Forget the Golden Rule, Says Philosopher A.C. Grayling

[@bizzee1]

Maybe he's joking about forget the golden rule? Treating others as they would like to be treated follows from the golden rule. Applying the golden rule is an iterative process. First you try treating them as you would like to be treated. If you find out that they don't like that, find out what they do like and treat them that way. You will make this adjustment precisely because you would like others to make such an adjustment. So, this is a form of treating others as we would like to be treated.

[@rickriekert866]

I believe it was F.L. Lucas who answered Shaw’s remark, "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same", by noting that among the things we want others to do and should therefore do to others is to take our different tastes into account.

[@rolopolo66]

Ok, that's good for you. But what stops someone applying the Golden Rule by saying: "I like being treated as a slave to God because that's what I believe I am. Therefore I will treat others as slaves of God." There are many other ways the Golden Rule can be applied in a way which doesn't respect the wishes of others.

[@aadrian13]

You're misrepresenting what I say, so let's see the text and go from there: "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you" -Matthew 7:12 To apply this rule I ask: What would I want others to do onto me? I want others to treat me with respect and recognize that I have preferences, feelings, opinions, etc. Application: I treat others with the same respect and recognition of preferences, opinions, etc.

[@rolopolo66]

That's the point. The Golden Rule can be applied in a way which is abhorrent; AC Grayling's rule can't. Really, his rule is that people should act in such a way as to not obstruct other's legitimate pursuit of wellbeing and happiness. Now, of course, this has to be tempered by common sense, taking into account the wellbeing of 3rd parties. It would be legitimate to obstruct the aims of a sex offender because his conduct infringes the rights if his victims.

[@Jaybird196]

I think the so-called "Golden Rule" is a good starting point to use before you get to know someone and can tailor what you do to the individual.

[@logician360]

I prefer the Taoist expression of the golden rule: treat your neighbour's success as your own, and your neighbour's loss as your own. That takes into account the differences between people, since what benefits my neighbour may not benefit me, whilst capturing the universality of the rule, since it implies that we should all work for the benefit of each other.

[@tifforo1]

@tifforo1 When dealing with children, the problem with the improved version of the golden rule is that they might not want to have to follow any rules. So, if you have a LEGITIMATE reason for thinking you know what's best for them better than they do, the Golden Rule becomes: "Treat others the way you would want to be treated if you were them AND you knew what you would truly want if you knew what was truly best for you."

[@aadrian13]

I don't want people to respect my views. I want people to respect me no matter what views I hold. Therefore I have to respect others no matter what their views are. There is no paradox.

[@theheinzification]

@WikeddTung so the rule would be: "tread others as you would wish to be treated if you were not you but one or a group of the others." good. "the golden rule is a call to empathy not action" - how do you get this from the (original) wording? or is it a mere interpretation to make it fit? why doesnt it say what it actually means, according to the meaning you say it should have? why is it silly to assume a quote means what it says?

[@ivlfounder]

If I'm not mistaken the golden rule was conceived of independently in a dozen different cultures. What's more it was/is respected if not always followed by all of these cultures. Who is Grayling to think he knows better?

[@TatsujinSan]

What he describes as a sort of more ideal behaviour is how I already interpreted the golden rule. I thought it sort of went without saying that you need to try to gauge what sort of treatment other people would or would not enjoy while considering that they are different than you and may not share your likes and dislikes. But perhaps it is worth saying because clearly there ARE people who think their personal preference should be the standard for everyone.

[@lancelottodd]

@DivergentMind if you use firefox, google "adblock plus" ..it's free and it blocks those ads, and most other ads. it may be available for other browsers.

[@aadrian13]

What A.C. Grayling doesn't notice is that he is still applying the Golden Rule. I want people to respect and honour that I am different and respect my freedom, therefore I have to respect, honour differences and respect other people's freedoms.

[@Sanguiluna]

Don't treat others the way you want to be treated. Treat them the way THEY want to be treated.

[@theheinzification]

@WikeddTung that was a great speach. listen again. you didnt get his point at all. "treat others the way you wish to be treated" is not a good idea compared to "treat others the way they wish to be treated". for example: i dont like getting gifts, but my wife does. now, what should i do-following your golden rule or mine (= the one the speaker suggested)? gifts or not gifts for her anymore, thats the question. what would you think?

[@PoweredByMagnets]

I think about this every time I hear the golden rule! This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say it. Don't treat people the way you want to be treated -- treat them the way they want to be treated.

[@legalfictionnaturalfact3969]

Whpat? People say this stupid shit all the time. What's good for one person is generally good for any person. If you wouldn't want someone to do it to you, then don't do it to someone else. Simple.

