Why the Golden Rule sucks

[EvieTheAvocado]

the smile or nod is the result of some other action or activity shared. I won't wander into this section again

Lol haha.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yes but what do you actually do? You can write all the flowery prose you want about philosophy but if you don't do anything you're just doing mental masturbation.

Well, smiling at people isn't actually doing much either.

You might be surprised at the happiness, or comfort, a simple smile or gesture can have upon people under the right circumstances. Making others happy is doing a hell of a lot.

[EvieTheAvocado]

It certainly cheers people up emotionally ... but anyone can do that ... even bad people.

Maybe I shouldn't be talking ethical philosophy on a thread about ethics in the philosophy section of the forum?

[brewerb]

You forgot the Platinum Rule:

Do unto others as they would like to have done unto them.

With this rule you don’t foist your own preconceived notions unto anyone, this rule does require you get to know the person first.

Um.............. nope. I can think of all kinds of requests from others that I would never act on.

If you view humanity as a bunch of demanding twits, then I suppose you might think like that.
But these rules, golden or platinum or whatever, for me are most useful when you're in a dilemma or have a few options on how to act.

Anyway, philosophy makes me break out in hives so I'm won't get too deep into the weeds here. 

-Teresa

It's not that people are a bunch of demanding twits, but some can be pretty damn needy, self centered and/or narcissistic. I think the best thing about human interaction rules (well maybe not these) is the opportunity for open give and take. Not everybody is going to get every need met all of the time. If the people interacting get what they want/need enough to be generally content then it's working.

[Thumpalumpacus]

It certainly cheers people up emotionally ... but anyone can do that ... even bad people. 

I'd argue that bad people are not nearly so talented at making folks happy as good folks are on the whole, because sooner or later their inner asshole happens. And I'd also argue that there are morally good people who are really fuckin' jerks who couldn't make a hungry dog happy with a steak.

I'd much rather make people happy than study philosophy.

[EvieTheAvocado]

And I'd also argue that there are morally good people who are really fuckin' jerks who couldn't make a hungry dog happy with a steak.

But it's better to be a morally good fuckin' jerk who doesn't make people happy than to be a morally bad nice person who makes people outright miserable.

I'd much rather make people happy than study philosophy.

Sometimes the best way to make people happy long term ... is to know how to help them make themselves happy ...

... and to know how to help with that ... you have to know how to make yourself happy. So you can lead by example. By being wise.

And philosophy helps with that a lot.

[Full Circle]

You forgot the Platinum Rule:

Do unto others as they would like to have done unto them.

With this rule you don’t foist your own preconceived notions unto anyone, this rule does require you get to know the person first.

Um.............. nope. I can think of all kinds of requests from others that I would never act on.

And yet the very same thing can be said about the Golden Rule. Maybe I like broccoli and S&M, hardly a reason to subject everyone I meet to the same thing no?

And if you notice I did say it requires you get to know the person first. BIGLY point.

[EvieTheAvocado]

I actually think that even following The Golden Rule as a super-generalized rule of thumb most likely does more harm than good.

The Silver Rule is okay super-generalized, though, because although it's the case that not everyone likes the same things ... it's still quite fair to assume that if you don't like your penis shut in the door then probably the other guy doesn't either. Some people are masochists ... but most people aren't ... so it's a safe generalization as a rule of thumb.

[Thumpalumpacus]

And I'd also argue that there are morally good people who are really fuckin' jerks who couldn't make a hungry dog happy with a steak.

But it's better to be a morally good fuckin' jerk who doesn't make people happy than to be a morally bad nice person who makes people outright miserable.

Wait, you also said bad people can make people happy too. What about that option? You see, the thing is the two qualities -- morality and pleasantness -- aren't mutually tied together, but I'd be willing to bet that unhappy folks -- the fuckin' jerks of the world -- probably have it much harder trying to make people happy.

I'd much rather make people happy than study philosophy.

Sometimes the best way to make people happy long term ... is to know how to help them make themselves happy ...

... and to know how to help with that ... you have to know how to make yourself happy. So you can lead by example. By being wise.

And philosophy helps with that a lot.

Is philosophy the only, or even most effective, way to make someone happy? I don't need a philosophy class to know how to make someone happy, whether it's someone else or it's myself. Matter of fact, studying philosophy made me pretty unhappy, and that started with my philosophy professor, who just wouldn't shut up about it.

Sometimes philosophy is the right tool for the job. Sometimes it ain't. When it comes to making people happy, I think getting out and spreading smiles is more important, at least in the short-term, because no one likes a preacher.

[robvalue]

I’ve lived in a few different areas, and the general friendliness of the locals makes a big difference to me. People returning a smile or a "hello" makes me feel like I’m among friends, whereas the glares of contempt I get for merely having dared to be friendly make me feel more isolated.

Some people completely ignore me too, which is fine as far as I’m concerned. I don’t want people to feel compelled to act at my behest.

