Do Unto Others As They Do To You

[Mpmagi]

Is the idea of treating others the way they treat you (as opposed to treating them as you would like to be treated) a moral way to conduct relationships?

[Zep]

Why do you ask?

[lionking]

I agree with Zep. Value judgements abound. What is "moral" what is "treat"?

[Mobyseven]

Completely impossible. I can only orgasm once during sex, while the other party can orgasm numerous times.

It's unequal I tells ya!

[Horatius]

I don't know about moral, but from a practical standpoint, "treating others the way they treat you" would very likely devolve into a tit-for-tat, "He started it!" spiral of behaviour.

If you're trying to live a good life, and avoid unpleasantness, someone has to be the first to say, "I won't hit him back, in hopes that he'll stop hitting me." It doesn't work all the time (or even most), but it's the best way to try to move forward.

[Wowbagger]

Horatius,
It might devolve into Atruistic tit-for-tat, which is the most viable game strategy of all, according to studies.

[lionking]

Horatius,
It might devolve into Atruistic tit-for-tat, which is the most viable game strategy of all, according to studies.
Altruistic tit-for-tat.......sounds like the basis of a new religion. What do you mean by this phrase?

[Mobyseven]

Game theory. A google search should get you a reasonable overview.

[Wowbagger]

Altruistic tit-for-tat.......sounds like the basis of a new religion. What do you mean by this phrase? It is a Game Theory term, and could, in fact, be the basis for altruism arising in nature, according to theory.

It is a strategy where by you treat someone according to how they treat you. If they do something bad, you do retaliate. If they do something nice, you do something nice, in return. This is the "Tit-for-Tat" part.

If you never met someone before, but act nicely towards them, by default, without expectation of reward; and ONLY act bad towards someone after they had acted badly against you, you are said to be practicing "Altruistic Tit-for-Tat".

To explain it better, you must first get familiar with Prisoner's Dilema: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

Then, move on to other related topics: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reciprocal_altruism

ETA: I should add that, in studies of iterated Prisoner's Dilema strategies, the "Altruistic Tit-for-Tat" approach has been shown to be the most successful way to play, most of the time.

I also recommend reading The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins (2nd edition or newer). He has a very good chapter on the subject, that links into other biological theories he has worked with.

[Horatius]

Horatius,
It might devolve into Atruistic tit-for-tat, which is the most viable game strategy of all, according to studies.



Yes, I had thought of that, but really - if you had to bet on what would really happen, where would you put you money?

Perfect game theory only really works if everyone involved knows, understands and uses perfect game theory. How likely is that to occur?

[Darth Rotor]

Is the idea of treating others the way they treat you (as opposed to treating them as you would like to be treated) a moral way to conduct relationships?
Your post seems to argue that sixty nine is a moral position. :cool:

DR

[tsg]

Horatius,
It might devolve into Atruistic tit-for-tat, which is the most viable game strategy of all, according to studies.

What is tat, where do I get it, and how do I trade it in for the other thing?

[Cuddles]

Horatius,
It might devolve into Atruistic tit-for-tat, which is the most viable game strategy of all, according to studies.

But straight tit-for-tat isn't the most viable. Tit-for-two-tats is a much more succesful strategy, and I beleive there are several others that have been thought up, although they are usually much more complex.

It makes sense from a logical viewpoint. Tit-for-tat is essentially a positive feedback system, so once someone starts a certain behaviour it will be carried on forever. The two-tats system is much better because it keeps the feedback in check. If someone is constantly agressive others will respond in kind, but if something is a one-off event the whole system won't suddenly explode.

Of course, pretty much all the strategies are unstable on their own, since they will inevitably be invaded by other strategies that can succeed in an environment dominated by any one in particular. For example, a system composed of only tit-for-tat is identical to one composed only of tit-for-two-tats, or in fact on composed only of "sit around not doing anything".

[Mpmagi]

My post argues nothing, it is a question.

[Roboramma]

Is the idea of treating others the way they treat you (as opposed to treating them as you would like to be treated) a moral way to conduct relationships?

