Why do people act like the golden rule i.e., do unto others... makes sense?

Because "be good" is pretty hard to define, and most laws (social or otherwise) can be felt out by thinking "Would i want that to happen to me?"

Whatever the social norms and rules are?
>"Would i want that to happen to me?"
Why would this influence your decision? It's not going to happen to you...

>Whatever the social norms and rules are?

You mean like "Don't do things to other people that you yourself don't want done to you?" Because that sounds like a social norm to me.

Its in not a practical rule, everybody understands it's imperfect. It is a mores, a code of conduct.

>Why would this influence your decision? It's not going to happen to you...
Most people don't know the letter of the law, so having a quick maxim you can use to determine if something would be a law or not is useful, because the differerence between doing an action with consequences and on without is the difference between not wearing clothes in bed and not wearing clothes in the middle of the street, the existence of social or judical consequences changes the individuals evaulation of a certain action.

Because others are human beings just as you are.

What situation would the golden rule be helpful in determine if some action was illegal?
In most contexts I see it it is stated more as a guide for moral not lawful behavior.
So?

>If I pick pocket some old lady she isn't going to come pick pocket me back. It seems to rely on some form of karma existing.

The golden rule is not about karma. It's about asking you to see yourself in the other person. It's about mature selflessness that should guide our actions rather than rules/punishment.

The reason you should not want to pick the pocket of an old person is that you have the self awareness to realize you too will someday be old and easily taken advantage of. Therefore it makes sense to engage in and promote behaviors as normative that will protect yourself and the old person equally now and later. If you really want stealing from old people to become a normative acceptable thing while you are young, then you will eventually become old and you will have to deal with the behavior you normalized.

It is population and behavior control. But it is self control rather than authoritarian external punishment and force that is overall less effective.

There are countless factors which underlying the development social norms which have nothing to do with what it is to be good.

The golden rule is just as meta-ethical as it is normative. It defines the intuitive notion most have of goodness. So in a meta/ descritive sense, it's important in that it shows how humans perceive goodness. In a normative sense, aka why it should effect your behavior, it would only be important if your goal is to do good to others.

>It's about mature selflessness that should guide our actions
Why?
>The reason you should not want to pick the pocket of an old person is that you have the self awareness to realize you too will someday be old and easily taken advantage of
It's very unlikely that my individual decision has such an impact that it noticeably changes the chance I get pick pocketed when I'm old, concretely it benefits me.
What about in the case of molesting a child? I will never again be a child.

Most laws are created out of our moral beliefs though, with certain immoral traits being delegated to social psudeo law, as they would be too hard or to restricting to the continuation of society if they were to be enforced.

For example, being rude to someone can be put under the golden rule to come to the conclusion "I won't be a dick because i wouldn't like it if someone was being a dick to me"
and at the same time be used to come to the conclusion "I won't stab that guy because i wouldn;t want to be stabbed"
You can effectively follow most laws and social conventions if you consider if you'd like that action to happen to you, making it useful for people who don't hve a full grip on social convention or law, children in the former case, most adults in the latter.

>It's very unlikely that my individual decision has such an impact that it noticeably changes the chance I get pick pocketed when I'm old, concretely it benefits me.

Depends how you believe things become normalized whereas previously they were stigmatized. I would argue that being the simple minded apes that we are, behavior becomes normalized when one person sees another person do something and then copies that behavior. If enough people also copy that behavior, or even just copy a behavior they have heard about, it will eventually stopped being stigmatized. Your act of pickpocketing an old person, will be described to others, planting the idea in other young and immature peoples minds that old people are easily victimized and you too can get away with it. The report of the behavior and the resultant lack of punishment enables the normalization. For example the abusive priests in the Catholic church, just knowing that there was a low likelihood of punishment more than likely increased the likelihood of a priest deciding to chance it. Also, reports of the widespread nature of the problem, in combination with the lack of punishment also convinced some priests that the rewards outweighed the risks since everyone else seemed to be doing it. Surely you can understand this mentality? The more you hear about other people doing something without consequence the more likely you are to give it a try.

That is exactly why the golden rule is important, we cannot rely, nor should we desire an all powerful autocratic state to punish every minor infraction as such a police state usually curtails every other form of lawful liberty as well.

