So The Golden Rule is BS, right?

[EGarrett]

It fails in real situations (I don't think I should walk around exposing myself to every attractive woman I see)...and it fails in basic game theory (Tit for Tat reigns supreme).

[casebro]

The Golden Rule IS tit-for-tat. Isn't that it's point?

[timhau]

The Golden Rule IS tit-for-tat. Isn't that it's point?

Isn't it more like tat-in-expectation-of-tit, where tit=tat?

[Checkmite]

Silver rule: Treat others the way they treat you.

[TragicMonkey]

It fails in real situations (I don't think I should walk around exposing myself to every attractive woman I see)...and it fails in basic game theory (Tit for Tat reigns supreme).

It works in games if you can convince your opponents that you believe in the Golden Rule. I like to be all "oh, I just wish to peacefully coexist and quietly live in peace bothering nobody"....right up until I get my superweapons, fleets of doom, or whatever it is all nice and ready. Then it's just a matter of wading through oceans of other people's blood, and another vile victory for monkeykind.

In real life, though, the Golden Rule shouldn't always apply. The existence of masochists should demonstrate why.

[Gurdur]

So The Golden Rule is BS, right?
Wrong.
It fails in real situations
Very often it DOESN'T fail.
(I don't think I should walk around exposing myself to every attractive woman I see)
Very wise. Else you would be committing a major breach of aesthetics. Plus exposing yourself is a criminal act.
...and it fails in basic game theory (Tit for Tat reigns supreme).
Wrong; actually "Tit-For-Two-Tats" will often win over "Tit For Tat" in many game situations with multiple differing agents.

Thus showing that applying the Golden Rule even more so can actually gain you more.

[EGarrett]

The Golden Rule IS tit-for-tat. Isn't that it's point?No, the Golden Rule is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Tit-for-tat is "cooperate, then do unto others as they do unto you." The Golden Rule has no provision for whooping ass when necessary, as you would never like to have your ass-whooped.

[EGarrett]

Wrong.

Very often it DOESN'T fail.It fails more far more often, especially over the long term, than tit-for-tat.

Very wise. Else you would be committing a major breach of aesthetics. Plus exposing yourself is a criminal act.That's not a response to my point. It was an example of how the Golden Rule fails.

Wrong; actually "Tit-For-Two-Tats" will often win over "Tit For Tat" in many game situations with multiple differing agents.Tit for Two Tats can survive the counter-attacking trap that Tit for Tat can fall into, but "Two Tats" gives up more ground against cheaters. Cheaters appear far more often than the counter-attacking trap...indeed often enough that pure Tit for Tat is the best strategy.

[GroundStrength]

:duck: What about a Tat-for-two-Tits?


Sorry.

[mumblethrax]

A literal reading of the golden rule might lead you to conclude that you ought to expose yourself to beautiful women. A somewhat more realistic way to interpret it is to treat others with consideration.

And of course it isn't always applied in practice--if it were, we wouldn't need the rule.

[UserGoogol]

There is, of course, subtlety in implementing the golden rule, since you need to have some sort of method for equating an action that you do with an action someone else does, since it's impossible for a person to do exactly unto you as you do unto them, since they aren't you, and you aren't them. Obviously if you apply it on a case by case basis, it's stupid, but if you apply it to more general rules of thumb such as "don't cause people unnecessary suffering," then it's more reasonably just.

Furthermore, even though I think morality ultimately derives from enlightened self-interest, game theory does not tell the whole story, at least for simple games such as the iterated prisoner's dilemma. Since people are not perfectly rational, their behavior consists rational planning, biological factors, (which for all practical purposes may be considered to be fixed, although of course they really aren't) and social norms. Ethics, as I see it, consists of the social norms that a rational person would try to promote if he knew that those social norms "might" ultimately infect his own brain, or something like that.

I think the golden rule isn't really the whole story on morality, but I think it serves as a sort of useful ethical first approximation, and it's not entirely BS.

[Darth Rotor]

No, the Golden Rule is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Tit-for-tat is "cooperate, then do unto others as they do unto you." The Golden Rule has no provision for whooping ass when necessary, as you would never like to have your ass-whooped.
It has also been written "do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you." We talked about this on R & P some months ago, I hope I can find the thread.

