do onto others as you wish be done onto you. It doesn't say assume everyone is the same, it doesn't even say anything about communication or understanding, it simply states act the way you want to be acted upon.

You are using this amazing ability that humans posses called pattern recognition, but the problem is it can be both a boom and a bane. You see, we can find patterns and learn from them, but we also have the abbility to infer patterns that don't exist.

Example: flipping a coin 100 times doesn't actually change the probability of flipping a head any more than flipping it once, but our minds will automatically find a pattern and think it will. The probability of a head isn't dependant on the amount of times you flip, only on the individual flip itself, thus 50/50

What you are doing is inferring a meaning that isn't inherently present, that is what's called assumption, thus disproving your aurgument.

[noelic]

Thanks for sharing your points as always!

[anon1903]

I like the Platinum rule much better. It makes sense.

Since little we're taught to respect everyone and treat them w kindness. What if they don't deserve it?

[noelic]

I believe the platinum rule is trying to imply that, if you wanted to make a decision, choose respect and kindness. Otherwise, as another poster mentioned, you can choose not to.

[anon1903]

you will have to pardon my saying so but not everyone you meet deserves it

[noelic]

I've listened to arguments were the firing of people from the job is an act of kindness. What do you think of that?

[anon1903]

how in the world is that possible?

[noelic]

When I was listening to that particular conversation it was: "someone is holding a job position, but you know in your heart that they can grow more somewhere else, so you fire them" is similar to how western cultures kick out their young adults to force them to grow.

[Jesse0]

What is someone wants to be praised and idolized? Or what if someone wants to be isolated? I guarantee we'd all want someone to care for us, talk to us and appreciated -- now if we do unto others as we would do unto ourselves; truly, we are loving our neighbors.

[Jesse0]

What if*

[noelic]

So far, the main argument is when do we say that we know better? If we aren't from the same background then "better" can become extremely polarizing. Instead, would it be more precise to ask the recipient of our deed, "How may I help you?" instead of "This is how I'll help you."

[Jesse0]

Name of person who doesn't want to be loved 😂

[noelic]

Your meaning of love can be radically different from another person's perspective. 😜

[Jesse0]

Big yikes bro 😂, but what I mean is like if you fall down and get hurt you treat yourself with a bandage. People should do it to each other

[noelic]

Ah! That's to help, but not necessarily love! How about the situations where helping actually makes things worse?

[Jesse0]

I'm certain that's love

[osili]

praise comes and is given to one who has done or was helpfulat work or at home where one does unselfishly

[osili]

idoilized comes from followers who rather do as others rather then to do and choose for 1 self

[osili]

false profits have and always will have his

[Jesse0]

No osil, that's not necessarily true.

[A-man-22]

No both rules are bad.

Treat others how they deserve to be treated.

The rule you put leads to lack of self respect and manipulation.

You shouldn't do as everyone asks of you. You should be considerate but not their personal tool.

[noelic]

Good elaboration!

[noelic]

Would you then say that you are the judge of what others deserve?

[A-man-22]

Their actions have consequences.

They provide their own material to be judged on.

Everyone deserves a level of basic respect.
But would you treat a mass murderer with the same level of respect as a charity worker?

[noelic]

You have a good point there. How would a mass murderer want to be treated?

[A-man-22]

Much better than someone who took a life should be given.

[Jesse0]

Altruism doesn't equal the lack of self respect and manipulation. LOL

[A-man-22]

If someone wanted you to do something against your beliefs then that is lack of self respect.

Example you are in a restaurant and are eating a balanced meal and a vegan comes to you and asks you to stop eating meat near them as it's making them uncomfortable. It would be lack of self respect to comply with them as you have all the right to eat meat, as much as they have to not, especially in the restaurant where you bought the meal.

[Jesse0]

You do yourself a deed when you consider yourself less significant than others. If a vegan comes to me (let's say he's my friend) and says he's uncomfortable that I'm eating meat -- then I will never eat meat, I don't want him to stumble because of some silly dietary issues. Now if he was a random fella, then you're going to eat that meal!

