The Golden Rule versus the Platinum Rule

[JoeDawg]

Welcome back :zzz:... you say "codifies" (makes it fishy?) I say identifies (something to do with teeth)

Codify, to write down, as in a law or rule. It affirms that some practice is desirable. Boring is in the eye of the beholder.

The funny thing about empathy is that you can apply it to non-living things. Take music, line, form, light, dark, imagery in general... for example.

Which would be an over-application or misapplication of empathy. A side effect of our large brains, nothing more.

The best way to do this is, of course, by having experienced the situation being experienced by the other person.

Maybe but you cannot learn empathy, you either have it, some degree of it, or you are a sociopath. You don't need the golden rule to have empathy, although experience may help one empathize more with any specific situation.

The golden rule only reaffirms that empathy is valued by the society that values the golden rule. It doesn't create empathy.

 

[baywax]

The golden rule only reaffirms that empathy is valued by the society that values the golden rule. It doesn't create empathy.

Boring is as boring does. No one is forcing you to read or participate here.

The example set by a society that values empathy and any favorable results ceated by that value and practice will create an interest and the application of empathy in the members of the society and any proximal societies observing the favorable results achieved. This is something you can research on your own by googling "learning by example" or "creating empathy".

edit) Empathy requires sensory input. Usually its visual but aural and tactile information is also useful in attaining an understanding of one's subject. This is why empathy can apply to visual stimulus and why empathy is applied to understanding the effects of certain uplifting or downturning lines, how different forms affect the psyche and how various motions affect the mood of the observer. Having some knowledge about the empathic effects of these and other stimuli is a founding basis of effective marketing and of effective teaching at all levels of education. Some excercises have been established to strengthen this kind of empathic activity if anyone wishes to look them up or ask me about them.

 

[JoeDawg]

Boring is as boring does. No one is forcing you to read or participate here.

Empathy is not created by the golden rule. You either have the ability or not. Whether one can empathize in a certain situation depends on both the completely natural level, or presence, of that ability and on one's experience with the situation.

Having rules is about giving people direction, assuming they are interested, and capable of taking that direction.

Repeating myself is boring. So you're right, time to stop.

 

[baywax]

Empathy is not created by the golden rule. You either have the ability or not. Whether one can empathize in a certain situation depends on both the completely natural level, or presence, of that ability and on one's experience with the situation.

Having rules is about giving people direction, assuming they are interested, and capable of taking that direction.

Repeating myself is boring. So you're right, time to stop.

Lets say that empathy is related to or rooted in the altruistic genetic instinct that I cover in the thread "altruism". If this were to be proven true then in every living thing, including humans, there would be shown to be a high potential for empathy.

That doesn't mean it is exhibited automatically. For instance, new born birds don't learn how to use their hunting instincts nor do the cubs of a lion until given examples of that sort of behavior. Then, through learning by example and excercising responses, they learn how to hunt on their own. Similarily, empathy would only be attainable by learning how to excercise the trait through learning by example and practice.

 

[JoeDawg]

That doesn't mean it is exhibited automatically. For instance, new born birds don't learn how to use their hunting instincts nor do the cubs of a lion until given examples of that sort of behavior.

When a situation presents itself where the instinct applies... you act instinctively. You might learn how to suppress an instinctive behaviour, but its there whether it ever needs to be used or not.

Hunting techniques may be learned, if its learned, its not instinctive, by definition. Humans have instincts to verbalize their feelings, they cry, but if a baby is deaf, it never learns to talk... language is a technique, not an instinct.

You seem to be conflating learned behaviour with instinct. They are not the same.

Rules are ways to control larger groups of people. As social animals our instincts have evolved to deal with small familial/tribal groups. As societies grow, its important to reaffirm that what is instinctive for small groups should be applied to the greater group.

Sometimes our instincts mislead us and we not only treat other people in our group with empathy but inanimate objects as well... this is where idol worship and religion come into play. Its an instinctive feedback loop.

 

[baywax]

When a situation presents itself where the instinct applies... you act instinctively. You might learn how to suppress an instinctive behaviour, but its there whether it ever needs to be used or not.

