Why do people act like the golden rule makes sense?

Why do people act like the golden rule makes sense?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=b13ZkY5pIwI
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

because if you don't I'll kill you

No you won't.

*teleports behind you*
you really shouldn't have said that... kid
*unsheathes katana*
any last words before I teach you a real lesson about morality?
No? I didn't think so
*decapitates you with one swing of his ancient blade*
psssh... hardly a challenge...

The only objection I ever hear to it is that what you want is not necessarily what everyone else wants. In particulars yes, but the structure of human desire is universal. The golden rule is simply an explanation of and call to empathy. People literally have no frame of reference for what to do unto others beyond what they would do unto themselves. Yeah, can see someone else feeding a hobo and join in off of a herd mentality impulse, but we wouldn't even be able to identify the problem with the herd if it weren't for empathy. But to be clear, this is only in the root desires to be fulfilled, not in the objects of their fulfillment.

Or you can just be an unempathetic dick, but fuck would I not want to live that sad life.

I don't understand, why should do unto others as I would want done unto me?

Here's a (you) for the effort

You want to be killed by random strangers? You like to feel pain? Want other people to cause pain to you?

>empathetic
Is a bit of a meme. Its actually more of a logical reasoning. Given that most people do not get off on being killed/hurt/etc by others, given that most people understand that if you try to cause harm to others they will hurt you back, given that most people understand these principles, the "golden rule" is merely a base starting rule to be followed by everyone who appreciates those simple principles.

>You want to be killed by random strangers? You like to feel pain? Want other people to cause pain to you?
No but why does that matter?
Hurting others does not always lead to being hurt.

You already do, Jesus just people stop bullshitting themselves and perfect the process so that society can stop sucking all the time, or at least suck a lot less. If you want to be an edgelord and say fuck it to a moral principle burned into your DNA then be my guess but basic psychology and common sense says that's a good way send your serotonin levels into the shitter.

You can get away with killing coma patients. You can get away by killing people in their sleep. Or even killing babies.

But it requires tact and should you be caught, you're fucked for life.

>Given that most people do not get off on being killed/hurt/etc by others, given that most people understand that if you try to cause harm to others they will hurt you back,
You can't honestly tell me that all of your charitable actions are done at the behest of a screaming amygdala. We're all safe in our houses right now, something deeper is at play. I posted the maslow pyramid for a reason.

>this autist again
because they assume you want to be a good person

Not quite.

I am of the belief that every action is selfish action with proper examination. So my examined charitable actions are selfish actions at long distance. Ofcourse my unexamined charitable actions can be seen as selfless actions.

It's not karma. If you beat up a random stranger in the street, the universe isnt going to spawn a pack of rabid niggers around the next corner to beat you up even worse.

It's about empathy. Would you LIKE someone to beat YOU up? No? So don't beat someone else up.

Why do you think acting "amorally" would make people unhappy?

>Would you LIKE someone to beat YOU up? No? So don't beat someone else up.
But beating them up won't make me get beat up so why wouldn't I beat them up?

Why is it always animeposters who make these threads and don't realize that actions have consequences?

Only works on babies/grannies/coma patients/defenseless animals/etc

In those cases, laws and other citizens of the society will fuck you up. If you somehow got away with that, then you got lucky.

And robots

youtube.com/watch?v=b13ZkY5pIwI

Until they rise up and fuck you up.

>good person
He keeps posting these threads because the responses are always so laughable.

>Only works on babies/grannies/coma patients/defenseless animals/etc
Why? If I hit you from behind with a stick and take your cash I'll probably get away with it.

Only half are reported and only half of those are solved.

...

Gambling your life for petty crimes with gains being less than

It's exaggerated for the purpose of example.
Perhaps I noticed user cashing out 10k to buy a car off craigslist.

