that is a loop argument, the goleden rule is about at one level respecting difference, ( i would not like a person not to notice and respect my difference so i will respect theirs.
''However....It is not really a rule then is it?(maybe I'm being a little pedantic here but they do not call it - the Golden good starting point or even the Golden handy little life tip that will apply in probably the vast majority of cases but ...etc....)''
Bernard Shaw's objection to the golden rule is valid.
And why the hell are people talking about Jesus? The Golden rule dates back to ancient Babylon and Egypt and even ancient China. The writers of the gospels were just parroting something that was known for thousands of years and then pretended they coined the phrase.
Jesus taught his followers to manifest fatherly love rather than brotherly love. Brotherly love would love your neighbor as you love yourself, and that would be adequate fulfillment of the Golden Rule. But fatherly affection would require that you should love your fellow mortals as our Father in Heaven loves you.
Perhaps I'm "a moralist and a puritan", but I still refuse to be "tolerant",
when some totalitarian collectivist group threatens my liberty and my wealth, or when some religious fanatics declare that I must be killed for rejecting and criticizing their idiotic irrational cult, or when some cannibal savages express their desire to eat me.
What he describes as a sort of more ideal behaviour is how I already interpreted the golden rule. I thought it sort of went without saying that you need to try to gauge what sort of treatment other people would or would not enjoy while considering that they are different than you and may not share your likes and dislikes. But perhaps it is worth saying because clearly there ARE people who think their personal preference should be the standard for everyone.
@ivlfounder it isn't a question of whether he knows better. He is a philosopher. Philosophers present their ideas, and it is up to the rest of us to critically assess the ideas for good or ill.
@ivlfounder What he's saying is don't just treat people how you would like to be treated, because they may not like being treated the way you like being treated. Instead, treat them how *they* want to be treated. This requires people to first stop and get to know better the person they are dealing with.
Well, I sort of think the golden rule isn't meant to be taken so strictly, i thought it was a more general rule like do onto others, doesn't mean like, very specific things, like i want a ferrari therefore i should give them environmentalist a ferrari, i think its more like dont kill someone else because via theory of mind we have empathy, you know what awareness and life are like so you know taking that away from someone else is wrong.
What A.C. Grayling doesn't notice is that he is still applying the Golden Rule.
I want people to respect and honour that I am different and respect my freedom, therefore I have to respect, honour differences and respect other people's freedoms.
"What A.C. Grayling doesn't notice is that he is still applying the Golden Rule.
I want people to respect and honour that I am different and respect my freedom, therefore I have to respect, honour differences and respect other people's freedoms. "
@aadrian13 You miss his point which is that the Golden Rule is subjective. If course he wants other people to treat him well therefore he treats them well, but many people have different interpretations of how they want to be treated.
@ZF1000 If you want other people to learn how to treat you also learn how they would like to be treated and the golden rule still applies. I find his argument sophomoric (at best). He is challenging a core human moral belief with no real line of reasoning - that all people have feelings just like you and deserve the same treatment that you long for.
no way are we all different, we are all sheep belonging to different shepherds. Being tolerant and respecting basic rights is one thing, but accepting the dangerous immorality of others is completely different. The world should be consist of the rational who is able to justify his own behaviours within the group and have standardized foundation based on it. What falls out of bounds can be too dangerous as it leaves control displaced and leads to unpredictable consequences to the whole group.
@onehairybuddha The "lefty twats" aren't the ones running this nation's economy into the ground and doing everything in their power to accelerate its moral and intellectual decline whilst celebrating such empty concepts as "diversity." A.C.Grayling: pompous spokesmen for the moneyed elite, contemptuous of everyone else...
The fucking Golden Rule causes me so much stress and aggravation and frustration; Ive been conditioned by the concept and I cant seem to break it. I need a shrink or something.
@98nafets Hahahaha. Obviously you have never seen Craig debate. He has never won. He has still to evidence his god, and has yet to even attempt to do so. All of his arguments are fallacious. And he is a proven liar: he calls himself a philosopher, when he is clearly an apologist. Apologism and philosophy are mutually exclusive endeavours. It is not logically possible to present a philosophical argument using apologetics. Intellectual honesty is the bane of religion, apologetics proves it.
If we go by religions being the most intolerent of others who think differently and if we dont accept their view, they kill people in the name of their fictional god [which they did in the past, and still do to some extent today]
I dont accept other peoples views when it comes to stupidity......of saying.... my way is the only way and if you dont accept it we kill you [religions always break the golden rule]
@devante11 Religions don't break rules, they aren't beings that think. It has always been people that take up the sword and yell out for blood. A religion is just a set of views, and like any other views, they can be twisted as a means to get to an end. People kill people not religions.
My quote "[ religions are] my way is the only way and if you dont accept it we kill you [religions always break the golden rule] "
Your quote "A religion is just a set of views, and like any other views, they can be twisted as a means to get to an end. People kill people not religions."
And people make religions, as you said...which was my point in the first place
"how can you say that they are intolerant when you are also intolerant?"
As I wouldnt kill someone, just because they thought differently, thats why I am tolerant
Again, as I said before religions [which are man made] are intolerant of anyone elses views apart from their own to the point they break the golden rule .....As the person says in video, do to others what you would want done to you
@mrElementalgamer Religions are people. So, your comment about religion not killing is absurd. Since there is no god independent of believers (which is to say, it is imaginary), all actions of the people who hold to a religion can be ascribed to everyone who claims to hold the same beliefs, even when they lie and say they don't. For example: All christian churches ARE as deluded as the Westboro Baptist Church, and most denominations are every bit as bigoted in their official doctrines.
It feels like he's taking a leak on the superficial side of the golden rule. Of course you want to be tolerated by others, and you want them to judge you according to your own culture etc. And so vice versa.
@xilliah the problem with the golden rule is that its highly subjective, whereas a better rule would be to follow a universal standard based on centuries of experience.
I was at my brother in laws home we are night and day. His home is massive like a mansion tricked out pu truck new car satelite flat screen tv replaced by todays latest set. everything is nice . My home 82 trailer car 07 prius 06 scion but in my case everything is paid for the tv is a repaired tube tv bought new but when broke we had it fixed we have cable etc just not into keeping up with world. Watched a boxing match between people I didnt even know existed bc it cost $64PPV to watch them.
@Jaybird196 A better starting point is the Non-Aggression Principle: "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the initiation of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. You can apply this principle universally to every human interaction without the need to get to know someone. It is universally preferable behavior, aka a moral code.
@purebacon Well, it's worked for me pretty good, so far ( that, and Confucian version stated in the negative). That being said, I approve of the "Non-Aggression Principle", and generally follow it . Your description reminds me of a portion of the Hippocratic oath that states, " First, do no harm" :) .
The version of the golden rule that says "treat other people the way YOU would want to be treated" is a good starting point if you don't know them. The version that says "treat them the way you would want to be treated IF YOU WERE THEM" is better. But, since the person who knows best what they "would" want is them (since what they would want is the same as what they DO want), this boils down to "give the people what they want."
When dealing with children, the problem with the improved version of the golden rule is that they might not want to have to follow any rules. So, if you have a LEGITIMATE reason for thinking you know what's best for them better than they do, the Golden Rule becomes: "Treat others the way you would want to be treated if you were them AND you knew what you would truly want if you knew what was truly best for you."
