4 ms·

How is that circular reasoning? Genuine question, I've always thought the Golden Rule sucked for the reason I outlined. It says nothing about asking how peopl

by dimino 11y ago

How is that circular reasoning? Genuine question, I've always thought the Golden Rule sucked for the reason I outlined. It says nothing about asking how people want to be treated, only that you should treat them how you want to be treated. You're saying something that isn't what's in the Golden Rule.

peterwwillis 11y ago
Imagine you're traveling the desert thousands of years ago. You come upon a party of nomads. You would like water, and you would like them not to rob you, kill you, and bury you in the sand. It's very important you don't say or do anything to offend them. You want them to treat you with respect and kindness, so you have to treat them as such. But how do you do that? The rule does not cover that at all. But somehow you figure out how, and they give you water. In gratitude, as an interpretation of the rule, you give them flint to make fire. The nomads, it turns out, will use the flint to make a fire and cauterize a wound that would otherwise have gotten infected. Sometimes you will be the nomads, and sometimes the traveler. The rule is really just a reminder to think about this situation at all times; it doesn't spell it out for you. It was circular reasoning because you were saying if A is B (some girls like to be called dude), then B is A (you should call girls dude). You're using the premise to prove itself, like "I breathe air because I can breathe air". It provides no evidence of why this is so, nor account for any extra factors (if A is "some girls like being called dude", there must be a C: the rest of the girls that don't like being called dude. But C is never addressed)
- dimino 11y ago
  Okay I think you get what I'm saying. The Golden Rule would have gotten you killed in the desert if those nomads find flint to be some kind of sacred metal only their priests can carry or something equally absurd. I just don't think "treat people with kindness" is what the Golden Rule says. That might be the intent of the people who reference it, but the Golden Rule literally says, "Treat others how you wish to be treated", which makes the assumption that "how you wish to be treated" is universal. I agree, realistically one should treat people how they wish to be treated, but that's not what the Golden Rule says. My point re: calling girls dudes is that you simply cannot know if a girl does or doesn't want to be called a dude unless they express a preference, which may or may not happen. Some girls like to be called dudes (A), and we should do to others what they like us to do to them (B), therefore we should call those girls dudes (C). (B) is not the Golden Rule as such, because how I'd like to be treated doesn't apply to someone else (see nomad flint worshipers above). I just want to be clear that what you're saying is not what I have issue with -- yes, we should definitely treat others in the manner in which they'd prefer to be treated. My issue is entirely with the characterization of this as the "Golden Rule". I don't believe that's what the text of the Golden Rule reads as.
  - peterwwillis 11y ago
    And I'm saying, you are not supposed to take it literally. It is supposed to be interpreted. You don't treat them literally the only way you personally want to be treated. It's a call to think of them as the same as you. Why interpret it as "do what they would want, not what you would want" ? Because at its root it's asking you to have empathy and compassion. You simply can't achieve both those things without putting yourself in their shoes, and then trying to feel and understand the way they do. At that point, when you are them, you act in a way they would want, and it becomes a compassionate act. When I was saying before that this benefits you in the end, that's true, though there is no actual reciprocity expected in this rule. It really is all about just doing good for another person. Ask a theologian about it some time. They explain it better.
    - dimino 11y ago
      There is a completely different meaning behind what you're claiming it says and what it actually says. If we can just inject our own meaning into words, they lose purpose. I interpret the Golden Rule as it is written -- a bad rule, from an intolerant time where everyone was expected to be the same. It never really applied, but now we have the cognitive tools to identify it as bogus.

by dimino 11y ago

peterwwillis 11y ago

Imagine you're traveling the desert thousands of years ago. You come upon a party of nomads. You would like water, and you would like them not to rob you, kill you, and bury you in the sand. It's very important you don't say or do anything to offend them. You want them to treat you with respect and kindness, so you have to treat them as such. But how do you do that? The rule does not cover that at all. But somehow you figure out how, and they give you water. In gratitude, as an interpretation of the rule, you give them flint to make fire. The nomads, it turns out, will use the flint to make a fire and cauterize a wound that would otherwise have gotten infected. Sometimes you will be the nomads, and sometimes the traveler. The rule is really just a reminder to think about this situation at all times; it doesn't spell it out for you. It was circular reasoning because you were saying if A is B (some girls like to be called dude), then B is A (you should call girls dude). You're using the premise to prove itself, like "I breathe air because I can breathe air". It provides no evidence of why this is so, nor account for any extra factors (if A is "some girls like being called dude", there must be a C: the rest of the girls that don't like being called dude. But C is never addressed)

dimino 11y ago
Okay I think you get what I'm saying. The Golden Rule would have gotten you killed in the desert if those nomads find flint to be some kind of sacred metal only their priests can carry or something equally absurd. I just don't think "treat people with kindness" is what the Golden Rule says. That might be the intent of the people who reference it, but the Golden Rule literally says, "Treat others how you wish to be treated", which makes the assumption that "how you wish to be treated" is universal. I agree, realistically one should treat people how they wish to be treated, but that's not what the Golden Rule says. My point re: calling girls dudes is that you simply cannot know if a girl does or doesn't want to be called a dude unless they express a preference, which may or may not happen. Some girls like to be called dudes (A), and we should do to others what they like us to do to them (B), therefore we should call those girls dudes (C). (B) is not the Golden Rule as such, because how I'd like to be treated doesn't apply to someone else (see nomad flint worshipers above). I just want to be clear that what you're saying is not what I have issue with -- yes, we should definitely treat others in the manner in which they'd prefer to be treated. My issue is entirely with the characterization of this as the "Golden Rule". I don't believe that's what the text of the Golden Rule reads as.
- peterwwillis 11y ago
  And I'm saying, you are not supposed to take it literally. It is supposed to be interpreted. You don't treat them literally the only way you personally want to be treated. It's a call to think of them as the same as you. Why interpret it as "do what they would want, not what you would want" ? Because at its root it's asking you to have empathy and compassion. You simply can't achieve both those things without putting yourself in their shoes, and then trying to feel and understand the way they do. At that point, when you are them, you act in a way they would want, and it becomes a compassionate act. When I was saying before that this benefits you in the end, that's true, though there is no actual reciprocity expected in this rule. It really is all about just doing good for another person. Ask a theologian about it some time. They explain it better.
  - dimino 11y ago
    There is a completely different meaning behind what you're claiming it says and what it actually says. If we can just inject our own meaning into words, they lose purpose. I interpret the Golden Rule as it is written -- a bad rule, from an intolerant time where everyone was expected to be the same. It never really applied, but now we have the cognitive tools to identify it as bogus.