Does the Golden Rule abound in nature?

  • Thread starter Thread starter snarflemike
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
S

snarflemike

Guest
Atheist morality is usually based on the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you). Presumably this is instilled on us through our evolution. But I don’t see the golden rule being the rule of nature at all. So why did evolution result in our valuing the golden rule, but not so with other species?
 
snarflemike said:
Atheist morality is usually based on the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you). Presumably this is instilled on us through our evolution. But I don’t see the golden rule being the rule of nature at all. So why did evolution result in our valuing the golden rule, but not so with other species?
Click to expand...
Probably because, unlike other species, we have the consciousness to understand this (and other) rules.
 
belorg said:
Probably because, unlike other species, we have the consciousness to understand this (and other) rules.
Click to expand...
How does this make it binding on us? Especially if we did NOT evolve with the golden rule as part of our DNA.
 
The golden rule in nature can best be seen within a species. Pirahnas could easily tear into each other, but instead work together toward a common goal. Apply that to humans. As we evolved we found that working together was a necessity. A tribesman killing another or taking what isn’t his affects the tribe as a whole and eliminates the bond needed to survive.
 
Mike_from_NJ said:
The golden rule in nature can best be seen within a species. Pirahnas could easily tear into each other, but instead work together toward a common goal. Apply that to humans. As we evolved we found that working together was a necessity. A tribesman killing another or taking what isn’t his affects the tribe as a whole and eliminates the bond needed to survive.
Click to expand...
At most you’ve argued against humans killing each other (and even then, when attacking a member of your own species, you’re just as likely to get injured as the target, which is not a component of the golden rule). It’s very common, e.g. for species to eat the young, whether of their species or another. Anybody who’s had an aquarium knows this.

Other animals are always trying to steal away food and mates from members of their own species. How does this fit in?
 
“Nature” is generally about patrolling to find something to eat.

It wasn’t until Judaism and Christianity that the ideas of trust and kindness to strangers came about. Until then, you could generally only trust people of your family and your tribe.

[Not totally kidding, but also the discovery of beer-making … where you had to settle in one place, raise grain, and invent the “technology” … the recipes, pots and utensils needed for making beer.]
 
snarflemike said:
Atheist morality is usually based on the golden rule (do unto others as you would have them do unto you). Presumably this is instilled on us through our evolution. But I don’t see the golden rule being the rule of nature at all. So why did evolution result in our valuing the golden rule, but not so with other species?
Click to expand...
Cooperation can be found in nature, though I"m not sure that it is necessarily an implementation of the golden rule. The golden rule, to treat others as you want to be treated, requires that some one be able to imagine themselves in the same scenario as another. The platinum rule (treat others the way that they want to be treated) requires that we are able to build a behavioural and emotional model for some one else.

Cooperation to some level can be found heards, flocks, hives, and other collection of life forms. But I’m not sure that this cooperation is the result of intentionally trying to act in the benefit of the others within a group. Among social animals I speculate that some of the cognitive processes that go on with the golden and platinum rules may be going on. But since I don’t have access to the minds of these animals nor a way of communicating the concept I can’t say that I know with certainty.
 
snarflemike said:
At most you’ve argued against humans killing each other (and even then, when attacking a member of your own species, you’re just as likely to get injured as the target, which is not a component of the golden rule). It’s very common, e.g. for species to eat the young, whether of their species or another. Anybody who’s had an aquarium knows this.

Other animals are always trying to steal away food and mates from members of their own species. How does this fit in?
Click to expand...
I specifically noted in my first post I was only talking about within a species. But you’re absolutely right how some species eat their young. Whatever evolutionary benefit comes from this, it’s definitely not the golden rule.

Your OP said that you don’t see the golden rule being applied in nature “at all”. Yet as I’ve noted species that rely on a bond with each other to survive will apply the rule. Is it a perfect application to love one another wholly? No, but it would be unfair to say it isn’t applied at all.
 
