Treat other as you want to be treated?

[Observer of dreams]

My ethics professor introduced an argument that the golden rule is flawed. His reasoning is that quote, "Others don't always want to be treated as you want to be treated."

The question is therefore how can one live their life by the golden rule if the golden rule cannot always apply? I have already refuted this in my head but I want to see if someone else can reach the same, or a similar conclusion.

[Floatingaxe]

Nothing that Jesus has ever said is flawed. Your professor is flawed.

[apothanein kerdos]

Thank goodness that's not the golden rule. What a strawman.

The "golden rule" is "Love your God with all your heart, mind, and soul." The second is, "love your neighbor as yoruself"...this is summarized in the last five Commandments.

[Observer of dreams]

So where did he get the idea that this was the Golden rule? Never mind he got it from the author of the text book, but that is irrelevant to the substance.

The more important question is how would you refute his claim that treat others as you want to be treated is flawed, regardless of its status as the golden rule? What is an argument that refutes his position that you cannot live your life by this rule because it does not always apply

(I believe he is playing devils advocate and does not believe this himself. It seems more likley that he is presenting this to test our logic skills, but I am not for sure.)

His reasoning is equivilant to saying, "Because I want a dog for Christmas, I will get a dog for Fred on Christmas." But Fred likes cats, he doesn't like Dogs therefore the rule that treat other as you want to be treated appears flawed.

My argument is that while I want a dog for Christmas the root of this is "I want something I like for Christmas." So If I want something I like for christmas than Fred should want something he likes for Christmas. Therfore I should get Fred something he likes.

I believe that he is trying to say through reason that I should treat others as if they are me, but he doesn't recognise the other person as an individual, he recognises the other person as himself and does not apply the basic logic neccissary for the rule to function.

[Guest LadyC]

the idea is to treat others with kindness, compassion and respect. have you ever met anyone who did NOT want to be treated with kindness, compassion and respect?

nobody WANTS to be treated like dirt.

[Guest]

A Godly Day to you Mr. Observer.

So where did he get the idea that this was the Golden rule? Never mind he got it from the author of the text book, but that is irrelevant to the substance.

Jesus said......

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." (Matthew 7:12)

Just after He said.....

"If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children, how much more shall your Father which is in heaven give good things to them that ask him?" (Matthew 7:11)

And, just before He said.....

"Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (Matthew 7:13-14)

This is not a matter of vane quibbles between mortal men but a matter of obedience of Christians to the commands of their Lord and Master Jesus Christ!

To even begin to have understanding, Mr. Observer, you must first believe.....

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

Only than can you start to follow Matthew 7:12 and only if you obey this command of The Lord Jesus Christ.....

"Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, except it abide in the vine; no more can ye, except ye abide in me." (John 15:4)

The vain philosophies of man will not unlock the The Truth however the gift of faith and obedience will!

"Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." (John 14:6)

Love, Joe

[apothanein kerdos]

The more important question is how would you refute his claim that treat others as you want to be treated is flawed, regardless of its status as the golden rule?

Because that's an over simplification of the rule. Likewise, he's using it in a hyper-literal context. The general idea is that you should follow the last five commandments in concern to your fellow man.

[Kabowd]

My ethics professor introduced an argument that the golden rule is flawed. His reasoning is that quote, "Others don't always want to be treated as you want to be treated."

The question is therefore how can one live their life by the golden rule if the golden rule cannot always apply?

I think it's funny how alot of professors seek to be novel by saying something they think is maybe a little controversial or attempting to refute a principle that has existed since before the world began. Whether he's trying to be different or testing your reasoning skills is beside the point though...either way, I think his reasoning has a few flaws of its own

1. Whether you're an atheist, theist or pantheist, at the heart of every person is the desire to be loved. To dispute this, one would have to deny not only everything we know about humanity historically, but also deny our own experiences. Even ardent atheists who believe in naturalistic evolution must admit that love and goodness exist. As much as they want to believe that man is nothing more than a machine, they cannot live or practice this belief consistently. At some point they (and everyone) will experience love, even if it's only a humanistic or narcissistic love for themselves. Of course, as Christians, it is our belief that we were created with this attribute (because it's in the image of God). It is intrinsic of who we are. Not only that, but God's written word tells us about humanity, speaks to the needs of man, and reinforces our belief that human beings need love. And unlike atheists, we don't have to deny our own experiences or take an existential leap to believe it. It matches what we know to be true in reality so we can live it consistently.

