Why don't you give the context of what he said? Because then it obviously means something else than you think it means.

There is still a problem: I know my neighbour would be happy to receive a gift from me. The principles (both the golden rule and the corrected one) seem to require me to actually do the gift... and do it again and again, possibly until I become poor. Is this reasonable?

But an action that one would find disagreeable another might not. Wouldn't a better rule be "do unto others what you can reasonably estimate they don't mind having done to them (by (in order of importance) knowledge of the person, asking them, assuming they have same opinions as majority, assuming they have same as oneself (shouldn't this be the last resort?))" — Ovaloid

So then you're following the "Golden Rule" by doing what you would like have done to you - you're informing yourself of the likes and dislikes of someone before interacting with them, just as you would like done for you.

The other side of the coin is "Do unto others as they do to you". In this sense, karma/consequences becomes how others mirror how you treat others.

For something golden-rule-like, I think you're on the right track, but I'd make it instead something like "do unto others what you can reasonably estimate they don't mind having done to them within reason." I think the "within reason" is important, because otherwise we can end up with proscriptions against, say, coaxing your kid to eat vegetables, telling him that he's done something incorrect in his homework, etc.--because they might mind those things being done towards them.

Among the ancient philosophers and religious figures, the negative of the Golden Rule seems more popular: "don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you". We are probably more alike in what we would avoid than what we would desire. There are many variations, from just about every discipline:

Also, regarding the criticism:

Mr. Bernard Shaw's remark "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may be different" is no doubt a smart saying. But it seems to overlook the fact that "doing as you would be done by" includes taking into account your neighbor's tastes as you would that he should take yours into account. Thus the "golden rule" might still express the essence of a universal morality even if no two men in the world had any needs or tastes in common. — Walter Terence Stace

Compassionate intentions undergird Jesus's Golden Rule, so if one doesn't acknowledge such a fact, then the Rule becomes a bit flimsy. With it, I can't see how anyone could disagree.

Platinum rule is superior: treat others in the way they want to be treated. How you wish to be treated may not be equivalent to how someone else wishes to be treated.

Compassionate intentions undergird Jesus's Golden Rule, so if one doesn't acknowledge such a fact, then the Rule becomes a bit flimsy. With it, I can't see how anyone could disagree. — Heister Eggcart

Bullshit. Jesus mentions the "golden rule" ending his point that we shouldn't retaliate against others. If someone steals, don't steal back. If someone hits you turn the other cheek. Then he goes on, after the golden rule, how we should do good and that a person who does good only to those who do good to him are less praiseworthy than those that do good because it's the right thing to do. I'm not even fucking religious but read the damn book of you're going to opine on the matter.

Same goes for everyone else.

Ho there, why the beer rage, friend? Sit your tits down and chill out.

Jesus mentions the "golden rule" ending his point that we shouldn't retaliate against others. — Benkei

Mhmm.

If someone steals, don't steal back.

Yep.

If someone hits you turn the other cheek.

He said this, you're correct!

Then he goes on, after the golden rule, how we should do good and that a person who does good only to those who do good to him are less praiseworthy than those that do good because it's the right thing to do

Indeed, perhaps the most powerful sentiment Jesus ever spoke, similar to what he said a few chapters before, "For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have?"

So, uh...what's your point again?

My point was you were talking bullshit but I'm sure you are aware of that and are just being facetious. Since this is the second thread in a month where people are just vomiting their opinions on this particular sentence, I suggested, in the first post of this thread, that people look at it in context. Which you subsequently ignored (like everybody else) and therefore your bullshit was called. Apparently that hurt your delicate sensibilities to qualify that as rage. Instead of taking issue with how I phrased it, you'd do well to just read the passage and learn something (to the extent there's anything worthwhile to learn from religious texts, but different discussion).

My point was you were talking bullshit — Benkei

That's all? Hmm.

but I'm sure you are aware of that and are just being facetious. — Benkei

No, sorry.

Since this is the second thread in a month where people are just vomiting their opinions on this particular sentence — Benkei

And what is it that you are doing here? I'll remind you that you are the beer drinker, so methinks it more likely that you're in fact the vomiting fellow in the room ;)

I suggested, in the first post of this thread, that people look at it in context. Which you subsequently ignored — Benkei

Context as in the Bible's context? Which I also used? :-|

and therefore your bullshit was called. — Benkei

Is calling "bullshit" really as easy as, "I call your bullshit"? Fine, I call your bullshit, Benkei, hahaha! I win. You lose.

