Comments on: Golden

By: Diane

Diane — Tue, 13 Mar 2012 16:12:55 +0000

Long ago, when I used to be bothered by a certain person’s relentless nit-picking, I e-mailed Trent and asked him to put the commenter’s name first. He did. Now I know who the trolls are and I don’t read their input. It’s “golden” because they are free to do the same with mine!

By: David

David — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 14:42:30 +0000

Among common misconceptions of the work of Immanuel Kant (an uncommon misconception is that he spelled his name “Emmanual”, which sounds like a user’s guide to French soft porn movies) is that he constructed a single “Categorical Imperative” which was in essence “do only those things that you would wish everyone did”. Instead, Kant viewed “imperatives” as being of two kinds: “hypothetical imperatives” are principles that prescribe acting in a certain way to gratify some desire; while “categorical imperatives” are principles that prescribe acting in a certain way at all times, regardless of one’s desires.

The first examples that Kant gives in the Critique of Practical Reason are:

“Tell a man, for example, that he must be industrious and thrifty in youth, in order that he may not want in old age; this is a correct and important practical precept of the will.” But it is a hypothetical rather than a categorical imperative because it prescribes a mode of behaviour appropriate only to those who want to enjoy a comfortable old age on the basis of their earlier industry and thrift; it does not apply to people who expect to be provided for by others in old age, or people who expect to die young, or people who think that they will be able to get by on very little.

By contrast: “tell a man that he should never make a deceitful promise, this is a rule which only concerns his will, whether the purposes he may have can be attained thereby or not; it is the volition only which is to be determined a priori by that rule. If now it is found that
this rule is practically right, then it is a law, because it is a categorical imperative.”

Of course, difficulties arise when principles that have equal validity as categorical imperatives conflict. “Never tell a lie” and “Never hurt another’s feelings” are both categorical imperatives, and the dichotomy between them has been keenly felt by anyone whose husband has ever bought a shirt that he thinks is wonderful but that is in fact hideous, and asked “What do you think?” It was left to the later philosophy of Hegelian dialectic to provide the solution: buy your husband’s shirts yourself.

By: Kai

Kai — Mon, 12 Mar 2012 00:39:42 +0000

Better yet, treat others as *they* want to be treated. Sure, in the genera sense of ‘be nice’, it works, but I think a lot of problems are caused by people projecting their own self onto others.
Think of the parent who is offended if you don’t eat seconds – she’d eat lots of good food you made, so why won’t you eat hers (because you’re full).
Or the guy who buys others gifts that he would love – but they don’t really care for.
Have you ever been told ‘you’ll love this!’ about something, then figured out what was really meant was ‘I love this’?
I don’t put too much stock in ‘treat others the way you want to be treated’.

By: K Ann

K Ann — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:16:05 +0000

Very, very nicely done. If I were to choose pieces of inspiration for my week as you do on Saturdays, I think I would choose this article.

By: Johanna

Johanna — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:54:18 +0000

@Wren: Interesting, I don’t know, but I didn’t find it particularly surprising that Christianity doesn’t have a monopoly on well-intended rules that people preach but don’t practice. Did you?

By: DrFunZ

DrFunZ — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:30:31 +0000

I appreciate the references to so many different religious and philosophical traditions in this post. I think we have already established that the writer named Johanna’s day rise and sets on criticizing this blog. So very sad.

By: Adam P

Adam P — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 18:10:18 +0000

I have always like Emmanual Kant and the Categorical Imperative, creating moral rules that everyone would willingly adopt..it always seemed like the Golden Rule to me. I’m a huge proponent of the Golden Rule.

I liked this post. A lot.

By: Wren

Wren — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 15:27:41 +0000

I did as well. That was very interesting, to me, as was the rest of it. A good article, with good information that it doesn’t hurt us to remember, as we go through our days.

By: Aerin

Aerin — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 15:19:09 +0000

Please don’t feed the trolls, everyone. I enjoyed this article very much, especially the quotes from different texts that show the Golden Rule in different religions and philosophies.

By: Wren

Wren — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 15:01:01 +0000

@Johanna – So, out of the whole article, all you could see was that you were being lectured at? Really? You didn’t find it interesting that so many different philosophies say much the same thing about what really is a golden rule? You felt that you were lectured to, like a naughty child? I find that almost as interesting as this post.

@Emma – If only. :D

By: Johanna

Johanna — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 14:50:32 +0000

So by lecturing your readers like we’re naughty children, are you saying that that’s how you want others to treat you? Because I’m sure that can be arranged.

By: kc

kc — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 14:45:47 +0000

Best post ever! Well written, carefully proofed, and utterly without cliché! I even like the ad in the middle of it. Please write more like this.

By: Emma

Emma — Sun, 11 Mar 2012 14:34:04 +0000

“Cut out the criticism.” That should reduce number of comments.