Golden Rule

[Light]

Light,




How am I to respond to a person who believes he can read minds?

HAH! Good one, Water. Actually, I expected something similar to that.

No, I'm not a mindreader. That would be para-psychology (which is mostly fraud) but rather I am an ordinary psychologist. I never went into private practice (though many of my students did and I'm still in touch with several of them) choosing instead to teach.

I only "know" you in the sense that you very closely fit a classical profile that I've seen time and again. It's possible that you don't believe in profiles but trust me - they can be quite accurate and helpful at times.

The profile I'm speaking of is the one that people in my profession see more often than all the others. An individual has undergone some type of psychological (and sometimes physical as well) trauma. The actual trauma itself varies very widely. Anything from the death of a parent or child, loss of a spouse, loss of a job, vehicle or other serious accident, continual harassment by co-workers and always includes a feeling of betrayal. I'm sure you get the picture.

It's their reaction to it that forms the profile, of course. It's characterized by withdrawal to varying degrees, the establishment of a "wall" designed to protect themselves from being approached by others, denial, an unwillingness to allow themselves to form anything other than the MOST superficial relationships with others and is usually accompanied by a "tough guy/gal" attitude. The purpose of all that, of course, is self-protection.

Depending on the severity, there can also be a serious downside. By isolating themselves, the individual misses out on most of the better things in life. Another thing that often forms in the classical case is that the individual desires pity - but for a perverted purpose. They will deny they want it, naturally, but when it presents itself it gives then the opportunity to give the other person a virtual slap in the face - saying, in effect, "I don't WANT your sympathy - take THAT!!" The "offending person" is set up because they have shown what's perceived as a weakness and allows our individual the chance to "get even" with the world. That process will continue in most cases until they have driven away everyone that might have the slightest inclination of caring about them.

I cannot say, of course, precisely how much of this applies to you as each individual is different. But I can clearly see the pattern once again.

 

[water]

Light,



Indeed, I "fit that typical pattern". But you have apparently missed something: I see it too. I know it damn well.

What you are missing out is that I am not in denial, but in overcoming and betterment. Which may, at first glance, look like denial, but it is not.

However, my way of overcoming and betterment may not be the same as some assumed standard of normalcy is. I am more rigourous and thorough, and more intelligent, creative and resourceful than many other people.


Maybe if you had indeed been a practicing psychologist instead of a theorist, you'd do better at this. Practice would teach you not to go into analyzing people and telling them so, unless they actually ask you for help. It's nice of you that you try to help, but you need to be more professional when it comes to your professional help.

 

[Light]

Light,



Indeed, I "fit that typical pattern". But you have apparently missed something: I see it too. I know it damn well.

What you are missing out is that I am not in denial, but in overcoming and betterment. Which may, at first glance, look like denial, but it is not.

However, my way of overcoming and betterment may not be the same as some assumed standard of normalcy is. I am more rigourous and thorough, and more intelligent, creative and resourceful than many other people.


Maybe if you had indeed been a practicing psychologist instead of a theorist, you'd do better at this. Practice would teach you not to go into analyzing people and telling them so, unless they actually ask you for help. It's nice of you that you try to help, but you need to be more professional when it comes to your professional help.

Hello Water,

It's nice to hear that you have such a good handle on it. As I'm sure you already know, most people do pretty badly - even with help.

Actually, I wasn't offering help (though I would be glad to try IF anyone asked) nor trying to tell you something that you already knew, I was simply responding to your "mind reading" question and trying to explain what I meant about "knowing" you better than you might realize. It was just an explaination, nothing more.

 

[water]

Just listen to this:

Actually, I know you much better than you would ever imagine.

It is an irrational and demeaning thing to say, to assume you know how far someone's imagination (and experience) could reach.
You weren't thinking sharply.

 

[Roman]

Alrighty, I see that water and light have been at it long enough to spiral into ad hominem. That must mean they're done arguing and I can jump in.

Ahem, here goes.

The golden rule applies only to an ingroup. You can see all over the course of history where the golden rule applies only to individuals of a group rather than all people. American imperialism and Manifest Destiny of the 19th century is one example.

