Why the Golden Rule is flawed and immoral

[HiddenTruth]

If I may, let me throw in a couple of thoughts.
1. Marks gospel precedes it with "in all things" or "in everything". The statement is also followed by an acknowledgement that this rule basically sums up the entire Old Testament. (Law and prophets).
This means that the focus is on all elements, including and if not especially the intent. I suppose it is somewhat in the eye of the beholder, but if I like to be respected, I must respect others. If I want to be acknowledged, I must acknowledge others. If I like to feel justified, experience pleasure or otherwise, I must allow others the same. Now, to me, here is one important part - first! The other person comes first and this statement and the consequence of ourselves is secondary. Now, of course, if we are only to treat others nicely in order to receive pleasantries, we corrupt this principle of good into something hypocritical and selfish.

This leads me to point 2. I believe it describes a fundamental principal or law of operation under which we are all governed. This is often described as like attracting like, law of attraction, the secret etc.. We are not only shaping our entire experience in life by who we are intrinsically (either selfish or altruistic), we also attract that which suits and supports our deepest desires and affections. Ultimately there is no escape from who we are and we reap what we sow. Another word to describe this principle is karma...

My thoughts..for what they are worth.

[Jebus]

Although the Golden Rule works 99.99% of the time, I do agree we can all find that rare exception when it doesn't work. Indeed, it is flawed if the word "always" is included or implied. An improved version of The Golden Rule could read "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself unless one believes the action is likely to reduce the other's level of happiness."

[Red]

I feel that this should be within the Atheist VS Theist debates or in the Atheist Support Forum. It's not really off topic with anything else..

[Volenta]

I feel that this should be within the Atheist VS Theist debates or in the Atheist Support Forum. It's not really off topic with anything else..

The golden rule isn't the property of religion in any way. It's a rule that has been used throughout history, and is even used by secular humanists today. I understand it has some religious connotations, but this discussion was about the rule itself and not the religious context.

[brimstoneSalad]

Although the Golden Rule works 99.99% of the time, I do agree we can all find that rare exception when it doesn't work. Indeed, it is flawed if the word "always" is included or implied. An improved version of The Golden Rule could read "One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself unless one believes the action is likely to reduce the other's level of happiness."

Not really.
That's included in the golden rule, because you wouldn't want other people doing things to you that are against your will (in that case, perhaps happiness). But not all people necessarily will to be happy (some may be self loathing and want to be punished).

[Jebus]

not all people necessarily will to be happy (some may be self loathing and want to be punished).

Well yes! In that case the self loathing and punishment will make them happier. The masochist, of course, would never admit that he wants to be happier, but if one removes the punishment, he would be even more miserable.

[brimstoneSalad]

Well yes! In that case the self loathing and punishment will make them happier. The masochist, of course, would never admit that he wants to be happier, but if one removes the punishment, he would be even more miserable.

Not quite. Being happy would naturally make him happy. But he doesn't want to be, because he doesn't think he deserves it, or is self loathing in some sense. Being miserable doesn't make him happy either, it's just where he wants to be.