We are most familiar with the form of the so-called Golden Rule that says that one should treat others as you would like others to treat you. That seems reasonable on the surface but it has the problem that how you would like to be treated may not be how someone else would like to be treated. Some time ago, I argued for a better form of the Golden Rule that says simply “Don’t be a jerk” because the standard form was too vague and too subject to idiosyncratic interpretations to be useful.
My formulation was not very elegant but it turns out that there is a better way of expressing the same sentiment that has been around for millennia. It also takes a negative form of the rule and says that one should not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated. This seems better because avoiding doing things to others that one would not like have done to you avoids many pitfalls, since it is not requiring you to do something to others.
Although the positive form of the Golden Rule is traced to many religious sources, the negative form, although new to me, has a long history and is very common in the ancient religious and secular literature. Here are some examples:
Mahabharatha: One should never do something to others that one would regard as an injury to one’s own self. In brief, this is dharma. Anything else is succumbing to desire.
Tirukkural: Do not do to others what you know has hurt yourself.
Thales: Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing.
Sextus: What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either.
Isocrates: Do not do to others that which angers you when they do it to you.
Zoroastrianism: That nature alone is good which refrains from doing to another whatsoever is not good for itself.
Babylon Talmud: What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.
Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Confucianism: What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others.
Islam: The most righteous person is the one who consents for other people what he consents for himself, and who dislikes for them what he dislikes for himself.
If they don’t want to be treated the way you treat yourself, then you’re still being inconsiderate with that rule and perhaps doing other stuff wrong too. Treat each person how that person wants to be treated, by trying to ascertain what that may be in their situation, because a single simple rule for kids established for all time couldn’t possibly do that.
Reciprocity was probably clear to our Stone Age ancestors. But religion takes everything and then claims to have invented it.
Thanks for this nice compilation, Mano.
The Thales formulation is a lot like Kant’s categorical imperative, seems to me.
Agree with @1. Some people aren’t so concerned about how they’re treated, either because of narcissism, misanthropy, or whatever.
OT: Mano, please comment on Peter Higgs, who died on Monday.
I’ve never found the golden rule to be useful in a real life, clock is ticking, situation although I can see it could be a starting point for a good discussion.
Here’s a rule that is useful and easy to apply: say you are about to enter a shop. The shop door is closed, but you can see another person is about to exit (or the other person is behind you intending to enter through the same door). Do you hold the door open for the other person? My answer: hold the door if Person2’s convenience is increased more than Person1’s convenience is decreased.
Concerning consent; what if a priest, having graduated from seminary school, knows what he is preaching is untrue, but his parishioners desperately want to hear the untruths from him? What should he do?
I don’t like any of those much either, since the reference point is still oneself. I prefer “Do not to others as they would not be done to”.
Isocrates: like Socrates but two of his sides are the same.
Matt G @4: Higgs never cared for the attention he got for either the boson or the mechanism named after him. At the very least, he gave equal credit to Guralnik, Hagen, Kibble, Englert and Brout.
The naming is probably due to Benjamin Lee, who only used it as a shorthand for all six contributors.
With “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you,” the phrasing is a bit vague. Lots of people seem to interpret it as “Do unto others as you EXPECT them to do unto you;” or “Do unto others as they did unto you the last time you met.” Which can lead to pretty bad actions by people who are used to being treated badly, or feel a need to pre-empt such treatment by others.
To my ears, this sounds like typical god-botherer-knows-best thinking. My religion forbids/demands ______, so you must be bound by that too.
Do not do unto others that which you would not want them to do to you.
Unless you’re commenting online, in which case seize any opportunity to ridicule and abuse and make sure to have the last word.
It’s called the Silver Rule — Wikipedia has merged the two, but that’s the privative and the affirmative forms are quite traditional. cf. https://www.wealest.com/articles/silver-rule
(Then, there’s the Iron Rule: “do unto others before they do unto you.”)
[Also, the 11th Commandment: “Do not get caught”]
The Copper Rule: Do unto others before the police get there.
Matt G @4,
I have written extensively on the Higgs boson, Higgs, field, and Higgs mechanism. I really do not have much to add.
Platitudes like these are an ok when there is little information to go on, but if it is someone you can communicate with before deciding what to do, it is much better to ask.
ardipithecus, there are always edge cases. In your example, Lolita is most willing.
Maybe this should be “the Thin Blue Rule”? Don’t be in debt to the police or be the police.
@ 17
What someone wants is only one of the criteria. What Lolita wants is not acceptable in the culture I live in. Giving Trump what he wants would be utterly foolish in pretty much all circumstances (unless you are part of his inner circle, and even then, make sure your nest is well feathered before acceding.
More complementary than better formulation. The negative formulation doesn’t make you do anything (Its like google’s old dont be evil which allowed them to not do much good either -- in the past anyway)
The problems with the formulations only arise if you treat it as a rule rather than a guideline -- Because if taken as a rule everyone spends their time on the corner cases that don’t work.
In the years of trickle-down economy and victim blaming, the practical rule would be “Don’t be a complete utter asshole to other people”.
