Golden Rule Flaws?

[leftrightleftrightleft]

I've heard many people on here from various religious or philosophical backgrounds claim that the Golden Rule is the primary basis for all morality. Essentially, it seems that nearly all moral decisions can be made using some sort of derivation of the Golden Rule.

But does morality only apply to humans? Isn't the Golden Rule purely anthropocentric? Can things be "wrong" beyond human beings?

For example, if I see a company go in an clear cut a large swathe of forest thereby destroying habitats and ecosystems of countless plants and animals thereby decreasing biodiversity, I think that is wrong. But the Golden Rule can't be applied to non-sentient trees.

Is environmental degradation morally wrong? Are natural disasters morally wrong or do they just happen?

 

[brohammer26]

Just dont be suprised when the trees start to attack you! haha just kidding. I think that this applies to human relationships more than anything else...but when it comes to enviromental stuff everyone has thier own ethics. Natural disasters dont have emotions...nor do plants, trees.

 

[Gadarene]

One of the flaws I've heard claimed about it is that it's simply not optimal - do unto others as they would have you do unto them is a better statement, and I'm inclined to agree.

To some degree, I think the Golden Rule encourages a tendency to assume that other people think and react in the exact same way as you do - which may be true in many cases, but not necessarily so in others. It's better to open communication with someone and find out what makes them tick.

Although I suppose if you want to get pedantic you could extend the Golden Rule to cover these scenarios with a notion of "well, I'd want people to listen to me and find out what I want/need/like".

 

[Paradoxum]

But does morality only apply to humans? Isn't the Golden Rule purely anthropocentric? Can things be "wrong" beyond human beings?

Well it can apply to animals.

For example, if I see a company go in an clear cut a large swathe of forest thereby destroying habitats and ecosystems of countless plants and animals thereby decreasing biodiversity, I think that is wrong. But the Golden Rule can't be applied to non-sentient trees.

Is environmental degradation morally wrong? Are natural disasters morally wrong or do they just happen?

I'm not sure where environmentalism gets its morality. Maybe because we consider life beautiful and unique we don't like killing it. So just as we wouldn't want a great masterpiece destroyed, nor do we want the environment destroyed. Maybe we put ourselves in the place of the plants, half forgetting they have no thoughts or desires.

Is it possible to talk of plants having desires? At least something more than a rock has?

 

[Gadarene]

Hmm, I've just realised I didn't actually address the specific flaw raised in the OP. Doi.

It doesn't apply in quite the same way in that there's no mutuality - we can be "nice" to animals and trees but they aren't holding the same standard themselves in their interactions with us - they can't. But I think the Rule can be broadened - we can respect the lives of animals because they are sentient, and can feel pain, as can we. We wouldn't want unnecessary pain to be inflicted on us, so we can do the same for them.

For trees/plant life/life as a whole we can relate to them as part of that life, and extend the Rule further again.

 

[Theofane]

The Golden Rule applies to how we interact with other people, and that should be obvious. As far as animals and the environment go, that's called being good stewards of the Earth.

Why would anyone want to pick it apart? For the sake of passive aggressivism?

 

[Gadarene]

Why would anyone want to pick it apart? For the sake of passive aggressivism?

Criticism can be complimentary.

 

[Theofane]

Criticism can be complimentary.

No, not in this case.

 

[Gadarene]

No, not in this case.

Might want to talk to the OP before presuming that.

If you respect something, no scrutiny of it should be verboten.

 

[Theofane]

Might want to talk to the OP before presuming that.

If you respect something, no scrutiny of it should be verboten.

No. Not in this case.

Why scrutinize the Golden Rule unless you are trying to discredit it, Gaderene? With the Golden Rule discredited, you can more easily undermine the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Christian faith itself. You are far too obvious!

 

[Gadarene]

No. Not in this case.

Why scrutinize the Golden Rule unless you are trying to discredit it, Gaderene?

I found the question in the OP to be a curious one for me, related to something I'd been pondering recently. Why is merely questioning a belief so problematic for you?

Incidentally, I know what my own attitude is, Theofane - you do not, so kindly don't presume.

With the Golden Rule discredited, you can more easily undermine the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Christian faith itself. You are far too obvious!

If your beliefs don't stand up to scrutiny, that's neither my fault nor my problem - and if your beliefs are wrong (or right) they were so long before I started posting on this topic, so don't shoot the messenger.

I actually think the Golden Rule is one of the things the Bible gets right - to a point, at any rate, see my posts earlier in the thread. Of course, it's not exactly difficult for the Bible to get the Golden Rule right - it wasn't an original idea, and was previously arrived at by multiple cultures.

 

[Mystman]

Is environmental degradation morally wrong? Are natural disasters morally wrong or do they just happen?

Destroying a forest can be wrong since you're destroying the habitat of many sentient animals, and because you're destroying a valuable resource that could be used/enjoyed by other humans. The trees by themselves don't have value, besides that assigned to them by sentient entities.

But you have to do a careful balancing act there. Western Europe could never have reached such a high living standard for so many people if it was still entirely covered in forests. So I can understand it if countries like Brazil are willing to sacrifice significant portions of the rainforest in order to improve their standard of living.

