4 ms·

This is what is referred to as the Golden Rule. https://www.gotquestions.org/Golden-Rule.html https://www.gotquestions.org/Golden-Rule.html It's an interesting

by adfm 8y ago

This is what is referred to as the Golden Rule. https://www.gotquestions.org/Golden-Rule.html https://www.gotquestions.org/Golden-Rule.html It's an interesting hack on quid pro quo that I recommend to everyone.

username223 8y ago
Then you can upgrade to the Categorical Imperative: "do unto others as they have done to you" becomes "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," which becomes "do what you would want all others to do." It's subtle, but important.
- naniwaduni 8y ago
  It's a subtle change with great appeal to universalizing thinkers, but one which, as commonly formulated, makes many suggestions that seem intuitively wrong without adding a lot of qualifiers, and at that point you've just punted the task of formalizing ethics one level up.
  - username223 8y ago
    Can you elaborate? As far as I understand it, the difference between the Golden Rule and the Categorical Imperative is acting in ways that don't involve reciprocity. The former is a rule against stabbing other people; the latter is also a rule that people going around stabbing themselves would be a bad idea.
    - naniwaduni 8y ago
      While the categorical imperative is kind of okay at justifying abstract prohibitions, most concrete actions don't universalize very well in the presence of people who are not precisely you; just take a look at any "falsehoods programmers believe" list. Some of these are occasionally useful to. Even something as simple as "sit on toilets" is hard to naively universalize unconditionally, and once you've filled in the blanks you've done no less work than if you hadn't started from the categorical imperative in the first place. And then there's the "lying to a murderer"-type problem, where the apparent implication of the categorical imperative seems to be flat-out wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Lying_to_a_murderer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Lying_t...
throwaway5752 8y ago
The golden rule is almost the opposite of quid pro quo ("you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours") A common statement of it is "Do unto others as you would have them do to you". It has equivalents across human history and cultures. It says nothing about the actions of others.
james_s_tayler 8y ago
Except if you think about it for any length of time there is no way the Golden Rule either good, desirable or workable. There are some people who have preferences that you just don't like and they would do unto you in a way that they would want to be done unto but that you certainly do not. I'm convinced the subtext of this rule says something very different than the text of this rule...
- Consultant32452 8y ago
  I want others to treat me in a fashion that I like. In return I try to treat them in the fashion they like. This is the Golden rule.
  - james_s_tayler 8y ago
    Even that formulation still fails. You don't know everyones preference. You can't actually do it. I know what the text of it says. I just think the subtext says something much different. Or the whole thing is just plain wrong, but in an accidentally useful way.
    - Consultant32452 8y ago
      You know a reasonable approximation of everyone's preference, and with a modicum of empathy and communication you should be able to suss out the areas where it might be unclear.
      - james_s_tayler 8y ago
        That sounds good on a surface level analysis but closer inspection of how political correctness has changed over the last century suggests it's actually not at all as simple as you make it out to be. We're actually crap at pulling it off. If it requires communication then the formulation is actually closer to "treat others how they state they'd like to be treated". We're getting further and further away from the original formulation. Think of it another way... If you were a 19th century man, it's not likely you would have a cordial chat with a woman or a gay man, deploy empathy and come to 21st conclusions on how you should treat them. The change is hard fought and hard won. How we state we want to be treated is a matter of both public and private discourse and it's a long process for enough communication to happen for the baseline of what social norms should be to shift in a noticeable way.

by adfm 8y ago

username223 8y ago

Then you can upgrade to the Categorical Imperative: "do unto others as they have done to you" becomes "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," which becomes "do what you would want all others to do." It's subtle, but important.

naniwaduni 8y ago
It's a subtle change with great appeal to universalizing thinkers, but one which, as commonly formulated, makes many suggestions that seem intuitively wrong without adding a lot of qualifiers, and at that point you've just punted the task of formalizing ethics one level up.
- username223 8y ago
  Can you elaborate? As far as I understand it, the difference between the Golden Rule and the Categorical Imperative is acting in ways that don't involve reciprocity. The former is a rule against stabbing other people; the latter is also a rule that people going around stabbing themselves would be a bad idea.
  - naniwaduni 8y ago
    While the categorical imperative is kind of okay at justifying abstract prohibitions, most concrete actions don't universalize very well in the presence of people who are not precisely you; just take a look at any "falsehoods programmers believe" list. Some of these are occasionally useful to. Even something as simple as "sit on toilets" is hard to naively universalize unconditionally, and once you've filled in the blanks you've done no less work than if you hadn't started from the categorical imperative in the first place. And then there's the "lying to a murderer"-type problem, where the apparent implication of the categorical imperative seems to be flat-out wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Lying_to_a_murderer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Lying_t...

throwaway5752 8y ago

The golden rule is almost the opposite of quid pro quo ("you scratch my back, and I'll scratch yours") A common statement of it is "Do unto others as you would have them do to you". It has equivalents across human history and cultures. It says nothing about the actions of others.

james_s_tayler 8y ago

Except if you think about it for any length of time there is no way the Golden Rule either good, desirable or workable. There are some people who have preferences that you just don't like and they would do unto you in a way that they would want to be done unto but that you certainly do not. I'm convinced the subtext of this rule says something very different than the text of this rule...

Consultant32452 8y ago
I want others to treat me in a fashion that I like. In return I try to treat them in the fashion they like. This is the Golden rule.
- james_s_tayler 8y ago
  Even that formulation still fails. You don't know everyones preference. You can't actually do it. I know what the text of it says. I just think the subtext says something much different. Or the whole thing is just plain wrong, but in an accidentally useful way.
  - Consultant32452 8y ago
    You know a reasonable approximation of everyone's preference, and with a modicum of empathy and communication you should be able to suss out the areas where it might be unclear.
    - james_s_tayler 8y ago
      That sounds good on a surface level analysis but closer inspection of how political correctness has changed over the last century suggests it's actually not at all as simple as you make it out to be. We're actually crap at pulling it off. If it requires communication then the formulation is actually closer to "treat others how they state they'd like to be treated". We're getting further and further away from the original formulation. Think of it another way... If you were a 19th century man, it's not likely you would have a cordial chat with a woman or a gay man, deploy empathy and come to 21st conclusions on how you should treat them. The change is hard fought and hard won. How we state we want to be treated is a matter of both public and private discourse and it's a long process for enough communication to happen for the baseline of what social norms should be to shift in a noticeable way.