Golden rule = fail?

[Brother P]

Hello everyone! First post here

Still getting my bearings so please let me know if I'm doing anything wrong. Will be upfront about my agenda straight away though - I have a passion for sharing my beliefs about Jesus as discovered in the Urantia book.

Anyway, in my brief search on this site I came across the thread "leave us alone" viewtopic.php?t=31987 and the subject of the golden rule came up. Since I obviously have my own beliefs that stray from the gospels as recorded in the bible, I wanted to share what I've learned regarding this teaching. Hopefully this would be of some encouragement / interest to believers or curious ones.

I'll quote what "Blastcat" stated in his post about the golden rule, and I'm inclined to see things from his point of view....if that's all Jesus said:

The Golden Rule expects that how I want to be treated is how you want to be treated.

There are problems with the Golden Rule.
That's why smarter people have coined what's called the "platinum rule"

"Lets treat people how they want to be treated"

That's a lot more simple, and more clear, and don't have the problem of projecting our wants and desires onto others. It's all very well to treat people like we want to be treated if that's what they WANT. The Golden Rule forgets that not everyone wants the same thing.

The Golden Rule fails if we really think about it.
The Platinum Rule is way way better.

That's the thing about thinking.. we can and do progress.
Jesus and his "Golden Rule" has been surpassed.

Odd, don't you think?

Funny enough, allegedly (I say allegedly because I don't expect everyone to just believe it), the Urantia book details almost the same dialogue that one of Jesus' disciples had with Jesus, contending with this seemingly illogical golden rule. This disciple (Nathaniel) was what you could call the deep/critical/analytical thinker, much like Thomas. The quote as follows:


Source:

http://truthbook.com/urantia-book/paper ... m#U147_4_1

147:4.1 On the evening of this same Sabbath day, at Bethany, while Jesus, the twelve, and a group of believers were assembled about the fire in Lazarus’s garden, Nathaniel asked Jesus this question: “Master, although you have taught us the positive version of the old rule of life, instructing us that we should do to others as we wish them to do to us, I do not fully discern how we can always abide by such an injunction. Let me illustrate my contention by citing the example of a lustful man who thus wickedly looks upon his intended consort in sin. How can we teach that this evil-intending man should do to others as he would they should do to him?�

147:4.2 When Jesus heard Nathaniel’s question, he immediately stood upon his feet and, pointing his finger at the apostle, said: “Nathaniel, Nathaniel! What manner of thinking is going on in your heart? Do you not receive my teachings as one who has been born of the spirit? Do you not hear the truth as men of wisdom and spiritual understanding? When I admonished you to do to others as you would have them do to you, I spoke to men of high ideals, not to those who would be tempted to distort my teaching into a license for the encouragement of evildoing.�

147:4.3 When the Master had spoken, Nathaniel stood up and said: “But, Master, you should not think that I approve of such an interpretation of your teaching. I asked the question because I conjectured that many such men might thus misjudge your admonition, and I hoped you would give us further instruction regarding these matters.� And then when Nathaniel had sat down, Jesus continued speaking: “I well know, Nathaniel, that no such idea of evil is approved in your mind, but I am disappointed in that you all so often fail to put a genuinely spiritual interpretation upon my commonplace teachings, instruction which must be given you in human language and as men must speak. Let me now teach you concerning the differing levels of meaning attached to the interpretation of this rule of living, this admonition to `do to others that which you desire others to do to you':

“1. The level of the flesh. Such a purely selfish and lustful interpretation would be well exemplified by the supposition of your question.

“2. The level of the feelings. This plane is one level higher than that of the flesh and implies that sympathy and pity would enhance one’s interpretation of this rule of living.

“3. The level of mind. Now come into action the reason of mind and the intelligence of experience. Good judgment dictates that such a rule of living should be interpreted in consonance with the highest idealism embodied in the nobility of profound self-respect.

“4. The level of brotherly love. Still higher is discovered the level of unselfish devotion to the welfare of one’s fellows. On this higher plane of wholehearted social service growing out of the consciousness of the fatherhood of God and the consequent recognition of the brotherhood of man, there is discovered a new and far more beautiful interpretation of this basic rule of life.

“5. The moral level. And then when you attain true philosophic levels of interpretation, when you have real insight into the rightness and wrongness of things, when you perceive the eternal fitness of human relationships, you will begin to view such a problem of interpretation as you would imagine a high-minded, idealistic, wise, and impartial third person would so view and interpret such an injunction as applied to your personal problems of adjustment to your life situations.