DR

[shemp]

:duck: What about a Tat-for-two-Tits?


Sorry.

That would be a Sale of Two Titties.

[Ziggurat]

It fails in real situations (I don't think I should walk around exposing myself to every attractive woman I see)...and it fails in basic game theory (Tit for Tat reigns supreme).

It doesn't exactly fail, the problem is it only tells you what your first move should be.

[fuelair]

Silver rule: Treat others the way they treat you.
Platinum Rule: Treat others the way you would have them treat you - and when they try to stab you in the back, destroy them.




Utterly and permanently.

[Ziggurat]

Platinum Rule: Treat others the way you would have them treat you - and when they try to stab you in the back, destroy them.




Utterly and permanently.

Sounds like Ender's Rule to me.

[Tsukasa Buddha]

It isn't about winning the game, but the ethical way of playing...







And so ends my Atheist's Guide to Christianity...

ETA: I think masochism breaks the Golden Rule.

[seanmcg]

ETA: I think masochism breaks the Golden Rule.

Only if you're a literalist. The "Golden Rule" (I prefer Ethic of Reciprocity, since Christians will claim "Golden Rule" as their own invention) works if you consider the effect of your actions on the other person, rather than the literal action.

The "Exposing Yourself" example breaks the EoR if you take it literally. However, if "flashing someone" instead becomes "showing someone something they find visually unappealing", then the EoR stands. Similarly, masochism holds if you frame the action in terms of effect rather than literal action. Since masochists derive pleasure from suffering, "whip me" becomes "peform an action on me that I find pleasurable". Framed in such a way, the EoR again stands.

Does this complicate things? Certainly. But since over-simplifying the Ethic of Reciprocity renders it only marginally useful, I can live with a certain degree of complication.

[Beerina]

It fails in real situations (I don't think I should walk around exposing myself to every attractive woman I see)...and it fails in basic game theory (Tit for Tat reigns supreme).

Nah, it still applies here. What you really mean is "...and therefore I should expose me to atractive women who find me atractive", not to anybody passing along. Unless you want unattractive women to expose themselves to you, your rule isn't as you state. :)

[hgc]

Attention Masochists: The Golden Rule is not for you!

Just sayin' :duck:

[EGarrett]

There is, of course, subtlety in implementing the golden rule, since you need to have some sort of method for equating an action that you do with an action someone else does, since it's impossible for a person to do exactly unto you as you do unto them, since they aren't you, and you aren't them.Agreed. I don't intend to try and simplify the rule into absurdity.

Obviously if you apply it on a case by case basis, it's stupid, but if you apply it to more general rules of thumb such as "don't cause people unnecessary suffering," then it's more reasonably just.Yes, and wouldn't that be better than "do unto others as you would have them do unto you?" It's not as though "don't cause unnecessary suffering" or "don't hurt others if you wouldn't like to be hurt" are longer or harder to remember then the current "do unto others..." rule. And they are more accurate. So why do we keep this Golden Rule?

Furthermore, even though I think morality ultimately derives from enlightened self-interest, game theory does not tell the whole story, at least for simple games such as the iterated prisoner's dilemma. Since people are not perfectly rational, their behavior consists rational planning, biological factors, (which for all practical purposes may be considered to be fixed, although of course they really aren't) and social norms. Ethics, as I see it, consists of the social norms that a rational person would try to promote if he knew that those social norms "might" ultimately infect his own brain, or something like that.Agreed. Our successful societies are based on utilitarian morals (which helps the most people to be the most happy, and thus makes it most likely that you the individual will happy.)

I think the golden rule isn't really the whole story on morality, but I think it serves as a sort of useful ethical first approximation, and it's not entirely BS.I think there are better, shorter and more efficient "rules," if we're going to try and boil them down. You yourself have offered some.

[EGarrett]

Platinum Rule: Treat others the way you would have them treat you - and when they try to stab you in the back, destroy them.

Utterly and permanently.According to studies, you have to punish the betrayal, but allow the person to learn their lesson and go back to cooperating.

