In this thread, I would like to discuss two rules, one of which you are familiar with, the so-called golden rule, and another one, which you are not familiar with, namely the rule of thumb. But before I continue, I would like to define morality and moral situations since they are relevant. Morality is a system of thought about what is right and wrong, based on evaluating how actions affect other people’s lives or one’s own. A moral situation arises when there are intra-personal and interpersonal choices that require moral decisions based on moral justification. The golden rule has two versions, namely negative and positive. The negative version states that do not treat others in ways you would not want to be treated, and the positive version states that treat others as you want them to treat you. The rule of thumb, however, states that each person has all the right to his/her life (self-ownership) and has no right to the lives of others (non-ownership).
First, I would like to note that the negative golden rule can be derived from the rule of thumb. Here is the argument in syllogism form:
P1) You have no right to another person’s life (non-ownership)
C1) If so, you have no right to violate their lives (from P1)
P2) If you don’t want others to violate your life (self-ownership)
C2) Therefore, you must not violate others in the way you reject being violated (from C1 and P2)
Here, I would like to mention a serious problem that the positive golden rule has. This problem arises when two people have different natures, like when a person likes pain and another dislikes pain. The first person wants pain from others, and the second person does not want it. The positive golden rule, however, allows the first person to cause pain to another, which is morally not acceptable since it violates the non-aggression principle, which the rule of thumb supports. I tried hard to obtain the positive golden rule from the rule of thumb, but I couldn’t. Perhaps that is because of the mentioned problem that the positive golden rule has.
I strongly believe that the rule of thumb can resolve all moral problems, and I am open to discussing them.
I don’t see any value in your ‘rule of thumb’ that the positive or negative golden rule lacks.
I also don’t see the problem you found in the positive golden rule. Even if you are using sadism / masochism as your example, the positive golden rule still applies. [Full disclosure: I have never engaged in S&M activity, and do not claim any expertise in the matter.]. But as I understand it, “liking pain for one’s own gratification” – M – is paired with “liking to produce pain for another’s gratification” – S – . It’s a complementary arrangement between the two. A psychopathic sadist doesn’t care whether the receiver of pain wants it or not.
I don’t believe that the preferences of psychopaths should be used in explaining morality, since a psychopath has always lacked the critical moral facility of guilt. Fortunately for us, psychopathy isn’t common.
As for the “rule of thumb”, the phrase usually means a practical guide. There is an infinity of things that the rule of thumb advises for and against – like, “Don’t yell insulting words about Trump at a MAGA rally” (because you are likely to get beaten up). Don’t steal from stores because you are likely to get caught, sooner or later. Be nice to people you don’t like, especially if they are your boss.
The Golden Rule isn’t predicated on practicality. We are supposed to follow it whether it is convenient or not.
This is often brought up as a criticism. I don’t think it is entirely convincing myself for reasons BC has said. But also the rule is not meant to be understood in such an inflexible or concrete way. The GR means treat others with the respect you’d like. If you are Kosher and they are Halal, support them with Halal. It’s about recognising individual needs and preferences. And even a sadist will have immense pockets of preferences we can support without crossing the line. I can’t think of an occasion in my life where this principle wouldn’t have been welcome.
Okay. How about this for a counterexample. Suppose that I want to die, or at the very least I am indifferent to death. It follows that I am not opposed to being killed. If I abide by the rule which says, “do not treat others in ways you would not want to be treated,” then on these premises I have no reason not to kill someone. Yet on your “rule of thumb” I do have a reason not to kill someone. Therefore the negative formulation of the Golden Rule and the “rule of thumb” seem to be incompatible.
The rule of thumb is easier and more evident. It is about the fact that everybody owns his/her life. The rule of thumb is about moral equality. The non-aggregation principle follows from it easily. And finally, you are responsible for your moral decision.
No, the positive golden rule does not apply when a person is a sadist or a masochist. A sadist simply prefers pain, read as s/he likes to be treated that way, to receive pain. Now, if you apply the positive golden rule, treat others as you like to be treated, we get that the sadist has the right to inflict pain on others, which is problematic since the other person may be a normal person, and does not prefer pain.
I will answer the rest of your post tomorrow, as it is very late now here.
Imagine there’s a large apple pie which you and I are attempting to secure. We’re in competition. We would both like to have control of the whole pie, with the power to distribute pieces to friends, or manual laborers, or certain politicians, etc.
We both have certain resources, in the form of hands and feet. My goal is to arrive at a happy status quo where you accept that I deserve a bigger piece than you do (which of course, I do.) But how can I do that?
I have various options, but they all come down to convincing you that I have something you need, whether that’s physical security, blessings from a divinity, etc. I just need for you to shut up and trust me.
You can see that I’m not trying to rob you. You don’t have anything to take. I’ve got the pie safely stored away in my federal refrigerator, and I’ll give you some. What more could you ask for?
You are correct. Although the negative golden rule is derived from the rule of thumb, they are not identical. In a sense, the negative golden rule is weaker than the rule of thumb, as you clearly explain it with your example! So I think we found the answer to the thread. We should only consider the rule of thumb and discard the golden rule.
My answer is that if we have the same right to the apple pie, then we have to divide it in half. Taking my half by any means is wrong since it violates my right to it.
You can have more pie if you apply for it. You have to fill out the application and send it in. The application will be reviewed and they’ll get in touch with you if they need any documentation of your claims. Allow one to six months for review.
So you are saying that you accept my right but ask for it for more in return? I am afraid that it is not a moral situation anymore, but a practical situation.
Psychopaths have fewer, weaker connections between the emotional centers of the amygdala and other parts of the limbic system, and the pre-frontal cortex where executive decisions are made. There are degrees of psychopathy. Some degree of psychopathy can help a CEO make strategic decisions that may harm a lot of people. An example would be laying off 5,000 workers on Christmas Eve in order to balance the company’s books. The CEO will not be troubled by guilt over the decision. He’ll enjoy the holiday. A more extreme example would be a serial murderer who feels no guilt about torturing and then killing her victims. Guilt just doesn’t happen.
Most people have a large capacity for guilt feelings which prevent us from committing mayhem, or merely avoiding unwanted social situations that we SHOULD attend. Guilt is installed in our early childhoods and is a gift that keeps on giving.
If you have children, you and your wife almost certainly equipped your children with the usual and customary guilt feelings, which will be more effective than the golden rule of thumbs in keeping them on the straight and narrow path of virtue.
A sadist knows that people do not want pain. That’s why a sadist inflicts pain to others . If a sadist thinks that people enjoy pain, then he wouldn’t be a sadist.
Sorry. It was my fault for using sadist. I should have used masochist. The point is that a masochist prefers pain. Following the positive golden rule, s/he is allowed to inflict pain on others, which is obviously not acceptable.