There's Only One Law: Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them

[Solomon]

Do Unto You. You don't need anything else. Every conceivable faction of man, whether christian, buddhist, hindu, atheist, agnostic, gnostic, deist, pagan, muslim, etc., believes in the one law. Unfortunately, in the argument over WHY we should believe this, we destroy each other.

There is one other law, but it is immoral. That law is Do As Thy Wilt. A lot of us, pretend to the moral law, but act according to the immoral law. Especially if we have money and power. The "Do As Thou Wilts" are laughing at the "Do Unto Others".

[Deja Q]

1. I LOVE IT!

We'd have to start the slate clean though; forgive EVERYBODY for past sins and start anew.

Even I would have to forgive corporate america for being the cause of most of the hate towards the US.

[undergroundpanther]

2. Heh..

The problem is the psychological sickness inside notions of elitism. Psychologically elitism has bad effects, like how some people think they are above others,that they are not required to care about others, not required to share,not required to participate with others without assuming domination and be limited by the lives and needs of others they depend upon for thier happiness too.
Elitism is the sickness especially when domination and bullying arrogance enters the picture and go hand in hand.Those who dream of achieving elitism and identify with elites do perpetuate the misery we all face with such delusions.
We are insane,and our culture reflects this in our unhappy inability to cope.
Shrinks have no clue what sanity is.Or what a sane culture might be like,because the 'elitist' servanys of kings,bullies and colonialists wiped them out.

[Muddleoftheroad]

4. What "sane" cultures were those?

[Solomon]

7. Hi Muddle.

:hi:

[Muddleoftheroad]

10. LOL

Hi!

[HereSince1628]

3. Do unto others...and do it first

Paint me unconvinced about your universal moral law representing anything that affords near universal kindness. Do unto others merely suggests that the rules are understood and fundamentally shared.

If everyone shares as a life goal the achievment of dominance within the group, then all the struggle and strife required to reach that goal is expected and acceptable to everyone. Consequently even something like beating someone over the head with a rock could be OK, but, in practical terms, better if you do it first and do it to improve your position in the group.

[Solomon]

6. That's Bush's Doctrine of Pre-emptive Strike.

Do unto others before they do unto you. That is a species of Do As Thy Wilt.

I'm simply pointing out the irony of the fact that even though everyone universally knows the one law is right, we let petty differences blind us in achieving it. Of course for a tiny minority of the world's population, the moral law is for suckers.

[HereSince1628]

9. Well that doesn't address my thesis...

that being that do unto others as you would have them do unto you in no way guarantees kindness in human interactions. It merely says that a person should act toward others according to the manner they hope to be treated themselves.

This is a classic "game theory" problem for behavior. There are always winners and losers so we might expect that the culture's shared concept of 'hope' will somehow be optimized between the values obtained through personal aspirations to win and the values gained from group-member aspirations to survive losing.

Imagine a group huddling together in freezing weather. The individuals in the "inner" group are protected from the cold, but that necessitates exposeing otheres to the dangers of the cold. Everyone would like to be allowed to be in the inner warm circle. The behavior "I am in the middle, screw you" could kill members of the group. The behavior "I'll let you closer into the middle than me" which is the do unto others law...could kill the individual. A third is all members push toward the middle, which (other things being equal) results in a shuffling of members in and out of the middle.

Under some circumstances this "compete with everyone" provides the optimal benefit for the individual and the group. Even if it seems to conflict with the individual's own interest. What strategies works for the group depends on context, and which biases the outcome toward individual or groups survival. The competition behavior would lead to a tight perhaps weather proof bundle, the reverse strategy letting others in front of you, when widely practiced could lead to a loosely gathered group unable to protect any members adequately from the cold.

[Solomon]

14. So. Does this make you a "do unto others" or a "do as thy wilt"

person. Everything you say is true, but surely we are supposed to evolve, since everything around me teaches me that things evolve.

First, we are rich enough now, to avoid the circle in - circle out paradigm which was necessary to insure survival in the past.

Second, there is no reason why we could not learn TO TAKE TURNS, so that everyone is comfortable. No one should have to stay on the outside all the time. It's what we should be striving for.

You put your finger on the great challenge each of us faces everyday. To stay honest, when you see a lot of people cheating. To continue to tell the truth, when a lot of people are lying. To not let the fact that others are barbaric, change you into the same "just to compete". To "do unto others" even as you see others "do as thy wilt".

I just think the rest of the world is passing us by in terms of social evolution. But that's because the one with the most toys, always wants even more toys.

[HereSince1628]

16. Why should I label myself within your Manichaeistic system?

I'd rather defer categorizing myself...

Surely a system in which everyone gets to take a turn is a possible outcome.

But that only further illustrates the issue of potentially multiple winning strategies for individuals and subgroups. A number of questions arise. Of the multiple solutions which are locally stable (how big is their stable domain), neutrally stable or unstable. Do multiple locally stable states decay into a globally stable state? Is the "game-board" large enough to support the persistence, if not the stability, of more than one strategy?

There is no reason to believe that across any one society there will be only one solution at work. Because the "game" involves multiple players trying to balance individual vs subgroup vs group motivations it is rather likely that if there is an equilibrium solution it will involve individuals who play different roles...including further subdivisions of those who play by all the rules, those who play by some of the rules, and those that play outside the rules. All could exist simultaneously, and the roles assigned could be dynamic. Which is to say the role of an individual could change either by active choice or by passive response to changing relationships with others.

Such a game seems more like the world I live in.

You might investigate some of the mathematics used to qualitatively test stability of systems. Curiously enough, mutualisms--interactions that are supportive reciprocities which is to say constructed to create positive feedbacks--are often qualitatively _destabilizing_.