....am I doing this right..?

Apparently that hurt your delicate sensibilities to qualify that as rage — Benkei

Nah, you're just a salty cunt. And I'm not sure why for.

you'd do well to just read the passage — Benkei

Thanks, man. I have and still do. The New Testament is often a very insightful bit of literature, I must admit O:)

and learn something (to the extent there's anything worthwhile to learn from religious texts, but different discussion). — Benkei

Oh, I see. So you're telling me that I need to learn from something that you can't learn from. Gee, this really makes a lot of sense. I thank you again, friend. I enjoy a good laugh in the late afternoon. Cheers.

But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.

32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

The "golden rule" doesn't mean more than don't retaliate if the paragraph it ends is taken as context. In the wider context of Luke 6 it might also mean do "good" to others even if they're being dicks. It has nothing to do with "compassionate intentions" and those aren't required to understand the rule, nor is the subjectivity of the OP. At most it can be said that being compassionate is the type of thing to do unto others.

Bullshit. Jesus mentions the "golden rule" ending his point that we shouldn't retaliate against others. If someone steals, don't steal back. If someone hits you turn the other cheek. Then he goes on, after the golden rule, how we should do good and that a person who does good only to those who do good to him are less praiseworthy than those that do good because it's the right thing to do. I'm not even fucking religious but read the damn book of you're going to opine on the matter. — Benkei

Jesus wasn't a psychologist. He didn't seem to realize the concept of consequences for your actions. He was a hypocrite as he said things like what you said but also said to kill unruly kids.

Adults are like children in that they need consequences to change their behavior. If there are no consequences, then they don't change. Doing nothing in response is the same as condoning that behavior.

Speaking from experience, when someone mistreats me, and I return the favor, they don't do it again. On top of that, they respect me as someone who doesn't lay down and let others walk over me. In order to change behavior (which is what we are trying to do here, not take some non-existent moral ground), you must supply a healthy dose of negative consequences. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil was that good men should do nothing".

The "golden rule" doesn't mean more than don't retaliate if the paragraph it ends is taken as context. — Benkei

So, there's only one meaning to be gleamed from the monologue? Just one?

In the wider context of Luke 6 it might also mean do "good" to others even if they're being dicks. — Benkei

Isn't this another meaning, though? :’(

It has nothing to do with "compassionate intentions" and those aren't required to understand the rule...At most it can be said that being compassionate is the type of thing to do unto others. — Benkei

I would argue that compassion rests only in the heart that strives to do good as a means of achieving a greater moral end. This sentiment is what I find most in the New Testament, as Jesus very much emphasizes a change of heart, an angling more toward an inward moral responsibility. It wasn't enough to him that good came about from amoral, or indeed even immoral, intentions. This is why love is perhaps best defined as the concerted and intentional willing of the good of another, which is an act of pure compassion.

I might add that the Golden Rule is not an egotist position. There has to be a kind of agreement between two who are interacting with each other. I don't find the Rule to be some blind guessing game, akin to throwing darts against someone's feelings. And if you weren't or aren't aware, Jesus spends the vast majority of his time precisely answering the question of "how best might we treat each other?" He replies with honesty, compassion, "doing good", etc. etc. In other words, Jesus at the very least highlights the norms strangers should treat fellow strangers - that they should be respectful, helpful, and caring, for Jesus aptly realized that nobody disdains being cared for or respected on a fundamental level.

The fact remains, it seems to me, that you're wanting to take a more literal, less interpretive understanding of Jesus's Golden Rule (which is fine, I don't necessarilly disagree with you), while I'm trying to focus more on why Jesus would think in such a way and how it functions in his philosophy.

Also, thanks for not being so hot under the collar today. As I just reflected on above, I myself strive to be respectful and patient with others who I know little of, which I think I've shown myself to have done here. It is of some irony that you were disgruntled from the onset, for if I treated you in such a way out of nowhere, I doubt you'd think nothing of it. Or do you usually begin conversations with your ass talking to others' faces? :P

He didn't seem to realize the concept of consequences for your actions. He was a hypocrite as he said things like what you said but also said to kill unruly kids. — Harry Hindu

???