Hunting techniques may be learned, if its learned, its not instinctive, by definition. Humans have instincts to verbalize their feelings, they cry, but if a baby is deaf, it never learns to talk... language is a technique, not an instinct.

You seem to be conflating learned behaviour with instinct. They are not the same.

Rules are ways to control larger groups of people. As social animals our instincts have evolved to deal with small familial/tribal groups. As societies grow, its important to reaffirm that what is instinctive for small groups should be applied to the greater group.

Sometimes our instincts mislead us and we not only treat other people in our group with empathy but inanimate objects as well... this is where idol worship and religion come into play. Its an instinctive feedback loop.

The hunting instinct is one of the most basic instincts of mankind.

http://hunting.about.com/library/weekly/aa022899.htm
Q

Cats raised by there mothers hunt small rodents, insects, and other creatures. cats raised in isolation from other cats generally do not hunt these things. Do you think hunting in cats is learned or instinctual? WHy?

A1

It is incorrect to oppose instinct to learning. Hunting is " an instinct to acquire an art ". As above, in the first answer, getting food for an obligate carnivore must be instinctual, as it is in you. What food and how to take it is what can be called " learned ", though you could have a lively discussion on what constitutes learning.

A2

The hunting ability of cats is both instinctual and learned.

Kittens are born with a natural hunting instinct, but if the mother cat is on hand to teach her kittens the necessary skills, they will be able to become more proficient hunters. A cat's hunting ability and enthusiasm depends primarily on instinct and on whether its mother taught it to hunt.

http://ca.answers.yahoo.com/question/index.php?qid=20070713190313AAqd6Se

It appears that you have an instinct to oppose pretty well everything I write about. Yet what you write is only instinctual and lacks in research, study and learning (and empathy) .

 

[gabee]

The Platinum Rule sounds oddly like the most basic of our laboratory rules.

 

[JoeDawg]

http://hunting.about.com/library/weekly/aa022899.htm

I guess its your reading comprehension skills that are to blame here, because I never said there wasn't an instinct to hunt.

An instinct to hunt however CANNOT BE LEARNED. You either have an instinct or not. Hunting technique can be learned. You don't seem to understand the difference, even though, ironically one of your quotes says just that.

Either that or you're just trolling. I should know better by now.

 

[baywax]

I guess its your reading comprehension skills that are to blame here, because I never said there wasn't an instinct to hunt.

An instinct to hunt however CANNOT BE LEARNED. You either have an instinct or not. Hunting technique can be learned. You don't seem to understand the difference, even though, ironically one of your quotes says just that.

Either that or you're just trolling. I should know better by now.

Here's what you wrote

Hunting techniques may be learned, if its learned, its not instinctive, by definition.

You're pitting instinct against learned behavior when they actually support each other.

So, you might now agree that empathy, if proven to be part of the altruistic instinct, can be taught? The tendency is present but honing the skill is necessary. Just like hunting.
How about this as a rule?

Treat others the way they treat you.

The way a person treats you is probably the best indicator of how they want to be treated.

What would this rule be called? The wooden rule? The brass rule? The dirt rule? or what?

OR

Treat others the way they treat others. This is another indicator of what they want out of a relationship.

So when I see someone whacking the crap out of an old lady, guess how I'm going to treat them?

 

[fresnelspot]

I know another golden rule :
"the one who keeps gold , he rules "

 

[Tattva]

Hello evervybody.

Actually, I think non of these rules is good enough for this "new era" we are getting into. You have proved both to be incomplete.

I think that the main problem is to believe that the individual is "mature" enough as to determine what is good and what is bad (for golden rule), or else what is better (for platinum rule).

But we must think about this: may be the individual must be good enough himself, before he can discern good for others.

So what I propose is this:

The individual must find himself, be true to his uniqueness and personality, before trying to do any good to others. Being truly "himself", I think, is the only way to become an ethic person.

I am a psicologist, so I point out the personal, psicological aspect. You must all know that we don´t know ourselves totally. It is hard to explain, but you must know something about "unconscious" and its role in our mind. So a good ethics start by the conscience of the individual, his self-knowledge.