The current Brit tories and US Republicans can not be bothered with even this very low bar, nor the Hindu nationalist party, nor the various oligarchs who control most of the wealth. If any Australian is reading this, please feel free to add local examples.
And here is another example of a society run by sociopaths who thinks common people are subhuman. No religious edicts in the world will make them more empathic.
“Carer convicted over benefit error worth 30p a week fights to clear his name”
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/apr/12/carers-allowance-benefit-error-30p-a-week-dwp
There are potential problems of interpretation and it seems to me that a lot of it hinges on the use of “do”. So, how about something like: “Show others the same consideration and respect as you would want from them.”
LykeX @ 23
I like your version. In early iron-age societies consideration and respect might have been a bit too abstract for a catchy slogan, but we* should be ready for it.
* ‘we’ not including parts of Alabama and nearby places.
You don’t want to be a motorcycle rider, with that attitude.
It’s shitty because it’s so very subjective and also it requires some minimal expertise at theory of mind.
—
Here’s a more proper, unbeatable, succinct version: “Be Saintly”.
(Go for the sentiment, not the specifics 🙂 )
Bill and Ted still lead the pack.
@ 25 Morales
Lol. Maybe not.
https://www.magiscenter.com/blog/mother-teresas-miracles-how-she-was-declared-a-saint
(BTW Four months on I just saw this unhinged comment:
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2023/12/06/johnsons-johnson/#comment-2204074
HOLY FUCK you’re a fragile snowflake, dude!!!)
@ ^
I know this is boring and irrelevant to anyone else, for the record this is the comment Morales was responding to when he had the meltdown in parentheses above:
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2023/12/06/johnsons-johnson/#comment-2204067
We now return you to your regular programming…
Neediness has o’ercome the Unsilent Bob, and wishful expressions effused forth.
I wrote ‘saintly’, not ‘selfish’. You should have kept up with your Hitchens.
Oh yes, such fragility!
Heh. Watch me frag you some more.
(You don’t care about the topic, do you? Me, me, me. I matter more to you)
Sbob, a more recent snowflakey outburst for your entertainment.
Ooooo!
Snowflakey, I like that most recent epithet.
Describes me perfectly; I am but a delicate flower, a sensitive soul, a tortured poet, an ephemeral snowflake, a vulnerable spirit. O woe is me, for life is but suffering!
See what you’ve done!
Hm. I’d rather be a snowflake than an obsessive creep like LoudRobert. Just happened upon a comment from four months ago? Right mate.
@ ^
So to be clear, you’re argument is that if it takes me four months to come across an insane rant about me (I’m “SpewGargler” apparently) while searching for something else completely unrelated to that weirdo, that shows I’m an “obsessive creep”.
There is an obsession going on here buddy -- but it ain’t me.
And it’s important to you to bring that up, even if it’s from another blog and an entirely different conversation, though of course it’s your usual schtick.
Ah yes, I”ve been fragile and unemotional and confrontational and opaque and obvious and hyperliteral and allusive and always post purely for argument’s sake even when I’m breaking down.
—
So. Saintliness is your hook, this time.
For you, Chatterbox bob:
I’ve checked my browser history and exactly what I was searching for when I came across Morales’ bizarre rant, and went to the trouble of posting it, but it’s triggering some filter in WordPress and won’t post. Maybe Mano could retrieve one of the five versions I’ve posted from the filters. X-D
Anyway I can prove I was searching for something completely unrelated when I found Morales’ four month old meltdown.
I guess I’ll just have to do without Grigjanis’s groveling apology.
(Can’t resist)
But not ordinary spew. Oh no.
Diarrheic drivel frothing forth from your intestinal blockage, feculent and soupy, is what it is.
(Alas, I’m not your enema, BumButter)
Me @ 33
I think at this point I can rest my case. X-D
I bet you can’t boil an egg in the time it takes Morales to post another comment about me. X-D
Ah, the utterly mysnimed one sharts some more:
About you? You wish.
About your comment, of course.
I mean, I’ve only said umpteen and a million times that I will respond to personal comments, so of course Holms and the FecalRegurgitator therefore make personal comments, so that I will respond as I claimed as I would, and therefore they can thrill to that and tell me how much I post and how little they want me to post.
So, Coprobelcher, tell me more about how I’m fragile and therefore the most ethical thing to do is to attempt to insult me. Tell me more (surely you can look the specific reference up) about how I’m probably spectral, which you essayed some time back. I did leave a bunch of those unspoken, but you’re tried O so many!
—
I suppose I should mention the Brass Rule: “do unto others as they do unto you.”
(Tit-for-tat in game theory)
—
PS Your X-D is like a tic. Truly, it does not have the effect you think it does!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Called it. X-D
Dude. Seek therapy. Seriously.
I don’t even know who you are.
Silentbob:
Why?
After all, I’m not the one with the psychological fixation.
Of course you do, you silly goose.
I am the person on this network with whom you are obsessed.
Your idée fixe. Your yearning.
Obs.
Called it: “PS Your X-D is like a tic. Truly, it does not have the effect you think it does!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
I posted this in another thread by accident, but it’s worth re-doing:
Is there something that goes beyond resting your case?
