The Golden Rule: Fact of Fiction?

[Psych]

Hello all,

 

This is a topic I have been pondering for a while, and I am interested in what views are out there.

 

I grew up with and continue to live by the “Golden Rule treat others how you want to be treated. It has always been my understanding that everyone is, or should be, taught this rule and everyone should live by it. I take it as an unspoken rule that always applies and should never be broken. When I encounter someone who does not seem to live by that most basic moral, I keep my distance from them.

 

However, in the past few years I have been encountering a lot of posts on various forums that suggest we must train others to treat us the way we want to be treated. I was shocked when I first came accross that, and I continue to be shocked by how common the idea seems to be. It suggests to me that people are not learning the difference between right and wrong from their parents when they are kids, rather their peers are tasked with teaching these lessons well into adulthood. Also, it suggests to me that people have no universally shared morals, ie- things which we can all agree are right or wrong, and therefore we must always teach every new person we meet things like: “I don’t want to be lied to.” “Don’t cheat on me.” “Don’t steal from me.” Etc. I understand that people have differences, but these basic moral concepts are (or, should be) known and shared by all. As time goes on, though, I have to wonder whether there is such a thing as moral common ground. Some things I have experienced and many things that I have witnessed would suggest not.

 

So I ask you ENA, how does this work? Is there merit in the Golden Rule, or is it naïve/outdated? To get respect from others, must we train each individual on how to respect us? Is it something in between? Does the process differ depending on the relationship (friend vs. significant other vs. family)? How is bad behavior accounted for?

[JonasWaingaro]

I think both are true. We should live by the golden rule and treat people the way we want to be treated. But we also teach people how to treat us. So if you someone treats you poorly, with disrespect, and you don't stand up for yourself - you are teaching them it's okay to treat you poorly. So you have to 'teach' them that's not okay.

[JC Denton]

No, I don't believe that the Golden Rule is outdated, but I do believe that it is naive. There are people out there that are just mean-spirited and no amount of training will make them better individuals. You just have to keep your distance from them and move on.

[The_Seeker]

Hello all,

 

This is a topic I have been pondering for a while, and I am interested in what views are out there.

 

Alright. I'll give you my point of view.

 

I grew up with and continue to live by the “Golden Rule 8221; treat others how you want to be treated. It has always been my understanding that everyone is, or should be, taught this rule and everyone should live by it. I take it as an unspoken rule that always applies and should never be broken. When I encounter someone who does not seem to live by that most basic moral, I keep my distance from them.

 

Yeah learned that from my parents and school. Ha ha, same thing.

 

However, in the past few years I have been encountering a lot of posts on various forums that suggest we must train others to treat us the way we want to be treated.

 

Ha ha yes I did that BUT ONLY IF THEY RECIPROCATE.

 

That's like TREATING Bin Laden with respect and BAM he destroy everyone.

 

I was shocked when I first came accross that, and I continue to be shocked by how common the idea seems to be. It suggests to me that people are not learning the difference between right and wrong from their parents when they are kids, rather their peers are tasked with teaching these lessons well into adulthood.

 

I disagree with you. You can't the blame the parents, society, or whatever for their actions.

 

Seriously, some parents are good some parents are bad. People are bad some are good.

 

So you see, what I'm trying to say DEPENDS ON THE INDIVIDUAL.

 

No one put a FORCE they should act that way. They did. If they say "They don't know." That's the stupidest excuse and you will realize they are NOT SELF-AWARE of who they really are. However, I can understand if they have challenges that made them that way either due to DEEP depression/other challenges that makes them not realize right from wrong or wrong from right so they need medical help.

 

Also, it suggests to me that people have no universally shared morals, ie- things which we can all agree are right or wrong, and therefore we must always teach every new person we meet things like: “I don’t want to be lied to.” “Don’t cheat on me.” “Don’t steal from me.”

 

Honesty is the best policy but that's why PEOPLE WILL TAKE ADVANTAGE OF YOU. NO ONE IS GOING TO BE FULLY MORAL OR SELF-RIGHTEOUS.

 

Also, people really don't care about other people that deeply. Hence the gangsters, players, gold-diggers, etc. They care about themselves.