If you have ever had a child, you would understand how that child exists as a psychological and genetic extension of yours and the golden rule applies. When you have a child you care for it more than yourself and the golden rule suddenly makes perfect sense in your desire to protect your child from would be molesters.

this

the categorical imperative is a far superior tool of moral reasoning

ITT: Edgy teenagers trying to rebel against group morality to feel powerful.

Don't worry, when you grow up you might understand

OP is a psychopath.

At a certain critical mass of the population following these principles, it truly does become safer. Sure, there are always wackjobs, but on average everyone does relatively OK, which is all anyone really cares about.

>Slave morality

The idea that a single act of pick pocketing by one person would have that large of an impact seems ridiculous to me. It's certainly not going to be enough to outweigh the benefit to the individual on average.
What about murdering someone in secret and making their body disappear? Will some convoluted butterfly effect make me get murdered? I don't think so.
I don't see how these "egoistic" reasonings can justify golden rule.

People commonly use golden rule as reason to not do bad things, "why should I return the wallet they just dropped? Because you would want your wallet returned", but following the golden rule seems irrational for an individual. It only makes sense as some collective meme to reinforce good social behavior.

user, not the guy you're responding to, but you're missing a fundamental step in the reasoning.

>You should return a dropped wallet to its owner
>Why?
>Because it's the right thing to do!
>Why is it the right thing to do?
>Because you would want your wallet returned if you dropped it.

It's not some sort of instant karma thing. It's a simple tool for illustrating why something is a good/bad act.

You don't seem to understand that the cause and effect of not following the golden rule is not a direct deterministic result where you suffer the same fate. It is also not a chaotic butterfly effect. It is more like the spread of a virus. Definite contact has occur between your act and a person who is influenced to do the same thing. The greater that contact and spread of such descriptions the greater the likelihood of that behavior becoming more wide spread. You may think that you at operating in complete isolation but that is not true. Your actions so affect others and other peoples actions can effect you. You are not immune to the bad actions of others. If you want murder and disappearance to become commonplace they can. It takes enough people engaging in that behavior unpunished and then it takes hold. Have you heard about the the gangs and police in Northern Mexico. Both sides regularly kidnap and murder people for ransom and sadistic glory without punishment. It was not always so. But a culture of murder and disappearing people took over the more it became normalized.

Commiting a murder and hiding the body does not mean that such a thing will certainly happen to you. But if in doing so you influence other people do do the same thing, you can inadvertently create a culture where that is normalized and this increase the chances that such a thing will happen to you. The increased chance is not negligible. The likelihood of violent criminals to suffer violent crimes is significantly higher. This is common sense. Murdering someone does significantly increase the likelihood that you suffer a revenge killing. Less so in the industrialized world since we have criminalized and stigmatized revenge killing.

You are not immune to the actions of others, and your actions do create chains of cause and effect. You are ultimately responsible for those effects, even if you do not feel the resultant products of your actions, it does not mean there are not any.

would you want people to pickpocket your grand mother?

Either he believes that he will never be in a position of weakness and rely on the mercy and kindness of a stranger not to victimized (immaturity) and/or he believes other people are perfectly justified in victimizing him if it serves thier self interest (a fool), and/ doesn't want to admit that the actions he desires to do have negative consequences for anyone (banality of evil).

t. Kant

He would because he wouldn't feel the pain his grandmother feels when she looses her money and her photos of him as a child. He lacks empathy for the pain of others, the desire to minimize that pain especially for those that love him. The implicit condition of that empathy, that social contract, is that you can reasonably expect others to treat you with the same empathy.

He would pickpocket his grandmother who loves him, because he feels no love for anyone but himself.

I reject that an individual "bad" act of mine will necessarily result in a worse outcome for me due to long term effects in society.
It sounds like some hodgepodge of broken window theory and karma.
So you're telling me that if I do not return a dropped wallet with $500 I will end up worse off down the line? I don't think you can claim that.
My act of pick pocketing has little practical effect on whether or not my grand mother gets pick pocketed.
My choice of doing [bad thing] isn't going to change anything when it comes to others victimizing me in a position of weakness. A pick pocket in Paris isn't going to not pick pocket me because I chose not to pick pocket someone in New York.
>doesn't want to admit that the actions he desires to do have negative consequences for anyone
But why should I care? The golden rule is not reason to care.

The point of the golden rule isn't to improve your chances of succeeding on the practical level, it's to help you be a better person morally.

