The Golden Rule is related to the principle that one should do no harm. This principle is sometimes refered to as The Silver Rule. There is some overlap: The Golden Rule also covers The Silver Rule to some extent, but isn't limited to it. Also, there are those who would argue that the negative formulations cover only the silver rule. (Thus twisting the spirit of the rule, see above.) Or simply claim that the title of "golden rule" should be reserved for formulations used by their own philosophy or religion, while any formulation used by any other philosophy or religion should by definition be demoted to "silver" status. The Silver Rule is the core of The Hippocratic Oath. It is also closely related to negative utilitarianism, the philosophy that we should only consider suffering, not happiness. Note that the Silver Rule is only partially covered by the Golden Rule, regardless of formulation: A negative formulation of The Golden Rule doesn't say that you should never hurt or sacrifice people, it says that you should only do so when they would agree that it's justified.

to:

The Golden Rule is related to the principle that one should do no harm so that others don't harm you. This principle is sometimes referred to as The Silver Rule. There is some overlap: The Golden Rule also covers The Silver Rule to some extent, but isn't limited to it. Also, there are those who would argue that the negative formulations cover only the silver rule. (Thus twisting the spirit of the rule, see above.) Or simply claim that the title of "golden rule" should be reserved for formulations used by their own philosophy or religion, while any formulation used by any other philosophy or religion should by definition be demoted to "silver" status.

The Silver Rule is the core of The Hippocratic Oath. It is also closely related to negative utilitarianism, the philosophy that we should only consider lessening the amount suffering, not happiness. Note that the Silver Rule is only partially covered by the Golden Rule, regardless of formulation: A negative formulation of The Golden Rule doesn't say that you should never hurt or sacrifice people, it says that you should only do so when they would agree that it's justified.

Changed line(s) 35 (click to see context) from:

to:

Changed line(s) 44 (click to see context) from:

to:

29th Mar '13 10:21:52 AM LBHills

Send LBHills a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 21 (click to see context) from:

to:

29th Mar '13 10:20:56 AM LBHills

Send LBHills a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 11,16 (click to see context) from:

# Technically, the formulations don't account for differences in taste and preference. A common strawman version of the rule is to treat others according to your own preferences, since that's how you would like to be treated. (This disregards the fact that you want others to treat you according to your preferences rather then their own, which also means that you should treat them according to ''their'' preferences rather then your own.)
# Technically, the formulations don't account for context. Thus, a criminal could always argue that he doesn't want to be punished, and neither does the judge. (This disregards the larger picture, that the judge has not committed a crime, while the criminal has.)
# Technically, the positive and negative formulations could be interpreted as separate rules, not covering each other. Thus, a positive formulation would let you to do bad things to people as long as you also do good things, while a negative formulation would let you remain indifferent to the needs of others as long as you don't actively mistreat them. (This ignores that the difference between action and inaction is semantical, rather then morally relevant.)
# Technically, neither the positive nor the negative formulations forbid you to assume that [[SmallNameBigEgo you are right about everything]] and that everyone who might disagree with you about anything is automatically wrong. And, since you are in service of righteousness, you can [[IDidWhatIHadToDo do what you have to]] to [[WellIntentionedExtremist force your ways on everyone else]], while they don't have any right to try to force their ways on you. (This disregards that they are just as convinced, and have just as much right to ''be'' convinced, that ''they'' are right and ''you'' are wrong.)
# Technically, you can treat others any way as long as you don't recognize that they are "others" in the sense of having anything in common with you. Psychopaths, who tend to believe other people are not real, can serial murder without going against the golden rule as they understand it.

to:

# Technically, the formulations don't account for differences in taste and preference. A common strawman version of the rule is to treat others according to your own preferences, since that's how you would like to be treated. (Flaw: You want others to treat you according to ''your'' preferences rather than their own, which also means that you should treat them according to ''their'' preferences rather than your own.)
# Technically, the formulations don't account for context. Thus, a criminal could always argue that he doesn't want to be punished, and neither does the judge. (Flaw: You are disregarding larger conditions; in this case, that the judge has not committed a crime, while the criminal has.)
# Technically, the positive and negative formulations could be interpreted as separate rules, not covering each other. Thus, a positive formulation would permit you to do bad things to people as long as you also do good things, while a negative formulation would allow you to remain indifferent to the needs of others as long as you don't actively mistreat them. (Flaw: The difference between action and inaction is a semantic one, rather than a morally relevant one.)
# Technically, neither the positive nor the negative formulations forbid you to stipulate that [[SmallNameBigEgo you are right about everything]] and that everyone who might disagree with you about anything is automatically wrong. By this reasoning, since you are in service of righteousness, you can [[IDidWhatIHadToDo do what you have to]] to [[MoralGuardians force your ways on everyone else]], and they (being unrighteous) don't have any right to try to force their ways on you. (Flaw: By the application of the very same Rule, you are obliged to allow them their (different) convictions just as they are allowing you yours.)
# Technically, you can treat others any way as long as you don't recognize that they are "others" in the sense of having anything in common with you. Psychopaths, who tend to believe other people are not real, can commit a murder or murders without going against the golden rule as they understand it. (Flaw: The Golden Rule stipulates that others exist, by its nature. For philosophies that admit the possibility that others do ''not'' exist, see {{Solopsism}} and certain forms of {{Existentialism}}.)

29th Mar '13 10:12:13 AM LBHills

Send LBHills a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 12 (click to see context) from:

to:

29th Mar '13 10:10:27 AM LBHills

Send LBHills a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Changed line(s) 10 (click to see context) from:

to:

7th Mar '13 11:31:50 PM SquigPie

Send SquigPie a PM notification explaining the badness of natter: natter-fy

Not a God, he is God, in a sense.

Changed line(s) 39,40 (click to see context) from: