The Golden Rule's problems

[Willum]

The Golden Rule, has its first known origins with the Goddess Ma'at and a story about unlawful claiming of property.
It was either taken from there, or rediscovered by Thales of Greece in about 500 BCE.

It is recapped in the Bible in Matthew 7:12,

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

Or in the OT, Leviticus 19:18

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.

It sounds great on the surface, but is it the ultimate slippery slope for morality?

The key to recognize the problem is that we all think we are good.
The serial killers of the worlds, the rapist, the you name its of villainy are aware of and can probably justify their actions with the Golden Rule.

Premise of the topic: The Golden Rule sets every single individual as a standard for morality, and appeals to vanity to delude us into its being correct.
It seems like a recipe for disaster if you ask me.

Bad people will do bad things, because their personal version of the rule, allows it. They would say to themselves, "If I were this given person [whom I am doing bad things to], I would expect this kind of treatment from me."

So the topic of debate is obvious, is the Golden Rule the metric for behavior that it is employed as?

[bluegreenearth]

[Replying to post 18 by Willum]

My God is so good that He is giving time to repentance ... but He won't allow harmful people to stay on Earth. He will destroy all impious, because He is empathic with the people who suffer, not with the people who make others to suffer. Is not that what we human beings want? ... the end of injustice, of wars, of corruption, of harmful people who are always machining how to hurt innocent people? Oh, yes, my God is very empathic, and will be.

Psychologists and psychiatrists have demonstrated that the reason certain people cause suffering to others is because they themselves are suffering. So, if God is empathic with people who suffer, then God should be empathic with those who cause suffering as much as those who've been harmed by those suffering people. The best solution is to demonstrate compassion towards those who cause suffering as they are the most in need of compassion.

[1213]

You did indeed state in some cases women like rapists, in defense of your deity...

You don’t seem to understand what I say. Maybe it is because of my English is not very good. Therefore, I try to form the point in clearer way.

First thing is, rape is never right or good, not in my opinion and also not in the Bible. Good thing is that I think we can all agree with that. If you disagree, please explain why.

Now, because it is wrong, the question is, what would be right punishment for rape. To evaluate what is right judgment, I think it is necessary to think how bad the crime is and what are the consequences.

In Biblical point of view, when person have had sex, he is married with that person. And if one has sex with someone else than his/her spouse, the judgement is death (for adultery). This means, all rapists who are married, or who rape person who is married, deserves death. And because of this, only cases when person would not deserve death is that both persons are not married, or that the rape would happen in marriage.

Now, even if both persons are not married, rape is not good, which is why there is also punishment in the Bible for the rape. And it seems to me the problem is that Bible doesn’t give right punishment for it. To evaluate is the punishment correct, I think it is necessary to understand how bad the crime is and what would be fitting judgment for it and what would be the consequences of the judgment. And this leads also to the question, what women think about the rape. And some think this way:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biastophilia

I understand that some may call those people sick, same way as some think homosexuality is sickness. Because of those matters, rape is not necessarily worst thing that could happen. This doesn’t mean rape is acceptable or good. This is only about how severe crime it is.

Other aspects are, what would happen to the child and woman, if for example the virgin rapist is killed. In ancient time it would have probably meant that the possible child has more problems. It could also have meant that the woman has more problems (rejected by all other men and without support). I understand that living with rapist could also cause problems, if the person is truly evil. Maybe this is why divorce was allowed.

Because of these, I don’t defend rape, but I think the judgment Bible gives for the special case is correct. I don’t know what would have been better judgment in the case. If you think some other judgment would be better, please explain what and why.

Interesting thing is that there seems to be no punishment for rape that happens in marriage. Obviously, in marriage both persons should love other, but it is possible that it is not so. If person doesn’t love and rapes his wife, the only possible punishment seems to be possible divorce. But is that enough, should there be better judgment? What that could be and why it would be better?

If people would love others as the Bible teaches, they would not rape in any case.

[1213]

…I think it would be irrational to say Bible endorses rape, when it gives judgment for that. Rape is wrong in the Bible and I also think it is wrong. If person loves other, he doesn’t rape.

Isaiah 13:15-16
15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword.
16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated.

Zechariah 14:2
2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.

Those tell what will happen, not that rape is endorsed.

[1213]

…But isn't is just as bad to even suggest that women may like being raped?... …So to even suggest it might be true that women like rapists is horrendous IMO….

So, are these articles horrendous:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biastophilia

Should Wikipedia remove them?

But, if it is not clear, I say, don’t rape, it is wrong. Love others and don’t do anything evil/wrong/bad to them.

[OnceConvinced]

…But isn't is just as bad to even suggest that women may like being raped?... …So to even suggest it might be true that women like rapists is horrendous IMO….

So, are these articles horrendous:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hybristophilia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biastophilia

Should Wikipedia remove them?

But, if it is not clear, I say, don’t rape, it is wrong. Love others and don’t do anything evil/wrong/bad to them.

Explanations on what a word means? How would that be horrendous? Words and terms need to be explained.

[Zzyzx]

.

…I think it would be irrational to say Bible endorses rape, when it gives judgment for that. Rape is wrong in the Bible and I also think it is wrong. If person loves other, he doesn’t rape.

Isaiah 13:15 Whoever is captured will be thrust through; all who are caught will fall by the sword.
16 Their infants will be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses will be looted and their wives violated.

Zechariah 14:2 I will gather all the nations to Jerusalem to fight against it; the city will be captured, the houses ransacked, and the women raped. Half of the city will go into exile, but the rest of the people will not be taken from the city.

Those tell what will happen, not that rape is endorsed.

Those sound like INSTRUCTIONS to an invading army.

A leader who disagreed with troops raping enemy women and girls could have said, "Don't rape or you will be severely punished".

A leader who does not prevent atrocities is complicit -- and if encouraging such actions is more guilty than the rapists.

[Elijah John]

.
How well does the 'Golden Rule' (Ethic of Reciprocity) work if said to a masochist who wants to be degraded and beaten?

I think the maxim assumes common sense and common decency. And a fair degree of rationality. So the GR would not apply to deviants such as masochists.

[Zzyzx]

.

How well does the 'Golden Rule' (Ethic of Reciprocity) work if said to a masochist who wants to be degraded and beaten?

I think the maxim assumes common sense and common decency. And a fair degree of rationality. So the GR would not apply to deviants such as masochists.

Assuming common sense, common decency, and fair degree or rationality is . . . IRRATIONAL and naive.

A 'rule' which applies 'sometimes' to 'some people' and does not apply other times and to other people, without clear stipulation of who and when, is also irrational.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 23 by 1213]

[Replying to post 26 by Zzyzx]

These are indeed instructions for and invading army, just as Deuteronomy has instructions on how to rape someone so you can marry them, and worse.

Not Golden Rule material, certainly not the words of a benevolent or even conscientious deity.
More like the words of frustrated old men.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 27 by Elijah John]

Good to hear from you EJ.

I have to agree with Zzyzx and the OP, the GR does not assume common decency, it uses each individual’s judgement as the standard.

The problem is no one sees themselves as a deviant or masochist. Certainly there ARE people who rationalize their behaviors so that they do follow the Golden Rule, in their own minds.

Thus the Golden Rule is flawed in such a way that it is well hidden. Very deceptive, it allows folks to do what in their own minds is just or good, when it is not.

It is not something a good deity’s would promote, being a good and wise deity, but something someone who desired chaos would promote.

It is a pretty wise thing for a good man to promote, not expecting deviancy. But for a deity who knows mankind, unconscionable.