What you think about this?

 

[Quatl]

I always thought that the golden rule was intended to make us think about empathy. If I don't like being "done unto" in a certain way, then it's reasonable that others wouldn't appreciate it much either (to the extent that people are similar anyway.) I don't think it was meant to be read as a command of action, rather as a command of how to think about the results of your actions. That is "consider how your actions affect other people."

Another way to think about it is as a statement about justice. If it is appropriate for you to do a thing to the other guy, then it's moral for him to respond in kind. So you should be careful about how you set the rules. By killing a person and taking their sandwich, you imply that this is allowed under the rules.

"Leave things better than you found them" is a good thing to do too, however the golden rule should still mediate this. As several folks above have said "beterness" is always subjective. To use another cliche "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

Many a war has started because the sides disagreed on "beterness."

 

[Moridin]

Many a war has started because the sides disagreed on "beterness."

Poor argument. The same goes for the golden rule if applied in such way.

 

[Quatl]

Poor argument. The same goes for the golden rule if applied in such way.

Of course it does. The golden rule does not try to prevent unpleasantness, rather it tries to restrict unpleasantness to "just" grounds only. Self defense is an example of this. "If you try to kill me I'll kill you" vs "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" I don't see inconstancy here.

The difference i was trying to show though is that a person must determine "betterness" subjectively. The golden rule, if interpreted as a statement about just expectations isn't subjective.

I don't think I said that the golden rule was better. The golden rule in my opinion doesn't imply a value assessment at all. I don't think that the p-rule and g-rule relate to the same thing at all.

 

[JoeDawg]

The difference i was trying to show though is that a person must determine "betterness" subjectively. The golden rule, if interpreted as a statement about just expectations isn't subjective.

Its just as subjective. What I want for myself is invariably different from what others want for themselves. There may be many cases where we all want the same things for ourselves, but that doesn't make it less subjective.

What would make it 'less subjective' is asking the other person what they want, but that's just 'less', since even asking means we're going to interpret their response.

 

[Quatl]

It looks like I'm having trouble communicating my point. Maybe rephrasing will help:

Behaving in a certain way towards others is an admission that it is appropriate for them to behave the same way towards you.

The golden rule expresses an elementary idea about justice, that all people are equivalent. It doesn't indicate that any particular behavior is good or bad, it just reflects an expectation of reciprocity.

It's often invoked as an aphorism to ward off naughtiness, but I don't think that's really what it is. A dog eat dog mentality fits perfectly into the golden rule.

Anyway, my argument really is that the p-rule and the g-rule shouldn't be ranked in relation to each other because they aren't the same category of principle.

 

[JoeDawg]

It looks like I'm having trouble communicating my point. Maybe rephrasing will help:

Behaving in a certain way towards others is an admission that it is appropriate for them to behave the same way towards you.

The golden rule expresses an elementary idea about justice, that all people are equivalent. It doesn't indicate that any particular behavior is good or bad, it just reflects an expectation of reciprocity.

I agree with your description of it, I just don't think its any more useful than the other rule.
The rephrasing helps, but all people are not equivalent. Some, the disabled for instance, may not have the ability to treat others as they would like to be treated. Basically the golden rule as you describe it, is directed at those who have the power to act otherwise. So its not directed equally and doesn't then apply universally. And it doesn't address those who would like to be treated otherwise.

Its also a losing strategy if no one else wants to play by that rule.

 

[laurelelizabeth]

Platinum Rule: Make it better than it was before you got there, but not because you are waiting for return.

...who's to say you made it better ?

I understand what you mean like 'the elves and the shoemaker' but I hate people messing with my stuff...

...down on my uncles farm the rule was "leave everything as you find it" otherwise you better not wait for him to return

That's true. I clean my own room & do my own laundry, and don't complain :)

I think they mean to help someone else, and make their life better, but not because you are waiting for something in return. It could also be for things, like camping (leave everything the way it was, but also if you see litter there pick that up and bring it with you too.)