“6. The spiritual level. And then last, but greatest of all, we attain the level of spirit insight and spiritual interpretation which impels us to recognize in this rule of life the divine command to treat all men as we conceive God would treat them. That is the universe ideal of human relationships. And this is your attitude toward all such problems when your supreme desire is ever to do the Father’s will. I would, therefore, that you should do to all men that which you know I would do to them in like circumstances.�

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to Brother P]

Let me pick apart a couple of things in your Blastcat citation...

The Golden Rule expects that how I want to be treated is how you want to be treated.

I don't think that's quite the idea. Rather, I think the idea is that actions tend to beget like actions. We're not talking precisely the same action in return but generally the same...

If I want to receive massages from random people, the rule isn't saying I should go around giving massages to random people. The thought process isn't so specific as that. Rather, it is to say more generally that if you treat people well, they will treat you well in return. If you treat them like shit, they will treat you like shit in return.
Because like begets like and people tend to respond in kind...

This is a fundamental principle of how we work and the golden rule captures it in a moral form.

There are problems with the Golden Rule.
That's why smarter people have coined what's called the "platinum rule"

"Lets treat people how they want to be treated"

That's a lot more simple, and more clear, and don't have the problem of projecting our wants and desires onto others. It's all very well to treat people like we want to be treated if that's what they WANT. The Golden Rule forgets that not everyone wants the same thing.

And just how do you know how others want to be treated? We know, generally, how we want to be treated. And we can propagate that kind of action in the world by treating others that way... With kindness. Respect. Etc.

I really don't see what this platinum rule accomplishes that's so much better. But maybe I'm missing something.

In fact, it covers over and confuses the more fundamental principle that the golden rule captures and takes advantage of: that people tend to treat others as they have been treated. (So treat people how you want to be treated, and that kind of treatment will return to you.)

Good points. In the platinum rule you cannot always know what the other person wants, but you know exactly how you "feel".

Granted, the golden rule would have the "side effect" of reaping a personal reward (kind of going into evolutionary territory here - if I'm good to so and so they'll look out for me) but I'd say what Jesus taught goes deeper (altruistic, goodness for the sake of goodness). Jesus was talking to his disciples about the golden rule - these same followers were told to love each other in the same way that Jesus loved them (ie putting others before yourself even to the point of death).

In this context we can see that the golden rule = the highest act of selflessness.

Going into evolutionary territory is completely valid here, because there really is no such thing as a selfless act. There have been discussions on this before in other threads, but everything we do has some kind of payoff for our personal self in the end.

[Youkilledkenny]

[Replying to post 15 by OnceConvinced]

By getting to know others. Asking questions. Learning. Not just presuming that everyone is like you.

What if I don't want, or don't have enough time to, 'get to know others'?
And what does that mean, exactly? How much should I 'get to know others' until I can make a determination on how to treat them?
Why do I have to 'get to know others'? Why can't they get to know me and know how I treat people?

If it's not how you want to treat others, then you don't need to apply it. Nobody is forcing you to treat others the way they want to be treated.

Without force, you are correct. However, you're suggesting that 'treating others how you want to be treated' is wrong as so you provide another option, then say one doesn't have to use that option so now what are we to do? We shouldn't 'treat them how we want to be treated' nor 'if you don't want to do it this way then don't.' This creates confusion.

Marriages fall apart all the time because one spouse thinks that the way they want to be loved is the way they should love their spouse.

There are multiple reasons why marriages fall apart. Likewise, TGR can be one reason why marriages stay together.

I was following the golden rule, but it didn't work....So you are ok with imposing your values and desires onto others?

I didn't see anyone say TGR was a fool-proof plan of attack at life, just a good way to try to be - nothing more. That said, if I want to be treated (with respect, for example) I have no problem assuming others want that as well. If they don't, they will let me know and we will move on in that way of thinking. Seems pretty simple.

So you see nothing wrong with expecting everybody to see things the way you do? To live the way you do? To love the way you do?

I think if the world thought as I do it would be a much better place (insert winky face here), but that's not the topic of the thread nor what I was implying here. See above.

There are many things Jesus said and done that aren't relevant in today's world.

Surely there are. That doesn't (or shouldn't) negate those that do apply and are beneficial (assuming those do exist).

I can't speak for everyone, but TGR is rather simple to me: be kind (or mean or judgmental or whatever) to others if you want to be treated that way as well.
Otherwise, you have no right to complain if it doesn't come back to you.

You come across a stranger walking down the street, a smile and a nod won't kill you.
You see an elderly person having problems walking up the step at your library, offer to help them. It won't kill you.
No need to 'get to know them' in order to be kind or offer a hand. If they don't want it they'll tell ya'.
Simply pimple.