2. Along the same lines as point #1, if this is your ethics professor, I'd ask him about virtue ethics. In a very small nutshell, virtue ethics go all the way back to Aristotle and Plato and focus on good character (or character traits) with an emphasis on community and relationships. Essentialism (in classic virtue ethics) recognizes the basic nature of human beings and our desire for a sense of well-being. There would be no such thing as ethics if we all didn't possess this basic human desire and need.

Having said all that, my point is that your professor is overlooking the simple fact that others want the same thing we want, love. That desire encompasses everything else, which is why Jesus was able to simplify all the commandments down to "Love your God with all your heart, soul and mind and love your neighbor as yourself". He knew that if you do the first, everything else will follow.

3. It sounds like your professor embraces a postmodern view of ethics, or subjective ethics. He's implying that the value in the statement (golden rule) is true or false depending on what the other person thinks or feels. In other words, he's suggesting that the golden rule is relative. In contrast to this, is objectivist ethical theories which hold that the truth in a moral statement (such as the golden rule) does not depend on the thoughts or beliefs of any individual or cultures. For instance, Plato believed that goodness and justice existed and that these were essential to life just like adequate food or shelter. See what I'm saying?

So where did he get the idea that this was the Golden rule? Never mind he got it from the author of the text book, but that is irrelevant to the substance.

The basic idea of the golden rule has existed in almost every culture and religion. Different sources list it's origin to varying cultures and religious leaders. The very fact that it has been universally expressed across history and widely advocated among so many diverse cultures is testament to its validity. Again, however, as a Christian, I don't have to wonder where it originated. God has told us where the "idea" comes from. As Francis Schaeffer says in "Genesis in Space and Time", love and communication existed within the Trinity long before the world was even created.

The more important question is how would you refute his claim that treat others as you want to be treated is flawed, regardless of its status as the golden rule? What is an argument that refutes his position that you cannot live your life by this rule because it does not always apply

(I believe he is playing devils advocate and does not believe this himself. It seems more likley that he is presenting this to test our logic skills, but I am not for sure.) noidea.gif

His reasoning is equivilant to saying, "Because I want a dog for Christmas, I will get a dog for Fred on Christmas." But Fred likes cats, he doesn't like Dogs therefore the rule that treat other as you want to be treated appears flawed.

Like I stated up above, he's attempting to make the rule relative and subjective. You will need to show how it's objective.

My argument is that while I want a dog for Christmas the root of this is "I want something I like for Christmas." So If I want something I like for christmas than Fred should want something he likes for Christmas. Therfore I should get Fred something he likes.

This is close to what I was saying earlier. It boils down to defining what all humans desire [love]. Wanting a puppy vs. wanting a cat is superficial and ignores the more basic, inherent human "want".

I believe that he is trying to say through reason that I should treat others as if they are me, but he doesn't recognise the other person as an individual, he recognises the other person as himself and does not apply the basic logic neccissary for the rule to function.

That or he's taking individualism to an extreme. Either way, it's clear he's putting the emphasis on what the individual may think or feel instead of focusing on the truth of the sentiment based on its own merit.

[Masked Chris]

My ethics professor introduced an argument that the golden rule is flawed. His reasoning is that quote, "Others don't always want to be treated as you want to be treated."

The question is therefore how can one live their life by the golden rule if the golden rule cannot always apply? I have already refuted this in my head but I want to see if someone else can reach the same, or a similar conclusion.

excuse my cynicism but I think thats the dumbest excuse I've ever heard. Not everyone wants a new car but everyone wants to be loved and accepted! Everyone wants food and water and everyone wants a home and a shelter. I want these things and so does the rest of the world. It has to do with basics... and everyone wants the basics.

[Masked Chris]

My ethics professor introduced an argument that the golden rule is flawed. His reasoning is that quote, "Others don't always want to be treated as you want to be treated."

The question is therefore how can one live their life by the golden rule if the golden rule cannot always apply? I have already refuted this in my head but I want to see if someone else can reach the same, or a similar conclusion.

excuse my cynicism but I think thats the dumbest excuse I've ever heard. Not everyone wants a new car but everyone wants to be loved and accepted! Everyone wants food and water and everyone wants a home and a shelter. I want these things and so does the rest of the world.