To “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” implies cognition to me. It requires an organism to think about the way it would like to be treated. I don’t think it can be argued that other animals are capable of doing this. Most animals satisfy their basic drives - or just respond mechanically to stimuli. Examples of charity and empathy in animals are generally explainable by evolution, but they usually are not equivalent to the golden rule (“charitable” animals will save their own offspring, because that propagates their own DNA, but saving another’s offspring would not, so that type of behavior does not occur in extant species).

In any case, I am an atheist and don’t believe in a “morality” (I don’t think that the golden rule would rigorously enough prescribe what course of action I should take in a given circumstance) The golden rule will lead to conflict in the event that I want to be treated differently than someone else. Consider abortion. According to the golden rule, any atheist who wants an abortion would have to be willing to have been aborted. Maybe some would concede that point, but I think many would not.

Atheist “morality” seems, rather, to me to involve cooperation according to mutually agreed upon subjective valuations. I don’t think that secular society is very willing to phrase it in this way, but I don’t believe that atheist morality could be “more” than that. Consider abortion again. Atheists are willing to get abortions (to speak very generally) because they have decided that killing a fetus is an acceptable course of action when not doing so would represent an undesired burden.
 
polytropos said:
To “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” implies cognition to me. It requires an organism to think about the way it would like to be treated. I don’t think it can be argued that other animals are capable of doing this. Most animals satisfy their basic drives - or just respond mechanically to stimuli. Examples of charity and empathy in animals are generally explainable by evolution, but they usually are not equivalent to the golden rule (“charitable” animals will save their own offspring, because that propagates their own DNA, but saving another’s offspring would not, so that type of behavior does not occur in extant species).

In any case, I am an atheist and don’t believe in a “morality” (I don’t think that the golden rule would rigorously enough prescribe what course of action I should take in a given circumstance) The golden rule will lead to conflict in the event that I want to be treated differently than someone else. Consider abortion. According to the golden rule, any atheist who wants an abortion would have to be willing to have been aborted. Maybe some would concede that point, but I think many would not.

Atheist “morality” seems, rather, to me to involve cooperation according to mutually agreed upon subjective valuations. I don’t think that secular society is very willing to phrase it in this way, but I don’t believe that atheist morality could be “more” than that. Consider abortion again. Atheists are willing to get abortions (to speak very generally) because they have decided that killing a fetus is an acceptable course of action when not doing so would represent an undesired burden.
Click to expand...
👍 Impeccable logic!
 
Thinking

**The platinum rule (treat others the way that they want to be treated) requires that we are able to build a behavioural and emotional model for some one else. **

I’ve never heard of the platinum rule. Sounds like a nightmare mandate for a welfare state. 😃
 
The Golden Rule seems to me to transcend any instinct in physical nature when it chooses to conform to that part of the equation that no other species can include. “Love Thine Enemy”.

Other parts of nature can identify with an entity outside themselves such as the family or the tribe for example and act for the good of the survival of those entities… even to their own death. They could sacrifice their lives in the interest of the family/tribes survival for example.

But in the scope of the human species the ability to identify beyond the physical boundaries of the species, to our identity as children of the one Father in Heaven flies in the face of any instinct for physical survival.

Jesus for example, died, not for His physical family or physical tribe. In fact, He was actually killed by His physical tribe. He died for every person alive at the time, every person who had ever lived in the past and would ever live in the future… among those many, enemies included. He died for something that our phyical natures can’t even comprehend without faith.

So I wouldn’t equate acting for the survival of species as happens in nature, with the Golden Rule ‘do unto others as you would have them do to you’ as embraced by the human species.
 
Charlemagne_II said:
Thinking

**The platinum rule (treat others the way that they want to be treated) requires that we are able to build a behavioural and emotional model for some one else. **

I’ve never heard of the platinum rule. Sounds like a nightmare mandate for a welfare state. 😃
Click to expand...
You may not have encountered the term. But I am sure you are familiar with the concept or have recognized that not everyone shares your preferances.
 
Thinking

**You may not have encountered the term. But I am sure you are familiar with the concept or have recognized that not everyone shares your preferances. **

Well I hope not everyone shares my preferences. It could get pretty dull around here if they did! 👍
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top