[@TigerOfKarlstad]

@DivergentMind If you have chrome you can download an app called AdBlock that removes the ads.

[@synchronium24]

@Ontologistics Correct me if I'm wrong, but i don't think he intends for it to apply objectively--he is giving his opinion. Only part that may support your claim i can find is when he says "this fact about our individuality." In any case, I think you'd do better to look at the practical aspects of the suggestions he puts forth, even if you think moral error theory (or similar) is correct. He is proposing a system in which subjective preferences can be respected as long as they don't cause harm.

[@veganath]

Moral Axiom: - Thou shalt not cause UNNECESSARY suffering

[@blackiron60]

He has a lot of good points but I'd really like to know what he thinks of class relations and class power.

[@Zenobiazera665]

@alphacause "Morals are simply an attitude we adopt to those we dislike." Oscar Wilde Having the will to fight for the right to what we think, be & express is one thing, having the will to defend others rights to think, be & express equally takes a far greater strength of will. This is tolerance, this is the spirit of humanity.

[@theheinzification]

@theheinzification cont your advanced reading aptitude should allow you to answer my questions easily. although you avoided it so far and now i have even more: what is the context youre talking about? if you have to retrain to subjective interpretations and "letter" & "spirit" of words, would you at least admit, that the wording is poor? (otherwise the meaning would be cristal clear without any discussions, right?) and would you agree, to sell this quote as superior wisdom would be a bad teach?

[@Mike10four]

A good follow up to Grayling’s discussion is in the book: “Scientific Proof of Our Unalienable Rights.”

[@theheinzification]

@Ontologistics where did he claim objectivity?

[@Paclac]

@DivergentMind There is a way, you can download AdBlockPlus if your browser is Firefox or Google Chrome. The ads are there to make money since KZbin is completely free. At least they're only 30 seconds at most, nothing like on TV.

[@DrouGluiN]

Under no circumstances do I wish for you to do that to me nor will I do that to you. I hate the fact that people throw around words like "freedom, respect and honour" like they're everyday concepts. The words are starting to lose their meaning.

[@Volound]

@DivergentMind firefox.

[@IneffableLifestyle]

He is criticizing "do onto others what you would like them to do to you", which is very different indeed from what you stated. The two are not the same.

[@aadrian13]

The point is that you're supposed to know a person before you apply the Golden Rule. You don't just do what you would like to others. You respect everyone's opinion and apply the Golden Rule accordingly. He's misrepresenting the Golden Rule to destroy his own strawman.

[@0rnJ]

How to rid of advertisements 1. Download Firefox 2. Download the add-on AdBlockPlus 3. ??? 4. Profit

[@rolopolo66]

I'm sorry, but what you've stated is not the Golden Rule. Golden Rule: Treat others as I would like to be treated. This does not require any consideration of how the other person would actually like to be treated. Your Rule: Treat others as they would like to be treated. This does require consideration of how the other person would like to be treated. (This is similar, if not the same, as the rule AC Grayling advocates.)

[@tifforo1]

@Jaybird196 The version of the golden rule that says "treat other people the way YOU would want to be treated" is a good starting point if you don't know them. The version that says "treat them the way you would want to be treated IF YOU WERE THEM" is better. But, since the person who knows best what they "would" want is them (since what they would want is the same as what they DO want), this boils down to "give the people what they want."

[@rugbyguy59]

This little clip is a very good modification to the golden rule but it is also based on a reading of the golden rule that isn't really it's intent. I have never heard anyone take such a self centered approach to the original. It is about treating people well and in the big picture it works. Treat people nicely and with respect, which I think everyone wants. Any bastardization of it, such as making others behave as you has never been seriously invoked. However this is a good reminder.

[@SomethingSea1]

Forget the golden rule. Understand people, instead. When there is understanding, there is no need for rules. Rights are one of the spots where we try to deal with the big idea of many people. Like with the God concept, it has many failings. It is much easier to simply not project one's own inability to understand, and instead simply say, "Haven't the foggiest idear."

[@ManForToday]

I have a problem with this golden rule and it's merely because of absolutism. Like Hitchens said, what are you to say when confronted with Charles Manson? I'm sure anyone would agree that we want murders and rapists treated far worse than we would want to be treated. Be it by them or the system.

[@lfzadra]

That´s not the Golden Rule. The rule says that we ought not do to others what we don´t want for ourselves. Usually it works because we humans have lot of preferences in common and you can think about what you like and act accordingly toward others. This rule will fail when you meet somebody with different preferences. What you think is good for you may not be what is good for another person.