I also agree that the golden rule isn't that selfish, it just implies that if you wouldn't want it done to you then chances are that somebody else wouldn't want it done to them.

 

[Quatl]

I agree with your description of it, I just don't think its any more useful than the other rule.
The rephrasing helps, but all people are not equivalent. Some, the disabled for instance, may not have the ability to treat others as they would like to be treated. Basically the golden rule as you describe it, is directed at those who have the power to act otherwise. So its not directed equally and doesn't then apply universally. And it doesn't address those who would like to be treated otherwise.

Situation one: John is crippled and Joe is not
Situation two: Joe is crippled and John is not

These situations are equivalent, so Joe and John are equivalent in the sense that I mean. A person's capabilities are part of their moral interactions.

Children might be a better objection, as depending on age they don't appear to be fully capable of moral decision making.

Its also a losing strategy if no one else wants to play by that rule.

It's not really a strategy, though it does provide part of the justification for Tit-for-Tat which certainly is.

 

[JoeDawg]

Situation one: John is crippled and Joe is not
Situation two: Joe is crippled and John is not

These situations are equivalent, so Joe and John are equivalent in the sense that I mean. A person's capabilities are part of their moral interactions.

Children might be a better objection, as depending on age they don't appear to be fully capable of moral decision making.

It's not really a strategy, though it does provide part of the justification for Tit-for-Tat which certainly is.

I would say its the opposite, tit-for-tat is a successful strategy and its opening move is always cooperative, so I think this is where the G rule comes from. Its an oversimplification designed to instruct, not describe. The rule however is at best incomplete.

Its funny you mentioned children because I tend to think of the golden rule as something you tell children, who aren't capable of understanding something like tit-for-tat.

 

[Tattva]

Situation one: John is crippled and Joe is not
Situation two: Joe is crippled and John is not

These situations are equivalent, so Joe and John are equivalent in the sense that I mean. A person's capabilities are part of their moral interactions.

Children might be a better objection, as depending on age they don't appear to be fully capable of moral decision making.

It's not really a strategy, though it does provide part of the justification for Tit-for-Tat which certainly is.

"A person´s capabilities": Well, that´s why I must insist that both rules are depending on the individual being mature enough. And that is THE point. How can you be sure of this? which certificate will you show to demonstrate that you are mature enough for discerning good from bad or better from worst?

 

[Astronuc]

Which is superior?

Golden Rule: Treat other people the same way you wish to be treated.
Platinum Rule: Make it better than it was before you got there, but not because you are waiting for return.

In my opinion, the Golden Rule is passé. Doing something good for others so that they will do good for you seems selfish. Platinum rules.

Neither is superior, which should be a third option.

I try to practice both. I try to treat people kindly and with respect, AND I endeavor to make the world a better place than when I came into it. I don't ask for anything in return, nor do I expect any reward.

I'm just passing through.

 

[Tattva]

The proper Ethics, beyond these 2 basic rules

Well, congratullations, Astronuc. I think and behave similar to you.
Now, about my previous post, I think we can debate these points for a better dialogue:

1) All is believing. You were told or you readed (which is the same) all that you know, and you decided to believe somethings, and to not believe in another things. You can say you just learned from seeing and thinking, (cogito ergo sum), but even then you are believing... in your senses and mind (remember the concept of "illusion").

2) If you accept the previous, then you can say there are 2 ways to confront reality: believing in someone else, or believing in your own power to percieve and understand the world. I really think most of us use a combination of the 2. Think that, since childhood, we were told things and that speech conditioned our way of percieving the world. When mature, we think we independize ourselves from that, but I believe we are never totally independent from the people who surrounds us. This is matter of discusion, of course. And there is the inconscious, another big issue...

3) So, every body has a "point of view" and nobody´s point of view is equal to another people´s ones. If you accept this, then how will you ensure that all people agree to what is good, bad, better...?

4) Then, if all is relative like this, I think finally that both rules are good enough but basic, because they center in what YOU BELIEVE that is good or better. So these 2 rules are the most relative of all rules.