Adults are like children in that they need consequences to change their behavior. If there are no consequences, then they don't change. Doing nothing in response is the same as condoning that behavior. — Harry Hindu

If you think "turning the other cheek" is equivilent to unzipping your pants and bending over for the rapist, then I can't really say that you're on the right track with understanding Jesus' words. As with Benkei, there's honestly far too much literal interpretation in this thread of a man that almost exclusively spoke in parables and metaphor, :-}

Speaking from experience, when someone mistreats me, and I return the favor, they don't do it again. — Harry Hindu

Back to intentions, here. Say someone bumped into you on the street, is your immediate reaction going to be, "FUCK, I just got mistreated! *shove*"? If yes, then perhaps you should look at the consequences of doing that, as well, because I doubt they'll be very positive in your regard.

If you think "turning the other cheek" is equivilent to unzipping your pants and bending over for the rapist, then I can't really say that you're on the right track with understanding Jesus' words. As with Benkei, there's honestly far too much literal interpretation in this thread of a man that almost exclusively spoke in parables and metaphor, :-} — Heister Eggcart

Then the man wasn't intelligent enough to understand that others wouldn't agree on what he said - that there would be arguments about his meaning. He sure wasn't a god because a god would have made it understandable to all cultures in all time periods if he was really the god of all people.

Turning the other cheek isn't equivalent to unzipping your pants for the "rapist". Maybe if you stopped comparing apples to oranges we could actually get somewhere with this conversation.

Back to intentions, here. Say someone bumped into you on the street, is your immediate reaction going to be, "FUCK, I just got mistreated! *shove*"? If yes, then perhaps you should look at the consequences of doing that, as well, because I doubt they'll be very positive in your regard. — Heister Eggcart

If the person didn't say, "I'm sorry." or "Excuse me." then I would think they did it on purpose, and then I'd have a right to react, and I'm sure you'd feel the same. Think about your example situations before you propose them because that one was just too easy.

Then the man wasn't intelligent enough to understand that others wouldn't agree on what he said - that there would be arguments about his meaning. — Harry Hindu

So lacking in intelligence that he knew he'd die for being disagreed with. Interesting how you see him dumb and not wise, here.

Turning the other cheek isn't equivalent to unzipping your pants for the "rapist". Maybe if you stopped comparing apples to oranges we could actually get somewhere with this conversation. — Harry Hindu

I agree they're not synonymous, but you haven't shown me why they aren't.

f the person didn't say, "I'm sorry." or "Excuse me." then I would think they did it on purpose, and then I'd have a right to react, and I'm sure you'd feel the same. — Harry Hindu

If you have the time to wait for an apology, you have the time to not act impulsively and aggressively.

The "golden rule" is called "golden" for a reason.

A man asked Rabbi Hillel to teach him the entire Torah, the five books of Moses, while standing on one foot. And Hillel did. "'What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor.' That's the whole Torah, he said. All the rest is commentary. Now go and study."

Rabbi Hillel died in about 10 CE. His teaching may have influenced Jesus.

Besides that, everybody knows that the golden rule means "Them with the gold make the rules." Easy enough to understand. Like the GR under discussion. Only philosophers would have difficulty understanding what it means.

The golden rule does have a flaw in it. It would be silly to think that in this world, we are truly aware of each others intentions. Therefore, it would also be silly to assume that everyone wishes to be treated in a delighful manner. Most of us can think of an example of one who obviously is content by being treated poorly and shows this by constantly placing themselves in a difficult situation.

Your question reminded me of something I read in Hannah Arendt's The Life of Mind where she is discussing the will and how Christ though his apostles (especially Paul) changed the world's whole system of valuation. The Old Testament was the all about the law, following the commands of god as revealed in its books. The New Testament the emphasis on following the law changes:

"I have come not to abolish [the law] but to fulfill [it]"( Matthew 5:17). Hence not "Love your neighbors" but "Love your enemies", "to him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also"; "from him who takes away your cloak do not withhold your coat as well". In short, not "What you don't want to be done to you, don't do to others" but "As you wish that me would do to you, do so to them" (Luke 6:27-31)--certainly the most radical possible version of "Love you neighbors as yourself".( Willing pg 66)

Paul was aware that Jesus radical teachings might well be beyond the human power of the will, I-will-but cannot. The point is-- having the will to follow the law--would be sufficient. The emphasis changes to man's inner life, from doing to believing, from appearances to man's inner life which could be judged by God. (possibly why Nietzsche hated[envied] Paul)

Is the golden rule flawed? — Ovaloid

The golden rule is perfect
It's we who suffer the defect