I think that trying to codify morality precisely, beyond some general vague principles, is never going to work. Even if you did it, this would then only apply to people who happened to agree with it exactly, or would be some kind of compromise for those that didn’t. For every rule I’ve ever thought of, there’s going to be a situation which challenges it when applied blindly.

[jerryg]

I think the golden rule is flawed in execution, in that what you want is not necessarily what other people want. But practically speaking, by making it about yourself, rather than the other person, it makes it more likely to be followed.

So there's a tradeoff between the behavior being correct and how often the rule is adhered to.

[EvieTheAvocado]

Wait, you also said bad people can make people happy too. What about that option?

If you're a bad person overall, despite making people happy, you're still a bad person.

You see, the thing is the two qualities -- morality and pleasantness -- aren't mutually tied together, but I'd be willing to bet that unhappy folks -- the fuckin' jerks of the world -- probably have it much harder trying to make people happy.

There are rich assholes who help the needy, for selfish reasons, who do more good than poor nice people who can't.

I don't need a philosophy class to know how to make someone happy, whether it's someone else or it's myself. Matter of fact, studying philosophy made me pretty unhappy, and that started with my philosophy professor, who just wouldn't shut up about it.

Anti-philosophical viewpoints are (meta) philosophical viewpoints.

Sometimes philosophy is the right tool for the job. Sometimes it ain't.

That's a good philosophy

When it comes to making people happy, I think getting out and spreading smiles is more important, at least in the short-term, because no one likes a preacher.

Is philosophy the only, or even most effective, way to make someone happy?

There's nothing less philosophical than preaching.

Many experiences can cause happiness, including addiction (which is harmful long-term), but philosophy brings wisdom and happiness for a lifetime.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Wait, you also said bad people can make people happy too. What about that option?

If you're a bad person overall, despite making people happy, you're still a bad person.

You see, the thing is the two qualities -- morality and pleasantness -- aren't mutually tied together, but I'd be willing to bet that unhappy folks -- the fuckin' jerks of the world -- probably have it much harder trying to make people happy.

There are rich assholes who help the needy, for selfish reasons, who do more good than poor nice people who can't.

I don't need a philosophy class to know how to make someone happy, whether it's someone else or it's myself. Matter of fact, studying philosophy made me pretty unhappy, and that started with my philosophy professor, who just wouldn't shut up about it.

Anti-philosophical viewpoints are (meta) philosophical viewpoints.

Sometimes philosophy is the right tool for the job. Sometimes it ain't.

That's a good philosophy

When it comes to making people happy, I think getting out and spreading smiles is more important, at least in the short-term, because no one likes a preacher.

Is philosophy the only, or even most effective, way to make someone happy?

There's nothing less philosophical than preaching.

Many experiences can cause happiness, including addiction (which is harmful long-term), but philosophy brings wisdom and happiness for a lifetime.

If it brings you happiness, great.  It isn't a panacaea and shouldn't be mistaken for one; what works for you doesn't always work for others, but if philosophy sets your mind at ease, have at it.

[EvieTheAvocado]

So there's a tradeoff between the behavior being correct and how often the rule is adhered to.

An incorrect rule, when followed, harms.

[EvieTheAvocado]

If it brings you happiness, great. 

Indeed.

It isn't a panacaea

Maybe.

what works for you doesn't always work for others

^^Philosophical^^

[Thumpalumpacus]

If it brings you happiness, great. 

Indeed.

It isn't a panacaea

Maybe.

what works for you doesn't always work for others

^^Philosophical^^

No need for philosophers to figure that out; it's realism. Expanding definitions eventually lose all meaning.

[EvieTheAvocado]

No need for philosophers to figure that out; it's realism. Expanding definitions eventually lose all meaning.

You're sounding increasingly like a philosopher!

[Thumpalumpacus]

No need for philosophers to figure that out; it's realism. Expanding definitions eventually lose all meaning.

You're sounding increasingly like a philosopher!

Would you do me a favor and define this term "philosopher" as you're using it here? Otherwise, this smacks of "You believe in god but just don't know it," and I've had enough of that horseshit for one life.

[EvieTheAvocado]

Would you do me a favor and define this term "philosopher" as you're using it here?

Now that sounds philosophical, lol.

Philosophy involves questioning the fundamentals and value of everything—including philosophy. A philosopher does that.

Look at George Carlin: Once he found his voice he was a philosopher as much as a comedian. So was Bill Hicks.

I mean, if philosophy is all of human thought, that's one thing.

Nah, not all.

I want to make sure we're not talking past each other.

Me too. But you still sound philosophical to me

[Thumpalumpacus]

Yeah, when you reply to everything I say with, "That's philosophical," I'm done with the conversation. It's a way of dismissing what I'm saying.

I like discussions, not broken records.

[Chas]

Golden Shower Rule?

I guess that Trumps the Golden Rule? 

[jerryg]

So there's a tradeoff between the behavior being correct and how often the rule is adhered to.

An incorrect rule, when followed, harms.

An incorrect rule can still get good results the majority of the time. 

A perfect rule, unfollowed, accomplishes nothing.