Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, and toxicity are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either [email protected] or [email protected].
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email [email protected]. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try [email protected] or [email protected]
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
view the rest of the comments
The golden rule.
It's not gay if it's in a three way?
With a honey in the middle, there's some leeway.
$20 is $20
I wish that's what it was.
Which one?
"Treat others as you would treat yourself" or "he who has the gold, makes the rules?"
The first one.
People forget that it implies you're merely a good model or reference point for how you should treat others, and that it doesn't work when it comes to subjective interests or interactions where what you're doing regarding someone else is circumstantial.
The "rules for thee but not for me" mindset should be avoided, but circumstances should not be ignored. The other day, I was asked "you don't like being banned for being violent, why would you ban someone else for being violent" and it's just messy.
Why?
I think it has worked pretty well so far. You should never follow a rule strictly, it isn't law after all. But as a rules does it work. The few times I didn't follow it when I should did it bite me in the ass later.
A good example when it works in my favor to follow the rule: I am always on time or a bit early and all my friends who usually are late when meeting other friends are never late when we meet up, especially when it isn't a group meet up.
Having weighed all the times the gist of it made sense versus all the times the gist of it didn't make sense, I have found the latter happens more often for me. It is often synonymous with shifting burden, where you can't do so much as use discipline without it being brought up. It is also often synonymous with projecting one's interests onto someone else, since you are using yourself as a model. In this way, it is anti-negotiative.
Understandable, but I can't really talk for someone else than my self. My example was about me being on time and therefore most do the same because it was something I felt was mutual. I would never tell them that they need to change for my sake, if I would then it would be for our relationships sake. How can I tell someone I wish them to be on time if I am not?
And ofc it is about interest, I want a harmonious relationship regardless what kind of relationship it is, to be respected then I need to respect the person back. It isn't like I walk around and think about this haha
But you did make me curious and I am still curious, so far can I only assume what you refer to.
I think we are talking about different things. To me is It not meant to be used against someone but to better yourself and understand consequences of your own actions. It is mainly said to kids like you said. But it sounds like you hear it a lot in arguments which is not how I think it should be used.
Yeah the Golden Rule didn't work out so well for Brian Robert Thompson...
How did the golden rule come into play for him?
Luigi Mangione treated Brian Robert Thompson exactly how Brian Robert Thompson treated others. Treat others the way you want to be treated, lest others treat you the way you treat others. Luigi Mangione judged Brian Robert Thompson according to the Golden Rule. Right or wrong, Luigi Mangione's actions were a direct and terrifying application of the Golden Rule.
Brian Robert Thompson murdered approximately 40 human beings every single day. And for that, he became a victim of murder himself. The Golden Rule put him in his grave.
Luigi: "I don't want to be killed, so I won't kill anyone."
Also Luigi: kills someone
That's not the golden rule. And where is it established either of them murdered forty humans everyday?
Approximately 68,000 Americans die from health insurance denials of medically necessary care every year. United Healthcare's share of that comes to about 40 people per day. And yes, it's the company killing those people, not the CEO directly. But Brian Robert Thompson gleefully gloated and took credit for the huge profits that resulted from UHC's industry-leading rates of care denial. If he can take credit for the profits that resulted from those deaths, it is entirely reasonable to place the moral culpability for those deaths on his head. Did he ever kill someone with his own two hands? No. But neither did Osama Bin Ladin (at least on 9/11.)
And Luigi certainly acted according to the Golden Rule, you're just not seeing it from his perspective. His version of the Golden Rule was, "if I ever kill thousands of innocent people, feel free to kill me." And if, in some bizarro world, Luigi somehow ends up with the blood of thousands on his hands, then by the Golden Rule someone would be justified taking him out as well.
You don't have to agree with Luigi to understand his motives. From his perspective, his and Thompson's situation were entirely different. Luigi killed one man, Brian Robert Thompson killed thousands. From his perspective, Luigi killed as an act of righteous vengeance against the wicked, while Thompson killed for profit. And if we judged him according to the Golden Rule, someone would be justified in killing Luigi if he ever killed thousands in the name of profit.
If his motives were genuine, which I say like that because his act has been called into question, his version of the golden rule wouldn't be the golden rule though as much as it is classic mutual exchange, and even that would be generous to say, not just because of the fact that Healthcare, both in its public and privatized forms (with all forms having their respective issues, since they're all made to equalize people), is a contract, everything being implied in the beginning and established to work how it does for each client (challenging the assertion it's the scam people make it out to be, especially as it abides by the law which in our age is hard on scams), but also because he had a whole list of targets as a part of the evidence against him, with the one victim being a minor cog in his own machine, however ethically questionable he or UnitedHealth have been, going to show how premature and generalized the sympathy is towards him.