 

 

Etc. I understand that people have differences, but these basic moral concepts are (or, should be) known and shared by all. As time goes on, though, I have to wonder whether there is such a thing as moral common ground. Some things I have experienced and many things that I have witnessed would suggest not.

 

You're asking why the people the way they are. Those without any medical need of help, CHOOSE TO BE THAT WAY. Just because you were raise up int hat environment DOESN'T MEAN YOU HAVE TO BE LIKE THAT.

 

So I ask you ENA, how does this work? Is there merit in the Golden Rule, or is it naïve/outdated? To get respect from others, must we train each individual on how to respect us? Is it something in between? Does the process differ depending on the relationship (friend vs. significant other vs. family)? How is bad behavior accounted for?

 

I follow the Golden Rule but not to the T. If I show you respect, you should me respect. If I go to a party then you ditch me by going with your friends without letting me know, you're a swear word. But I know you will WANT ME as a friend because I'm a good person HOWEVER I don't want to spend any time with you even if you considered me as your friend because I don't consider you as a true friend.

 

SO you see, people like myself who follow the Golden Rule, don't explode things. We just go with the flow. I don't label anymore. Such as "This is [name], my friend." Unless I really do respect you like you respect me, then I will.

 

I've been with people who pretended to be my friend because i GIVE them things on birthday and sometimes I pay for lunch/dinner. Let' say it's like 6 bucks, I'll be like "I got it." I don't expect anything. However I stopped doing that and don't care much about my current friends that are girls. i DON'T hang much with them anymore. If I'm bored, i'll go. But really? To call them as a friend not really. People will say I'm pretending. But really? You'll be eliminating the WHOLE ENTIRE PLANET because people are not being a call a friend.

 

I measure friendship by their actions and how they treat me as a friend. If it doesn't seem true and they did things disrespectful, I'm not going to have a feeling of a friendship. I will be a GOOD SAMARITAN by calling 911 or working together as a team unit. Other than that, I will see you that you're not my friend.

 

Also I dealt with people who like to use me a lot and know I have a good heart.

 

So you see, the Golden rule is BOTH. Fact AND fiction.

 

I only follow the Golden Rule with someone else does the same to me. If not, i'm not. End of story.

 

That's all I have in my mind right now.

[RedDress]

I believe in the Golden Rule and it's how I choose to conduct my life. I agree, though, that not everyone lives by this rule.

 

I dated one bad dude once (for a short while). He gave me interesting insight. His thought process was that the Golden Rule was for chumps. He believed in "every man for himself". He felt that if HE didn't get a leg up (through what I would consider immoral means), someone else was going to. Why should he be the chump that misses out? According to him, it was up to each of us to protect ourselves.

 

Personally, I think that's a terrible way to conduct yourself and it must be exhausting if you think people are always out to get you! It's not in line with my philosophy... and that's why we broke up.

 

 

Actually, I also dated another guy who called his wealthy grandfather after not seeing him for 15 years (and not caring to) to complain because his father threatened his inheritance (!). I found that shocking and appalling. We also broke up almost immediately. It wasn't even about me... it's just completely wrong to treat people that way, in my opinion. His grandfather is a person, not a bank.

 

I think universal moral code exists and it's the underlying theme of all religions (whether you believe in them or not). Buddhists call it compassion. Some believe in the 10 commandments... They all go off on tangents from there - but usually the underlying theme is this universal morality.

 

It's all in who you choose to surroud yourself with.

 

All that being said - I do think there is a certain element of "you teach people how to treat you". What to one person is disprespectful talking to another is "normal". We all have different levels of sensitivity and communication is key. But the hard boundary, in my opinion, is the Golden Rule (up until there, one could argue for example, that they would be "ok" being treated that way). The Golden rule is the boundary of basic morality, in my opinion. Everything up until that could potentially be negotiable.

[Alezia]

I disagree with the fact that there is no universal morale code. Do not kill me, do not rape me, do not abuse me, do not physically batter me all comes to mind. Granted you may come accross a few exceptions, but I still find that there are many unwritten universal 'rules'. I haven't met anyone who asked me to rape them or to cheat on them... have you? That said, if you are forming a new relationship - there needs to be a clear definition of boundaries and definitions. Otherwise this seems pretty simple in my book.