I agree that your stated overall concept is for many practical purposes a good starting point.
However....It is not really a rule then is it?(maybe I'm being a little pedantic here but they do not call it - the Golden good starting point or even the Golden handy little life tip that will apply in probably the vast majority of cases but ...etc....)
You make the excellent point that there are certain contingencies to the so called "rule."
'Harm', 'Discussion', It would be easy peasy to harm Grayling's sensibilities, and if he didn't like it we could step outside for a 'gentlemanly' discussion.
This is simplicity gone mad and this man is a clever simpleton. If only other people's tastes and lifestyles didn't impact on the rest of us. No man is an island and there is contagion. Wish these lever bods would THINK
The golden rule(as A.C.Graling clearly pointed out)is far from perfect.
There's an old joke where the masochist says to the sadist"hurt me!"and the sadist replies"No!"
I do hope both the relivance and wonderful irony of this rib tickling little gag is not lost on one as(presumably)godly as you yourself.
What if a good person simply thinks Christ,the bible and religion in general is totally untrue and is hugely troubled by some aspects of religious faith?(THINK!)
@RandomVortex I do THINK, quite often actually. Believing in religion isn't a prerequisite to living LIKE Yeshua lived. If you read my comment I said if people lived by what Christ taught, the Golden Rule would be just fine. People in to S&M don't fall under that blanket now, do they? No, they don't. Following what Yeshua taught has nothing to do with religion. Afterall, wasn't Him who said "he who is without sin, cast the first stone?"
@RandomVortex Contingent? Oh holy shit! Really? EVERYTHING is contingent on God as He is the Necessary that allows everything else to be. And yes, I "get" the joke and it's actually funny you bring that up because I thought of that very concept as a teenager and thought I was so clever. Then I found out it had been a joke for a long time. So you don't really have a good sense of who I am as a person. My "noggin" works just fine, but I understand your issue with modern Christians (hypocrites).
I was unfortunate enough to be raised as a Christian(it did not take!)so I am not unfamiliar with both the Bible and Christianity.
Your God does not exist!(it is merely one of many tragically over established myths with no more relevance to actual fact than Zeus or Santa.)Christianity is by its very nature hypocritical(including your particular version.)
We will doubtless never agree on the issue of God,however the point of discussion was the golden rule.
At best, weak arguement against Christianity. A twisted definition of the bible verse. You sorely misinterpret the meaning of this verse which is kindness. I am pretty sure we all appreciate kindness from others.
Dr. Grayling, you're overthinking it. The Golden Rule isn't supposed to apply to what people watch on TV. That's a bit of a strawman. It's meant to be applied to all those big, important words like "respect," "love," and "honesty."
Forget the golden rule. Understand people, instead. When there is understanding, there is no need for rules.
Rights are one of the spots where we try to deal with the big idea of many people. Like with the God concept, it has many failings. It is much easier to simply not project one's own inability to understand, and instead simply say,
Respecting the harm principle is itself a subjective view, but something Grayling assumes to apply objectively - thereby contradicting himself in this monologue.
@Ontologistics Correct me if I'm wrong, but i don't think he intends for it to apply objectively--he is giving his opinion. Only part that may support your claim i can find is when he says "this fact about our individuality." In any case, I think you'd do better to look at the practical aspects of the suggestions he puts forth, even if you think moral error theory (or similar) is correct. He is proposing a system in which subjective preferences can be respected as long as they don't cause harm.
what an annoying clown. he's clearly trying to sell phony profundity under a gloss of equally phony wit.
i think it's safe to say most people interpret the golden rule to mean "treat others the way you wish to be treated" whether that means "doing onto" them what you'd like done to you or (more to the point i think) NOT "doing onto" them what you wouldn't like done to you.
@WikeddTung that was a great speach. listen again. you didnt get his point at all. "treat others the way you wish to be treated" is not a good idea compared to "treat others the way they wish to be treated". for example: i dont like getting gifts, but my wife does. now, what should i do-following your golden rule or mine (= the one the speaker suggested)? gifts or not gifts for her anymore, thats the question. what would you think?
@t "you didnt get his point at all" is a meaningless FRAMING device used to create a perception YOU haven't yet proven. you then proceed to clarify NOTHING, only to regurgitate what i've already characterized as phony profundity. this isn't string theory, everyone understands perfectly well what he's saying. it's a DISINGENUOUS argument built on a pedantic assumption. if the golden rule literally means what he says it does, his argument makes sense. i'm saying plainly it means more than that.
@WikeddTung "i'm saying plainly it means more than that." if thats the case were on the same boat, but you added a meaning, you improved it. why not change the wording, so the obtained meaning is identical with the actual meaning. because its by far not obvious to everyone, that rule by itself is a poor one.
@theheinzification and to use your analogy; if i know you don't like to receive gifts but i do than i simply have to ask myself what would i want if i were you, not me. the golden rule is a call to empathy not action. therein lies the silly assumption his argument is based on.
@WikeddTung so the rule would be: "tread others as you would wish to be treated if you were not you but one or a group of the others." good.
"the golden rule is a call to empathy not action" - how do you get this from the (original) wording? or is it a mere interpretation to make it fit? why doesnt it say what it actually means, according to the meaning you say it should have? why is it silly to assume a quote means what it says?
i have neither the time nor the inclination to explain reading aptitude to you. you should have learned in high school to extract meaning from words in context. in law there is the concept of the "letter" & "spirit" of words. if this goes over your head, you should probably refrain from engaging anyone in debate, discussion or conversation on youtube.
@WikeddTung i never was in high school and also wasnt expected to be. that is not a legal matter so no valid comparison here. i do know the legal concept youre talking about. i hope though you dont suggest the wording of a contract doesnt matter. im frequently confronted with contracts and how tricky and sometimes impossible it is to find a wording that is save from later interpretations. i could give examples where we failed in that aspect. every single word counts in legal matters!
your advanced reading aptitude should allow you to answer my questions easily. although you avoided it so far and now i have even more: what is the context youre talking about? if you have to retrain to subjective interpretations and "letter" & "spirit" of words, would you at least admit, that the wording is poor? (otherwise the meaning would be cristal clear without any discussions, right?) and would you agree, to sell this quote as superior wisdom would be a bad teach?
This little clip is a very good modification to the golden rule but it is also based on a reading of the golden rule that isn't really it's intent. I have never heard anyone take such a self centered approach to the original. It is about treating people well and in the big picture it works. Treat people nicely and with respect, which I think everyone wants. Any bastardization of it, such as making others behave as you has never been seriously invoked. However this is a good reminder.
@rugbyguy59 good analysis. user Dadutta makes the same point (in a slightly harsher manner). I think what he's saying can make sense if you take the "as you would like to be treated" part of the golden rule as a second order principle.
@rugbyguy59 (continued) In other words, I would want people to respect my ability to do as i like even if conflicts with their values (save the harm principle), so i will do the same for them (even if i don't value the specific first-order values they do). It's a way to bridge the gap between relativism and objective morality.
The Golden Rule illustrates the problem with religious based morality. At the heart of this so called "God centered" morality, is this idea that what YOU find to be laudable is something that would be universally agreed upon, and furthermore that it is something God would approve of, assuming he exists. This is utterly presumptuous, and actually implies that your perspective is infallible.
