Loophole in the Golden Rule?

[Surlethe]

I was reading through the article linked in the "Fundies attack college" thread, and it occurred to me, after some thought: perhaps there's a response to the accusation that Jesus' humanist teachings contradict the rest of Christianity.

The line of reasoning extends thusly: take the two most famous of Jesus' humanist teachings ("Love your neighbor as yourself", and "Do unto others as you would have them do to you"); they both presume high self-esteem, or loving yourself and wanting good things for you. However, what if you deprive someone of self-esteem, persuade him to hate himself, and convince him that he deserves to be eternally damned? Then, because of the symmetry of the Golden Rule, that person is not obligated to treat others well, because he doesn't deserve to be treated well.

All this occurred to me as letter of the law stuff, as opposed to obeying the spirit of Jesus' commands, but it strikes me as interesting that the bad parts can apparently be rationalized with some of the good stuff.

[Lord Zentei]

Indeed. The Golden Rule really only works as a guideline than an actual rule, and it assumes that people have self esteem.


There is a platinum rule: "don't do things to people that they don't like".

Unfortunately, this means that peole can no longer be called on their bullsit in a debate, so it has its drawbacks as well.

[Dooey Jo]

Indeed. The Golden Rule really only works as a guideline than an actual rule, and it assumes that people have self esteem.


There is a platinum rule: "don't do things to people that they don't like".

Unfortunately, this means that peole can no longer be called on their bullsit in a debate, so it has its drawbacks as well.

Well then, how about the Diamond Rule (or whatever): "Don't do things to people that will hurt them."
Bullshit calling is allowed under this rule, since people will not be hurt by it. In fact they will potentially be better off since they might learn something

[Lord Zentei]

Well then, how about the Diamond Rule (or whatever): "Don't do things to people that will hurt them."
Bullshit calling is allowed under this rule, since people will not be hurt by it. In fact they will potentially be better off since they might learn something

Sounds like an improvement; in fact the Hippocratic Oath has "first, do no harm" in it.

Though you need to define what constitutes "harm" in the more general case.

[Azrael]

There are far worse things that could potentially happen to someone other that having their bullshit exposed on an internet forum. It's doesn't even qualify as "public humiliation" since few people will actually see what you've done and the ones that do may never see your face.

If they're too much of an internet tough guy to concede then I say "tough shit." with a strong helping of "Grow a fucking skin." Which leads us to my golden rule....

Thou shalt expose bullshit at every opportunity. Thou shalt not support bullshit. If thine own bullshit is exposed, thou shalt concede.

Now, think of how much better the world would be if this made it into the scriptures...

[Ravencrow]

The line of reasoning extends thusly: take the two most famous of Jesus' humanist teachings ("Love your neighbor as yourself", and "Do unto others as you would have them do to you"); they both presume high self-esteem, or loving yourself and wanting good things for you. However, what if you deprive someone of self-esteem, persuade him to hate himself, and convince him that he deserves to be eternally damned? Then, because of the symmetry of the Golden Rule, that person is not obligated to treat others well, because he doesn't deserve to be treated well.

It was explained to me a long time ago that that presumption is countered by assuming that that golden rule is also a command to love yourself. The "love" is not defined by what you feel about yourself, rather it is an indirect command that you love yourself first. Then: Love your neighbour as you love yourself.

You might say that's bending it. I think that will be no surprise to anyone. The way I see it: the bible is more of a tool than a manual, it can be used under any intention.