>necessarily
I said it increases the chances over time in a probabilistic way, not a deterministic way. So no, I am not claiming that something "worse" will "necessarily" happen. I'm claiming that your actions do have some kind of consequences, and that you increase the chances of those consequences affecting you by some small measure. How is that unclear? You keep using the language of the absolute, which is unreasonable. No picking a pocket does not create a certainty that you will have your pocket picked. It increases the likelihood of something happening yes. Otherwise you completely deny cause and effect.

There is a reason why your way of thinking is stigmatized by society. Because it leads to greater negative consequences for society as a whole. You may not feel the effects individually of your actions but society does. That's why thinking like your is mainly present only in people with psychopathic or affective disorders. That is what makes this whole debate futile. You are unwilling to consider the effects of your actions on anyone but yourself. If you don't suffer negative consequences immediately, then there are no negative consequences for anyone ever.

It's based on a model, according to which everyone follow this rule hence nobody do anything harmful. The rule works as a group behaving strategy.

>My act of pick pocketing has little practical effect on whether or not my grand mother gets pick pocketed.
the action is as insignificant as you are, but consider the act as a vote to normalize itself.

OP is an autistic troll king. He has never worked in a group strategically in his life. He probably doesn't even think other people are alive. His distorted sperg brain just shows him reflections of himself and he can do whatever he wants.

>So you're telling me that if I do not return a dropped wallet with $500 I will end up worse off down the line? I don't think you can claim that.
No, but you'd feel good if you gave it back because you'd make that persons day and get that elated reaction you get when you return something of value lost by someone, found a phone dropped the other day called "karen" and ended up getting a 76 year old the ability to communicate when getting a replacement would take their family like a week, i felt good.

Do you view everything as an insult? OP shouldnt be shamed for questioning things.

>and that you increase the chances of those consequences affecting you by some small measure. How is that unclear?
But it's negligible compared to the benefit. So the reason to do good is just because it's good?
I'd rather have $500.

He is being shammed for questioning the rights an needs of others not to be victimized by his selfishness.
He is not questioning some bullshit social construct like "women have to have long hair, and men have to have short" he is questioning the fabric of civilization and the basis of all law. His line of thinking is wrong bit luckily not dangerous because the prevalence of people with such a mental disorder is not likely to increase.

We don't live as animals in the state of nature. We are all connected and responsible for ourselves and our actions and how they affect others. OPs questioning is not enlightened, it is insulting.

Then have your $500. Probably seems like alot of money to someone with the mentality of an adolescent.

t. Hobbes

I doubt OP has the intellect to criticize the social contract with rigor, but it's dogmatic to shame criticism, especially if it's not slanderous.

I make plenty of money, thank you very much.
Why are you saying mental disorder?

>I doubt OP has the intellect

I suspect you are correct. I was hoping there was something behind his line of questioning besides adolescent egotism. His first few replies seemed to have some kind of structure. But that is why I got too easily angered. This board deserves a better class of antisocial philosophy. OP is not it.

Thank you for proving Good Day Sir.

Why does an individual have any duty to support and bend his will to the current system?
>he is questioning the fabric of civilization and the basis of all law
Couldn't the golden rule and related things be no the basis but just another way for civilization to control people and propagate? In an older system there could be a similar cultural "rule" about a class system or peasants being beneath lords etc. They're not the basis of civilization but simply grease that keep the wheels turning.

Here's a simple disproof.

I love to blast reggaeton at all hours.
Most people hate this.
If everyone decided to blast reggaeton at all hours I would be completely fine with this.
Despite this, it is wrong to blast reggaeton at all hours.

>This thread

The obvious answer is game theory.

It can make sense to treat other people like shit in pure tactical scenarios. The statistically best strategy in life is not to be a cunt.

It's more about justified behavior. As in, if you were to pickpocket you should lose the right to the protection of your own property.
It's less about punishment and more encouragement of mutually beneficial behavior. Making friends is usually better in the long run than making enemies is.

>The statistically best strategy in life is not to be a cunt.
Is there any evidence for this in real world?
I imagine the statistically best strategy is to be a cunt when you can get away with it.
>As in, if you were to pickpocket you should lose the right to the protection of your own property.
In practice you don't though, or you keep whatever degree of right to the protection of your property you had before hand.
>Making friends is usually better in the long run than making enemies is.
Every bad act is not guaranteed to make an enemy, secondly given the vast size of communities in much of the world you can truly make enemies and friends all the time with little issue.