I think so, or at least to some degree. I try to give people the benefit of the doubt, and where possible treat them well even if I don't know that they've earned such treatment. But when it comes down to it, I also try to treat people acording to the treatment that I feel they deserve. That means that if someone trys to cheat me, I don't cheat them back, but I also don't do business with them anymore (a minor case in point is the fruit seller in the street that was charging me a foriegner's mark-up.).

I think I still tend to err on the side of niceness, even when I know I'm right, and when I don't, err on the side of caution in admitting that their "earning bad treatment" may simply have been a misunderstanding.

But the golden rule, however much I applaud it in many ways (and in some ways it does form the basis of my morality) can't stand alone.

As to the question of whether or not there is any such thing as objective morality - I'm going to dodge that question for now except to say that I don't care because regardless, moral ideas mean something to me.

[Overman]

The golden rule is one of many human universals.

[slingblade]

Is the idea of treating others the way they treat you (as opposed to treating them as you would like to be treated) a moral way to conduct relationships?

I don't farking care. It feels sometimes as if I've spent my life trying to treat people the way I'd like to be treated, only to be mocked for it at best, and victimized for it at worst.

These days, I try only to keep myself from hating everyone, indiscriminately.

[This Guy]

I don't farking care. It feels sometimes as if I've spent my life trying to treat people the way I'd like to be treated, only to be mocked for it at best, and victimized for it at worst.

These days, I try only to keep myself from hating everyone, indiscriminately.

Having read some of your other post, I think I have an idea of how you feel. I won't be so brash as to claim to actually understand how you feel. I've not had your experiences, and could probably never truly understand. But I think I have a small idea at least.

In my slightly over 50 years on this globe, I've generally tried to practice the golden rule. I too have been taken advantage of, and generally not always obtained the outcome I hoped for.

But I still think it's the way to live. What I have received from this lifestyle is a long list of friends, a lot of memories of the faces on the people I've helped out when they needed it, and a few bad memories to go along with the rest.

In my case at least, I think it's been a fair deal.

So, FWIW, I'll keep treating as I would like to be treated. If that doesn't work for someone I have to deal with, then I'll switch, and treat as treated. But I'll try it the other-way around first :)

[Kilgore Trout]

This sounds a lot like a (LaVeyan) Satanism idea to me.

As to if it's moral, it depends on just what they do to you and what reaction may best elicit change, if necessary.

[Wowbagger]

Yes, I had thought of that, but really - if you had to bet on what would really happen, where would you put you money? I'd put my money on what is likely to emerge naturally, given an enviornment open to natural selection pressures. And, in the long run, in such an enviornment, perhaps Altruistic Tit-for-Tat is not as unlikely as you think! After all, it seems to have emerged naturally, in ourselves and other lfie forms, in the form of Reciprocal Altruism. The Selfish Gene does a good job describing this, in one of its chapters (2nd Edition or later).

Perfect game theory only really works if everyone involved knows, understands and uses perfect game theory. How likely is that to occur?You are assuming one can not develop the ability to inately act in a manner that allows them to play a perfect game, without conciously understanding what a "perfect game" is.

But straight tit-for-tat isn't the most viable. Tit-for-two-tats is a much more succesful strategy, and I beleive there are several others that have been thought up, although they are usually much more complex. (snip) Technically, you may be right, for some enviornments.

Also, if you can deduce someone is playing Altruistic Tit-for-Tat (ATfT), there are ways to take advantage of that, and beat 'em. Therefore, ATfT is not always the perfect strategy. But, in most competitions, it does seem to win the most battles, as far as I recall.

And, complexity of the strategy usually has little to do if one wins or not, as far as I understand.

Also consider that ATfT is more likely to emerge, because of its simplicity. That does not mean it is necessarily better, but in context of this thread, you could argue that the phrase "Do Unto Others..." came out as a result of this natural tendancy.

What is tat, where do I get it, and how do I trade it in for the other thing?Ask your local fine tea shops and dairy farms.

[skeptifem]

edit- er oops read that wrong


anyway yeah that is a satanism thing. wether or not i would reccomend it is VERY context dependant. its not a yes or no type of question.