All these rationalizations came *after* people behaving morally.

that is to say, people behave morally because (insert various reasons, some innate, some learned) and then come up with these justifications (like in the op) for why they behave the way they do

so my point is, people don't behave morally because "because would you want someone to hurt you", rather they behave morally in the first place based on pre-existing reasons and then come up with justifications like "because would you want etc" for why they behaved the way they did

essentially the desire to hurt people, or to be repulsed by the idea is mostly innate. people ar just born with the inclination to act in the way they do (for example, psychopaths are born without this). all this talk of morality etc is just post-hoc justifications for what are innate, inborn desires (with perhaps some part being learned based on what's right according to what's ones culture)

basically, you really can't justify *why* someone ought not hurt anyone else, because either they're born with that innate desire to act morally, or they aren't. you can't appeal to any golden role or anything, because that's *not* why people act morally - that's just a post-hoc justification for why they do

for people who aren't born with these inborn desires we have things like prison/laws/courts etc which goes some way to mitigating the problem, but as you know some people break the system and live their entire lives hurting people and getting away with it. the system isn't perfect.

basically, if you don't have the desire to not hurt people in the first place, nobody can convince you that that's what one ought not do.

>someone carries 10K in cash to buy a car off of craigslist
>that someone comes without any protection
>there are no witnessess
o-okay

Most of the thread is not "moral" justification, but logical justification.

Plenty of people do this user, you think the average person hires security?

doesnt "prisoner's dilemma" apply?

individuals who act selfishly get purged by each other

individuals who consistently cooperate sometimes get purged, but quickly become the majority

You think "protection" automatically means paid security guards and not a friend or even just sticking to crowded areas?

Except they don't due to the size of society.

>that guy who gets stuck on inconsequential details of thought experiments

As far as I know there aren't very many people carrying 10K in cash at hand. As far as I can understand there aren't very many 10K cash buyers for shady deals on craigslist. As far as I can understand there aren't many people who carry 10K cash to buy shady car from craigstlist without any sort of personel protection, whether it be calling friend to spot you or buying in open area with lots of witness.

These "plenty of people do[ing] this" scenarios are fairly limited.

>shoot homeless person from behind without them noticing
>they have no family or friends
Did you do something wrong?

Cameras.

Also if you make it a pattern(>1), (((they))) can track you.

>Want people to love me
>Love others
>Get ostracised for it

Fuck the golden rule desu.

So it was fine before cameras?

Wrong how? If you value nothing but yourself in the present then no.

No, before cameras(internet/social media), people went out more and were more social. Thus the people's eyes were the cameras. Cameras simply replace people's eyes.

People did not watch random street corners 24/7 and memorize every passer by.

So morality doesn't exist?

It does exist because values exist, why wouldn't it?

People do, not every person, but with enough people, each person can record an instance of a instance. Bunch of people can collaborate and thats how eye witnesses are stiched together. Not reliable, not better than nothing.

Eye witnesses are incomparable to cameras and other electronic surveillance systems.
License plate readers can record thousands of license plates per minute with timestamps and locations.

The earth spins roughly 1000 mph, so

Heh, I bet the numbers for stuff like drug use and prostitution are even lower due to the cops not giving a shit most of the time unless it involves kids. That said the real reason why you shouldn't treat people as prey to be raped, robbed and murdered at your own personal whim is because those people can fight back, what's more so can their friends and family.

because you benefit from a highly functioning society which is generally the result of high trust which is the result of having as few people acting like dicks, that is to say, having as many people who follow the "golden rule"
By being a selfish dick you are decreasing the total amount of altruism in your society, which in chain effect would lead to the rest of society being less altruist towards you, which is to your disadvantage

>which in chain effect would lead to the rest of society being less altruist towards you
doubtful

on a big scale, yes, it does

I live in a city of millions, my actions will have little to no influence.

no, they'll have ridicolously little influence. Not zero influence. It's not about not behaving like a dick because of the direct consequence of it but because there might be and most probably are a shit ton of people already doing it and you ultimately dont want to add to it

But if the advantages of being dick outweigh the extremely minimal risk.

it's not about risks as I said. Risks are basically nonexistant. Direct ones at least
But you benefit from a functioning society and acting to the detriment of it is against your ultimate self interest

Hello, yes, who is this qt wolf/cat girl?

But this is wrong.
If I see an old lady drop her wallet and I keep it instead returning it I benefit more.
Do you honestly believe being a dick is never in your self interest?

yes, it's a butterfly effect, a downward spiral

You're deluded.

definitely you are

>not always
Yes, but it may.
More importantly it impacts the particular environment/society negatively, makes hurting other people more acceptable.

Every action may have a negative result.
>More importantly it impacts the particular environment/society negatively, makes hurting other people more acceptable.
Not enough to outweigh personal benefits.