Golden Rule

[Sydney Grew]

The Brits have always loved their cruel witch-hunts and persecutions. I had vaguely expected a new age to dawn with the twenty-first century but recognize now (after reading many recent postings) that it was a vain hope and that they are becoming worse.

Is it not one's moral duty to show kindness to every other person in all circumstances?

Is it not one's moral duty meekly and compassionately to accept the possibility of one's own fallibility?

Sometimes this is called "Christian kindness," but my experience is that in practice many more Buddhists display this virtue than do "Christians."

Is morality any longer taught to the general population, and if so, where and by whom?

Here is a long article about humanity's Golden Rule, or Ethic of Reciprocity: "Do as you would be done by," and its exemplification among a multitude of groups down the ages: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

[Simon]

[QUOTE=Sydney Grew;258258] I had vaguely expected a new age to dawn with the twenty-first century .

Why that, Sydney? I didn't.

The rise, in the 60s, of so-called "liberal" ideas where everyone has rights but which ignores the consequent responsibilities, where there is no discipline (let alone self-discipline) and, especially, where individual "freedoms" to do more or less what you wanted became caught up with the crass commercialisation of the consumer culture driven by greed, could only lead to one thing, surely? The mess we are now in.

[anotherbob]

.... so-called "liberal" ideas

Why "so-called"? Are these ideas not liberal?

[MrGongGong]

The rise, in the 60s, of so-called "liberal" ideas where everyone has rights but which ignores the consequent responsibilities, where there is no discipline (let alone self-discipline) and, especially, where individual "freedoms" to do more or less what you wanted became caught up with the crass commercialisation of the consumer culture driven by greed, could only lead to one thing, surely? The mess we are now in.

Exactly what I felt when I visited Mont St Michel for the first time , there wouldn't have been any "crass commercialisation" in the past , would there ?

I blame Schoenberg myself, breaking the "laws" of tonality led to the destruction of society

you been reading David Tame ?

[amateur51]

Only someone who has never been required to live on welfare benefits could believe that there is no discipline in today's society

[eighthobstruction]

Having actually lived thro' the 60's, as have most of the posters here (Simon I believe an exception)....I don't remember there being a Liberal Govt....and it has always seemed to be a mess....has there been a time when everything was not a mess??..... I don't think it was the Liberals and Socialists who stoked individual "freedoms" to do more or less what you wanted[which] became caught up with the crass commercialisation of the consumer culture driven by greed"

#2 is a funny ol'post if you at all think about it....like a sleep-walking half -awake immediate reaction....

Yep Kindness, Compassion, GRATITUDE, Witness, Grace and Dignity (without pride) Humility a jolly good serial to start your day

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Only someone who has never been required to live on welfare benefits could believe that there is no discipline in today's society

[aka Calum Da Jazbo]

"it has always been a mess" is one of the most profoundly true posts ever on da boreds ...and for another thing, no one is to blame for it .... let us apply the golden rule to so called liberals eh?

[scottycelt]

Is it not one's moral duty to show kindness to every other person in all circumstances ... Sometimes this is called "Christian kindness," but my experience is that in practice many more Buddhists display this virtue than do "Christians"

That may well be your 'experience', Mr Grew, but is that not a rather unkind thing in itself to say about "Christians" especially as I assume you may have come across rather more of them than Buddhists... ?

[MrGongGong]

That may well be your 'experience', Mr Grew, but is that not a rather unkind thing in itself to say about "Christians" especially as I assume you may have come across rather more of them than Buddhists... ?

I'm sure those who identify themselves as "Christians" can cope with it
I think it IS a fair comment if you include those "Christians" who seem to be in favour of many of the things that the beardyman was against !

As a Catholic I think recent history in Ireland (and not so recent in many other places !) leaves you on somewhat shaky ground ! (though I did work in a wonderful school in the poorest part of Limerick once who's teaching staff were mostly nuns so i'm not saying that you are ALL dreadful ......)

[french frank]

Bump - following splitting of thread. Please note, this is now on Ideas & Theory, not Platform 3... verb. sat.

[Pabmusic]

The golden rule is very old - easily predating Christianity or the Bible (or Buddhism, come to that) and appears in many cultures. We often encounter it as "treat others as you would have them treat you", but the better version, sometimes called the 'platinum rule' is - 'treat others as they would have you treat them' (that is, rather than how you assume they would want to be treated).

With this version, you cannot impose your own values on another without the other's consent.

The rule is reciprocal, of course.

[french frank]

but the better version, sometimes called the 'platinum rule' is - 'treat others as they would have you treat them' (that is, rather than how you assume they would want to be treated).

With this version, you cannot impose your own values on another without the other's consent.

You do use the word 'assume', though I'm not sure on what you would base that assumption. If based on how you yourself would like to be treated, then there is no difference between the two. Otherwise, in guessing how they would like to be treated, you must be aware of their own values (and in particular how they differ from yours). In certain circumstances, of course, you can just ask them.

[Pabmusic]

You do use the word 'assume', though I'm not sure on what you would base that assumption. If based on how you yourself would like to be treated, then there is no difference between the two. Otherwise, in guessing how they would like to be treated, you must be aware of their own values (and in particular how they differ from yours). In certain circumstances, of course, you can just ask them.

I don't disagree. The point I was making was that consideration of how to treat someone can centre round either knowledge of how you would yourself like to be treated (good, but self-centred) or an estimate of how they would like to be treated (rather less self-centred, though it may still be based on an assumption).

[Sydney Grew]

Many thanks to the Administration for splitting the thread!'

The golden rule is very old - easily predating Christianity or the Bible (or Buddhism, come to that) and appears in many cultures. We often encounter it as "treat others as you would have them treat you", but the better version, sometimes called the 'platinum rule' is - 'treat others as they would have you treat them' (that is, rather than how you assume they would want to be treated).

With this version, you cannot impose your own values on another without the other's consent.

The rule is reciprocal, of course.

If that "platinum version" comes from Kant I am afraid that he was - as he usually was - not quite right.

In a nutshell, the appropriate rule is "when one has a choice, do unto another that which one sincerely considers will raise the other to a condition closer to one's own ideal." And naturally one's ideals should rest upon one's own standards.

Without such a rule (and in particular if one always waited for the other's consent), there would never be any education would there!! (This may be what Simon was getting at in his first reply with its survey of the condition of Britain to-day.)