Is the Golden Rule a Relative Moral Law?

[sameandnot]

If so, the we are looking for the source of conflict. Which
I believe is the lack of virtue and rational thought within gouvernments, societies and people. The virtue of justice is the perfect moderation between selflessness and selfishness. If everyone possessed this virtue (which I believe is only possible, if possible, with wisdom, temperance and courage) then it is possible that all conflicts could be resolved. But this is not likely. Nor is it likely that the virtue be attainable. But, I believe the virtue's existence (if you believe it) could be looked at as a perfect example of the ability to resolve all conflicts, as well motivation to oneself in being a just person.

then we must ask: what is the source of irrationality and lack of virtue?
why do people act irrationally and without virtue?

 

[sameandnot]

it appears that conflict often arises between two-sides. not only that, but it appears to arise where there is the mentality of concernedness, by those whom compose one-side, for only those who share the same side; they, then are "set against" the other side. possibly...(usually), for individual/personal gain (of any and every kind).

"if you're not with us, you're against us."

we are almost forced to choose conflict, when raised in a place where this mentality is present.

so, retaliation and conflict seem to go hand-in-hand.

 

[Livingod]

What I believe is good and just treatment, may not be what you believe is good and just treatment. The death penalty for example. Are you for it or against it? (rhetorical) But who's opinion is valid? Who is right? What is correct justice? The Golden Rule doesn't solve our dillema...

Well, that is our quest as humans. What is the point of any religion? to find the absolute truth. If you know the absolute truth of the universe, or if you at least know the right way people are to be treated, then it does not matter what they think, because if they don't approve, then they are wrong. But, if you are wrong, well, you won't know that you are wrong, but you are going to hell anyway so you don't matter.

Now that I reread my post, it seems... what's a good adjective to describe that last paragraph.

 

[DB]

then we must ask: what is the source of irrationality and lack of virtue?
why do people act irrationally and without virtue?

Here's the unfolding you mentioned:

You ask what is the source of conflict, I say the lack of virtue and rationality. You then ask, what is the source of lack of virtue and irrational thought?

I do believe that this is the only meaningfull way to answer the tough questions in life, at least to attempt to answer.

So, what is the source of lack of virtue and irrational thought? I can only ask more questions...

What is human nature? Why are we selfish? Are we corrupted? Spoiled? If so, what is it to be pure? Why do we want more then what we need?

 

[sameandnot]

What is human nature? Why are we selfish? Are we corrupted? Spoiled? If so, what is it to be pure? Why do we want more then what we need?

db, i have written several responses to you, for this post alone. this has been exceedingly difficult, on me, and i have become greatly troubled as a result of this endeavor, as i will attempt to show, now.

•it appears i may have over-looked an aspect of the search.•
i asked about the source of irrationality and lack of virtue without asking what they were. we do not have a sufficent definition for "virtue" or "irrationality".

i had applied a definition of "virtue", here, and of course that raised more questions. namely: what is "goodness" or "good"... this led to more questions. concerning "value", primarily.

certainly, if there is absolute "objective/conceptual" truth to be known and proven, this is the only way of discerning it; of this i have no doubts. but, upon the grounds, of the nature of this examination, i have doubts about this methods ability to bring about "objective truth". i will be unable to offer further insight into this endeavor, for at least some time, and will retire from this topic for a while, and engage myself in meditation and work.

i can only offer one suggestion, for now: that you find the way to punch through the fractal and arrive at the other side, where you can see the meaning of this very endeavor, in its wholeness and totality.

shoot for The Source with one-pointed determination.

this is all that i can say, for now.

 

[Dawguard]

It is easy to take the Golden Rule at face value, but like everything else in this world we must strive past the first galnce to truly understand it. How would you want to be treated? Does it really matter? You must see past the immedieate action you might desire and see the purpose that drives it. This is the cause of our actions, and it is that to which the rule must be applied or it is worthless. Thus it is the intentions of the acter, i.e. the person trying to please you, that matter for him. The rule is the exact same regardless of the person, and it is the actions that the rule creates that change.

 

[russ_watters]

Sorry I missed this before and sorry if I'm coming in late, but I think this is a good question...

as stated in the Bible, "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" or simply "Treat others as you want to be treated." is the golden rule.
But since the way you wish to be treated is you're choice, would that make "Treat others as you want to be treated." a relative law?
Can't one conform to the golden rule by simply having his or her own feelings?

Actually, I think the golden rule can be used as a basis for logic-based moral absolutism. (yes, I'll explain...)