Or to put it in terms of the Golden Rule... my actions should allow my future grandchildren to enjoy nature, but my actions should also allow my future grandchildren to eat. The action which best strikes a balance between those is the correct action according to the Golden Rule (which is the largest flaw if you ask me: striking the "perfect" balance is incredibly difficult, if not impossible)

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Matthew 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."

This would fulfill the admonition to 'love your neighbor as yourself'.

This is the positive new covenant instruction and the antithesis of the old, which implies 'that which is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.'

 

[Daniel25]

the problem with the golden rule is outside of religion, its really more of a suggestion.

 

[Mling]

the problem with the golden rule is outside of religion, its really more of a suggestion.

The problem with the Golden Rule is that it's woefully insufficient. It's as wrong as often as not (if two people prefer to be treated in different ways, then treating them the way you'd want to be treated might be hurtful). If you follow it as a "rule," you'll end up screwing up a lot, and if you have the wisdom to see when you should follow it and when you shouldn't, you have no need for it.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The problem with the Golden Rule is that it's woefully insufficient. It's as wrong as often as not (if two people prefer to be treated in different ways, then treating them the way you'd want to be treated might be hurtful). If you follow it as a "rule," you'll end up screwing up a lot, and if you have the wisdom to see when you should follow it and when you shouldn't, you have no need for it.

It's 'rule of thumb', not a hard, fast, rule. With God it's a principle to be applied according the situation and individual judgement. It also applies to the new covenant. If the rule is insufficient you can always use the 613 or so rules found in the old covenant.

 

[Mling]

It's 'rule of thumb', not a hard, fast, rule. With God it's a principle to be applied according the situation and individual judgement. It also applies to the new covenant. If the rule is insufficient you can always use the 613 or so rules found in the old covenant.

The point of a rule (or even a guideline) is that if you wouldn't know what to do, remembering the rule will introduce new, useful, information into your thought process.

A rule which is almost as likely to cause harm as to help is useless. It's like telling people "If you're lost, turn right." It only works half the time, and the other half, it makes the problem worse--following the rule is as exactly as useful as not following it.

Do what you'd want done to you is the right thing in really simple, obvious situations (would I want to be stolen from? No, so I guess I shouldn't steal), but in any situation where the average person might have to think for a half a second, it's as likely to lead you astray as not.

"So and so is struggling. Should I help? I hate it when people take problem away from me when I'm struggling with them. I want to take care of it myself. I'll let her handle it herself." Meanwhile so-and-so thinks you're a jerk because you're standing there watching her struggle, and not offering a hand, which is what she wants.

An infinitely better guideline wouldn't lead a person to arrogantly assume that their own preferences are universal. Something like, "Treat others the way they would like to be treated, and when in doubt, humbly ask."

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Why would anyone want to pick it apart? For the sake of passive aggressivism?

Why scrutinize the Golden Rule unless you are trying to discredit it, Gaderene? With the Golden Rule discredited, you can more easily undermine the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Christian faith itself. You are far too obvious!

My point wasn't to discredit the Golden Rule. My point was to wonder whether the Golden Rule can or cannot be applied to moral situations that are not human-human interaction.

Also...I consider myself a Christian. Scrutiny and skepticism are virtues in my books.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

The point of a rule (or even a guideline) is that if you wouldn't know what to do, remembering the rule will introduce new, useful, information into your thought process.

A rule which is almost as likely to cause harm as to help is useless. It's like telling people "If you're lost, turn right." It only works half the time, and the other half, it makes the problem worse--following the rule is as exactly as useful as not following it.

Do what you'd want done to you is the right thing in really simple, obvious situations (would I want to be stolen from? No, so I guess I shouldn't steal), but in any situation where the average person might have to think for a half a second, it's as likely to lead you astray as not.

"So and so is struggling. Should I help? I hate it when people take problem away from me when I'm struggling with them. I want to take care of it myself. I'll let her handle it herself." Meanwhile so-and-so thinks you're a jerk because you're standing there watching her struggle, and not offering a hand, which is what she wants.

An infinitely better guideline wouldn't lead a person to arrogantly assume that their own preferences are universal. Something like, "Treat others the way they would like to be treated, and when in doubt, humbly ask."

But Jesus didn't call it a rule, man did. Jesus proposed it as a principle. In another place Jesus linked love (agape) to the same law and prophets as well.

Agape has four main principles: Assent of will (humility) , judgement (discernment), duty (social obligation), and propriety (kindness, thoughtfulness).

Our relationship with others should be approached with these in mind. It's all part of the greater 'golden rule' (sic).

 

[Paradoxum]

An infinitely better guideline wouldn't lead a person to arrogantly assume that their own preferences are universal. Something like, "Treat others the way they would like to be treated, and when in doubt, humbly ask."

I think your formulation is true, but it also loses something from the original. I think part of the point of the golden rule is to see yourself in the other person and so to see that only an action that you find acceptable to yourself could possibly acceptably done to another.

So rather I would say, 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (if you were in the same state of mind as them'. By the last bit I mean that you must try to incorporate into your own thinking how they probably think based on what you know about them.

I don't think any short phrase can really fully explain how to be moral on its own. They all need explanation, but the golden rule is a good reminder to point you in a more moral direction for simple moral decisions.