Philosopher Knight
My soul is a mirror of those who view it. I am who I am, but what others see is up to them. I reflect their emotions, their thoughts, their fears, their joys, their hopes, their deepest failures and their greatest accomplishments back to them. I don't judge them. I refuse to... my own life is filled with things I would rather change... as well as accomplishments that I am proud of. So why judge another?
Which is better: to do unto others as you would have them do unto you or to not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you? Most would agree that the former is a better, higher standard. That said, any would say that the second one is encompassed by the first... you cannot do evil unto others and still be living by the first standard, unless you are willing to endure that same evil from them. Thus to live by the first standard is to live by the second, as well as a few other rules.
Under the second standard, you wouldn't kill your neighbor. That said, you would not have to give him food if he asked for it. You would not steal from him, but you would be perfectly within your rights not to give his car a jump should he need one. So which is the better way? The second one is clearly the easier of the two... all you have to do is not do wrong by your neighbor and anything else would be over tricks. From a societal standpoint this is a bare minimum for society to exist. You cannot have a decent society where people are constantly on guard against evil. Thomas Hobbes would deem such a situation as being little better than the state of nature... where all are at war with everyone, though our personal rights are completely unrestricted. For society to exist there must be some sacrifice of personal liberty, according to the social contract theorists like Hobbes & Locke. It requires this "silver standard" of conduct... that we don't do evils unto others that we would not care visited upon ourselves... no more murder, no more rape, no more theft. For society that is enough.
From the rational standpoint though, the first standard would be better. If only for the following reason: we would want someone to help us when we are in need. If any of you have ever been in a bad spot, such as not knowing how you were going to put food on the table that week, or running late to work and your car battery has died, you know just how hard that situation can be to go through. I also hope that you know just how grateful you are when someone helps you through such problems, even if they don't know you. Often it can be enough to restore faith in the underlying goodness in humanity, a goodness that tends to be overlooked when looking at the crime rates... and when thinking about the jerks we know.
So... I try to live by the first standard. Do I succeed all the time? No way. I don't even always succeed at the silver standard. It's why I try not to judge others. Rather, I reflect themselves back... and then let them pass judgment on both of us.
Which is better: to do unto others as you would have them do unto you or to not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you? Most would agree that the former is a better, higher standard. That said, any would say that the second one is encompassed by the first... you cannot do evil unto others and still be living by the first standard, unless you are willing to endure that same evil from them. Thus to live by the first standard is to live by the second, as well as a few other rules.
Under the second standard, you wouldn't kill your neighbor. That said, you would not have to give him food if he asked for it. You would not steal from him, but you would be perfectly within your rights not to give his car a jump should he need one. So which is the better way? The second one is clearly the easier of the two... all you have to do is not do wrong by your neighbor and anything else would be over tricks. From a societal standpoint this is a bare minimum for society to exist. You cannot have a decent society where people are constantly on guard against evil. Thomas Hobbes would deem such a situation as being little better than the state of nature... where all are at war with everyone, though our personal rights are completely unrestricted. For society to exist there must be some sacrifice of personal liberty, according to the social contract theorists like Hobbes & Locke. It requires this "silver standard" of conduct... that we don't do evils unto others that we would not care visited upon ourselves... no more murder, no more rape, no more theft. For society that is enough.
From the rational standpoint though, the first standard would be better. If only for the following reason: we would want someone to help us when we are in need. If any of you have ever been in a bad spot, such as not knowing how you were going to put food on the table that week, or running late to work and your car battery has died, you know just how hard that situation can be to go through. I also hope that you know just how grateful you are when someone helps you through such problems, even if they don't know you. Often it can be enough to restore faith in the underlying goodness in humanity, a goodness that tends to be overlooked when looking at the crime rates... and when thinking about the jerks we know.
So... I try to live by the first standard. Do I succeed all the time? No way. I don't even always succeed at the silver standard. It's why I try not to judge others. Rather, I reflect themselves back... and then let them pass judgment on both of us.