While highlighting the golden rule’s psychological functions, doubt is cast on the rule’s need for empathy and cognitive role-taking.The rule can be followed through adherence to social reciprocity conventions and their approved norms.Your proposed solution seems better on the surface, but it has a different glitch — it hinges on the necessity of knowing (or asking) exactly what someone else desires, which defeats the utility of the concept.Tags: Thesis Tungkol Sa Halamang GamotOur Country Essay In EnglishUsc Admission Essay QuestionMovie Titles In An Essay MlaEssays About Censorship In MoviesShort Essay On Summer VacationExample Of Nursing Research ProposalMeaning Of Assumption In Thesis Writing
The failures of this generalizing approach are detailed, however, in preserving the rule’s distinct contours.
The pivotal role of conceptual reductionism is discussed in mainstream ethical theory, noting that other forms of theorizing are possible and are more fit to rules of thumb.
Working “bottom-up” in this way builds on social experience with the rule and allows us to clear up its long-standing misinterpretations.
With those misconceptions go many of the rule’s criticisms.
By assuming other people should be treated the way I want to be treated, it imposes my preferences and values on those around me.
Wouldn’t a better rule be “One should treat others as they want to be treated”? You’re not the first person to question the logic of this principle.This article approaches the rule, therefore, through the rubric of building its philosophy, or clearing a path for such construction.The approach reworks common belief rather than elaborating an abstracted conception of the rule’s logic.The Golden Rule (usually defined as “One should treat others as one would like to be treated”) is attractive to people as a guiding principle for ethical conduct.However I feel that in our diverse, modern world, it is less than ideal.The golden rule urges more feasible other-directedness and egalitarianism in our outlook.A raft of additional rationales is offered to challenge the rule’s reputation as overly idealistic and infeasible in daily life.The rule is distinguished from highly supererogatory rationales commonly confused with it—loving thy neighbor as thyself, turning the other cheek, and aiding the poor, homeless and afflicted.Like or unconditional love, these precepts demand much more altruism of us, and are much more liable to utopianism.It’s a reasonable reaction to any axiom that’s supposed to work for all people, in all situations, all the time.The problem, however, has little to do with diversity or modernity; the problem is with the core supposition that any two people (regardless of similarity) will want the same thing.