[@purebacon]

@Jaybird196 A better starting point is the Non-Aggression Principle: "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the initiation of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. You can apply this principle universally to every human interaction without the need to get to know someone. It is universally preferable behavior, aka a moral code.

[@12ut5]

AC Grayling on Shaw, on the G Rule: a quip passing itself off as wisdom. The only way to take this quip seriously is to have the shallowest understanding of the G Rule possible.

[@NathanAGoss]

Dr. Grayling, you're overthinking it. The Golden Rule isn't supposed to apply to what people watch on TV. That's a bit of a strawman. It's meant to be applied to all those big, important words like "respect," "love," and "honesty."

[@jtbovis]

@DivergentMind download the 'ad blocker plus' addon for Firefox.

[@Ontologistics]

Respecting the harm principle is itself a subjective view, but something Grayling assumes to apply objectively - thereby contradicting himself in this monologue.

[@Zenobiazera665]

@ACULTURE0 No it is not exploitation of the golden rule, the golden rule should never be applied to another, what you like or dislike is for you, it should not be applied to others. If one applies "personal equality" one is not accepting others rights to think, be or express as equal. To first accept equality over & above personal belief & preference one demonstrates tolerance & equality. Watch the video again...

[@brendarua01]

Silly people. His point was about minding your own business and celebrating diversity. In that context "Do what you will, but do no harm." is the appropriate guide.

[@rolopolo66]

But you're simply restating the Golden Rule as what AC Grayling calls 'the harm principle' which is what he advocates. What you have stated is not the Golden rule, it's the harm principle. The Golden Rule is wider in scope. It includes things like, for example, 'I want to be treated as a servant of God, so I will treat others as servants of God'.

[@mrzack888]

@DivergentMind i usually just mute, and go to another tab. then come back later.

[@mrnomore]

bull. the foundation of golden rule is aimed at a negative or violent treatment of other people. this is just a "wannabe" explanation of an extremely simple and correct philosophy

[@reddog24playa1]

Hes not saying that the golden rule is not aimed for that. He's using a clever remark about the golden rule to bring notice to another issue.

[@unamaxify]

@SomethingSea1 Well, no :expressing your dissatisfaction is weak social pressure while banning something is strong social pressure. Side-note: one still can have a gun even if its banned. (outlawing also is just a form of pressure) The only difference is intensity. By your standards imposing my will on somebody would mean some-kind of physical dominance. I stipulate that imposing my will on somebody means i get someone to do something that he/she usually would not do.

[@SomethingSea1]

Impulsory ads = I'm not going to be watching this channel if this continues.

[@wassholm]

@Kinkspace Who said anything about truth? A.C. perhaps, but not me. My point is simply that he's appealing to authority, rather than to argument and reason.

[@RandomVortex]

@Jaybird196 I agree that your stated overall concept is for many practical purposes a good starting point. However....It is not really a rule then is it?(maybe I'm being a little pedantic here but they do not call it - the Golden good starting point or even the Golden handy little life tip that will apply in probably the vast majority of cases but ...etc....) You make the excellent point that there are certain contingencies to the so called "rule."

[@viridismonasteriense]

Bernard Shaw's objection to the golden rule is valid. And why the hell are people talking about Jesus? The Golden rule dates back to ancient Babylon and Egypt and even ancient China. The writers of the gospels were just parroting something that was known for thousands of years and then pretended they coined the phrase.

[@2bsirius]

I gave this a thumb up, but I did wonder why Grayling felt that a negative phrasing of the Golden Rule could be valuable. That is NOT to do to someone else what you would not want done to you, and I would add, if you were in the other person's position and felt what he or she feels. In other words, without empathy rules are useless anyway.

[@unamaxify]

while in reality: the more people you can impose your will on the better off you are

[@synchronium24]

@rugbyguy59 (continued) In other words, I would want people to respect my ability to do as i like even if conflicts with their values (save the harm principle), so i will do the same for them (even if i don't value the specific first-order values they do). It's a way to bridge the gap between relativism and objective morality.

[@SomethingSea1]

@unamaxify "Yes, I have money, which I use to buy goods & services. In doing so I impose my will through economical pressure." That is a conflation of terms. There is a difference between actual imposition and "pressure" to do something. Or do you disagree that allowing someone to have a gun but expressing your dissatisfaction of such is not different from banning them from having a gun? In one case, they have a gun, and in the other, they don't. No difference at all? Environment =/= will.