@alphacause Exactly, is it indeed the moral perception of "treat others as one would like to be treated" which is the problem, not the sentiment, I would for example prefer others to treat me with equanimity, to relate to me, my actions & non actions as a living breathing human being, nothing beyond that, and to build from there an intimate communicative relationship as humans in friendship or whatever. Tis the difference between talking at someone & talking to them.
@alphacause "Morals are simply an attitude we adopt to those we dislike."
Oscar Wilde
Having the will to fight for the right to what we think, be & express is one thing, having the will to defend others rights to think, be & express equally takes a far greater strength of will. This is tolerance, this is the spirit of humanity.
I assume that you ask me if I am imposing my will upon others & if I'm having a benefit when doing so.
Yes, I have money, which I use to buy goods & services. In doing so I impose my will through economical pressure. I'm not particularly rich, but money is not the only way, look at the church. At every point in human history some managed to impose their will on a large number of people and in doing so they became very prosperous(=better off than the rest).
"Yes, I have money, which I use to buy goods & services. In doing so I impose my will through economical pressure."
That is a conflation of terms. There is a difference between actual imposition and "pressure" to do something. Or do you disagree that allowing someone to have a gun but expressing your dissatisfaction of such is not different from banning them from having a gun? In one case, they have a gun, and in the other, they don't. No difference at all? Environment =/= will.
@unamaxify Lol I could argue that using money as a currency, as opposed to altruistic trading & a resource based economy, makes humanity as a whole worse off, but i think we all know this in our hearts & minds. Therefore I would not agree or disagree, one is the default currency of today's society, the other is the aspired to currency of humanity.
What is lacking is will, both personal & collective & therefore a docking system to move from value x to value y.
Who's he talking to? Surely not other philosophers, or students of philosophy.
This is pretty far from being a philosophical argument. He's simply explaining what he thinks one should do, rather than why, and he doesn't seem to be 100% clear on his own definitions.
@wassholm Science is concerned with why. Pagans interestingly would never sacrifice the joys of life for the sake of “truth”. They understand its artful illusion & mystic as a constructive of life’s joys & actively cherish this aspect, unadorned reality is not on their radar. To ancient Greeks, the goal of philosophy was happiness & possibly salvation, not “truth”, to Aristotle & others “absolute truth” was never an aspiration. Indeed the worship of “truth” would have been considered a cult.
@Kinkspace Who said anything about truth? A.C. perhaps, but not me. My point is simply that he's appealing to authority, rather than to argument and reason.
@wassholm That is your perspective formed by your experiences within your environment. He is appealing to humanity in all its diversity. That is not an argument to reason, it simply is, like breath. This much is evident & observable.
The diversity of humanity has never altered. What has altered is perception.
Pre Christianity, in a world of polytheist it would be almost impossible to imagine a time when all thinking & being became more or less uniform.
@wassholm As like in poly relationships, polytheists take for granted & accept that everyone is different, in their case it was acceptance that humans would always worship different Gods, intolerance was not an issue, tolerance was a norm, the only common factor being we are of the same species, human, & therefore acceptance of all humanity.
@wassholm For polytheists, religion, again like polyamory individuals in their relationships, is a matter of practice, not “belief”. With the birth of Christianity on the other hand, religion became a matter of “true belief”. Which inevitably leads to; if one belief is “the true belief” all others must be incorrect.
Atheism is an abstraction out of the Christian passion for “true belief” or one-true-way-ism, indeed it is governed by the rules of a game set by “believers”.
@wassholm The irony of course by denying the existence of God is simultaneously accepts the categories set out by monotheists, & therefore becomes meaningless as a secular world without a Christian God is still a monotheist world, like veganism, chastity & monogamy are conditions defined by what they deny.
@wassholm Prior to Christianity no other religion claimed other “beliefs” to be in error. And as with all things this mono approach to just about everything seeps through every layer of the socio-political & systemic to the point which we find ourselves arrived at today. A socio-political & systemic chaotic nightmare of one-true-way-ism absurd intolerance of illusion, where the noose is being pulled tighter & tighter on diversity at every level, minute by minute.
@wassholm By claiming there is one supreme faith, one gives a supreme value, idolatry to this one “truth” which “truth” had never had prior to Christianity. Which brings us to Nietzsche “How far is truth susceptible of embodiment? – that is the question, that is the experiment.”
@wassholm “Today man gets his sense of the miraculous from science & machinery, radio, airplanes, vast ships, zeppelins, poison gas, artificial silk: these things nourish man’s sense of the miraculous as magic did in the past…” Dostoevsky
@wassholm It is science today that promises fulfilment of ancient fantasies. But to “believe” that science can transform humanity with gadgets & facts has turned it into yet another cult of miracles & magic & simultaneously perpetuated the concept of mono, one-true-way-ism.
Science, without the acceptance of the poly nature, the diversity of humanity, being at the core of all human embodiments, will be used to refine tyranny, “one-true-way-ism” & perfect war.
@ACULTURE0 The rights of man, the right to be think & express with responsibility both personal & collective, no one persons rights taking president over the next persons. In short as Aristotle put it... The wisdom of happiness.
@ACULTURE0 No it is not exploitation of the golden rule, the golden rule should never be applied to another, what you like or dislike is for you, it should not be applied to others. If one applies "personal equality" one is not accepting others rights to think, be or express as equal. To first accept equality over & above personal belief & preference one demonstrates tolerance & equality. Watch the video again...
WITGHT NIGGERS BLACK NIGGERS BROWN NIGGERS THE WORLD IS FULL OF BUMB FUCKING NIGGERS! RED NIGGERS AND IF ET LANDED ON EARTH HE BE A GREEN NIGGER! FUCK ALL OF YOU BUMB ASS NIGGER SHEEP!
I gave this a thumb up, but I did wonder why Grayling felt that a negative phrasing of the Golden Rule could be valuable. That is NOT to do to someone else what you would not want done to you, and I would add, if you were in the other person's position and felt what he or she feels.
In other words, without empathy rules are useless anyway.
That's a problem when they 'want' to be treated like gods. I have no intention of bowing on bended knee to anyone, regardless of how much they might want me too.
I loved this segment of talk. It was totally libertarian.
The harming principle of JS Mill is a fundamental libertarian starting point.
All the liberal progressive do-gooders who want the govt to force us to do what is in their own interest, and in the process give the govt complete nanny-state power over our lives should hate this video.
@freesk8 The problem with libertarians is that ultimately they don't give a shit about anyone other than themselves and perhaps their own immediate family.
@1iguerra Ah, an ad hominem argument. I love it when people do nothing but insult me. Then I know that they have nothing rational to argue against my position.
Here is an alternative view: libertarians know that limited government, individual liberty and free markets tend to provide better conditions for the poor over the long run than do welfare programs and unlimited govt nanny-statism. We care about the poor, and prefer non-governmental solutions to social problems.
@freesk8 "libertarians know that limited government, individual liberty and free markets tend to provide better conditions for the poor over the long run than do welfare programs and unlimited govt nanny-statism."
When have they ever done that? When have we ever had an unlimited welfare state?
