View Full Version : "Don't Do to Others What You Don't Like Done to Yourself"

Wednesday, February 4th, 2009, 06:58 PM
Every of us heard this saying in a form or another form. What is your opinion about it? I'm thinking it's time to open a discussion theme about it on its own because this morale has been used as argument in several threads already.

Don't invade others if you don't want to be invaded. Don't immigrate if you don't want to receive immigrants yourself. Don't be treat a person unfairly if you don't want to be treated unfairly. Do you believe in it? Would you say it's a part of your set of ethics and morals, or like some users, you believe it's pointless to look for philosophical concepts of fairness because nobody applies them in the real world?

My view isn't so clear about it. In theory I think it's noble but the users who say it doesn't happen in real life have some points too.

Wednesday, February 4th, 2009, 08:59 PM
I don't know if I "believe in" it as much as I just recognize it as a good rule of thumb, a simple, down-to-earth test, something suitable for first training in ethics, but that also holds up over the long run because of its simplicity and general applicability.

Wednesday, February 4th, 2009, 10:13 PM
My grandparents often told me the sentence when I was a little girl. It was the first categorical imperative I´ve ever heard. :) It´s true, it´s a categorical imperative! I haven´t recognized it myself until a teacher talked about these issues back in my school time.

Like all categorical imperatives it´s an ethical minimum standard. It´s justifiable troughout all cultural and societal borders and differences.

So I agree with it in general. But categorical imperatives aren´t enough to make or handle politics. I´m afraid that we have to break several categorical imperatives to save ourselves and our culture from extinction! Because categorical imperatives are a product of the philosophical streaming of "Idealism". Our reality, on the other hand, is far away from being ideal. So not everything makes sense.

Thursday, February 5th, 2009, 01:59 PM
Generally a good rule of thumb in dealing with other people of your culture.

Enemies, you don't apply this to of course.

Kurt Steiner
Sunday, February 7th, 2010, 04:12 PM
While the forces of Marxist-Africanism are burning and murdering every white in the village, one "believer" screams: "I love you brother although you killed my wife and children. I do unto to you as I want you to do unto me. Peace. Love. Let us be your servants."
If I find anyone who thinks like that in my fantasy band of Vandals, I may send him to Nirvanna myself. :)
Seriously though, any fool who reinforces his enemy and allows himself, his tribe and his people to be degraded , humiliated and/or enslaved without a fight, is a traitor for whom the noose is too nice.
Let's face it. Renegades must defined by varous criteria which they exhibit. One is the misuse of religious parable to justify cowardice, laziness, lack of human feelings for their own family and people. Another criteria is race-denial(the wish by some whites to be black).A person may look white but actually share the blood with whatever race he identifies with. Its like a male wanting to be a female.

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010, 05:03 AM
Generally a good rule of thumb in dealing with other people of your culture.

Enemies, you don't apply this to of course.

Thank you for addressing this issue. It is one of my favourite principles about ones actions. The way I think of it is to guide us to make the right decision to support the needs of other persons and respect them as you do yourself. This sentence is very important to apply to our daily lives. I definitely believe in it. ; it is the key principle that should center around all of our actions.

Why? Because that is what our creator expects of us. "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise" (Luke 6:31) . Whenever we do something, we should ask ourselves:
a. how would I like to have this done to me?
b. What would I think? c. Would I like to be the recipient of that action? More importantly, what would my maker think? To think of the needs of your neighbours, is an important characteristic of born again believers, as is to help people in need. It is essential practice of members of a society to keep if they are to get along fairly, succeed, and be honourable to its creator. You're right; it is noble, and you are also right that it doesn't happen in real life in most cases.

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010, 05:49 AM
It would be a great saying, being that if the Germanic race hasn't already in the past colonized every nook and cranny on this Earth, pushing aside the natives of the land or subjugating them. It's always been a situation where we look out for our own, and have to crush those who pose a threat to the survival of our race.

It doesn't apply to this case :thumbup

Wednesday, February 10th, 2010, 03:33 PM
I think it's great to employ as the one INITIATING an action.
I DO NOT see it as any kind of requirement or imperitive if you are the one REACTING to a situation that someone else initiates.

If I meet someone, I'll be polite and courteous as my first dealing.

If someone meets me by "raping my wife, burning down my house and stealing my dog" ;), I see no reason not to burn down his village and leave his body on a pike, so to speak.

Thursday, February 11th, 2010, 07:40 PM
I don't believe in this saying. I don't think anyone will apply it, so we'd be foolish to apply it only ourselves. We have selfishness built in us, so to speak, we care about ourselves first, our family first, our nation first. Recently the anti-racist philosophy tries to change this, but it's very artificial and did you notice something else? We are the only ones doing it. Other cultures don't treat us as they'd treat their own. It never happens.

Thursday, February 11th, 2010, 07:53 PM
It is the rule for weak people: I don't do anything to you (because I can't anyway) so please don't do anything to me.

I believe strong people do things they want and they don't care for weak people. that is their fate to be born weak.

I go by the rule to treat people as what they are: Strong people as strong people and weak people as weak people.

There is also a difference how you act as a tribe and how you act as an individual. For my family I definetly take care of the weaker ones, but from a tribal point of view weaker tribes have no right to exist.

Joe McCarthy
Friday, February 12th, 2010, 05:36 PM
The golden rule is useful for personal morality. But such ethical injunctions do not apply to more political questions, and were arguably never intended to. What is often overlooked is that this injunction preceded Jesus, was found in Plato, Confucius, and I believe even Buddha, and while these men believed that it is imperative for a society to impart virtue, in Plato's case especially, it was recognized that matters of state often require less savory measures.

Monday, June 28th, 2010, 04:08 PM
I cannot agree more with this thread.

If you do not like what is done to you, take a step back and see how you treat others.

Its a two way street, respect is a mutual thing and it goes both ways. You cannot expect someone to treat you good and respect you when you cannot even show them the same courtesy.. Respect is earned, not given.

A statement that I once heard "You respect your father because he is your father" well yes, you can respect the fact that he is your father, however is he respectable? Does he deserve the respect? Yes, by blood he is your dad, but in reality what if he has been nothing but terrible to you? can you respect someone like that? My answer is no. (This is in no way a personal experience, this is a case with a friend of mine) there is a difference in respecting someone for who they rather than what they are. I respect my elders, but they also have to earn my respect in some aspect. I will only respect you personally if you show me the same courtesy.

Thursday, August 12th, 2010, 06:51 AM
Joe McCarthy...Zoroaster had use of this in his teachings as well...

As for myself; Do Unto Others...And Do It First.

Thursday, August 12th, 2010, 05:43 PM
Well, I guess it depends on the situation. Yeshua was addressing Jews in Judea. At the time Jews were too weak to smash heads, and the Romans weren't genocidal, so it was good advice for them -- don't antagonize people with power, and they'll leave you more or less alone.

On the other hand, if you're at war with another group, you HAVE TO smash heads. The only natural law of combat is to strike until the other guy gives up. So "do unto others" seems deadly on a battlefield. Another bad situation for that ethic is when you're conducting negotiations. What the other guy wants is for you to give away the store. Of course its stupid to do so. You can try to come to some mutual agreements, but the result shouldn't be against you.

I think the shorthand here is that it applies to friends, not adversaries.