NAP vs. Golden Rule

[Nick Coons]

I've always considered the Golden Rule to be non-synonymous (and even in conflict with) the NAP.  But someone presented an interesting argument to me today in such a way that that would not appear to be the case.  I'm posting the back-and-forth discussion (minus personally-identifiable details) below as I'm curious as to the thoughts of others on this board:

 

 Other Person1) It is logically impossible to ***want*** someone to aggress against you (that would be a contradiction in terms).2) The Golden Rule says "Do unto others as you would ***want*** them to do unto you."3) Therefore, under the Golden Rule, you can never aggress against anyone, since it is impossible to want someone to aggress against you.4) Therefore, the Golden Rule prohibits aggression.5) Therefore, the Golden Rule is logically equivalent to the Non-Aggression Principle.MeI like that you put this together syllogistically. But I think there's something a little muddy in here. In #1, you indicate that you can't want someone to aggress against you because it would be a logical contradiction, presumably because if you want it, then it's not aggression. I would agree with that. Two people voluntarily boxing would not be considered an initiation of aggression, but one person beating on another would be even though the two acts are physically the same. I think we're on the same page so far.But I think where the problem is is in that what each individual wants is not the same. If I want to be punched by you, I would punch you if I were to follow the golden rule. If you then punched me, that would not be the initiation of aggression, because I wanted to be punched as indicated by my actions. But it is not necessarily true that you wanted to be punched, so I would be simultaneously following the golden rule and initiation aggression against you.Let me know if I misunderstood something about what you said.Other Person"Mr. Bernard Shaw's remark "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may be different" is no doubt a smart saying. But it seems to overlook the fact that "doing as you would be done by" includes taking into account your neighbor's tastes as you would that he should take yours into account. Thus the "golden rule" might still express the essence of a universal morality even if no two men in the world had any needs or tastes or wants in common."~Walter Terence Stace, The Concept of MoralsMeThis would seem to present an unresolvable conflict between "I want my neighbor to take my preferences into account" (and so I will take his into account by not punching him) and "I want to be punched" (so I will punch my neighbor).Other PersonIt's not unresolvable. You must necessarily want your preferences to be taken into account *more* than you want any particular things, since all particular desires are mere instances of wanting your preferences to be taken into account. Therefore, even though you may want to be punched, this is merely an instance of wanting your preferences to be taken into account as a whole. Therefore, the prospect of punching your neighbor has to be rejected so as to reconcile with your neighbors overall preferences, which may include not being punched. 

 

[Wesley]

I want to have sex, she doesn't want to have sex.

 

Golden Rule: I should do unto her as I would want her to do unto me.

 

NAP: I may not care about her preferences, but I cannot have sex with her because the rule requires me to consider her preferences. Thus, I cannot aggress against her by raping her.

 

Rules are not for people who would be moral anyway and consider the preferences of others just like diet books are not sold only to people who are already fit.

 

The "Other Person" admits that your preferences are superior to the other's preferences, thus this may result in a rape. If the other's preferences take priority then it results in self-destruction. It is only good when both people voluntarily agree and nobody has a superiority of preference that could override the other's preference.

 

The Golden Rule is based on arbitrary preference and has no regard for the other's preference (unless it happens to coincide perfectly with yours). Thus, it is not the NAP.

[carlip]

I think you're both missing a step here. In the rape example, if a man wants sex he cannot use the golden rule to commit rape, unless he wanted to be raped by someone which would not make it rape anymore because he desired it. Sex would be the effect of the action, but the moral choice of using force to get it is where the problem lies.

 

And the same for the guy wanting to be hit. Does he want person 2 to hit him because he is bigger than person 2? So what if a bigger guy than person 1 comes along, does he still want to be hit? That example goes somewhat deeper as there are likely more variables.

[Wesley]

Sex would be the effect of the action, but the moral choice of using force to get it is where the problem lies.

This is exactly the problem. The golden rule only measures effects. The NAP or UPB attempt to measure principles.

 

The golden rule is "If it is an effect that I would want, then I will give/inflict it on others". There is no addressing of violence, desires of the other, or force. The golden rule eventually will be used to justify violence because the perpetrator desires it.

 

From the wiki:

 

Criticisms and responses to criticisms

Many people have criticized the golden rule; George Bernard Shaw once said that "the golden rule is that there are no golden rules". Shaw suggested an alternative rule: "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same" (Maxims for Revolutionists; 1903). Karl Popper wrote: "The golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever reasonable, as they want to be done by" (The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 2). This concept has recently been called "The Platinum Rule"^[82] Philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Bertrand Russell^{[citation needed]}, have objected to the rule on a variety of grounds.^[83] The most serious among these is its application. How does one know how others want to be treated? The obvious way is to ask them, but this cannot be done if one assumes they have not reached a particular and relevant understanding.

One satirical version the Golden Rule makes a political and economic point: "Whoever has the gold, makes the rules."^[84]

Differences in values or interests

Shaw's comment about differing tastes suggests that if your values are not shared with others, the way you want to be treated will not be the way they want to be treated. For example, a common expression says a sadist is just a masochist who follows the golden rule^{[by whom?]}. Another often used example of this inconsistency is that of the man walking into a bar looking for a fight.^[85]

Differences in situations

Immanuel Kant famously criticized the golden rule for not being sensitive to differences of situation, noting that a prisoner duly convicted of a crime could appeal to the golden rule while asking the judge to release him, pointing out that the judge would not want anyone else to send him to prison, so he should not do so to others.^[86] Kant's Categorical Imperative, introduced in Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, is often confused with the Golden Rule.

 

 

The golden rule inevitably leads to demanding positive action rather than only prohibiting positive actions. A moral system that demands positive action cannot stand up to UPB through the coma test. People who are sleeping or in a coma may have desires, but cannot provide them for others, and thus become immoral.

 

The golden also becomes impossible as a moral standard.

 

If I have the desire to eat and put a moral standard called the golden rule, then it necessitates that I feed everyone else in order to get food myself.

There are just a lot of flaws.

[MysterionMuffles]

holy hell I'm having a braingasm...I'll provide my input when I can even wrap this around my head.

[gfullmer]

The Golden Rule:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."

 

Wesley wrote:

 

"If I have the desire to eat and put a moral standard called the golden rule, then it necessitates that I feed everyone else in order to get food myself."

 

No, it is not your desire, but the desire of what you would have men do to you that the GR requires.  Do you want men to feed you before you eat? 

 

NAP == Golden Rule with a few caveats that have to do with ownership. They are:  I own myself.  I own the products of my labor. I can trade my time and goods for other goods and services.

 

I am willing to be corrected, but this line of reasoning seems pretty consistent.  However, Jesus said, "Resist not evil", which is not NAP and we shouldn't confuse his other teachings with the premise that NAP is one in the same with the GR.