@Kinkspace Well it certainly isn't an example of a libertarian paradise, or even a libertarian regime. Over the top social welfare? You have a long way to go to prove that. It was working fine until the deregulated the banks, just like a lot of other places. It wasn't perfect but better than most in dealing with the poor.
The very forces you would unleash to create utopia causes a crash and you claim this should give me faith in libertarianism? Markets create inequality. Always do.
Libertarians know no such thing, as its fiction. Societies where the rich are allowed to oppress the poor and the government does nothing to regulate such behavior have collapsed throughout history.
that is a loop argument, the goleden rule is about at one level respecting difference, ( i would not like a person not to notice and respect my difference so i will respect theirs.
yvrei 1 month ago
Moral Axiom: - Thou shalt not cause UNNECESSARY suffering
veganath 1 month ago
''However....It is not really a rule then is it?(maybe I'm being a little pedantic here but they do not call it - the Golden good starting point or even the Golden handy little life tip that will apply in probably the vast majority of cases but ...etc....)''
That was just brilliant.
TheArthkm 3 months ago
Bernard Shaw's objection to the golden rule is valid.
And why the hell are people talking about Jesus? The Golden rule dates back to ancient Babylon and Egypt and even ancient China. The writers of the gospels were just parroting something that was known for thousands of years and then pretended they coined the phrase.
viridismonasteriense 5 months ago
Jesus taught his followers to manifest fatherly love rather than brotherly love. Brotherly love would love your neighbor as you love yourself, and that would be adequate fulfillment of the Golden Rule. But fatherly affection would require that you should love your fellow mortals as our Father in Heaven loves you.
MightyMessenger777 5 months ago
Perhaps I'm "a moralist and a puritan", but I still refuse to be "tolerant",
when some totalitarian collectivist group threatens my liberty and my wealth, or when some religious fanatics declare that I must be killed for rejecting and criticizing their idiotic irrational cult, or when some cannibal savages express their desire to eat me.
VonStierlitz 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Obviously, therefore
Ron Paul 2012!
johammbass 5 months ago
That guy could use a haircut... But I like what he says.
longbeachboy57 5 months ago
He is wise, he is . . . Gandalf: The Grayling.
Rarae192 5 months ago
Forget the Golden rule? No, forget A.C. Grayling
Mrmoc7 5 months ago
@Mrmoc7 Watch the video first to understand the point he's making? No, just knee-jerk comment first, instead.
cartagia2 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mrmoc7 Watch the video first to understand the point he's making? No, just knee-jerk comment first, instead.
cartagia2 5 months ago
@Mrmoc7
Forget who?
ivlfounder 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Mrmoc7
Forget who?
ivlfounder 5 months ago
What he describes as a sort of more ideal behaviour is how I already interpreted the golden rule. I thought it sort of went without saying that you need to try to gauge what sort of treatment other people would or would not enjoy while considering that they are different than you and may not share your likes and dislikes. But perhaps it is worth saying because clearly there ARE people who think their personal preference should be the standard for everyone.
TatsujinSan 5 months ago
If I'm not mistaken the golden rule was conceived of independently in a dozen different cultures.
What's more it was/is respected if not always followed by all of these cultures.
Who is Grayling to think he knows better?
ivlfounder 5 months ago
@ivlfounder it isn't a question of whether he knows better. He is a philosopher. Philosophers present their ideas, and it is up to the rest of us to critically assess the ideas for good or ill.
But then, who am I to suggest such a claim? ;)
lanceawatt 5 months ago
@lanceawatt
Since the cultures I mention above are long lived it stands to reason their philosophy has helped humanity better than Grayling. 8)
ivlfounder 5 months ago
@ivlfounder What he's saying is don't just treat people how you would like to be treated, because they may not like being treated the way you like being treated. Instead, treat them how *they* want to be treated. This requires people to first stop and get to know better the person they are dealing with.
scytheka 5 months ago
@ivlfounder
If you enjoy anal sex and being spanked - it doesn't automatically mean you should do that to somebody else.
So "do to others what you would have them do to you" doesn't work in a large number of cases.
jazzx251 5 months ago
@jazzx251
Sure it does, now hold still.
ivlfounder 5 months ago
Well, I sort of think the golden rule isn't meant to be taken so strictly, i thought it was a more general rule like do onto others, doesn't mean like, very specific things, like i want a ferrari therefore i should give them environmentalist a ferrari, i think its more like dont kill someone else because via theory of mind we have empathy, you know what awareness and life are like so you know taking that away from someone else is wrong.
maikeru01 5 months ago
What A.C. Grayling doesn't notice is that he is still applying the Golden Rule.
I want people to respect and honour that I am different and respect my freedom, therefore I have to respect, honour differences and respect other people's freedoms.
aadrian13 5 months ago 9
This has been flagged as spam show
@aadrian13
Very well said.
"What A.C. Grayling doesn't notice is that he is still applying the Golden Rule.
I want people to respect and honour that I am different and respect my freedom, therefore I have to respect, honour differences and respect other people's freedoms. "
130adi 5 months ago
@aadrian13 You miss his point which is that the Golden Rule is subjective. If course he wants other people to treat him well therefore he treats them well, but many people have different interpretations of how they want to be treated.
ZF1000 3 months ago
@ZF1000 If you want other people to learn how to treat you also learn how they would like to be treated and the golden rule still applies. I find his argument sophomoric (at best). He is challenging a core human moral belief with no real line of reasoning - that all people have feelings just like you and deserve the same treatment that you long for.
aadrian13 3 months ago
Comment removed
Gytax0 5 months ago
no way are we all different, we are all sheep belonging to different shepherds. Being tolerant and respecting basic rights is one thing, but accepting the dangerous immorality of others is completely different. The world should be consist of the rational who is able to justify his own behaviours within the group and have standardized foundation based on it. What falls out of bounds can be too dangerous as it leaves control displaced and leads to unpredictable consequences to the whole group.
Dioxholster 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@themorbidimmortal
"his arguments for God are some of the most studied in the philosophy of religion"
By retards.
revjimbob 5 months ago
A.C. Grayling: tory scum who supports the privatization of British higher education.
Judel100 5 months ago
@Judel100
I don't think he so. However, if he is, then better Tory scum than Lefty twat.
onehairybuddha 5 months ago
@onehairybuddha The "lefty twats" aren't the ones running this nation's economy into the ground and doing everything in their power to accelerate its moral and intellectual decline whilst celebrating such empty concepts as "diversity." A.C.Grayling: pompous spokesmen for the moneyed elite, contemptuous of everyone else...
Judel100 5 months ago
@Judel100 Socialism is a dismall failure. The free market is a lousy economic form, but it's the best we have.
FaganRoberts 5 months ago
@Judel100
14 years of Labour government had already done that, have you forgotten already, or are you so blinkered that you never noticed?
onehairybuddha 5 months ago
this is a cool channel
shoeym82 5 months ago
The fucking Golden Rule causes me so much stress and aggravation and frustration; Ive been conditioned by the concept and I cant seem to break it. I need a shrink or something.
AmsterdamHeavy 5 months ago
Can't wait for this guy to get destroyed by William Lane Craig (again).