[A-man-22]

Well that's how we differ then.

If you consider yourself less significant than others that's lacking self respect.

We are all equal.

I have the right to eat the food I purchase in a restaurant. Just as much as they do.

The thing is in this scenario you are in the right as it's wrong to force ideals on others. They have no right to stop you eating meat. If they are uncomfortable then they can leave, I'm not stopping that but if you go to a restaurant that serves meat you expect to be around people eating meat.

Remember if you are going by the rules they have to follow them too. So they have to treat you how you want to be treated. Which means them leaving you to enjoy your food.

That's why these never work as depending on the view you take there are multiple outcomes.

[Jesse0]

I think you've forgotten that this was supposed to be about the golden rule vs platinum rule, not the accommodation of one's own dietary decisions...

[NYCstreetPhotog]

But you made it into accommodating a dietary decision. Your aurgument is cyclical and without direction.

As to your aurgument about considering yourself less significant than others. That's true, but only in the sense that you don't become narcissistic, and vain.

Honestly this all sounds like something read or taught in a self help/multi level marketing leadership training.

If it is then, I'll just let you fumble on your own until you are able to effectively filter the information.

[A-man-22]

Got a bit off topic.

If someone requests you do something or treat them a certain way, you can make a judgement in whether or not you should do it. Always doing others requests is called being manipulated.

Simple as.

[Jesse0]

No I didn't and sure

[Jesse0]

Receiving requests are not the same as these rules. It's just a general love on someone as you wanted to be treated.

[NYCstreetPhotog]

Responder used an example about diets, you then responded with example based on diets, thus turning the conversation into one about diets, and leaving the "rules" as bystanders connected to the dietary conversation through the examples.

Then you redirected the conversation away from the dietary conversation and claimed the other person lost sight of the bigger picture.

That is a cyclical aurgument. You do your platinum rule a disservice by aurguing like that. You neither took into concideration the responders feeling of being outright dissmissed, nor did you treat him the way he wished to be treated.

[madamina]

Regardless this is tautology.

[NYCstreetPhotog]

@madamina very true.

[noelic]

This is an amazing thread! I'm glad that every one gets to say their piece! All good points! If I could like y'alls replies I would!

[madamina]

@noelic 🙏🏼

[Agape93]

I think one from Spinoza is better
What do to others you must also accept that it is proper for them to do in turn.

Want to cheat? Ok, but you cannot complain if they cheat on you.
Want to rape? Ok but you cannot complain when someone rapes you.
Want to steal a couple dollars for cigarettes? Ok but you cannot complain when someone does that to you.

[noelic]

"Don't do to others what you don't want others to do to you"

It's a slight modification to the Golden Rule. What difference does it have with the original, in terms of addressing the self-centered nature of the Golden Rule?

[Agape93]

It doesn’t really. But instead of framing it as treat others how you want to be treated, it frames it as anything you do is automatically acceptable for others to do, not just to you but in general.

[noelic]

So if you are to do something, and it's morally unacceptable to the other, you shouldn't do it to them?

[Agape93]

Here’s an example. Let’s say I robbed you at gunpoint. Once that act has occurred, i can no longer complain if someone robs me at gunpoint, or my mothers, or you or anyone else.

[goaded]

Your rule only works if you both follow it; I prefer goaded's corollary to the golden rule:

If someone treats you badly, then that's the way they want to be treated, so go ahead!

(In practice, it's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit-for-tat.)

[osili]

now you just writing a your belief of the golden rule in laymans term it is be kind to one another and help where help is needed but doing it for no other reason or sumthing more then thank you be as good today for yesterday is gone and tomorrow is not promised

[MisterAnon69]

I want you to give me all you belongings and kill yourself. Much obliged random stranger.

What a fucking cuck mentality.

[ItsAMeA]

What about "Try and act in a way that if everyone acted this way, it would lead to the most beneficial outcome for everyone." ?

[grega239]

Agree. It's total bullshit

[osili]

until its you its happening to