[Michael Redman]

Is it even meaningful? Are you going to stop and wait for some treatment every time you meet a new person, so you can decide how to treat them in return? What if everyone did that?

This doesn't work. You need to have an idea of how you're going to treat someone the first time you meet them.

If the question then becomes, "should I modify my treatment of another if their treatment of me is less than desirable?" then I think you've completely lost the separation from the actual golden rule. After all, I don't expect people to treat me well if I treat them poorly, so treating my more poorly in response would arguably be in compliance with the golden rule.

[Marquis de Carabas]

The binary nature of the choices in the prisoner's dilemma limits its utility when applied to specific human actions. It is a good model of certain scenarios, but it is a model. I would caution against using it as a moral guide. Not only are there more choices than simply defect and cooperate in most cases, there is not even a requirement that reaction be proportionate. Some tits are bigger than others.

[Wowbagger]

Is it even meaningful? Are you going to stop and wait for some treatment every time you meet a new person, so you can decide how to treat them in return? What if everyone did that? Are you referring to Altruistic Tit-for-Tat here?

If so, you should understand that the main point of Altruistic Tit-for-Tat is to act good, when you meet a new person, and NOT wait until to see how they treat you first. If they do act badly, you can retaliate, but good will comes first.

If not, then ignore the above paragraph.


If the question then becomes, "should I modify my treatment of another if their treatment of me is less than desirable?" then I think you've completely lost the separation from the actual golden rule. After all, I don't expect people to treat me well if I treat them poorly, so treating my more poorly in response would arguably be in compliance with the golden rule. That is not how I see the Golden Rule. It does not say "always treat people well".

I think its meaning would be clearer with a little expansion: "Do unto others as you think you would deserve to be treated, if your behavior was like theirs".

[Wowbagger]

The binary nature of the choices in the prisoner's dilemma limits its utility when applied to specific human actions. It is a good model of certain scenarios, but it is a model. I would caution against using it as a moral guide. Not only are there more choices than simply defect and cooperate in most cases, there is not even a requirement that reaction be proportionate. Some tits are bigger than others.
For once, I agree with the Marquis!

How did that happen?!!! :eek:

[skeptifem]

Is it even meaningful? Are you going to stop and wait for some treatment every time you meet a new person, so you can decide how to treat them in return? What if everyone did that?

This doesn't work. You need to have an idea of how you're going to treat someone the first time you meet them.

the church of satan says that the golden rule is good for when you first meet someone and go from there. but they still believe in doing unto others what they recieve. it also has something like "dont mess with other people for no reason" in it as well if im not mistaken.

If the question then becomes, "should I modify my treatment of another if their treatment of me is less than desirable?" then I think you've completely lost the separation from the actual golden rule. After all, I don't expect people to treat me well if I treat them poorly, so treating my more poorly in response would arguably be in compliance with the golden rule.

i guess theres a question of wether or not you would want someone to teach you a lesson if you were acting like an ***...

over all though the golden rule or this one are both pretty worthless. the best advice i have is to use your own judgement on how you treat others rather than having some rule to refer to.

[Dogdoctor]

Tit for tat doesn't work in real life. A guy gets in an argument with you and beats you up. So you get out of the hospital and get some friends and beat him up. He gets out of the hospital and gets a gun and kills you. End of game.

[Piscivore]

These days, I try only to keep myself from hating everyone, indiscriminately.

Come over to the dark side, Sling.

We have pie.

ETA: I don't like to be the reactive party in these cases. My golden rule is find out what the others intend to do and "do unto" first.

FETA: I also don't like tats on tits. It's like putting graffitti on the Mona Lisa.

[Marquis de Carabas]

For once, I agree with the Marquis!

I will refrain from posting in the Matrix thread, then, so we can keep this special moment alive. :p

[Roboramma]

Tit for tat doesn't work in real life. A guy gets in an argument with you and beats you up. So you get out of the hospital and get some friends and beat him up. He gets out of the hospital and gets a gun and kills you. End of game.
Then the government comes in and puts him in prison for the rest of his life. Of course if he didn't want to go to prison, maybe he'd have thought twice about shooting you.