98nafets 5 months ago
@98nafets Hahahaha. Obviously you have never seen Craig debate. He has never won. He has still to evidence his god, and has yet to even attempt to do so. All of his arguments are fallacious. And he is a proven liar: he calls himself a philosopher, when he is clearly an apologist. Apologism and philosophy are mutually exclusive endeavours. It is not logically possible to present a philosophical argument using apologetics. Intellectual honesty is the bane of religion, apologetics proves it.
jymbo1969 5 months ago
If we go by religions being the most intolerent of others who think differently and if we dont accept their view, they kill people in the name of their fictional god [which they did in the past, and still do to some extent today]
I dont accept other peoples views when it comes to stupidity......of saying.... my way is the only way and if you dont accept it we kill you [religions always break the golden rule]
devante11 5 months ago
Comment removed
mrElementalgamer 5 months ago
@devante11 Religions don't break rules, they aren't beings that think. It has always been people that take up the sword and yell out for blood. A religion is just a set of views, and like any other views, they can be twisted as a means to get to an end. People kill people not religions.
mrElementalgamer 5 months ago
@mrElementalgamer
My quote "[ religions are] my way is the only way and if you dont accept it we kill you [religions always break the golden rule] "
Your quote "A religion is just a set of views, and like any other views, they can be twisted as a means to get to an end. People kill people not religions."
And people make religions, as you said...which was my point in the first place
devante11 5 months ago
@mrElementalgamer
"how can you say that they are intolerant when you are also intolerant?"
As I wouldnt kill someone, just because they thought differently, thats why I am tolerant
Again, as I said before religions [which are man made] are intolerant of anyone elses views apart from their own to the point they break the golden rule .....As the person says in video, do to others what you would want done to you
devante11 5 months ago 3
@mrElementalgamer Religions are people. So, your comment about religion not killing is absurd. Since there is no god independent of believers (which is to say, it is imaginary), all actions of the people who hold to a religion can be ascribed to everyone who claims to hold the same beliefs, even when they lie and say they don't. For example: All christian churches ARE as deluded as the Westboro Baptist Church, and most denominations are every bit as bigoted in their official doctrines.
jymbo1969 5 months ago
@jymbo1969
"all actions of the people who hold to a religion can be ascribed to everyone who claims to hold the same beliefs"
That is one of the dumbest things I ever heard.
"Oh shit, I found a bad person who agrees with me on something! I have to change my perspective now!"
tifforo1 5 months ago
"the best that has been thought and said by people who've really experienced life, and thought about it".
"Addopted" from Matthew Arnold?
insidetrip101 5 months ago
Fuck George Bernard Shaw.... He's a fucking globalist, eugenicist, scum-bag. And fuck this guy for repeating GBS's Bull.
bradthompson86 5 months ago
It feels like he's taking a leak on the superficial side of the golden rule. Of course you want to be tolerated by others, and you want them to judge you according to your own culture etc. And so vice versa.
xilliah 5 months ago
@xilliah the problem with the golden rule is that its highly subjective, whereas a better rule would be to follow a universal standard based on centuries of experience.
Dioxholster 5 months ago
I was at my brother in laws home we are night and day. His home is massive like a mansion tricked out pu truck new car satelite flat screen tv replaced by todays latest set. everything is nice . My home 82 trailer car 07 prius 06 scion but in my case everything is paid for the tv is a repaired tube tv bought new but when broke we had it fixed we have cable etc just not into keeping up with world. Watched a boxing match between people I didnt even know existed bc it cost $64PPV to watch them.
cdltpx 5 months ago
So its a bronze rule
deadOATH 5 months ago
over-thinking it...
NEVER forget the golden rule :)
voicubogdan84 5 months ago
The more I see of Grayling, the more I like him.
colossus999 5 months ago 7
I think the so-called "Golden Rule" is a good starting point to use before you get to know someone and can tailor what you do to the individual.
Jaybird196 5 months ago 12
@Jaybird196 A better starting point is the Non-Aggression Principle: "aggression" is inherently illegitimate. "Aggression" is defined as the initiation of physical force against persons or property, the threat of such, or fraud upon persons or their property. You can apply this principle universally to every human interaction without the need to get to know someone. It is universally preferable behavior, aka a moral code.
purebacon 5 months ago
@purebacon Well, it's worked for me pretty good, so far ( that, and Confucian version stated in the negative). That being said, I approve of the "Non-Aggression Principle", and generally follow it . Your description reminds me of a portion of the Hippocratic oath that states, " First, do no harm" :) .
Jaybird196 5 months ago
@Jaybird196
The version of the golden rule that says "treat other people the way YOU would want to be treated" is a good starting point if you don't know them. The version that says "treat them the way you would want to be treated IF YOU WERE THEM" is better. But, since the person who knows best what they "would" want is them (since what they would want is the same as what they DO want), this boils down to "give the people what they want."
tifforo1 5 months ago
@tifforo1
When dealing with children, the problem with the improved version of the golden rule is that they might not want to have to follow any rules. So, if you have a LEGITIMATE reason for thinking you know what's best for them better than they do, the Golden Rule becomes: "Treat others the way you would want to be treated if you were them AND you knew what you would truly want if you knew what was truly best for you."
tifforo1 5 months ago
@Jaybird196
I agree that your stated overall concept is for many practical purposes a good starting point.
However....It is not really a rule then is it?(maybe I'm being a little pedantic here but they do not call it - the Golden good starting point or even the Golden handy little life tip that will apply in probably the vast majority of cases but ...etc....)
You make the excellent point that there are certain contingencies to the so called "rule."
RandomVortex 4 months ago
Shaw was also know for supporting the extermination of the lower, useless, social classes.
Rogersmith026 5 months ago
@Rogersmith026
In a sense - he wanted to eliminate the poor by making them well-off.
ageingfishwife 5 months ago
An argument completely based on the misconception that people have the mental capacity to accept and tolerate diversity.
LegSpreader69 5 months ago
@LegSpreader69 They have the capacity all right. They just find it easier to not tolerate. Which is odd, because it takes effort to be intolerant.
KapStuf 5 months ago
'Harm', 'Discussion', It would be easy peasy to harm Grayling's sensibilities, and if he didn't like it we could step outside for a 'gentlemanly' discussion.
Yet another nebulous twat from Birkbeck.
Rhizomio 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PLEASE DONATE TO RON PAUL'S CONSTITUTION DAY MONEY BOMB! 9/18/2011
PLEASE DONATE TO RON PAUL'S CONSTITUTION DAY MONEY BOMB! 9/18/2011
PLEASE DONATE TO RON PAUL'S CONSTITUTION DAY MONEY BOMB! 9/18/2011
PLEASE DONATE TO RON PAUL'S CONSTITUTION DAY MONEY BOMB! 9/18/2011
PLEASE DONATE TO RON PAUL'S CONSTITUTION DAY MONEY BOMB! 9/18/2011
PLEASE DONATE TO RON PAUL'S CONSTITUTION DAY MONEY BOMB! 9/18/2011
joshua1auhsoj 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
PLEASE DONATE TO RON PAUL'S CONSTITUTION DAY MONEY BOMB! 9/18/2011
PLEASE DONATE TO RON PAUL'S CONSTITUTION DAY MONEY BOMB! 9/18/2011
PLEASE DONATE TO RON PAUL'S CONSTITUTION DAY MONEY BOMB! 9/18/2011
PLEASE DONATE TO RON PAUL'S CONSTITUTION DAY MONEY BOMB! 9/18/2011
PLEASE DONATE TO RON PAUL'S CONSTITUTION DAY MONEY BOMB! 9/18/2011
PLEASE DONATE TO RON PAUL'S CONSTITUTION DAY MONEY BOMB! 9/18/2011
joshua1auhsoj 5 months ago
This is simplicity gone mad and this man is a clever simpleton. If only other people's tastes and lifestyles didn't impact on the rest of us. No man is an island and there is contagion. Wish these lever bods would THINK
wagner18131 5 months ago
He reminds me of Robin Williams.
cnewman99 5 months ago
The Golden rule is perfect If you lead a life centered on Christ and what He taught. It obviously won't work if you are an evil person.
ghostgate82 5 months ago
@ghostgate82 and what is defining of evil?
brdatwork 5 months ago
@brdatwork
Good question!