The oldest ingroups were families. Hurt a relative and you really are hurting yourself. The basic premise of the golden rule, hurting other people is hurting yourself, was biologically true.

Tribes grew bigger and formed villages, villages became towns, twons cities and cities empires. In order for everyone to live harmoniously, we had to include non-relatives in our ingroups.

The golden rule had to be applied to people that weren't at all ourselves. Why should an Arab ever get along with a Turk? Enter religion. Religion had the ability to take many outgroups and collect them all under one ingroup. Successful religions cross class, age, gender and race to include all people under one title, one group.

Lumping everyone in one group reduces people's willingness to screw each other over. It does not eliminate this urge, but it dampens it and lubricates societal function. How does it do it? It includes everyone in one group. By associating with a group, a person becomes less likely to hurt those around. Why is this? Because of the biological basis of the golden rule– hurting group members (family) hurts yourself.

 

[water]

Alrighty, I see that water and light have been at it long enough to spiral into ad hominem. That must mean they're done arguing and I can jump in.

There is some good use to my argument with Light!

You can observe on Light's behaviour how he was thinking in terms of ingroups/outgroups, when he asked me, "What ***kind*** of a person are you?" and also stated that I am clearly not someone he would want to know. He excluded me from the group of people he'd consider "of his kind".

And based on what criteria has he made this delineation? First impression. (He later on changed his mind though.)

This is an immediate example how when it is socially expected that all people be theoretically lumped into one group, and the golden rule is attempted to be used for all, people begin to act inconsistently, and they make up new criteria for establishing groups (like psychological and ethical "normalcy"). However, these criteria are hard, and often impossible to defend scientifically in a rational manner, and they espouse moral relativism.

On the other hand, it is typical that biologically/ethnically based social groups hold a rigid system of ethics that members of said group do not relativize and tresspasses are sanctioned. Such groups are also more coherent and long-living.

By associating with a group made of ALL people, a person is likely going to have an instable and relativistic system of ethics, becoming an opportunist or psychologically paralyzed and numbed.

Lumping ALL people into one group aims for universal acceptance. Universal acceptance is potentially possible only if a person becomes a consequent relativist (a social chameleon), and completely gives up any reliable identity. We get zombies who wonder why implement the golden rule, as the sense of interpersonal connectedness (and thereby the use of the golden rule) became lost with the loss of identity. And so the golden rule becomes redundant and meaningless.

If ALL people are to be lumped into one group and the golden rule be implemented, then we would ALL have to be the SAME.

 

[Roman]

If ALL people are to be lumped into one group and the golden rule be implemented, then we would ALL have to be the SAME.

We'd all have to share a similar trait that we value as much as we value ourselves, but we wouldn't have to be identical.

 

[Light]

Just listen to this:



It is an irrational and demeaning thing to say, to assume you know how far someone's imagination (and experience) could reach.
You weren't thinking sharply.

Aww, get over it, Water. I don't know about where you live but in most places that's pretty much recognized as a figure of speech.

 

[water]

We'd all have to share a similar trait that we value as much as we value ourselves, but we wouldn't have to be identical.

And what would that similar trait be? Do we value it enough for allowing it to be the anchor of our implementation of the golden rule?

 

[water]

Aww, get over it, Water. I don't know about where you live but in most places that's pretty much recognized as a figure of speech.

And a presumptuous one at that. Just because something is a "figure of speech" doesn't make it right to use it indiscriminately.

 

[Light]

And a presumptuous one at that. Just because something is a "figure of speech" doesn't make it right to use it indiscriminately.

Apparently it was more than just presumptous since you acknowledged that you did fit the general profile.

 

[water]

Apparently it was more than just presumptous since you acknowledged that you did fit the general profile.

If you say

Actually, I know you much better than you would ever imagine.

then you are implying to know how much I could ever imagine. Do you know such a thing?

 

[Light]

If you say



then you are implying to know how much I could ever imagine. Do you know such a thing?

Do you really intend to harp on this forever? Here's something that you may not know: to continually regress to something that others consider settled and gone is another classic symptom. Either move on or move over.

 

[water]

Do you really intend to harp on this forever? Here's something that you may not know: to continually regress to something that others consider settled and gone is another classic symptom. Either move on or move over.