Mind you, that doesn't always happen, but neither do the other two things you stated. Of course tit for tat doesn't always work. But showing that you're willing to stand up for yourself and give back what you've been given can be useful.

[Wowbagger]

I think its meaning would be clearer with a little expansion: "Do unto others as you think you would deserve to be treated, if your behavior was like theirs".
On second thought, I might even have to expand that phrasing, even more:
"Do unto others as you think you would deserve to be treated, if your behavior was like theirs; But if you haven't investigated their behavior, yet, then treat them nicely by default, 'cause you know you deserve it!".

Tit for tat doesn't work in real life. A guy gets in an argument with you and beats you up. So you get out of the hospital and get some friends and beat him up. He gets out of the hospital and gets a gun and kills you. End of game. That's not Tit-for-Tat, that's Tit-for-Rat-a-Tat-Tat-Tat.

All joking aside, it is worth noting a couple of things:
1. The Marquis comment applies here. It is only a model, not a strict way to obtain morals.
2. Your retaliation strategy could be planned better. Instead of beating 'im up, (which is more akin to "eye for an eye"), perhaps you should simply reconsider inviting him to your next birthday party, or something.
3. You are bringing in other player elements: friends to help beat the person up. This distorts the two-player nature of the Tit-for-Tat a bit. Now, your friends might get shot at, or beaten up, as well.

I will refrain from posting in the Matrix thread, then, so we can keep this special moment alive. :p Ah, now you've already lost the "moment" just by posting that!

You got something to say to me about The Matrix, you should just come out and say it*! Don't be a chicken, and hide behind the idea of ruining "special moments"!!
(* in the appropriate thread, of course. Let's not derail this one any further.)

-----------------------------

One more thing I wish to mention, even though it has not really come up yet, because it might prove relevant:

The Golden Rule is, of course, not just a "Christian value". It is a value that has emerged, independantly, in virtually every culture that has ever been developed!

I have never been a Christian. Today, I am not even religious, at all. But, I still think the basis of The Golden Rule is, generally, a good one to live by.

And, furthermore, most of the athiests I have met agree with this, as well!

I'd say that is evidence in support of "Do Unto Others..." being a good, moral way to treat people.

[tsg]

ETA: I don't like to be the reactive party in these cases. My golden rule is find out what the others intend to do and "do unto" first.

I like Benny Hill's version: Do unto others, then run.

[Dogdoctor]

Ok you get beat up and you get out of the hospital and go to beat him up only you get beat up again.

[Piscivore]

Tit for tat doesn't work in real life. A guy gets in an argument with you and beats you up.

Me, I avoid arguments with people I do not know. If there is an actual conflict, say we ran into each other's automobiles, politeness and civility usually lets us deal with the problem in a rational manner. I'll let the insurance companies do the arguing- they are pretty good with the facts, despite what lawyer advertisements on television might suggest.

If that doesn't work, I have this way of looking at someone like I'm trying to figure out if their taxidermied corpse will fit the Little Bo Peep dress in my basement that usually forestalls any aggression.

ETA:I like Benny Hill's version: Do unto others, then run.

IOW, Do unto others, then lock them in your basement and make it put the lotion on its skin or else it gets the hose again.

[Horatius]

On second thought, I might even have to expand that phrasing, even more:
"Do unto others as you think you would deserve to be treated, if your behavior was like theirs; But if you haven't investigated their behavior, yet, then treat them nicely by default, 'cause you know you deserve it!".



But now you're getting so wordy, that you might as well start bringing the lawyers into it - and we all know lawyers didn't evolve naturally. :)




That's not Tit-for-Tat, that's Tit-for-Rat-a-Tat-Tat-Tat.


:)




All joking aside, it is worth noting a couple of things:
1. The Marquis comment applies here. It is only a model, not a strict way to obtain morals.
2. Your retaliation strategy could be planned better. Instead of beating 'im up, (which is more akin to "eye for an eye"), perhaps you should simply reconsider inviting him to your next birthday party, or something.
3. You are bringing in other player elements: friends to help beat the person up. This distorts the two-player nature of the Tit-for-Tat a bit. Now, your friends might get shot at, or beaten up, as well.