 

When it comes down to individual preferences, then yes I agree that it's better to let the other person dictate how they perceive the world. Things like wanting education, or parties, or meeting new people; can seem an obvious 'yes' to someone, while a resonating no to another. Most of your conflicts would come upon disagreements in this category rather than 'Man, I really wanted you to cheat on me, and you didn't do it!'

[The_Seeker]

Ha ha you just got Lady Gaga's Pokerface stuck in my head by stating that.

 

I definitely agreed with you.

 

Last part made me laughed out loud.

[Alezia]

Haha thanks. Perhaps I should have considered a career as a modern lyricist

[laninaperdida]

I love the idea of the moral code and I used to practice it - along with the "turn the other cheek" philosophy - a lot, but I found too many people took advantage of it so I pick and choose who's worthy of that behaviour from me.

 

It disappointed me at first, but now?

I really think most people are weak.

Not bad!

Just weak.

And disappointing.

So, I just do me and leave everyone else be.

I don't care to consume myself with thoughts of how people should be and which is right because it puts too much pressure on a new person I meet and they end up just disappointing me.

Now I sort of just let everyone be.

 

But I do teach people... a lot.

That seems to be the most successful way to be treated the way you wanted to.

[90_hour_sleep]

i think it's naive to expect that others will live by the same moral code. while certain beliefs are predominant in certain cultures, are we to invalidate those who do not share them? while most of us can agree on a basic sense of ''right'' and ''wrong'', ''good'' and ''bad''...these are really nothing more than human creations, nurtured in us through our primary caregivers...and years of social indoctrination. one person's degree of rightness or wrongness can be notably different than another's. so who is 'right'? that can be a difficult distinction to draw...because it suggests that one way of living is actually better than another. because you believe something to be morally just, does that make it so? does it become truth for everyone because it is truth for you? is your 'right' more 'right' than my 'right'? slippery slope.

 

it comes down to a difference in perception. i believe i am acting justly, because according to my belief structure i am adhering to my own sense of personal ''rightness''...but someone else will have their own personal sense of ''rightness'' which will never overlap entirely with mine. how could it? there are as many ways to see this world as there are people. the degree of difference will vary dramatically between different demographics of people. we tend to stay close to home...letting people in who only moderately challenge our belief structures, because those who offer a more substantial challenge feel threatening to us.

 

i think the ''golden rule'' is a good way to live in general. treat others how you'd like to be treated. i'd tweak it just a bit and suggest that in order for this to be a fulfilling way of life, the expectation for others to follow suit should really be dropped. respect manifests in different ways for different people. you may feel disrespected by someone who doesn't feel they've done anything wrong. always comes back to communication. often times we're not so far apart as we imagine we are...and only a minor shift in how we're behaving will bring two people closer together. but that doesn't happen of it's own accord.

 

keep in mind, someone who commands respect often gets it. you do train people how to treat you in your interactions with them. what you will tolerate, how you react and respond to situations, how you conduct yourself. these things are all cues to others whether we know it or not. if i'm habitually being disrespected, then the onus is on me to correct that. i've opened a door to disrespect whether i know it or not. i have no control over someone acting disrespectfully towards me, but i always have the choice to tolerate it or not. if i tolerate it...i accept it...and i essentially welcome it into my life. others are not responsible for my well-being. i own that. and it's up to me to show others what i find acceptable and what i don't. it's up to me to express my needs as an individual, without assuming that everyone already thinks and behaves as i do. this is never the case, even when it feels it should be.

 

''bad'' behavior to one is no concern to another. think of a time when you felt justified in a course of action, and someone else took exception. who was right? i know you're thinking bigger here...but it's really the same creature. wars start on the level of the individual.

 

to me, it's the same with everyone. there are those we invest more heavily in when it comes to bridging the gaps...but by and large our relationships with people follow the same pattern. the closer we get to someone...the more amplified things become...and the more essential it is to find a common ground...an understanding based on clarity and transparency, as opposed to assumption and expectation.

 

just my thoughts.

[Lonewing]

Of course I live by the golden rule, regardless of how others treat me.

 

I learn which ones are less than honorable, and then I Cross them out Of My Life!!