RandomVortex 5 months ago
@ghostgate82
The golden rule(as A.C.Graling clearly pointed out)is far from perfect.
There's an old joke where the masochist says to the sadist"hurt me!"and the sadist replies"No!"
I do hope both the relivance and wonderful irony of this rib tickling little gag is not lost on one as(presumably)godly as you yourself.
What if a good person simply thinks Christ,the bible and religion in general is totally untrue and is hugely troubled by some aspects of religious faith?(THINK!)
RandomVortex 5 months ago
@RandomVortex I do THINK, quite often actually. Believing in religion isn't a prerequisite to living LIKE Yeshua lived. If you read my comment I said if people lived by what Christ taught, the Golden Rule would be just fine. People in to S&M don't fall under that blanket now, do they? No, they don't. Following what Yeshua taught has nothing to do with religion. Afterall, wasn't Him who said "he who is without sin, cast the first stone?"
ghostgate82 5 months ago
@ghostgate82
Not too big on irony you lot are you?(that joke just went straight over your brainwashed little noggin.)
Jesus/Yeshua is mythical and therefore the point you seem to be attempting to make is therefore quite simply redundant.
You may do better if you were talking to somebody who shares your particular set of delusions.
Hail Ceaser!
RandomVortex 5 months ago
@ghostgate82 sure, let stone the sinner, execute the adulterous and educate our kids with rods.
moestietabarnak 5 months ago in playlist recent
This has been flagged as spam show
@moestietabarnak "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." - Yeshua
Your argument is based on ignorance.
ghostgate82 5 months ago
@ghostgate82
The point is that the Golden rule is obviously contingent.(you dig?)
RandomVortex 5 months ago
@RandomVortex Contingent? Oh holy shit! Really? EVERYTHING is contingent on God as He is the Necessary that allows everything else to be. And yes, I "get" the joke and it's actually funny you bring that up because I thought of that very concept as a teenager and thought I was so clever. Then I found out it had been a joke for a long time. So you don't really have a good sense of who I am as a person. My "noggin" works just fine, but I understand your issue with modern Christians (hypocrites).
ghostgate82 4 months ago
@ghostgate82
I was unfortunate enough to be raised as a Christian(it did not take!)so I am not unfamiliar with both the Bible and Christianity.
Your God does not exist!(it is merely one of many tragically over established myths with no more relevance to actual fact than Zeus or Santa.)Christianity is by its very nature hypocritical(including your particular version.)
We will doubtless never agree on the issue of God,however the point of discussion was the golden rule.
RandomVortex 4 months ago
This is how I live my life: "Maximize pleasure; Minimize suffering."
Savipalooza 5 months ago
What he said seems so obvious to me, yet, I feel it's still needed to be said.
kid29a 5 months ago
Search "the Platinum Rule" on Google. "Do unto others as they want done unto them."
Savipalooza 5 months ago
At best, weak arguement against Christianity. A twisted definition of the bible verse. You sorely misinterpret the meaning of this verse which is kindness. I am pretty sure we all appreciate kindness from others.
GardenVariety2 5 months ago
Republicans should watch this video every morning.
ndyt 5 months ago
Was expecting Dr. Michio Kaku from the thumbnail picture, am sorely disappoint.
machogun 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@machogun Was expecting Dr. Michio Kaku from the thumbnail picture, am sorely disappoint.
I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOUR COMMENT!!!
mysql0 5 months ago
@machogun even though the video's title specifies the speaker...you *should* be disappointed o.0
scytheka 5 months ago
@scytheka Only partial title for me
machogun 5 months ago
seems like a smart dude...
deadwolf83 5 months ago
Platinum Rule: Do onto others as they'd have done to themselves.
Xwowplaya 5 months ago
Placing the blame is much more of a usual activity, in our world. Primitive is as primitive does.
rollsthepaul 5 months ago
Good grief... Someone's just a bit literal.
Common sense isn't so common anymore when we need old jack-offs telling us the sky is blue.
xPEACHxEATERx 5 months ago
He has a lot of good points but I'd really like to know what he thinks of class relations and class power.
blackiron60 5 months ago
Dr. Grayling, you're overthinking it. The Golden Rule isn't supposed to apply to what people watch on TV. That's a bit of a strawman. It's meant to be applied to all those big, important words like "respect," "love," and "honesty."
NathanAGoss 5 months ago 2
@NathanAGoss right. he's being a little too clever by half.
WikeddTung 5 months ago
Forget the golden rule. Understand people, instead. When there is understanding, there is no need for rules.
Rights are one of the spots where we try to deal with the big idea of many people. Like with the God concept, it has many failings. It is much easier to simply not project one's own inability to understand, and instead simply say,
"Haven't the foggiest idear."
SomethingSea1 5 months ago
Impulsory ads = I'm not going to be watching this channel if this continues.
SomethingSea1 5 months ago
I think about this every time I hear the golden rule! This is the first time I've ever heard anyone say it.
Don't treat people the way you want to be treated -- treat them the way they want to be treated.
PoweredByMagnets 5 months ago
Respecting the harm principle is itself a subjective view, but something Grayling assumes to apply objectively - thereby contradicting himself in this monologue.
Ontologistics 5 months ago
@Ontologistics where did he claim objectivity?
theheinzification 5 months ago
@Ontologistics Correct me if I'm wrong, but i don't think he intends for it to apply objectively--he is giving his opinion. Only part that may support your claim i can find is when he says "this fact about our individuality." In any case, I think you'd do better to look at the practical aspects of the suggestions he puts forth, even if you think moral error theory (or similar) is correct. He is proposing a system in which subjective preferences can be respected as long as they don't cause harm.
synchronium24 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@synchronium24
I suggest you watch my video on Neo-Nihilism to clarify matters.
Ontologistics 5 months ago
Philosophaster
Ontologistics 5 months ago
what an annoying clown. he's clearly trying to sell phony profundity under a gloss of equally phony wit.
i think it's safe to say most people interpret the golden rule to mean "treat others the way you wish to be treated" whether that means "doing onto" them what you'd like done to you or (more to the point i think) NOT "doing onto" them what you wouldn't like done to you.
