[net.philosophy] "Golden Rule" as the basis for morality

wex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat) (07/06/83)

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.

In a similar vein, let's examine the claim for altruism ("it is good to satisfy
the desires of others."):

Imagine, if you will, a group of perfect altruists:  for each of them, the best
that they can do is satisfying the desires of another of them.  BUT, all of them
are in the same position; all desire to fulfill the desires of another.  But
none of them have any desires of their own!  This leads us to the conclusion
(which I beleive is inevitable) that there can be no moral goods if there are
no non-moral goods before them.  (NOTE: I am indebted to Andreas Eshete, 
professor of philosophy at the University of Pennsylvania, for this last 
argument.)

This leads me to a question:  what are the basic non-moral goods?  The only
ones I can think of are those which will preserve existence (if you wish 
your existence to be preserved), such as food, shelter, etc.  If an
individual does not have any desire to preserve his existence, does he have
any non-moral goods?  And if not, how can he have any moral goods?

--Alan Wexelblat
ittvax!wex

larry@grkermit.UUCP (Larry Kolodney) (07/07/83)

	From: wex@ittvax.UUCP (Alan Wexelblat)

	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?


A better definition of the Golden Rule is:


Do unto others as you would have them do unto you in similar circumstances.

Basicly, this means take the context into account.  If I'm a heroin addict
and you are not, I should not give you heroin because you don't want it.  If
I felt that I should give you heroin anyway because that is the only way to
find true happines and you don't know what's good for you than I have made
a mistake about heroin, but my moral basis is still correct.  If I felt that
heroin is the best thing for my friend, I would be morally obliged to give it
to him.

-- 
Larry Kolodney #13 (I try harder)
(USENET)
decvax!genrad!grkermit!larry
allegra!linus!genrad!grkermit!larry
harpo!eagle!mit-vax!grkermit!larry

(ARPA)  rms.g.lkk@mit-ai