I see no reason to 'try to get to know' everyone you come in contact with

[theophile]

[Replying to Brother P]

like begets like, it's not always the case

Note that this is what I have said from the get-go:

• Because like begets like and people tend to respond in kind..

  If I refuse you help, you are going to be more likely to refuse me help.

In short, if you try to apply the golden rule thinking it was given to immediately "bless you", you'll be sorely disappointed in the outcome. Once you've been treated as a doormat for so long, and there seems to be no reward in sight, you'd be more likely to give it up as a failure.

The fact that responses are not always like the initiating action makes it harder to follow the rule, but it doesn't change anything about it being right.

It's clear to see that the context for this golden rule is progression as a spiritual being. To grow in goodness. Goodness for the sake of goodness.

Maybe... I see rules in general as a step on that progression. Definitely not the end.

I think the goal of this rule is to create heaven on earth and avoid hell by taking advantage of this fundamental feedback loop (like begets like) that describes how we operate (more or less).

So this is the rule that many Jews looked up to as "idealistic". However, Jesus utilised the positive version instead as the ideal.

I think both are valid aspects or applications of the same rule.

So here we have 2 facets of the context (which contains the motivation):

1) Don't expect to be rewarded straight away. Persevere with righteousness despite what reactions you get at this time.

2) Don't focus upon the pain/restraint/negative, but rather, the good/growth/fruitage. In other words, goodness for the sake of goodness - like a work of art.

Sure. Although I find 2 hard to separate positive from negative.

[OnceConvinced]

[Replying to post 15 by OnceConvinced]

By getting to know others. Asking questions. Learning. Not just presuming that everyone is like you.

What if I don't want, or don't have enough time to, 'get to know others'?

Then you are not following the Platinum rule. You could decide you don't have enough time to apply the golden rule either.

The platinum rule requires more work than the golden rule, no doubts about it, but better outcomes always require more work. Better and more enriching relationships always require more effort.

And what does that mean, exactly? How much should I 'get to know others' until I can make a determination on how to treat them?

Like I said, If you don’t know enough or can’t be bothered putting in the effort, then apply the golden rule. Nevertheless, the Platinum rule should come first if possible, especially if you want to better understand other people.

Why do I have to 'get to know others'?

Because you want to understand the differences in others better? Because you don’t want to be a self-centred person?’

Why can't they get to know me and know how I treat people?

They should also apply the Platinum rule.

If it's not how you want to treat others, then you don't need to apply it. Nobody is forcing you to treat others the way they want to be treated.

Without force, you are correct. However, you're suggesting that 'treating others how you want to be treated' is wrong

I said no such thing. The golden rule has it’s good points, but it is also severely flawed. I think the golden rule should be the backup rule you use if you can’t or won't apply the platinum rule.

as so you provide another option, then say one doesn't have to use that option so now what are we to do? We shouldn't 'treat them how we want to be treated' nor 'if you don't want to do it this way then don't.' This creates confusion.

Apply the Platinum rule first, as it is clearly the superior one. Apply the golden rule if you don’t know enough to apply the platinum rule or if you are not motivated enough to apply the platinum rule.


.

So you see nothing wrong with expecting everybody to see things the way you do? To live the way you do? To love the way you do?

I think if the world thought as I do it would be a much better place (insert winky face here), but that's not the topic of the thread nor what I was implying here.

I disagree, I think the world would be a better place if people thought the way I do.

I can't speak for everyone, but TGR is rather simple to me

Does simpler mean superior? The Platinum rule sure requires more effort, but I’ve learnt it’s a good thing to make an effort and try to understand people’s differences. I’ve learnt that if we make more of an effort to allow for those differences, then that strengthens good will.

: be kind (or mean or judgmental or whatever) to others if you want to be treated that way as well.
Otherwise, you have no right to complain if it doesn't come back to you.

There is certainly great value in this thinking. But how about making it even better by trying to understand others more?

You come across a stranger walking down the street, a smile and a nod won't kill you.

Unless they take that smile as having some kind of hidden meaning.

You see an elderly person having problems walking up the step at your library, offer to help them. It won't kill you.

You’re applying the Platinum rule there by first asking if they need help rather than just presuming they want it (which you might do if you only applied the golden rule).

No need to 'get to know them' in order to be kind or offer a hand. If they don't want it they'll tell ya'.

But you ARE getting to know them by asking first rather than just helping and maybe risking embarrassing them.

Simply pimple.

Likewise the Platinum Rule is also pretty simple. Apply it when you can and if not revert to the golden rule.

I see no reason to 'try to get to know' everyone you come in contact with

But you might want to get to know your friends and family better, right? Your work colleagues? People in your social circle? People you actually have to deal with every day? Every little bit helps to make the world a better place.