[@lanceawatt]

@ivlfounder it isn't a question of whether he knows better. He is a philosopher. Philosophers present their ideas, and it is up to the rest of us to critically assess the ideas for good or ill. But then, who am I to suggest such a claim? ;)

[@MightyMessenger777]

Jesus taught his followers to manifest fatherly love rather than brotherly love. Brotherly love would love your neighbor as you love yourself, and that would be adequate fulfillment of the Golden Rule. But fatherly affection would require that you should love your fellow mortals as our Father in Heaven loves you.

[@zytigon]

Maybe A.C. Grayling isn't saying to forget the golden rule, just to recognise it does have limitations., and try to do better than that.

[@TheArthkm]

''However....It is not really a rule then is it?(maybe I'm being a little pedantic here but they do not call it - the Golden good starting point or even the Golden handy little life tip that will apply in probably the vast majority of cases but ...etc....)'' That was just brilliant.

[@synchronium24]

@rugbyguy59 good analysis. user Dadutta makes the same point (in a slightly harsher manner). I think what he's saying can make sense if you take the "as you would like to be treated" part of the golden rule as a second order principle.

[@brdatwork]

@ghostgate82 and what is defining of evil?

[@alphacause]

The Golden Rule illustrates the problem with religious based morality. At the heart of this so called "God centered" morality, is this idea that what YOU find to be laudable is something that would be universally agreed upon, and furthermore that it is something God would approve of, assuming he exists. This is utterly presumptuous, and actually implies that your perspective is infallible.

[@wassholm]

Who's he talking to? Surely not other philosophers, or students of philosophy. This is pretty far from being a philosophical argument. He's simply explaining what he thinks one should do, rather than why, and he doesn't seem to be 100% clear on his own definitions.

[@Zenobiazera665]

@wassholm As like in poly relationships, polytheists take for granted & accept that everyone is different, in their case it was acceptance that humans would always worship different Gods, intolerance was not an issue, tolerance was a norm, the only common factor being we are of the same species, human, & therefore acceptance of all humanity.

[@EmperorsNewWardrobe]

The positive golden rule regards doing. The negative golden rule regards not doing. I'm for the latter.

[@aadrian13]

Dumb people will always do dumb things, that doesn't mean that the Golden Rule is not a good rule to live by. I can say the same thing about your rule to "treat others as they would like to be treated". How should I treat a drug addict or a sex offender, by what they like or by what is respectful and good for them and society as a whole?

[@Zenobiazera665]

@wassholm That is your perspective formed by your experiences within your environment. He is appealing to humanity in all its diversity. That is not an argument to reason, it simply is, like breath. This much is evident & observable. The diversity of humanity has never altered. What has altered is perception. Pre Christianity, in a world of polytheist it would be almost impossible to imagine a time when all thinking & being became more or less uniform. cont...

[@voicubogdan84]

over-thinking it... NEVER forget the golden rule :)

[@xxsaruman82xx87]

I'm sure Mr Grayling, as a philosopher, would say you're underthinking it :)

[@veganath]

@TadEatsPeople Probably not, whats sad is that we have to be told not to be violent(excepting the case of self defence) especially religious folks

[@theheinzification]

@WikeddTung "i'm saying plainly it means more than that." if thats the case were on the same boat, but you added a meaning, you improved it. why not change the wording, so the obtained meaning is identical with the actual meaning. because its by far not obvious to everyone, that rule by itself is a poor one.

[@insidetrip101]

"the best that has been thought and said by people who've really experienced life, and thought about it". "Addopted" from Matthew Arnold?

[@TurboDally]

Hmm no what he's trying to point out is that the golden rule is limited, not everything you want for yourself is something everyone else wants for themself also. If for example you like to be masturbated by random strangers, that doesn't mean that random strangers on the street would like that treatment from you.

[@unamaxify]

@Kinkspace no not exactly i don't equate the two fiscal supremacy entails being better off, but being better off does not necessarily entails fiscal supremacy. _ if you don't agree with that, then state a reasonably plausible example were having more money causes you to be "worse off".

[@Rarae192]

He is wise, he is . . . Gandalf: The Grayling.

[@unamaxify]

@Kinkspace I assume that you ask me if I am imposing my will upon others & if I'm having a benefit when doing so. Yes, I have money, which I use to buy goods & services. In doing so I impose my will through economical pressure. I'm not particularly rich, but money is not the only way, look at the church. At every point in human history some managed to impose their will on a large number of people and in doing so they became very prosperous(=better off than the rest).