5) Now I think we as a whole can never agree to an Ethics of good and bad that could be accepted universally. So there must be many Ethics, may be not so relative as these 2 rules, but relative to a certain aspect of reality, like professional Ethics, for instance. Well, that IS what we have today, and I think is good enough.

6) If we have Ethics relative to what we do (professional, etc.), I think these are the best type of Ethics, just because they relate to action. In sanskrit it is called dharma. Then you must consider 2 aspects of this: (a) The social position of a person, meaning his/her role in society (not his riches, i.e.) and (b) the age of a person, because time passes by and all thinks change. Considering this 2 aspects of dharma is called "varna-ashrama dharma" in sanskrit, and it is intended to be a universal kind of Ethics. Take in account that all this is still relative, because social role and age are taken in account. So it is a universal relative Ethics

7) Now the point is that you need to ensure that everyone is aware of this, and that everyone is in proper position, this means in his/her proper role. Here role is a complex word, it can mean a job, but also your family duties, so let´s concentrate in your job.

8) Normally, we all go around from job to job searching for better incomes, instead of trying to find our best. "Our best" means that job where 2 conditions meet: that I am qualified to do it, and that I feel right doing it. If I don´t feel right doing it, it´s wrong; but I must also be qualified to do it.

9) So, what we mean here is that first of all, you must KNOW YOURSELF, what qualities you have, what you like the most, and so. And that´s why I posted before that we need a system to make everybody "mature enough". In fact, those systems exist. And I will tell you this: the easiest way to know yourself, is to ask other people about how they see you. Specially, if you can find a person who knows about these matters. In occident, there are psychologists. In orient, they are called "spiritual masters". Many people needs one of these. Others prefer the "self-made" way. And I think all that is OK.
---------------------------

Well, sorry for the extension, but hey! it´s heavy content here! Read it carefully, please. If you like this post, visit my blog Southern Central for other interesting stuff.

 

[dtsormpa]

Which is superior?

Golden Rule: Treat other people the same way you wish to be treated.
Platinum Rule: Make it better than it was before you got there, but not because you are waiting for return.

In my opinion, the Golden Rule is passé. Doing something good for others so that they will do good for you seems selfish. Platinum rules.

Yes, but you left out the possibility of doing something other people won't like (not by necessity something bad). For example, wouldn't you expect other people to judge you by your actions, and probably give you their advice for something that they feel, is wrong. This is something we do all the time - tell people how we feel about them (well, not always for their good, but just to critisize them - but still).

I would agree however with the slight superiority of the Platinum rule. And that's because it relies on ones self to do something that would benefit the whole, without returns. If I can do something that I believe will make some thing better, I will and just wait to see the result (not necessarily on my self). This rule engulf the risk though that not always what we believe is good, is actually good.

 

[JonF]

Doing something good for others so that they will do good for you seems selfish.

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding in what the golden rule states

 

[Moridin]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding in what the golden rule states

It doesn't state it, but it follows from its usage.

 

[JonF]

not true, consequentialism isn't always egotism

 

[Xori]

I think both rules are bogus.

Golden Rule:
If you treat others as you wish to be treated, you might do something that they don't wish. Not everyone wishes to be treated the same way, and the absolutist thinking that everyone wishes to be treated as you do is arrogant.

Platinum Rule:
Leave everything better. Whose definition of better? What's "better" to you might not be "better" for others. Again, absolutist thinking.


So I propose a new rule:

Antimatter Rule: Do unto others as they would wish done unto them, and leave things the way those who will inherit them would want them.

 

[lawtonfogle]

To Xori:

If you were to treat others how you wanted to be treated, and you wanted to be treated how you wanted to be treated, then would you not treat them how they wanted to be treated given that such treatment does not violate how everyone else wants to be treated, which covers if A wants you to kill B and B doesn't want to be killed.

To the overall conversation:
The Platinum Rule has a single hole in it, and that is that it does not support self preservation. Now given a world where everyone is following it, it should apply fine. But given a world where there are some who do not follow it, the lack of self preservation can lead to self destruction. It is the simple example of the Suckers/Grudgers/Cheaters.