[EGarrett]

Nah, it still applies here. What you really mean is "...and therefore I should expose me to atractive women who find me atractive", not to anybody passing along. Unless you want unattractive women to expose themselves to you, your rule isn't as you state. :)A good point. Looking into the issue further, what I would like is for women I find attractive to expose themselves to me. I don't care that much if they find me attractive. So in application of the Golden Rule, I now have a new fear: That I would end up having to expose myself to any woman who finds me attractive.

I accept that a perfectly rational person wouldn't want to force others to do that, so you wouldn't end up in that sort-of situation if everyone was aware of how the other person felt about having to do it...but there is an inner-selfishness that ignores what the other person cares about that I think creates the contradiction.

[DouglasL]

In most situations I tend to use a corollary to the Golden Rule. I treat others as they treat me. Treat me with respect and I treat them with respect. Be mean, nasty, and rude to me and receive exactly the same treatment.

Thank for taking your time to read my ramblings. :)

[Brown]

Lately I have been mulling over whether certain versions of the Golden Rule are better than other versions. Indeed, I'm starting to think that they might qualify as two separate rules (at least in some situations), because they don't necessarily point to the same outcome.

(I haven't read Michael Shermer's book on the subject, but it wouldn't surprise me if he goes over this notion as well.)

The positive version of the rule is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." The negative version is "Do NOT do unto others that which you would NOT want done to you."

Cannot a case be made that the negative version, which addresses refraining from action, is more likely to lead to a consistent, moral result than the positive version? Cannot a case be made that there is more liberty all around if people consciously avoid doing things that they wouldn't want done to themselves? Cannot a case be made that it is better to do nothing at all than to affirmatively do something to/for another that you would like, but that the other might not?

I'm reminded of the Duke's line from his final movie, "The Shootist":I won't be wronged. I won't be insulted. I won't be laid a-hand on. I don't do these things to other people, and I require the same from them.

[Arkan_Wolfshade]

iirc Shermer's take coincided with my own, in that it should be, "Do unto others as they wish you to do unto them." Reasons:
1) They may not want you to do to them what you would want them to do to you
2) They may want you to do to them what you would not want them to do to you

[LostAngeles]

Actually, I use the Golden Rule to try and not perpetuate the crap that had been done unto me and to lessen the crap done unto other people. I try to treat people in the way I would (have) wanted to be treated if I were them.

Because the less ******** there are in the world, the easier it'll be for the world to not suck.

[The Painter]

Golden Rule; He who has the Gold, makes the rules.

[rjh01]

If people treat me right there is no problem. I try to treat them right. However if they treat me rudely and nasty, I should try to do the opposite to how they are behaving. I either laugh in their face or just quietly talk to them. I found that when I refused to play their game, they calmed down. They were only being nasty to me because they thought I was going to be nasty to them. Remember a person who is nasty has no power, they have given it to you. Just stay calm and use that power. If what they want is unreasonable then give them nothing. Just laugh at them. If what they want is reasonable give it to them without a fight. It will leave them shocked. Whatever you do, do not fight back. They can win at their own game.

Here is a related problem. A person tells you that they want to be treated in a certain way. If people treated you in that way you would not like it. Do you treat the person the way they tell you to or the way you want to be treated?

[athon]

The Golden Rule works as a means of maximising expectations. All morals work that way - if all members of a social group can anticipate most of the time the actions of others as being altruistic, it minimises stress within the individual. Of course other individuals can take advantage of it, and often do, however we are more inclined to cooperate most of the time for the benefits of social cooperation and reduced stress living. Many societies justify this behaviour in dogma or law, but without it a social group retains this behaviour of 'we both behave altruistically and we can also expect this behaviour from each other'.

To be honest, I don't see it as a 'therefore' or 'because' behaviour. I don't behave altruistic, thereby inspiring it in others. Nor do I behave altruistically because of the behaviour of others. All individuals in a common social group have a natural tendency to be altruistic and also expect others to also behave likewise. This behave as well as the aniticipation are both beneficial when taken into account together.

Athon

[Meadmaker]

A little historical background on the Golden Rule:

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Quote/hillel.html

(I was unaware until a couple of years ago that Jesus might not have been the first Jewish guy to say something like that.)