Or, 2A: Just shoot him first. Inadequate escalation is a common failing.





One more thing I wish to mention, even though it has not really come up yet, because it might prove relevant:

The Golden Rule is, of course, not just a "Christian value". It is a value that has emerged, independantly, in virtually every culture that has ever been developed!



Yes, and it's a rule that has to be taught in every one of those cultures, and is usually more honored in the breech than the observance.

[Wowbagger]

Or, 2A: Just shoot him first. Inadequate escalation is a common failing. That's not being very humane. But, point taken.

Yes, and it's a rule that has to be taught in every one of those cultures, and is usually more honored in the breech than the observance. Yes, it does need to be taught to humans, to be effective. This might be due to humans' reliance on memes over instinctual behavior, in societies.
But, the fact that it emerges as something important to be taught to people, in all the various cultures, indicates it is still emergent of natural processes.

Also, many animals exhibit this kind of behavior, instinctually.

[fuelair]

Your post seems to argue that sixty nine is a moral position. :cool:

DR
Of course it is!:D

[fuelair]

Ok you get beat up and you get out of the hospital and go to beat him up only you get beat up again.
Not if you cosh him first ( though in real life, I would wait some months and he would disappear. I have a rule relevant to being assaulted - and if you think that isn't nice don't try to think about if it is a family member, friend or child.)

[slingblade]

Having read some of your other post, I think I have an idea of how you feel. I won't be so brash as to claim to actually understand how you feel. I've not had your experiences, and could probably never truly understand. But I think I have a small idea at least.

In my slightly over 50 years on this globe, I've generally tried to practice the golden rule. I too have been taken advantage of, and generally not always obtained the outcome I hoped for.

But I still think it's the way to live. What I have received from this lifestyle is a long list of friends, a lot of memories of the faces on the people I've helped out when they needed it, and a few bad memories to go along with the rest.

In my case at least, I think it's been a fair deal.

So, FWIW, I'll keep treating as I would like to be treated. If that doesn't work for someone I have to deal with, then I'll switch, and treat as treated. But I'll try it the other-way around first :)

:)

My problem is that I'm not a dedicated *****. I am, at my core, still the friendly and caring person I've always been.

But now that core is thickly padded, for protection. So thickly, in fact, that it's suffocating.

Pisci, is it cream pie or fruit? :)

[JoeEllison]

I've got a better idea: LEAVE OTHER PEOPLE ALONE! :jaw-dropp :shocked: :yikes: :catfight:

[Darth Rotor]

Do Unto Others As They Do To You
Is the idea of treating others the way they treat you (as opposed to treating them as you would like to be treated) a moral way to conduct relationships?
Your post seems to argue that sixty nine is a moral position. DR
My post argues nothing, it is a question.
That response suggests you need to rent a sense of humor.

Try "sexual" and "relation" and "do unto others" while "they do unto you" and mix with your "moral" to grasp the naughty joke (yes, not Nobel Prize for literature material).

DR

[Dogdoctor]

Not if you cosh him first ( though in real life, I would wait some months and he would disappear. I have a rule relevant to being assaulted - and if you think that isn't nice don't try to think about if it is a family member, friend or child.)

What is cosh?

[Piscivore]

What is cosh?

To strike someone, usually from behind and without warning, with a blunt object. Usually a small leather sack full of metal, which is described as a "cosh" or a "blackjack". A sock full of pennies works in a pinch, too.

[baron]

Is the idea of treating others the way they treat you (as opposed to treating them as you would like to be treated) a moral way to conduct relationships?

It's not moral or immoral, it's unfeasible. It's like asking whether people should only speak if spoken to.

Hmm... except it goes further than that, in that by ignoring someone you're actually "treating" them in some fashion, so I guess your methodology is logically impossible to follow rather than being simply unfeasible.

[Mpmagi]

Do Unto Others As They Do To You



That response suggests you need to rent a sense of humor.

Try "sexual" and "relation" and "do unto others" while "they do unto you" and mix with your "moral" to grasp the naughty joke (yes, not Nobel Prize for literature material).

DR

My sense of humor was deleted long ago. However my Obvious Jokes Drive is in full use.





Ha.