Golden rule implies communism?

[Obvious Leo]

Biological life is the epitome of co-operation. At least 10,000 different species of organisms are in symbiosis with each other just to keep one single human being running smoothly.

[Impenitent]

I eat your corpse, let's call it cooperation... how natural

-Imp

[Obvious Leo]

Only the tiniest fraction of all the DNA in our bodies is actually "human" DNA and the role ALL of this DNA is to encode for the proteins which make us function. We tend to think of ourselves as distinct biological entities but this is nothing like the case. We are an entire ecosystem.

[greenju]

Well, if everything that's relevant to the competition being discussed is irrelevant to the question

The things I enumerated are irrelevant to the consideration of competition per se, they are not essential, but accidental to it.

Why? No rule is that rigid; they all come with corollaries, exceptions and conditions.

Seems like you are not familiar with deontology, or with rule utilitarianism, or basically any ethical theory, being that virtually all of them talk about rigid rules and not about rules of thumb, those are primarily left to the philosophically uncultivated people to use.

[Skip]

Okay, fair enough. I'm a philosophical ignoramus.

But I do know what competition is and what its many functions and purposes are, both in biology and in society.

I know what the golden rule is (not absolute, not particularly philosophical - very thumb-ish, in fact) and that it does not preclude games, sports, finding the best person for a job, giving the most proficient student the highest marks, or any fair competition.
If a rule eliminates all competition, that rule must be applied to some planet other than this one.

I know what communism is (not rigid or absolute, even in ant colonies) and it also doesn't preclude games, sports, promoting the most competent worker to foreman or giving the student who knows more answers than any other student an extra gold star.

I know that those three concepts are neither mutually exclusive nor absolute, either in definition or in application.

Now - what's left to discuss?

[greenju]

But I do know what competition is and what its many functions and purposes are, both in biology and in society.

That's an *is* statement, and I posed an *ought* question.

I know what the golden rule is (not absolute, not particularly philosophical - very thumb-ish, in fact)

When used as a meta-rule, as I explained in my first message, it's a necessary basic principle of morality. Whatever anyone proposes as a moral norm, if it includes inconsistency, it is automatically precluded from being considered as a moral norm.

I know what the golden rule is (not absolute, not particularly philosophical - very thumb-ish, in fact), i not preclude games, sports,

If you were to know that, you would know to argument it, but there have been no proper arguments against the proposition I explicated.

finding the best person for a job, giving the most proficient student the highest marks,

You are conflating competing with others with personal evaluation which can be conducted without there being any competition.

or any fair competition.

And you are again talking about what is accidental to competition.

If a rule eliminates all competition, that rule must be applied to some planet other than this one.

No reason to accept this arbitrary assertion.

I know what communism is (not rigid or absolute, even in ant colonies) and it also doesn't preclude games, sports, promoting the most competent worker to foreman or giving the student who knows more answers than any other student an extra gold star.

Well, firstly- you don't know what communism is (in communism there can't be any forman), and secondly, I nowhere suggested that communism precludes competition, what I said is that it seems like the golden rule precludes competition, which includes economic competition, meaning that it implies communism.

[Skip]

That's an *is* statement, and I posed an *ought* question.

You need to define the operative concepts in *is* terms before you can apply them to "ought* situations.
This, you have failed adequately to do.

[Hobbes' Choice]

What you say here might be very true.
But whilst the golden rule might imply communism, due to many countries calling themselves communist; Communism does not imply Communism.

[greenju]

I'm talking about philosophy, not mundane politics, so countries which call(ed) themselves communist don't interest me here, my question is does the golden rule as I framed it here imply that competition is immoral.

[Skip]

No, it doesn't.

[greenju]

Does anyone has some input?

[surreptitious57]

my question is does the golden rule as I framed it here imply that competition is immoral

Competition is not immoral if its primary function is actually moral self advancement
For if you give of your absolute best with non ulterior motive then that is good for all

[SpheresOfBalance]

A little provocative title, but I would appriciate if you guys here could offer a thoughtful, constructive discussion about some thoughts of mine.

Firstly, I think that the golden rule is a necessary moral principle, or maybe I should say meta-principle, a filter through which any proposed moral norm must pust through it, basically, I just think that if anything is right/ good for me (to have or do), it must be also right/ good for you (to have or do), and if something is wrong/ bad for you, it must also be wrong/ bad for me. I think that consistent behavior is a the basis for morality, I guess it's something like the notion of universalizability.

Then, I started to think about competition, in any kind of competition there are winners and losers, whatever the competition is and whatever the "prize" is. If you willingly (ungrudgingly) participate in a competition, striving to be a winner, you are thereby necessarily striving to make someone else a loser. But if it's good for you to be the winner, than it must also be for good for others, if it's good for others to be losers, then it must be also good for you to be one. But it is impossible to participate in compeition and be consistent, you by definition must think that something (winning) is good for yourself but not others, and that something (losing) is right and good for other and not for yourself.

The golden rule is "treat others as you would like others to treat yourself". In competition, you strive to be a winner. Your treatment of others is wanting to make them losers. If you were to want others to treat you in the same way that would mean that you want them to make you the loser. But that is contradictory, you can't at the same time both want to be a winner and want to be a loser.

So, competition is incompatible with the golden rule. The title is there because under communism I mean an economic system without competition, but instead based on cooperation.

What are your thoughts?

First the golden rule is: 'Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.' Though philosophers have problems with it, knowledge being an un-equalizer, and that there's no necessary accounting for what 'unto' entails. Would you really want a sadomasochist to do unto you? How about someone that has an IQ of 200 doing unto one of 20, or vice versa? So I changed it to be as good as it could be. First, I changed it's name to: The Fundamental Social Axiom. Second, I changed it's verbiage to: Treat others as you would have others treat you, to the extent, that all parties knowingly agree at the time. Because I realized that time is the only thing one can't account for, in any single moment, or I should say knowledge over time.

As to your "game" not complying with the golden rule. As long as both parties playing the game treat each other in kind with respect to the rules, knowing full well that the object is to win, which implies that there is a loser, agreeing to those terms, then it is in full compliance with the golden rule. Only covert unfair advantage would cause it to be in non compliance.

At least that's my take, of course others mileage may vary.

Communism? A word that has been loaded so very much with fear, especially when considering those societies that seemingly embraced it, yet never really followed its rules. But then it's really fun to heave that around, pointing it at people, when actually it's just the fear of there being no more, "me, me, me, to the top with me," which implies a bottom that one stands upon, any takers for the bottom, so that others can be on top? Slaves anyone? No?
Or so that's my take on that matter.

[Walker]

The golden rule is "treat others as you would like others to treat yourself". In competition, you strive to be a winner. Your treatment of others is wanting to make them losers. If you were to want others to treat you in the same way that would mean that you want them to make you the loser. But that is contradictory, you can't at the same time both want to be a winner and want to be a loser.

So, competition is incompatible with the golden rule. The title is there because under communism I mean an economic system without competition, but instead based on cooperation.

What are your thoughts?

That’s the edited Golden Rule.

I stumbled across the unedited Golden Rule the other day, while writing in some other thread. I got it right from the horse’s mouth.

Mark 12:30-31King James Version (KJV)
30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
31 And the second is like, namely this, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. There is none other commandment greater than these.

Communism is godless and thus incompatable with #30.

Thus, the Golden Rule does not imply communism.

"None other commandment greater than these" This means that the two verses are inseparable. The two make a single commandment. One is required to understand the meaning of the other.

[bergie15]

I don't think that the Golden Rule implies communism. It is just a way to treat others fairly and with kindness I think.