"Do unto others..."

Post Reply New Topic

I try to work by this principle, "do to others what you'd like done to you," (NOT first invented by the Bible, btw) but I've noticed more and more lately that what I would have done to me is not always or even often the same as what others would have done to them. For instance, if I were to ask my husband if I look good in a pair of jeans, I would want him to tell me the truth so I don't go around wearing ugly jeans. If I am doing something the wrong way, I would like someone to tell me so and help me do it the right way or at least direct me toward someone who can. I don't understand why anyone would resist the opportunity for self-improvement. If I were that prideful, even if it would hurt a bit, I would want someone to help bring me down to earth because in the end my pride will only cause pain to not only myself but others too.

Is this a uniquely "Aspie" way of seeing things? Am I interpreting "Do unto others..." differently than NTs (and how, exactly, do they interpret it)?

We are known for our honesty and what NTs would consider bluntness, which is what is responsible for our social faux pas.

However, I do not believe NTs live by that ethos anyway. Despite expecting anything done to them to be no less than perfect they do not dish out the same behaviour towards others. They display thoughtlessness, selfishness, competitiveness, bullying and aggression - for no other reason than they think they can and to hell with others.

...I left out incompetence and passing the buck as well as cowardice.

Very harsh words for NTs, Whirlingmnd!

Why do you think they act in those ways? My working theory is that those who behave as you describe expect others to do the same out of those others' own self interest. The end result being that everyone is expected to relentlessly stand up for & defend themselves by whatever means necessary. The societal restraints placed upon those 'necessary means' seems, to me, to be weaker now than in the past.

When it suits us, it seems. The thread on opening or throwing away other people's mail shows wide acceptance for doing things that are neither honest nor legal.

I understand why you were upset on the other thread Eric.

However, I stand by what I say: We are known for our honesty. That's not the same as saying we are all honest though. There are Aspies who are totally the other way too, but I think they are likely a lot less than the honest Aspies. I don't know that it's a case of when it suits either. Clearly with the way we think, Aspies are more likely to be stuck in either camp, not so much veering between the two like NTs do. An Aspie doing the wrong thing, is also very likely to be doing so out of not realising the implications or knowing it was wrong, rather than deliberately lying or being dishonest.

@ OddButWhy: I don't know the reason, all I can say is what I see. Aspies are more guileless than NTs so an NT will be far more likely to have a manipulative or self-serving reason to be that way. An Aspie is more likely to commit those "sins" because of having tunnel vision or failure to appreciate the impact or lack of empathy - that's because of the condition not because they are devious or malicious like an NT.

There is another moral criterion that takes into account the problems with do unto others that you alluded to, and seems to appeal to modern people, including aspies. It is Kant's categorical imperative, which states that the proper criterion for determining whether an action is right or wrong is to ask ourselves: If everybody in the world did this action, would the world be a better or worse place?

Kant's criterion demands complete honesty, since the world would NOT be a better place if everybody lied.

Having said this, Kant's approach to ethics has problems of its own: Universalism. In other words, if something is right or wrong by this criterion, it is right or wrong for everybody everywhere. And since not everybody everywhere is going to behave morally, it tends to lead to predatory moralism, whereby we attempt to force moral values on others, or at least develop serious resentments toward those we feel don't measure up.

Bottom line: There are problems with any moral approach we take.

It seems some Aspies here get a little shirty about all this lying and telling the truth thing. I'm not an honest Aspie as such. The other day a woman at work had her hair cut in a different style, and I didn't like it a lot myself. But when she said, ''look, I've had my hair done'', she looked so pleased with it that I smiled and said, ''yes, it does look nice.'' What's the point in saying, ''nah, I don't like it'', just to prove a ''why must I lie?!'' point. If I was like that all the time, then I wouldn't have any friends at all.

Say if I had a hyperactive friend who can be annoying sometimes, and a day came where I didn't feel like seeing her, and she texted me and invited me round her house for the day or the morning. I wouldn't put, ''no, I don't feel like seeing you today, you're too annoying and I'm not in the mood. Maybe next week when I feel like it.'' Instead I'd rather make up an excuse what they'll believe, or just say it in a nicer way, ''not today thanks, I'm tired and just fancy a lazy day indoors. What are you doing Thursday?'' Or something like that. And I know why I would put that. It's because I would want the same said to me. I wouldn't want to invite somebody to my house only to be told ''nah I don't feel like seeing you today, you're too annoying and I'm not in the mood. Maybe next week when I feel like it more.'' I would rather them give an excuse because there's always the chance it could be genuine.

As for the ''do I look fat in these jeans?'' it can depend on context. If somebody has already brought them and they sound really proud and love wearing them then asked me if they look OK, I wouldn't say, ''no you look fat and awful.'' Instead I would say, ''yes, they look OK.'' If I was clothes shopping with somebody, maybe somebody close, and they were trying jeans on and asked if they looked all right, I sometimes look to see how sure they are first. If they don't look too sure and I'm not sure either, I would say, ''hmm, no, I think those other ones were better.'' If they seem happy with them then I just keep quiet and think ''hmm I don't like those jeans on her but that might just be my opinion.''
But I'm an Aspie who can read body language quite well, so I can sort of gear round what I should say depending on their body language, and 9 times out of 10 I don't offend them at all, so I know I said the right thing at the right time. But not recognising body language is a common trait for those on the spectrum, so the majority of you I suppose find telling apart the differences between lying and telling the truth and when is a lot harder when you easily miss body language.

Sadly I can't explain types of body language but I know it all when I see it, type of thing. A bit like trying to explain the colour blue. I know blue when I see it but I couldn't logically explain it to somebody who can't see the colour blue, but that doesn't mean I don't know what blue is.

That's a very good point. Being known for something doesn't necessarily meant that it matches reality.