 

I would rather know someone's true collors, than see them trying to pretend to be what they think I want them to be. I refuse to train people like i would train a pet. They should already know how to treat others, and if they don't, no big deal - they're out of my life, as it is.

[itsallgrand]

In my opinion, this is going to be a very relevant and real issue all the more in the coming years. The world is seeing so much mobility, immigration, expatriation, emigration, movement for school work, refugee movement....people are moving at an incredible pace, more often, to further away, for more reasons, and more of them (people).

 

I have a tendency to always want to put things in context. If you put this question in context of what is happening in the world now, it seems obvious that there will be a lot more clashes of basic understanding and values. We have people who never lived together living together in huge hodge podges, with a lot of different agendas all competing.

 

It is difficult to predict or know what all expectations and moral framework a person brings to the table. More so than ever before.

 

It is easier to be moving around and there is serious loss of stable communities; it's easier for people to be 'anonymous' in a way and also more difficult to apply old standards and categorizations on people that we relied upon before. Also, there is the loss of the types of social supports that were relied upon for generations and that were proven to help people 'know where they stand'.

 

All the lines are blurrier now. And we expected to adjust to it faster, more frequently, and with minimal fear. This seems unrealistic, given the challenge of interacting with so many different people regularly no matter who you are or what you are doing in your life. You can't escape the big pressure of billions of different people pressing on you and your space/time/environment/work/family life/sex life/all of it.

 

This isn't a tangent. Is the Golden Rule outdated, IMO? No. It's simply insufficient. The ante has gone up, so our ethics have to grow stronger and more nuanced if we want to succeed. Will it happen for more people? I don't think so. Most of us couldn't even master the Golden Rule yet. lol.

[journeynow]

As time goes on, though, I have to wonder whether there is such a thing as moral common ground. Some things I have experienced and many things that I have witnessed would suggest not.

 

So I ask you ENA, how does this work? Is there merit in the Golden Rule, or is it naïve/outdated? To get respect from others, must we train each individual on how to respect us? Is it something in between? Does the process differ depending on the relationship (friend vs. significant other vs. family)? How is bad behavior accounted for?

 

I believe in the Golden Rule, which is the idea that one should treat others as one wishes to be treated. It seems to be universal among spiritual paths, and it is timeless. I don't see it as different from showing others how we want to be treated.

 

To answer your question about training others to respect us, consider your approach and if that is how you would want to be "trained" or shown or treated. For example, you may not realize that your actions make someone else feel disrespected. Your actions may not be based on lack of morals, nor intentionally disrespectful, but based on your own understanding of the situation and your experience. How would you like the other person to respond to you? I think the Golden Rule can still be used when working out differences in any relationship.

 

As far as accounting for bad behavior, your task is to account for your own behavior, and to be as aware as possible of how it affects others.

 

We are all on a journey, learning along the way. Often we learn from each other, and we learn together.

[journeynow]

Of course I live by the golden rule, regardless of how others treat me.

 

I learn which ones are less than honorable, and then I Cross them out Of My Life!!

 

I would rather know someone's true collors, than see them trying to pretend to be what they think I want them to be. I refuse to train people like i would train a pet. They should already know how to treat others, and if they don't, no big deal - they're out of my life, as it is.

 

I'm curious about this (in general)—Is that how you would want to be treated? I mean, if someone felt for some reason that you had done something less than honorable (maybe based on their misperception), would you want them to cross you out of their life? You might, I don't know—it might be for the best, depending on the relationship. But how they do it, or how you do it, can be based on the Golden Rule, or not. On the other hand, if they were to communicate with you about it you might both learn something and grow in the process, without having to cut ties.

[Lonewing]

I'm curious about this (in general)—Is that how you would want to be treated? I mean, if someone felt for some reason that you had done something less than honorable (maybe based on their misperception), would you want them to cross you out of their life? You might, I don't know—it might be for the best, depending on the relationship. But how they do it, or how you do it, can be based on the Golden Rule, or not. On the other hand, if they were to communicate with you about it you might both learn something and grow in the process, without having to cut ties.

 

I no longer have the time nor patience to entertain such people.

If they're less than honorable, there's no excuse for such behavior.