I think the golden rule could go unstated in small tribal community. It exists as a crude attempt to transfer emergent and natural cooperative behavior in small communities to the artificial systems and scale of civilization.

You don't in practice because we use a different approach to justice. Not just a simple, eye-for-eye sort of thing. Even so, however, you do still lose your right to property, as well as freedom.
What I meant is making friends is generally better than not doing so. 'Enemies' was hyperbole.

And yes, there is evidence that not being a cunt is a good idea. Civilizations are built on this premise.

>I imagine the statistically best strategy is to be a cunt when you can get away with it.

Is there any evidence for this. I mean proper evidence, not random scenarios or anecdotes you could come out with.

Game theory is pretty well fleshed out with vast amounts of evidence behind it.

>Even so, however, you do still lose your right to property, as well as freedom.
Only if you get caught. There's no inherent punishment to it.
>Civilizations are built on this premise.
Civilizations are supposedly built on this premise but many individuals gain power through being callous or amoral to some degree.
The higher rate of psychopathy in CEOs?
>Game theory is pretty well fleshed out with vast amounts of evidence behind it.
Do you have sources that say being a goody two-shoes leads to more success than strategic cheating, lying, cruelty etc?

> Veeky Forums
Honestly, Veeky Forums and the occasional interesting Veeky Forums post is the ONLY reason I'm here. You people are honestly some of the grossest, cynical people ever. How does one even end up so bitter?

>he is questioning the fabric of civilization and the basis of all law
>OPs questioning is not enlightened, it is insulting.
It's like I'm really there in Hippel's wine bar.

>The higher rate of psychopathy in CEOs?

If they don't actually care it doesn't mean they aren't employing the best strategy.

>Do you have sources that say being a goody two-shoes leads to more success than strategic cheating, lying, cruelty etc?

Not a "goody two shoes", employing the best strategy.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner's_dilemma

>If they don't actually care it doesn't mean they aren't employing the best strategy.
I'm not sure what you mean. Why would there be a significantly higher rate of psychopathy in CEOs unless there was some advantage to being psychopath which generally goes with cunt-like behavior?
>Not a "goody two shoes", employing the best strategy.
In real life you can manipulate others.
Here is a woman deceiving a man in a prisoner's dilemma for a profit of £50k.
youtube.com/watch?v=p3Uos2fzIJ0

>Why would there be a significantly higher rate of psychopathy in CEOs unless there was some advantage to being psychopath which generally goes with cunt-like behavior?

Being a psychopath and cunt-like behaviour aren't the same thing,

>Here is a woman deceiving a man in a prisoner's dilemma for a profit of £50k.

The fact she was successful in this instance does not mean she has the best strategy for success on a strategic level.

>Being a psychopath and cunt-like behaviour aren't the same thing,
Antisocial behavior is one of the traits.
>The fact she was successful in this instance does not mean she has the best strategy for success on a strategic level.
It doesn't mean the best strategy didn't including taking 100k there.
How do you explain war?

>Antisocial behavior is one of the traits.

Not among successful CEOs, generally, you are making a false equivalence between low IQ psychopaths and successful psychopaths.

>It doesn't mean the best strategy didn't including taking 100k there.

It means she was successful on this occasion, placing a $100 dollar bet on 50-1 odds and coming up lucky and winning $5000 dollars is not the same thing as making statistically the best move.

The discussion of ceo psychopathy do involve antisocial behavior and tendencies, many use the PCL-R.
In pretty much every discussion antisocial behavior is mentioned.
>It means she was successful on this occasion, placing a $100 dollar bet on 50-1 odds
The only way this could be similar is if she should be more convincing if she truly planned to split. But why would this be true?
People are not the best at detecting deception in general.

The idea that the optimal strategy for an individual is purely cooperative and moral is extremely naive.

First of all, nice quads.

What do you mean by "makes sense"? It's an arbitrary rule, not a law or theory.

The Golden Law is about empathy.

Don't do things you would dislike if done to you, it's a moral compass based on "Would I like if this happened to be? No? Then it's bad", and it assumed you - don't - want to do bad things.

Its about empathy i agree.

To try and teach kids not to be dicks at a young age. Same thinking as the naughty list and the elf on the shelf.

only a social retard would wonder why you're encouraged to empathize with others around you