Originally Posted by Isambard
Ah I love this guy - he always gives me a brain exercise when I need it! :D
The saying essentially goes like this ""treat others as you would like to be treated".
Now I'm sure many of you would agree with this statement and say that if everyone followed this, the world is a better place as it promotes empathy and perspective-taking.
The underlining problem behind the idea of the "Golden Rule" being infallible is that you are inherently assuming that that everyone shares your frame of mind and criterias.
If you are normal in your diet like me, and enjoy a fine piece of steak, then chances are you may not sympathize with the cow that became your meat.
To you, its simply an animal and the golden rule wouldnt apply in such a situation. The question "how would you like to be eaten" then becomes frivolous to you because you don't eqate the cow with yourself.
Now, let us look at an example closer to home. Prior to the Holocaust, Jews were in the same situation as the cow in the previous example. No, they werent being eaten :-P, but they werent equated with the person making the moral judgement. If asked "how would you like to be discriminated agaisnt for your faith", the anti-semite would just say "well Im not evil, therefore you cant compare".
I think I understand your post in general but the whole point of the ''Golden rule'' is to prevent 'bad' things i.e. Person A gets smacked in the face. Person C laughs. Person B says ''how would you
like to be smacked in the face?'' to person C (the one who was laughing). The whole point of person B's question was that A the smacking in the face was wrong and B the fact that person C laughed at it was also wrong.
Basically, the rule about treating others as you would like to be treated is just that.
I think however what you are trying to say is that this rule is bs due to the fact that there are certain situations where this rule is not applied but it should given the rulings set out. To which, I do agree.
I also understand that a lot of the so called rulings of ethical conduct (or moral obligations to society if you want to get posh :p) are a load of bs. Take for example not condeming a bad event - in reality there is no need to condemn (or a public outcry at) the death of a baby because this is globally and inherently accepted as bad in the first place. Conversely, for world affairs types of situations, condemnation is required (by society).
It boils down to the fact that society likes to bend the rules for situations. Hypocritical, yes. But, if you play by the rules of the system, you get far in life.
Harsh indeed but that is how it is.
p.s; I do not
condone any actions of violence on civilians/innocent people.
p.p.s; Not condemning someone is not the same as agreeing or condoning with them. Unfortunately, society doesn't see it that way....:(