 

What am I going to learn from them? How to laugh at other people? How to be disrepectful towards people who are not like me? How to use peer pressure and "everybody's doing it" excuses to begret bad behavior, and to coerce others into doing it too?

 

No, I'm through with it. You get a fair chance to show me your true colors. Hence, at the point of your precious discussion, you've already communicated to me about who you are and what you do through your actions - and these actions speak far louder than any words that may ever come from your mouth. You've further communicated who you are through how you interact with those around you - yes, I watch these sorts of interactions.

 

Do onto others what you would have them do onto you, and conversely do not do onto others what you would not have them do onto you. I do pay close attention, though, to those who have lower esteemes of themselves, or those who have low attitudes abotu the greater good [if I left it here, someone would have stolen it from me, so it's here for my taking] aka those who do not work towards a Greater Good, but rather, a Lesser Good.

 

I'm to the point where I'm quite happy with fewer people being in my life. I don't have a great need for quantity, at this point, and much prefer a couple people who I know very well.

[Emmalin]

Lately I have been hearing an "ammended" Golden Rule that says to "treat others the way THEY would like to be treated."

The Golden Rule doesn't mean we have to let people treat us badly, and it doesn't restrict us from protecting ourselves, but I don't think there's any benefit to deliberately hurting someone. We all have to decide how we define decency and try to behave accordingly. That's the tricky thing about morals & values: you can't really teach 'em. Your parents can impart their own values upon you, but it's only thru experience that you decide what your own values actually are.

As far as teaching people how to treat us, I think that's true. If we always expect to be treated with disrespect, that's what we'll be drawn to, that's what we'll respond to and that's what we'll get. If we can't accept kindness, then we won't know how to maintain it when we get it. And we'll disappoint each other, sure. Happens all the time, we are flawed creatures. You can't base your interactions with the world on the principle that "I'm gonna be nice today, but only if no one is a jerk to me. The minute someone does something I don't like, it gives me license to treat everyone badly, cuz forget them!" That's naive and immature.

[pl3asehelp]

I live by it and just avoid those that don't. I wouldn't even say I respect those that don't, because I think that by refusing to acknowledge that others deserve the same treatment they do, they are are undeserving. You can get more philosophical about it, but I've never met someone who treated others poorly in my opinion that I regretted not avoiding and or removing from my life so I think the end result is the same.

 

You 'teach' others how to treat you by not accepting anything else.

[Liraele]

I believe in the Golden Rule, and it's how I try to live my life.

 

I started to read all the responses, and then decided that might not be a grand idea at the moment. (LOL)

 

I do my best to always be open, honest, faithful. I'm not perfect, but I am pretty good about owning up to my mistakes when I make them. I don't expect others to be perfect either, but I expect them to be accountable for themselves, the choices they make, and the consequences of those choices. I don't put myself into situations where I know I'm going to make choices or do things that I'll later regret.

 

My goal is to ALWAYS be able to look myself in the eye in the mirror each morning. I have to live with me, and my choices reflect that.

 

My ex actually thought this was extremely harsh... and I could never get it through to him that I wasn't perfect nor did I expect him to be... but that when he lied, hid things, cheated, etc... there were consequences, and you don't just get to sweep mistakes under the rug and ignore them like they just magically won't happen again. You have to be aware of the choices that led you down that road... and his particular slippery slope was very, very obvious.

 

There are two things I ask my partners for up front - honesty and fidelity. If they cheat, screw up, whatever... talk to me. I'm actually pretty easy to get along with and am willing to work through things ONCE - but you absolutely have to communicate with me. I've helped numerous friends and loves with issues over the years - kicking alcohol habits, food issues, parental issues, abuse... if you actually WANT help, I'm willing. If you can be honest, forthright, open... I'll always listen.

 

If you stall, blame, lie... I don't have a whole lot of patience for it.

 

If you do something wrong and don't try to make it right... I don't have a whole lot of patience for it.

 

If you think ignoring every problem or rough spot makes things go away.... meh.

 

I think that's the difference, though. Being self-aware, and being able to be honest with yourself and others. If you have none of those qualities... I don't honestly know how you function well in society. Well, I guess you don't... which leads us to questions like the OP's.