FWIW, the Jewish version of the Golden Rule seems to me to be very nearly the most sensible way to approach things: “That which you find hateful, do not do unto others.”. The consequent is cast in the negative, which creates an obligation not to act if the test is passed, but also creates no obligation to act if the test is failed. In other words, the default action is no action.
Furthermore, the test is also a “negative”, so that a positive obligation to act cannot be created by a failure of the test, unless you have chosen to make the test entirely too specific.
For example - and I choose my example with malice aforethought, as it often seems to be the context in which it most often comes up:
OtherPerson (OP): I propose to witness to you about a faith not your own. Me: I would find that objectionable.
Cast this way, if OP followed the Jewish interpretation of the Golden Rule, xi would not witness to me. But more often, it’s interpreted like this:
OP: I propose to witness to you about the Bacon-wrapped Chocolate Unicorn. Me: I would find that objectionable.
Here, OP would not find it objectionable to be witnessed to about BwCU, and so has no obligation not to witness to me. However, there is still no obligation to witness to me. BUT...
When cast in the more common formulation, and with the more specific formulation of the test, since OP (being already an adherent of BwCU) would want to know about the Goodness Of The Horn, xi therefore has a positive obligation to witness to me about it.
Which creates an obligation for positive action on my part to avoid the witnessing. And that’s where the problem is with that formulation of the Rule, because I shouldn’t have to run away just because I want to be left the $^%$^ alone.
no subject
FWIW, the Jewish version of the Golden Rule seems to me to be very nearly the most sensible way to approach things: “That which you find hateful, do not do unto others.”. The consequent is cast in the negative, which creates an obligation not to act if the test is passed, but also creates no obligation to act if the test is failed. In other words, the default action is no action.
Furthermore, the test is also a “negative”, so that a positive obligation to act cannot be created by a failure of the test, unless you have chosen to make the test entirely too specific.
For example - and I choose my example with malice aforethought, as it often seems to be the context in which it most often comes up:
Cast this way, if OP followed the Jewish interpretation of the Golden Rule, xi would not witness to me. But more often, it’s interpreted like this:
Here, OP would not find it objectionable to be witnessed to about BwCU, and so has no obligation not to witness to me. However, there is still no obligation to witness to me. BUT...
When cast in the more common formulation, and with the more specific formulation of the test, since OP (being already an adherent of BwCU) would want to know about the Goodness Of The Horn, xi therefore has a positive obligation to witness to me about it.
Which creates an obligation for positive action on my part to avoid the witnessing. And that’s where the problem is with that formulation of the Rule, because I shouldn’t have to run away just because I want to be left the $^%$^ alone.