You think you rule, right?
Just because you think something is settled, doesn't make things alright.
You are patronizing and pretentious, and you have, in the course of this communication, proven so.
I have sensed so from the beginning, but now you have displayed it marvelously, I have led you to show it.

 

[Light]

You think you rule, right?
Just because you think something is settled, doesn't make things alright.
You are patronizing and pretentious, and you have, in the course of this communication, proven so.
I have sensed so from the beginning, but now you have displayed it marvelously, I have led you to show it.

No, Water. not at all. I'd also like to point out that at no time have I become insulting and degrading - as you have done here (and before). Tell me again - just who is it that's being presumptious????????????????

 

[water]

Light,


Your lack of wisdom and lack of practicality surprise me.
Our communication was sour from the beginning -- yet your persisted, while all the while knowing better (since you are an educated psychologist, I take you should have known better).

Here I was, behaving like a brat -- and what did you do? First you patronized me and then distanced yourself, and then you enabled my behaviour.

I'm not playing games, I'm learning.
I have, carefully, proven to myself how lacking mindfulness and wisdom some people can be -- people who claim normalcy. Chances are, you are a codependent in denial.


Enough of this. This is terrible.

 

[nameless]

I don't know if this has been pointed out, but the correct translation is, "Do NOT do unto others what you would NOT have done to you."

 

[Jenyar]

I think the bone of contention lies in how strictly the following two premises can be applied to the Golden Rule ("Do to others as you would have them do to you.")

1. we need others in order to be happy and safe,
2. we are per default responsible for eachother's well-being.

If this "need" is imagined to be deterministic (i.e. dependence on other people must lead to happiness and safety, and we are automatically responsible for each other's well-being), then of course it will fail in test cases. If life worked that way, the question would never arise.

But the alternative is not that these premises are false - that would be an overreaction to the deterministic bias above. The whole point of the Golden Rule (from the Christian perspective, at least) is that we apply it voluntarily - as a matter of grace. For instance, it would not lead to someone being able to say "I like pain and chaos, therefore I inflict pain and chaos". Blindly (pun intended) applying "an eye for an eye" is revenge in the name of justice, and not the pro-active generosity that is the intended purpose of this principle (as Light explained in his first few posts). So is loving for the sake of being loved in return, or doing good only to those who were good to you, for that matter (cf. Luke 6:32-34). Such an application would be contrary to the spirit of it.

And so would it be to make the rule mean that we must latch onto the first person or group that presents itself for our happiness and responsibility. In practical effect, we employ both independence (termed "free will") and dependence in our application of the Golden Rule. Again, I must make it clear that this is not mere relativity, as if we only apply it when it suits us and when it promises some reward. That is contrary to the spirit of it.

So I suggest the following revision:

1. We need other people of this moral conviction, to be happy and safe (at least materially)
2. We are per default responsible for our own contribution to this moral conviction, which allows other people to enjoy what we would like to enjoy (happiness and safety)

I said "materially", because our happiness and safety can still remain intact even if there are no people around who share this morality (like in a war situation). There is a joy and security that transcends the injustices we might suffer at the hands of others, but even this doesn't depend on mental or spiritual isolation (which would be akin to the relative "safety and security" of a prison). We are always vulnerable to others because we are an "other" ourselves.

 

[Cyperium]

If you believe that people should pay for their "sins and transgressions" and you are not a hypocrite, then "The Golden Rule" would very well equate to "and eye for an eye", because you would feel that's the punishment YOU deserve for YOUR sin, if you had done it, therefore others deserve the same.
That sounds kind of convolted. Does it make sense?

Sure. But if I want to be forgiven then I should forgive by the same rule.

 

[Jenyar]

People tend to forget that the golden rule doesn't establish any norms and values, it just functions as an equalizer. If taken in isolation, it's pretty open to abuse. As a means of regulating our actions, it supposes an established morality. (In Luke 6, it is given along with some proper "inputs", and in Matthew 7 it "sums up" the morality of the Old Testament, which does not allow for moral relativism). That's why there will be a difference between a fair judge practicing the golden rule, and a sociopath practicing it.