WikeddTung 5 months ago 2
@WikeddTung that was a great speach. listen again. you didnt get his point at all. "treat others the way you wish to be treated" is not a good idea compared to "treat others the way they wish to be treated". for example: i dont like getting gifts, but my wife does. now, what should i do-following your golden rule or mine (= the one the speaker suggested)? gifts or not gifts for her anymore, thats the question. what would you think?
theheinzification 5 months ago
@t "you didnt get his point at all" is a meaningless FRAMING device used to create a perception YOU haven't yet proven. you then proceed to clarify NOTHING, only to regurgitate what i've already characterized as phony profundity. this isn't string theory, everyone understands perfectly well what he's saying. it's a DISINGENUOUS argument built on a pedantic assumption. if the golden rule literally means what he says it does, his argument makes sense. i'm saying plainly it means more than that.
WikeddTung 5 months ago 2
@WikeddTung "i'm saying plainly it means more than that." if thats the case were on the same boat, but you added a meaning, you improved it. why not change the wording, so the obtained meaning is identical with the actual meaning. because its by far not obvious to everyone, that rule by itself is a poor one.
theheinzification 5 months ago
@theheinzification and to use your analogy; if i know you don't like to receive gifts but i do than i simply have to ask myself what would i want if i were you, not me. the golden rule is a call to empathy not action. therein lies the silly assumption his argument is based on.
WikeddTung 5 months ago 2
@WikeddTung so the rule would be: "tread others as you would wish to be treated if you were not you but one or a group of the others." good.
"the golden rule is a call to empathy not action" - how do you get this from the (original) wording? or is it a mere interpretation to make it fit? why doesnt it say what it actually means, according to the meaning you say it should have? why is it silly to assume a quote means what it says?
theheinzification 5 months ago
@theheinzification
i have neither the time nor the inclination to explain reading aptitude to you. you should have learned in high school to extract meaning from words in context. in law there is the concept of the "letter" & "spirit" of words. if this goes over your head, you should probably refrain from engaging anyone in debate, discussion or conversation on youtube.
WikeddTung 5 months ago
@WikeddTung i never was in high school and also wasnt expected to be. that is not a legal matter so no valid comparison here. i do know the legal concept youre talking about. i hope though you dont suggest the wording of a contract doesnt matter. im frequently confronted with contracts and how tricky and sometimes impossible it is to find a wording that is save from later interpretations. i could give examples where we failed in that aspect. every single word counts in legal matters!
cont.
theheinzification 5 months ago
@theheinzification you're clearly bored. and now you've bored me. goodbye.
WikeddTung 5 months ago
@WikeddTung out of arguments? no answers? i see.
goodbye.
theheinzification 5 months ago
@theheinzification cont
your advanced reading aptitude should allow you to answer my questions easily. although you avoided it so far and now i have even more: what is the context youre talking about? if you have to retrain to subjective interpretations and "letter" & "spirit" of words, would you at least admit, that the wording is poor? (otherwise the meaning would be cristal clear without any discussions, right?) and would you agree, to sell this quote as superior wisdom would be a bad teach?
theheinzification 5 months ago
What an idiot !
Dadutta 5 months ago
the golden rule is not about specifics. its about general RECIPROCITY, you semanticist fools !
Dadutta 5 months ago
This little clip is a very good modification to the golden rule but it is also based on a reading of the golden rule that isn't really it's intent. I have never heard anyone take such a self centered approach to the original. It is about treating people well and in the big picture it works. Treat people nicely and with respect, which I think everyone wants. Any bastardization of it, such as making others behave as you has never been seriously invoked. However this is a good reminder.
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
@rugbyguy59 good analysis. user Dadutta makes the same point (in a slightly harsher manner). I think what he's saying can make sense if you take the "as you would like to be treated" part of the golden rule as a second order principle.
synchronium24 5 months ago
@rugbyguy59 (continued) In other words, I would want people to respect my ability to do as i like even if conflicts with their values (save the harm principle), so i will do the same for them (even if i don't value the specific first-order values they do). It's a way to bridge the gap between relativism and objective morality.
synchronium24 5 months ago
What if I want hot babes to grope me? Should I grope them?
Mastikator 5 months ago
hair plugs for men are improving yearly
FOBmzunguREPTILICUS 5 months ago
The Golden Rule illustrates the problem with religious based morality. At the heart of this so called "God centered" morality, is this idea that what YOU find to be laudable is something that would be universally agreed upon, and furthermore that it is something God would approve of, assuming he exists. This is utterly presumptuous, and actually implies that your perspective is infallible.
alphacause 5 months ago
@alphacause Exactly, is it indeed the moral perception of "treat others as one would like to be treated" which is the problem, not the sentiment, I would for example prefer others to treat me with equanimity, to relate to me, my actions & non actions as a living breathing human being, nothing beyond that, and to build from there an intimate communicative relationship as humans in friendship or whatever. Tis the difference between talking at someone & talking to them.
Kinkspace 5 months ago
@alphacause "Morals are simply an attitude we adopt to those we dislike."
Oscar Wilde
Having the will to fight for the right to what we think, be & express is one thing, having the will to defend others rights to think, be & express equally takes a far greater strength of will. This is tolerance, this is the spirit of humanity.
Kinkspace 5 months ago
while in reality: the more people you can impose your will on the better off you are
unamaxify 5 months ago
@unamaxify Are you?
Kinkspace 5 months ago
@Kinkspace
I assume that you ask me if I am imposing my will upon others & if I'm having a benefit when doing so.
Yes, I have money, which I use to buy goods & services. In doing so I impose my will through economical pressure. I'm not particularly rich, but money is not the only way, look at the church. At every point in human history some managed to impose their will on a large number of people and in doing so they became very prosperous(=better off than the rest).
unamaxify 5 months ago
@unamaxify
"Yes, I have money, which I use to buy goods & services. In doing so I impose my will through economical pressure."
That is a conflation of terms. There is a difference between actual imposition and "pressure" to do something. Or do you disagree that allowing someone to have a gun but expressing your dissatisfaction of such is not different from banning them from having a gun? In one case, they have a gun, and in the other, they don't. No difference at all? Environment =/= will.
SomethingSea1 5 months ago
@SomethingSea1
Well, no :expressing your dissatisfaction is weak social pressure while banning
something is strong social pressure.
Side-note: one still can have a gun even if its banned. (outlawing also is just a form of pressure)
The only difference is intensity.
By your standards imposing my will on somebody would mean some-kind of physical dominance.
I stipulate that imposing my will on somebody means i get someone to do something
that he/she usually would not do.
unamaxify 5 months ago
@unamaxify So better off to you = fiscal supremacy?
Kinkspace 5 months ago
@Kinkspace
no not exactly i don't equate the two
fiscal supremacy entails being better off,
but
being better off does not necessarily entails fiscal supremacy.
_
if you don't agree with that, then state a reasonably plausible
example were having more money causes you to be "worse off".
unamaxify 5 months ago
@unamaxify Lol I could argue that using money as a currency, as opposed to altruistic trading & a resource based economy, makes humanity as a whole worse off, but i think we all know this in our hearts & minds. Therefore I would not agree or disagree, one is the default currency of today's society, the other is the aspired to currency of humanity.
What is lacking is will, both personal & collective & therefore a docking system to move from value x to value y.
Kinkspace 5 months ago
Don't treat others the way you want to be treated.
Treat them the way THEY want to be treated.
Sanguiluna 5 months ago
Absolutely brilliant :)
Kinkspace 5 months ago
Who's he talking to? Surely not other philosophers, or students of philosophy.
