Do you agree with concept of "Do unto others as you would wish them do unto you"?

[Helm]

Or would "Do unto others as they do unto you" be more practical?

[Tiberius Tosi]

"Do unto others as they do unto you" is what the majority of people currently do, and it just leads to people get pissed off, people going out of their way to screw people over, etc.

If people lived by "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" then things would be a lot better.

[Remember1843]

"Do unto others as they do unto you" is what the majority of people currently do, and it just leads to people get pissed off, people going out of their way to screw people over, etc.

If people lived by "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" then things would be a lot better.

what if someone is mazochist?

[Helm]

"Do unto others as they do unto you" is what the majority of people currently do, and it just leads to people get pissed off, people going out of their way to screw people over, etc.

But if someone is trying to screw you over what is so bad about screwing them over in return? Surely that just amounts to standing up for yourself?

[Tiberius Tosi]

But if someone is trying to screw you over what is so bad about screwing them over in return? Surely that just amounts to standing up for yourself?

In hindsight it just leads to more problems. If someone slaps you in the face and you hit them back, it snowballs into a fight. If someone slaps you in the face and you turn around and walk away (not crying, because then your a pussy ), that guy looks like an .

It's like the whole Ghandi or MLK thing. If Indians fought the British, it would only lead to more violence, and if blacks in the '60s fought back then people would show now sympathy towards them. But by not hitting back and treating the opposition with respect, it was the British and the Southern State Police who were turned in to the bad guys.


That's not to say if someone hits me I won't break their ing jaw bone, but it is the smarter and wiser thing to do to treat others how you would want to be treated. But by the same standard, even with that motto, you have to realize at some point fighting or retaliation is necessary because you would want someone to stop you if you were treating them like .

[Helm]

In hindsight it just leads to more problems. If someone slaps you in the face and you hit them back, it snowballs into a fight. If someone slaps you in the face and you turn around and walk away (not crying, because then your a pussy ), that guy looks like an .

But if someone knows they can get away with hitting you what would stop them from doing that again?

It's like the whole Ghandi or MLK thing. If Indians fought the British, it would only lead to more violence, and if blacks in the '60s fought back then people would show now sympathy towards them. But by not hitting back and treating the opposition with respect, it was the British and the Southern State Police who were turned in to the bad guys.

But then look at Tibet, China can do what they like to them because they can't fight back and stand up for themselves.

That's not to say if someone hits me I won't break their ing jaw bone, but it is the smarter and wiser thing to do to treat others how you would want to be treated. But by the same standard, even with that motto, you have to realize at some point fighting or retaliation is necessary because you would want someone to stop you if you were treating them like .

I guess that's a good way of getting around it. But wouldn't really be more the case deep down that you would break their jaw because you were angry and wanted to pay them back for what they did to you? If you were being honest with yourself.

[Tankbuster]

If people lived by "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" then things would be a lot better.

That's the variant of the Golden Rule as proposed by Jesus, and it's actually one of the least good variants.

A better one is (in my opinion): "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them."

[germ14]

That's the variant of the Golden Rule as proposed by Jesus, and it's actually one of the least good variants.

A better one is (in my opinion): "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them."

Aren't they the same thing (conceptually at least)?

[iudas]

Aren't they the same thing (conceptually at least)?

They are radically different. One is selfish (as is all religious creed ), the other is selfless.

[germ14]

They are radically different. One is selfish (as is all religious creed ), the other is selfless.

I think the point of the original is to be selfless, it also assumes you want to be treated well.

[Tankbuster]

Aren't they the same thing (conceptually at least)?

In a way, yes, but I like the second variant better precisely because it notes how different people would like to be treated differently. For example, I like brutal honesty; I don't like someone that's sugarcoating their criticism or something like that.

But I realise that that's not always how others want to be treated. Therefore "Treat others like you want to be treated" as less accurate in this respect than "Treat others like they want to be treated"

[Monarchist]

Just because one fool is a masochist does not mean that everyone else has to respect his degenerate urges.

I do unto others as I wish to be done by - that is, I am strong-willed in my opinions, obsessive in my personal taboos, and disciplined in toilette. Everyone should strive to be so opinionated, obsessive, and ordered as I am.

[Dr Zoidberg]

I do unto others as I wish to be done by - that is, I am strong-willed in my opinions, obsessive in my personal taboos, and disciplined in toilette. Everyone should strive to be so opinionated, obsessive, and ordered as I am.

You wipe with only three pieces of toilet paper, don't you? One up, one down, one to polish.

[iudas]

How about we don't reduce social interactions to a pompous one-liner?

[Tacitursa]

Im more "Do unto others so they wont do unto you ever again"

[Silver Guard]

It is far from selfless, it still has your own well being as the chief priority. However instead of being reactive, it is proactive. It is a more risky way of achieving good treatment from others as you cannot preempt their reaction, however it is also less emotive, so less radical.

[Helm]

What if others want you to kiss their backside? Do you do that?

[Helm]

But whats so bad about treating people the way they deserve to be treated? It's what everyone would do naturally.

[germ14]

But whats so bad about treating people the way they deserve to be treated? It's what everyone would do naturally.

Well, if what they deserve is morally wrong, it could be really bad. If everyone followed your concept, noone would get along with anyone.

[Helm]

Well, if what they deserve is morally wrong, it could be really bad.

Didn't Saddam Hussein get what he ultimately deserved? You could say what they did to him was morally wrong but how is the world a worse place for it? And being covered in petrol on fire in a ditch was the best possible way for Adolf Hitler to end up.

If everyone followed your concept, noone would get along with anyone.

But if everyone followed the concept of do unto others what they would do unto you it would balance out evenly. It's why no-one launched an all out nuclear strike during Cold War for instance, it's because they knew that to do that would be to recieve the same in return and so suffer mutually ensured destruction. Do unto others what you would have them do to yourself only works if they are just like you and think the same way you do with the same motivations and agenda, but not everyone is the same we're all individuals.