The "Un-Golden Rule"

I agree whole heartedly, if you dont want to be treated in a certain way then most of the time it would stand to reason that others wouldnt want to be. So dont treat them like that, or you should expect to get it back sooner or later.

I agree that people behave this way.  I would not want to behave this way myself.  It is the justification for getting money from people for low quality goods and services.  Transfer of personal guilt to another because that person must be guilty of something and so deserves to be treated poorly by you.

Problem is, you don't know for sure how other people are going to act toward you.  What happens is, you become the person you don't want others to be.  So if I am embarrassed about something, and feel like someone is going to make fun of me for it, I may find a way to humiliate them first.  The poor reasoning is that someone is FOR SURE going to be made fun of, and if it isn't them, it's me. 

With the "attacking another country" example, it seems obvious that you don't know they are going to attack you until they in fact do, or say they are going to in so many words.  Until then, you are acting on, and propagating, the belief that THERE WILL BE WAR, THERE WILL BE AN ATTACK -- and this is probably a fair assumption: it seems like there is always war.  But what if war is always started on this logically false premise?  That is how it proves itself true, by creating the very reality it claimed it didn't want.

 But this is old; it's like nuclear disarmament logic: even if both sides SAY they don't plan to drop a nuclear weapon, they nonetheless keep their bombs trained and pointed "defensively" at the other.  Who would be the "fool" to disarm first?

Those are just some thoughts.

Thanks for the very difficult question. 

Well, first of all, the second part of your imagining (i.e. "that that person happens to be REALLY perpetrating") is what I was trying to get at in the war example: until it happens YOU DON"T KNOW -- you simply don't know what is "real" in the intention of the other until the other shows you.  Or until you find out through secret intelligence, I suppose.  REAL intelligence...

But suppose you are right, that you guessed correctly, and that he was planning something.  I think what we KNOW is that violence creates violence -- unless you indulge in the fantastic idea (fantastic as in of an unreal and twisted view of reality) that destroying every trace of the other (i.e. all of their friends and family and history) will succeed in stopping them.  Otherwise, all that happens is a slowing down of their own plans for "perpetrating bad things".  Or what appears to be a slowing down, anyway.  I think of it as more like putting a blocker in the exhaust pipe of something.  All of the exhaust is simply gathering invisibly inside the thing, and will soon explode with greater force and more chaotic results than a normal leaking of exhaust would.

So, IF genocide were possible --I mean, really possible in its intent: that by erasing from existence every single trace of the person/people you don't like, or that you fear-- then genocide is the only logical way of following through with the Un-Golden Rule, as I see it.  And that is probably why you see so many leanings toward and actual attempts at genocide in the world.  Unfortunately, genocide is not possible, it cannot succeed, because we cannot track down all the bonds that our "enemy" enjoys with others -- others who will seek some kind of justice or revenge.

This is why it is the Golden Rule that people who think about things long and hard end up affirming in forms all over the world.  The Un-Golden Rule (and I apologize for being so blunt if you are someone who is in favor of it) is for pseudo-realists who are caught up in the fears and paranoias of violence, but because they live in a time or place when people need to rationalize their behavior, they struggle to come up with some logic that supports their actions.  Or maybe it is just a part of them that is stuck in violence, and another part is wanting to get out by thinking and reasoning their way through it, but the violent part is so much in control that it is directing the reasoning part...  I don't know.  

But I disagree completely with the Un-Golden Rule.

Thanks again for the great question.

Okay, I've been following this discussion, and I think I'd like to interject something.  The solution to someone actually planning an attack on you, or not, is in the use of what I like to call Zen Karate.  The use of non physical methods to produce physical self defense.

The premise of this whole discussion is that one party suspects (rightly or wrongly) that the other party will in the future inflict some harm upon the first party (or another third party).  Given this knowledge, alternatives to conflict start existing.  Saying one right word could defuse the situation.  Change the conflict and channel it into another direction.  Solve the conflict to the satisfaction of all parties.  Do not be where the attack will happen.

If you know someone is going to attack, why would you put yourself in the line of attack?  If you know they have a legitimate grievance against you, you can resolve this disagreement by admitting fault.  If the grievance is totally illegitimate you are dealing with an inferior or insane intelligence, and distraction, propaganda, the truth or outright falsehoods can mutate the conflict into another direction or something else entirely.

I disagree.

You presume to know how others will act toward you before they do, and you act under that presumption without knowing.

This variation of the golden rule is not moral.

If you act toward them in ways you presume to believe they will act toward you first, then you are being prejudicial. And by acting in this way you will likely inspire them to act that way back, which only reinforces your prejudices through self-fulfillment.

If you do act toward them in response to ways that they have already acted toward you first.... then this is a philosophy of revenge.

A truly moral person does not exact revenge but will continue to be moral regardless of how you are treated.