God(s)...?

Post Reply New Topic

Seriously, how hard is it to determine that if you don't like being punched in the face, it's not nice to punch other people in the face either?

That is why I asked if empathy had something to do with understanding it, the lack of empathy, in the literal sense, not in the way of having problems expressing empathy.

That's not what you said. You said to apply the Golden Rule as a heuristic in order to determine social norms. I did so, and in so doing came up with a situation that would VIOLATE social norms.

Pointing out your incompetence does not put me in the wrong.

The point was that the golden rule is supposed to be the way to determine social norms. Were I to use the golden rule, I would VIOLATE social norms in many situations. My desires are not necessarily your desires.

Empathy is what makes the Golden Rule work as it should. It assumes that people are capable of reciprocity. If you have little or no regard for others, the Golden Rule is utterly beyond you.

A) I never meant to imply " The Golden Rule" was a perfect, orderly, natural, failsafe law.
B) Yes, you have found a (possibly) valid criticism of a generally good principle. Go you!
C) There is really no reason to be nasty about it. Would you like it if I called you incompetent?

If empathy is about not punching people in the face, I have oodles of it.
I guess it all depends on how you define empathy. I thought it was more of a lack of understanding how people feel - not a failure to care.

If thats what it is about, I sometimes wish I didnt have it. Or is it fear of getting fired?

I don't think you could define empathy as "fear of getting fired". But my empathy - or at least the doing unto others bit - has kept me from getting fired on occasion.

Yes. I would not want to stretch the principle any further. To expect anyone to respect other people's needs as if they were one's one is quite unrealistic and, be honest to yourself please, nobody really does it. Neither do we love (or treat) other people the same way we treat ourselves nor do we love our enemies. Not only do we not behave this way, it is also highly unlikely that the human race ever will.

I assume human beings are essentially biological creatures, while they socialise for their own benefit they always compete for scarce resources. Evolution, history, civilsation, the development of societies and nations are higly dependent on this principle. Human race would not be a successful lifeform on this planet without fight and competition. Within this context we never see other people's needs the same way we see ours. May I give some examples? Here I go:

Imagine you are in love with a certain girl (or woman). Others might share this desire. What do you do? Happily retreat? Expecting, hoping, waiting for another person to leave over his/her love? No. Of course not. Humans are not meant to behave like that and they do not.

Imagine you want to get promoted in your job, bigger office, more money, the more beatiful secretary. Do we not all know reality? What are people like?



I am sure that is is the only requirement that can be made seriously. This world and our life is not going to be fair, wishing or hoping for another, a better world is permitted but world is unlikely to unfold as anyone of us wishes. We might know that we dislike or disapprove wars and weapons, crime and fraud and many other things.

Those things will stay in this world, they are part of reality and there is a point for reality: It has managed to become real. You cannot replace the rules of reality with others, even if you know (or think to know) there might be better ways. World, life and society have neither been designed nor constructed and cannot be improved easily.

What is the relevance of those paragraphs? They are relevant because the rule cited here in this discussion must fail, it is not applicable. It might be possible to apply it within one's own family although my own experiences are different. People are individuals, they do have individual needs and desires, some people might even say that every person is special, although I do not agree. I can agree that there is a common set of needs and desires that everyone shares with everyone else. What is socially appropriate follows from the requirment that those needs and desires must be granted to all people.

I want to add that I feel opposed to being required to guess other people's needs and desires. I prefer needs and desires being kept private while a set of minimal requirements exists that everyone agreed to. The elements of that set are not hard to guess but easily visible. Not to steal, not to cheat, to do one's best in every situation... I am afraid that my understanding of socially appropriate behaviour does not extend far beyond that.

And "what the Hell" would that surprise be? And how do you claim to know what we do and do not know?

The standard slogan about the way the universe treats all life is "survival of the fittest". In actuality the universe continuously eliminates the least fit which is something quite different. The only way any living thing can avoid being eliminated is to understand where and how it is unfit and try to do something about it. Simply believing the universe loves you, aside from being silly, is, in the long run, a death wish. The universe is changing all the time and if you don't understand how you are in dire trouble. The universe is not malevolent or beneficial. It has no mechanism whatsoever to care one way or the other. If you don't pay attention you will eventually get nailed.

I must say Sand, you are one cold-blooded SOB.

If that is true, it is a shame. I have observed many altruistic actions by many people, on many occasions, trying to do the right thing. Of course it is not always possible. There will be conflicts. Basic human needs, my food vs your food type conflicts. But when there are no major conflicts, when it is a matter of helping someone vs my own convenience, I try to adhere to the simple guideline of asking myself what I would want someone to do for me. I believe it is often reciprocated.

I also believe "who am I to guess what someone else would want?" is encroaching on "rationalization for the sake of convenience and personal gain" territory.

I assume it is something of a complement to be accused of designing the universe. I had heard rumors somebody else was involved. Frankly I doubt that too.

My personal experience does not resemble this description. I have experienced that sharing the mindset of other people is generally a necessary precondition. I have experienced that the degree of support or forthcoming varies depending which community you and another person share. The same family, the same town, the same religion, the same language, the same colour of the skin and more. Since "altruistic" behaviour seems to depend on the SAME-phenomenon I cannot attest people a general ability of true altruism.