[Selwynn]

17. What's the problem?

"that being that do unto others as you would have them do unto you in no way guarantees kindness in human interactions. It merely says that a person should act toward others according to the manner they hope to be treated themselves."

Yeah.... and?

I'm not going to act in a way I know to be immoral because I might get farther. I'm going do whats right, which includes how I treat others (or at least I'm going to try to do whats right) even if theirs nothing in it for me.

Doing (or trying to do) what's right is usually harder with less "material" reward than doing what's wrong. But for some people, its the only satisfying way to live.

[HereSince1628]

19. Well the problems are several...

1. dividing the word into simple dichotomies when the world isn't so simple is going to mislead people in their thinking.

2. another form of the mischaracterization can be considered logically rather than empirically--"do unto others" vs "do what you want" isn't really the sort of universal dichotomy Solomon presented it to be. Indeed some of the "do what you want" behaviors fall within the domain of "do unto others." I think perhaps those honorable souls you mention who attempt to do right are in this group of mixed assignment.

3. the mistaken implication that "do unto others" leads of necessity to a moral outcome or viewpoint...hence my comments that kindness follows from "do unto others."

From your comment it seems you attempt to do whats right and see value in that. I am glad you are well socialized and attempt to try to do what's right. If you do those things in the society in which you learned them you will probably not run afoul of that society.

But, I hope you know that the idea of what is right isn't necessarily universal at all. Right is only known by a judgement that is largely dependent upon the context and perception of the judge (and maybe who has the biggest checkbook or most famous family name...:)).

[TahitiNut]

5. So, all masochism should be reflected in sadistic acts?

I get the impression that's part of the problem. :shrug:


I tend to prefer "We must be the change we wish to see in the world" (Gandhi) or "Never separate the words you speak from the lives you live" (Wellstone) or merely the Categorical Imperative (Kant) ... which pretty much cover the spiritual, political, and philosophical spectra as I see it. The Golden Rule presumes a degree of spiritual health I do not personally see evident in those understandably availing themselves of the spiritual hospitalization services of many "religious" organizations.

Indeed, while the Golden Rule is oft-cited ... how about this: "A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another, just like I have loved you; that you also love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.” It should be noted that this is a higher commandment than the 'Golden Rule' in the New Testament ... one too often bypassed in setting the context.

[Solomon]

13. I regard the "love one another" to be essentially the same as

"do unto others".

[Nikia]

8. Mutual kindness is beneficial

In times of prosperity when everything is going well for us, we don't really need others (practically at least). If things go bad for us, we might need people to help us. In some ways, making friends and doing things for them in their times of need, assures that they will help us in our time of need. In smaller societies, this whole mutual kindness was extended to the whole group and some tasks required many people if they were to be done at all. Sometimes, there was was a ruler making people do things by force, but this carried the risk that people would want to rise up against him and that he would have to be suspicious of everyone.
In larger society, this mutual kindness cannot be, practically, extended to everyone who we encounter. Most people who we encounter, we are anonymous to. There is no reason to be kind to people who will not remember us and cannot be there in our time of need. The powerful can make alliances with each other and easily protect themselves. There is no reason to be kind to the weak.
Religion gives us a way that our kindness (or misdeeds) will be rewarded (or punished) either in this life or the afterlife. The Divine (whether a deity or force) sees our deeds and treats us accordingly even if no one else does. In my life, I know this is true. It does seem like there are several following the immoral law that are getting away with it though, doesn't it? I will try to live morally regardless of whatever anyone else does or thinks.

[BeFree]

11. You mean First Law. Right?

If you want people to be mean to you... be mean to them.

If you want people to be nice to you...be nice to them.

We live on a circle. Everything we do goes around the circle and meets us again. What we do unto others, we do unto ourselves.

Really quite simple.

Be Free, or suffer the consequences.

[forgethell]

12. All that I want is

to be left alone. I'm willing to do that, and do. Why won't the sorry bastards leave me alone?

[dbt]

15. Do as thou wilt?

The way I understand that law is as follows:

"An (as long as; if) it harm none, do as thou wilt." When the whole of that law is examined, it is just as powerful as the whole of the "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

I do not see how the whole of "Do as thou wilt..." is immoral.

dbt

[Selwynn]

18. The problem is "harm" is elusive

There are many things that I believe are ultimately very harming to others on the whole in ways that aren't instantaneously gratifying. Someone could say "if I want to become a heroin addict and die, that's my choice I'm not harming anyone else!" But I'd say he's harming his family, he's harming other people by being involved in the drug trade and creating a market for murderers and bad people, he's hurting society by placing an unnecessary burden on the system ...

"Harm" is hard to define. And because we want to do whatever we want, we often mis-define it and say "I'm not hurting anyone!" There's no such thing as a victim-less crime.

That's why I think that a do unto others approach might have more merit. Because we can start with a model - ourselves - and then of how we would like other people to treat us, and use that as our basis for dealing with other people.

[moof]

20. what irony, Solomon is half right.

actually " less is more " may be a better take.

For many years now, moof has asked what problem is there
that would still exist if " The Golden Rule "
was universally adopted and observed.

It is the only Guideline that is needed. It seems Solomon hurts his premise a little by saying it was all that was needed & then going on to explain more, The thread title required no additional text or explaination as far as moof is concerned.

It should be a guideline instead of rule. There will always be some small minority that can not or will not abide by the common ethos of a civilized community of people. In keeping with the guideline these people would be helped in what ever way was needed to keep themsleves & society from being a problem for each other.

The main reason this guideline is going to take quite some time to take effect seems to be a general lack of respect for truth.