[@maikeru01]

Well, I sort of think the golden rule isn't meant to be taken so strictly, i thought it was a more general rule like do onto others, doesn't mean like, very specific things, like i want a ferrari therefore i should give them environmentalist a ferrari, i think its more like dont kill someone else because via theory of mind we have empathy, you know what awareness and life are like so you know taking that away from someone else is wrong.

[@ghostgate82]

The Golden rule is perfect If you lead a life centered on Christ and what He taught. It obviously won't work if you are an evil person.

[@railroadtrash09]

We should be ready to show Islam the respect that they show the rest of the world. Again....

[@hifibrony]

Confucius' version, committed to paper centuries before the so-called Jesus, is much more philosophically sound, IMO. "Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire." (Analects, D.C. Lau translation, 1979) xtians thrive on imposing. They can't live without it. At the point of a sword in the not-so-distant past or with the threat of imprisonment today.

[@watermeloncranberry]

I think you and Grayling both misunderstood the true meaning of golden rule, but either way, we are following the same rule, we just call the rule different names, that's all.

[@Zenobiazera665]

@freesk8 You have misunderstood, indeed it is quite the opposite, it is support of panocracy.

[@RandomVortex]

@ghostgate82 The point is that the Golden rule is obviously contingent.(you dig?)

[@aadrian13]

I acknowledge that others have different preferences as I would like others to acknowledge that I have different preferences too. ;) The golden rule states that you should do onto others what you want them to do onto you... It does not say do what you think is good to others. If you take the time to know a person you will see what preferences they have. I think Grayling is being silly and immature in his thinking.

[@ghostgate82]

@RandomVortex I do THINK, quite often actually. Believing in religion isn't a prerequisite to living LIKE Yeshua lived. If you read my comment I said if people lived by what Christ taught, the Golden Rule would be just fine. People in to S&M don't fall under that blanket now, do they? No, they don't. Following what Yeshua taught has nothing to do with religion. Afterall, wasn't Him who said "he who is without sin, cast the first stone?"

[@ivlfounder]

@Mrmoc7 Forget who?

[@JeanySullivan]

yes you're right. I disagree with him on this too. But I love most other things he says.

[@AmsterdamHeavy]

The fucking Golden Rule causes me so much stress and aggravation and frustration; Ive been conditioned by the concept and I cant seem to break it. I need a shrink or something.

[@Jaybird196]

@purebacon Well, it's worked for me pretty good, so far ( that, and Confucian version stated in the negative). That being said, I approve of the "Non-Aggression Principle", and generally follow it . Your description reminds me of a portion of the Hippocratic oath that states, " First, do no harm" :) .

[@ivlfounder]

@lanceawatt Since the cultures I mention above are long lived it stands to reason their philosophy has helped humanity better than Grayling. 8)

[@cartagia2]

@Mrmoc7 Watch the video first to understand the point he's making? No, just knee-jerk comment first, instead.

[@RandomVortex]

@ghostgate82 The golden rule(as A.C.Graling clearly pointed out)is far from perfect. There's an old joke where the masochist says to the sadist"hurt me!"and the sadist replies"No!" I do hope both the relivance and wonderful irony of this rib tickling little gag is not lost on one as(presumably)godly as you yourself. What if a good person simply thinks Christ,the bible and religion in general is totally untrue and is hugely troubled by some aspects of religious faith?(THINK!)

[@deadOATH]

So its a bronze rule

[@Zenobiazera665]

@wassholm “Today man gets his sense of the miraculous from science & machinery, radio, airplanes, vast ships, zeppelins, poison gas, artificial silk: these things nourish man’s sense of the miraculous as magic did in the past…” Dostoevsky cont...

[@shoeym82]

this is a cool channel

[@theheinzification]

@WikeddTung i never was in high school and also wasnt expected to be. that is not a legal matter so no valid comparison here. i do know the legal concept youre talking about. i hope though you dont suggest the wording of a contract doesnt matter. im frequently confronted with contracts and how tricky and sometimes impossible it is to find a wording that is save from later interpretations. i could give examples where we failed in that aspect. every single word counts in legal matters! cont.

[@deadwolf83]

seems like a smart dude...

[@THESocialJusticeWarrior]

Republicans should watch this video every morning.

[@tjwhalan]

No one twisted religion it is already evil to its core, just most people are good and decide not to follow that which they beleive to be bad.

[@1iguerra]

@freesk8 lol, i love it when people don't know the proper usage of "ad hominem". Not sure why you would take it as an offense against you personally when i was talking about the ideology of libertarianism. Not sure where you get your data from, but if you look at the overall wellness of countries which tend to be more socialist, it's higher. Theoretically there is also no incentive for libertarians to help others (sure they may if they choose), but there is no reason to think that they will.