Like; my case is now the most rested of all the cases and its restfulness is so unsurpassed all the the other cases are jealous of how much rest my case gets. X-D
Mano, please delete the one I posted in some random thread. X-D
[Done. -Mano]
Called it: “PS Your X-D is like a tic. Truly, it does not have the effect you think it does!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
https://proxy.freethought.online/singham/2023/11/11/a-clear-eyed-look-at-the-situation-in-israel-gaza-and-the-west-bank/#comment-5266760
Just popping in to recommend this posting and the advice it contains again. I can read the content of post #32 -- the next dozen (!) are just blank. From the content of #32 I think it’s safe to assume this is a massive improvement. Try it, it makes the experience of FtB considerably better.
Speaking of not being obsessive, here we have a Not Obsessive Person promising to reply to all comments to or about him, because he said he would and not following through on that would be dishonourable…!
Meanwhile, constant bad faith shittery is perfectly fine with that alleged honour code. Shame.
There’s also the Diamond Rule.
—
BTW, Holms, you are a special case. I know damn well that you will post either forever or until Mano closes the thread if I actually responded each and every time. So, you get a quota, which you are approaching now.
(That’s the Pragmatic Rule)
*Gasp* but that would be breaking your vow of shittery!
Must be very hard-boiled eggs. Yuck.
John @47:
I’ve seen (essentially) the same thing called the Platinum Rule and the Titanium Rule. Let’s just have done with it and call it the Unobtainium Rule.
Rob, indeed.
Of course, knowing how one is supposed to act to be moral is not the same as acting that way if it’s contrary to one’s interests.
—
Holms, I too can dig up my comments from elsewhen and elseblog, though of course mine is more relevant: https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2013/02/14/the-desert-tortoises-with-boltcutters-civility-pledge/
(days of yore!)
My link was of your actual words describing -- promising -- what your conduct would be, which I describe fairly accurately as a vow of shittery. Your link was to Chris Clarke’s words,which have nothing to do with my criticism of your conduct, and you rejected the pledge anyway. Hint: it’s the bad faith, not the lack of civility. I’ve never hidden this, and even mentioned it again above.
Heh.. You’ve got me on the brain. I was referring to thematic linkage
Like the Silver Rule (rather than the Golden Rule, as the Wikipedia has it) featured in this OP, that OP was a slogan about how to properly behave towards others.
Typical people like such simplifications about morality; people like me see them for what they are: sometimes appropriate, sometimes not.
Good long discussion of the concepts at hand here:
https://commonsensecamp.livejournal.com/4102.html
A slogan about how to behave towards others, which you explicitly reject. Super.
How about we just do unto Holms and Morales as they would do unto each other and ban both the fuckers. X-D
(^ For the benefit of Morales specifically this is a joke and does not warrant a 47 paragraph weepy post about how horribly bullied you are.)
Well, the only slogan to which you yourself have alluded is a farcical one:
“be excellent to each other”
Clearly, not one you yourself practice, Holms.
That’s the only thing of substance you’ve contributed to the topic at hand, every other comment of yours was about me. Me, me, me.
Me. This is particularly ironic: “Speaking of not being obsessive, here we have [blah]” is very telling.
—
Got anything to say about the gist of the link I adduced @54?
(It’s not as simple as that, is the gist)
Unsilentbob:
But aren’t I a fragile snowflake with lots of exclamations to you?
Sure sounds like you imagine you are bullying me. Tsk.
Anyway. Such simple nostrums are for simpletons. That’s basically my point.
Simply stated yet sound, but trust one that loves bad faith to call it farcical. As for me, I point out bad arguments and bad comments. You feature prominently because you’re you and you desire argument.
I’m sure this topic has been discussed in many places, but the only one I’m reading at the moment is here.
#58 Actually he is referencing the time you brought up being bullied. We all had a good belly laugh at that one 🙂
You claim to do so, but actually you address me, my moral character as you see it, and my motives.
Topics themselves, nah.
You assert, you never sustain. You just ramble, Holms.
It is your thing.
Ah, I desire argument, though I am a snowflake.
Heh.
You are just desperate to get the last word, Holms.
I proved that already. No need to prove it again.
And, of course, all but your very first comment (which was not about me, so that I did not respond) are about me. Me. John Morales, the person with whom you and UnsilentBob are evidently obsessed.
OK, I don’t want to be part of another thread being shut down because of your obdurate egoistic neediness, so no more responses from me to you on this thread about your favourite topic.
(That’s your quota done)
—
Meanwhile, here’s something that predates Christianity: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtue#Roman_Virtues
(Lemons, lemonade)
My comments have been predominantly about comments, because a certain someone has been a spigot for bad faith argument. As in this case you comment that I only assert without sustain, in a comment consisting mainly of naked assertions. Also, it is pretty obvious that these asides about the topic are really only there as a fig leaf.
As for neediness, you remain the only person here to promise to get the last word, gloat over getting the last word, declare you would not return to a conversation, and then lose the battle of will to actually do that. And to think you pretend that this is all about honour! You have a need, and you lose against that need daily.
German version of the negative G.R. , rhymed:
Was du nicht willst, dass man dir tu,
das füg auch keinem Andern zu