This is pretty far from being a philosophical argument. He's simply explaining what he thinks one should do, rather than why, and he doesn't seem to be 100% clear on his own definitions.
wassholm 5 months ago
@wassholm Science is concerned with why. Pagans interestingly would never sacrifice the joys of life for the sake of “truth”. They understand its artful illusion & mystic as a constructive of life’s joys & actively cherish this aspect, unadorned reality is not on their radar. To ancient Greeks, the goal of philosophy was happiness & possibly salvation, not “truth”, to Aristotle & others “absolute truth” was never an aspiration. Indeed the worship of “truth” would have been considered a cult.
Kinkspace 5 months ago
@Kinkspace Who said anything about truth? A.C. perhaps, but not me. My point is simply that he's appealing to authority, rather than to argument and reason.
wassholm 5 months ago
@wassholm That is your perspective formed by your experiences within your environment. He is appealing to humanity in all its diversity. That is not an argument to reason, it simply is, like breath. This much is evident & observable.
The diversity of humanity has never altered. What has altered is perception.
Pre Christianity, in a world of polytheist it would be almost impossible to imagine a time when all thinking & being became more or less uniform.
cont...
Kinkspace 5 months ago
@wassholm As like in poly relationships, polytheists take for granted & accept that everyone is different, in their case it was acceptance that humans would always worship different Gods, intolerance was not an issue, tolerance was a norm, the only common factor being we are of the same species, human, & therefore acceptance of all humanity.
Kinkspace 5 months ago
@wassholm For polytheists, religion, again like polyamory individuals in their relationships, is a matter of practice, not “belief”. With the birth of Christianity on the other hand, religion became a matter of “true belief”. Which inevitably leads to; if one belief is “the true belief” all others must be incorrect.
Atheism is an abstraction out of the Christian passion for “true belief” or one-true-way-ism, indeed it is governed by the rules of a game set by “believers”.
cont...
Kinkspace 5 months ago
@wassholm The irony of course by denying the existence of God is simultaneously accepts the categories set out by monotheists, & therefore becomes meaningless as a secular world without a Christian God is still a monotheist world, like veganism, chastity & monogamy are conditions defined by what they deny.
cont...
Kinkspace 5 months ago
@wassholm Prior to Christianity no other religion claimed other “beliefs” to be in error. And as with all things this mono approach to just about everything seeps through every layer of the socio-political & systemic to the point which we find ourselves arrived at today. A socio-political & systemic chaotic nightmare of one-true-way-ism absurd intolerance of illusion, where the noose is being pulled tighter & tighter on diversity at every level, minute by minute.
cont...
Kinkspace 5 months ago
@wassholm By claiming there is one supreme faith, one gives a supreme value, idolatry to this one “truth” which “truth” had never had prior to Christianity. Which brings us to Nietzsche “How far is truth susceptible of embodiment? – that is the question, that is the experiment.”
Kinkspace 5 months ago
@wassholm “Today man gets his sense of the miraculous from science & machinery, radio, airplanes, vast ships, zeppelins, poison gas, artificial silk: these things nourish man’s sense of the miraculous as magic did in the past…” Dostoevsky
cont...
Kinkspace 5 months ago
@wassholm It is science today that promises fulfilment of ancient fantasies. But to “believe” that science can transform humanity with gadgets & facts has turned it into yet another cult of miracles & magic & simultaneously perpetuated the concept of mono, one-true-way-ism.
Science, without the acceptance of the poly nature, the diversity of humanity, being at the core of all human embodiments, will be used to refine tyranny, “one-true-way-ism” & perfect war.
Kinkspace 5 months ago
In other words... the golden rule...
ACULTURE0 5 months ago
@ACULTURE0 The rights of man, the right to be think & express with responsibility both personal & collective, no one persons rights taking president over the next persons. In short as Aristotle put it... The wisdom of happiness.
Kinkspace 5 months ago
@Kinkspace and this is nothing short of an extrapolation on the golden rule based on a ethic based on set defined by parameters set by the speaker...
ACULTURE0 5 months ago
@ACULTURE0 No it is not exploitation of the golden rule, the golden rule should never be applied to another, what you like or dislike is for you, it should not be applied to others. If one applies "personal equality" one is not accepting others rights to think, be or express as equal. To first accept equality over & above personal belief & preference one demonstrates tolerance & equality. Watch the video again...
Kinkspace 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
WITGHT NIGGERS BLACK NIGGERS BROWN NIGGERS THE WORLD IS FULL OF BUMB FUCKING NIGGERS! RED NIGGERS AND IF ET LANDED ON EARTH HE BE A GREEN NIGGER! FUCK ALL OF YOU BUMB ASS NIGGER SHEEP!
mstrephoenix1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
SOMEBODY KILL THIS GUY ON THE VIDEO!
mstrephoenix1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
blacks hold up bush was a nigger to!
mstrephoenix1 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
for get the golden rule? for get obama nigger!
mstrephoenix1 5 months ago
I gave this a thumb up, but I did wonder why Grayling felt that a negative phrasing of the Golden Rule could be valuable. That is NOT to do to someone else what you would not want done to you, and I would add, if you were in the other person's position and felt what he or she feels.
In other words, without empathy rules are useless anyway.
2bsirius 5 months ago
Treat others as they would like to be treated?
mrx0066600 5 months ago
@mrx0066600
That's a problem when they 'want' to be treated like gods. I have no intention of bowing on bended knee to anyone, regardless of how much they might want me too.
mordinvan 5 months ago
@mordinvan
good point...
hmm...
Treat others well... but not to well...
...
hmmm this might take a bit longer to get something decent.
mrx0066600 5 months ago
I loved this segment of talk. It was totally libertarian.
The harming principle of JS Mill is a fundamental libertarian starting point.
All the liberal progressive do-gooders who want the govt to force us to do what is in their own interest, and in the process give the govt complete nanny-state power over our lives should hate this video.
Thanks for posting this!!!
freesk8 5 months ago
@freesk8 The problem with libertarians is that ultimately they don't give a shit about anyone other than themselves and perhaps their own immediate family.
1iguerra 5 months ago
@1iguerra Ah, an ad hominem argument. I love it when people do nothing but insult me. Then I know that they have nothing rational to argue against my position.
Here is an alternative view: libertarians know that limited government, individual liberty and free markets tend to provide better conditions for the poor over the long run than do welfare programs and unlimited govt nanny-statism. We care about the poor, and prefer non-governmental solutions to social problems.
freesk8 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@freesk8 "libertarians know that limited government, individual liberty and free markets tend to provide better conditions for the poor over the long run than do welfare programs and unlimited govt nanny-statism."
When have they ever done that? When have we ever had an unlimited welfare state?
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
@rugbyguy59 Iceland.
Kinkspace 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Kinkspace Well it certainly isn't an example of a libertarian paradise, or even a libertarian regime. Over the top social welfare? You have a long way to go to prove that. It was working fine until the deregulated the banks, just like a lot of other places. It wasn't perfect but better than most in dealing with the poor.
The very forces you would unleash to create utopia causes a crash and you claim this should give me faith in libertarianism? Markets create inequality. Always do.
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
@freesk8
Libertarians know no such thing, as its fiction. Societies where the rich are allowed to oppress the poor and the government does nothing to regulate such behavior have collapsed throughout history.
mordinvan 5 months ago