From wikipedia:"a criminal might argue before a judge that since the judge would not want himself to be sent to prison by anyone, the judge would violate the golden rule by sending other people, such as the criminal, to prison."

That scenario ignores the fact that the criminal has already violated the golden rule and the judge only sends criminals to prison. The judge is simply fulfilling the second half of the golden rule by making the criminal's actions have consequences. So there is no violation of the golden rule by the judge.

With no offense to anyone, my opinion is that moral relativism is nonsense and self-contradicting. The golden rule is seeming to me to be meaningless in an absolutist's perspective.

I agree that relativism is nonsensical and self-contradictory, but let me lay out my case for the golden rule as a logical basis for moral absolutism...

First and foremost, we need to start with a definition of what morality is, or rather, what a moral society should look like. I define a morality's impact on society according to stability, prosperity, peace, and happiness. So a moral society would be one who'se morality causes these things while an immoral society's morality causes the opposite.

Now, the application of the Golden Rule has an obvious impact on how I define happiness. Two gang leaders who'se application of the golden rule means murder and retribution to the opposing gang are clearly misusing the golden rule to create death, destruction, chaos, etc. But two neighbors lending each other a helping hand - say, giving a jump when the other's car battery dies, or borrowing each other's tools - obviously has a positive impact on society.

So this implies a test of an application of the Golden Rule. Take any action and ask the question: Does this action, if taken by everyone, positively or negatively impact society?

This question is, in fact, the test for rational moral absolutism. As a matter of fact, the golden rule itself is almost the definition of an absolute moral principle: ie, for a principle to be absolute, it must be possible to apply it universally - and that's what the golden rule does, it forces you to consider the consequences of applying your rule universally.

 

[DB]

That scenario ignores the fact that the criminal has already violated the golden rule...

In what way has he violated it? Most, probably the criminal would like to be treated with respect, goodness and justice. But what does he know about respect, goodness and justice? Does he know exactly as much as the judge? The jury? Anyone? How can the way you want to be treated be universal? How can your perception of good treatment be universal?

Sure, the criminal must pay the price of prison time, but the Golden Rule says nothing about that. Especially in the literal sense.

"an eye for an eye" would fit much better.

First and foremost, we need to start with a definition of what morality is, or rather, what a moral society should look like. I define a morality's impact on society according to stability, prosperity, peace, and happiness. So a moral society would be one who'se morality causes these things while an immoral society's morality causes the opposite.

In a teleological sense, yes. But what is society's purpose, what are its goals? How do you know they are to be stable, peaceful and prosper, and to keep everyone happy. I am not going to disagree with you (you did say that "I" define morality's impact...), I do agree, but we can never be sure. The Golden Rule doesn't gives us any certainty. It doesn't indicate how society should be.

What makes you happy? Is it the same as what makes me happy? What made Ed Gein happy? Is what makes Ed Gein happy not the oposite of what makes us happy? Sure it is, we are not cannibals. But whose definition of happiness is more valid? Do we not need an absolute standard of "happiness" to compare to? Where is this standard in the Golden Rule? It's not there. I don't think The Golden Rule gives any indication or basis for moral absolutism.

So this implies a test of an application of the Golden Rule. Take any action and ask the question: Does this action, if taken by everyone, positively or negatively impact society?

But does everyone know the answer to the question they've just asked themselves? Would you agree that selfishness may corrupt them in making the right decision? Do we all have the same amount of selfishness? Not at all. We all think differently about what would effect society in a positive way and a negative way. That's politics. After all, "I" am a part of society. I cannot say what is truly for the better of society without my selfishness corrupting my answer. And the the key word in ""Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" is "you".

This question is, in fact, the test for rational moral absolutism. As a matter of fact, the golden rule itself is almost the definition of an absolute moral principle: ie, for a principle to be absolute, it must be possible to apply it universally - and that's what the golden rule does, it forces you to consider the consequences of applying your rule universally.

Sure, you can apply it anywhere to anyone. But the once it's applied, opinion and perpective are the only way of defining what is right or wrong. For example:

Imagine a world where we all lived by the Golden Rule, and only the Golden rule. Gouverments, justice systems, society etc. Suppose a thief named Daniel was on trial. The judge says, "Daniel, you violated the Golden Rule." Daniel, in his attempt to be let of the hook for his crime, simply says, "No I didn't your honor, I actually would like people to steal from me, I believe it is good treatment, I believe people enjoy owning something they didn't pay for..."

What would the judge say next? Wouldn't he have to create some absolute standard to define Daniel's action as immoral? Such a standard is nonexistent in the Golden Rule. As I read on Wikipedia, George Bernard Shaw said that "The golden rule is that there are no golden rules".

