ewp@ihuxn.UUCP (07/07/83)
This appeared in a recent article:
It has been suggested that we use a form of the Golden Rule as a
basis for morality. As I take it, the Golden rule (GR) says: "Do
unto others what you would like them to do unto you."
Does this mean that a worshipper of the Crocodile god is intended
to go about sacrificing everyone in sight to his god, simply
because (for him) that is the ultimate bliss, and he really wishes
someone would sacrifice him? Should a heroin addict go and shoot
up everyone he can find, since he would *love* to have a fix
himself?
Like all oversimplifications, this one falls far short of being a
solid basis for \anything/, let alone morality.
Another form of the GR says "Do unto others as they would like to
be done unto."
Does this say that we must whip the masochist who begs for the
favor? Should we go out and purchase drugs for the addict? Again,
the GR falls apart.
The "Golden Rule" is a maxim stating a principle to live by. It is not
a literal formula. Maxims are not interpreted by taking a word-by-word
examination. As an illustration, "A penny saved is a penny earned". 'No,
it's not! A penny saved is a penny you already have, you don't earn another
penny by saving it!'
The way I interpret the Golden Rule, you should think of how your actions
affect others, then do what would be in their interest also, to the extent
that you would feel reasonable if the roles were reversed. Obviously it
would be in your best interest if I sent you all my money, however, if our
roles are reversed, I wouldn't think I could reasonably ask that of you so
I don't feel obligated to do it. If I would see you having trouble starting
your car in a parking lot because your battery was low, and one of us
had jumper cables, and I had no pressing appointments, I should feel obliged
to help you try to jump start your car. If the roles were reversed, it would
be a reasonable request.
Your examples of the masochist, heroin addict, and crocodile worshipper (an
Izod preppie?) are examples where the action is not thought to be in the
interest of the other person. Also, although no situation is given, it
seems that these examples expect excessive trouble on your part if you are
not into S&M, heroin, or crocodile worshipping.
Ed Pawlak
ihnp4!ihuxn!ewpwex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) (07/11/83)
Ed Pawlak has missed the point: I objected to the use of the golden rule (in whatever form) \as a basis for morality/ (which was the original proposal). The reason I object, as I tried to point out in my examples, is that it is not desirable (in my opinion) for you -- or anyone else -- to decide what is good for me. Expectations do not come into it. The point I was trying to make with the heroin-addict or the crocodile-god-worshipper[1] is that these were individuals who had decided that something was good for them. By application of the Golden Rule principle, they then went out and tried to give this "good" thing to all others. These examples were picked to illustrate the possible errors that could result from a golden-rule-guided morality. I never argued against doing things for others; I merely argued that you could not assume that such things were a priori "good." --Alan Wexelblat ittvax!wex [1] the crocodile god worshippers are not izod-lovers. Actually, they come from a story told by a friend of mine who is a Florida native. It is a (probably apocryphal) story of natives of Florida who did indeed worship crocodiles before the conquistadores came, and who did in fact sacrifice one of their Spanish friends (who had been adopted into the tribe) to the crocodile god. They were, according to the legend, extremely surprised that the Spaniard's friends were upset, since the dead man was (by their account) now enjoying eternal bliss!