Forget the fact that the story isn't realistic. It still imply's that the Golden Rule doesn't say much about true morality. It imply's that it's based on opinion, up-bringging, and perspective. Thus is relativism.

 

[sameandnot]

i want to say one thing: jesus never intended for it, what we refer to as the "golden rule," to be implemented in government and justice systems. otherwise, he would have directed his attention to the governors and law-makers. apparently, these were not the goals that he had in mind. he was not saying that we should have society based on "the rule". his efforts were directed specifically at the people that compose society; the individuals, in individual and "everyday" relations.

we must fight the urge to try and see this as something imposed on or by government or judge, because it was never intended, according to the image of his life that we have, to be imposed on the governing structure of society, but was intended to be considered, for implementation, in indivdual subjects, governing their individual lives.

i think that he was targeting the constituants of society; the individual people and their relationships with each other, right now. not in any abstract sense, but in a very real and immediate sense; to be actualized by "me", right here and now. not to worry about government or justice systems, abstractly, but how i govern myself and how i am in relation to acting justly.

i would like to add that, society is the reflection of the individuals that compose it. the individual is society. we the individuals to regard "the rule" and act accordingly, in time, the situations, that we refer to, in the institutions of judgment or government, would be fundamentally altered. that is to say, life would be different if people just started living by the "rule", and stepped outside of selfishness, in the face of "the rule". courts function on "eye for an eye" because the people, as a whole, do. sufficient numbers of people acting "rightly" towards one another, would alter the nature of social situations and social environments profoundly.

imagine a world where people were giving to those in want, simply because they were want of it. say, money or respect or love... poverty would be fundamentally changed and so would social separation and inequality; racism; environmental issues; marginalization of certain groups; the list goes on and on.

things would be different, so we cannot, rationally, consider this "rule" imposed or extended any farther than myself and my relations with other humans... perhaps even animals. would we still have animal cruelty criminals? who could think that animals would prefer us desicrating them for human consumption and production?

in summation, this rule was given to people, for personal aquiecence and actualization, rather than governments for the purpose of governing people. the people govern themselves in there relation to other humans and the government changes accordingly.

"The Revolution will not be televised."

it will come from "within." from the people that compse society, and not those who seek to impose their will on society.

 

[sameandnot]

he was trying to save souls, i think... and not societies.

there must be some transcending and shared knowledge which people have, for their motivation to act right. the knowledge he gave them/us was of God.

God was/is the "hindge," the central "pivot," upon which society revolves. no God, it seems, and chaos, disorder and destruction. maybe there is some other pivot, so we need not apply god as it, but perhaps there is not.

the catholic church imposed their will on society and continues to. they are applying their efforts wrongly. if everyone focused on their own actions and relations then there would be no need to implement on a large-scale, a single ideology over the rest. that never works. imposing one's will on another is not what the golden rule tells us. in this way, religious people are fanatical and zealots... and finally, hypocrites and destroyers of the ideals that they proclaim to hold dear and profess accordingly.

kierkegaard said, "the last christian died on the cross."

i think he was right... or at least, metaphorically right.

 

[DB]

sameandnot, the story of Daniel was just an example to prove that the Golden Rule was based on opinon and perspective. I didn't mean to imply that it was given to us to rule our societies and prove that it's flawed.

Basically, the way I see, is that the Golden Rule is relative to any person's opinion and perspective. I was just wondering what such a rule, given to us by God, would imply about morality...relative or absolute?

 

[sameandnot]

i understand, db. i just wanted to bring that to light, specifically, cause there have been posts, mostly early on, that considered it in light of the criminal and the judge; whether or not the golden rule applied, still.

can something relative, like "treat others the way you would like to be treated" (subjective), be an absolute when practiced in a world based on relativity?

if a relative rule, namely the golden rule, is applicable in a world of relativity (things can only be judged relative to other things), can it stand as absolute, through having fulfilled the essence of relativity, by actually being instating absolute harmony between subjects and within relationships, which are founded in relativity?

is the golden rule, the most perfect relative rule?

is it true that the world, and our objective understanding of it (the relativity between "object"<->"object" and "concept"<->"concept"), is subjectively relative?

if so, then the most perfect relative rule would absolutely be in accord with the relative nature of objectivity and subjectivity?

i'm trying to reconcile these two, here... out on a limb, perhaps...
this is what we get. when we try to pay with a lack of articulation ability.

i'll work on it, and get back to you.