The golden rule has nothing to do with expecting any return. It says to "treat people as you would like to be treated", nothing about expecting them to do the same.
Squibs are also the name of the things they use to simulate gunshots in movies.
Eric, good point. Though I think a lot of people apply the rule in a spirit of expected or at least hoped for mutualism.
I've recently been introduced to the Platinum Rule: Treat other people as you know they would like to be treated. Supposedly it helps to prevent assuming that you know what other people want or that what you want is what everyone else wants.
BTW, I think this is a new ramble.
Err, yeah it's a new ramble...or what do you mean? What I wrote is rambley?
I think the golden rule is a little stronger than the platinum because it relies less on generosity and more on mutualism.
Hey, man, you called it a ramble. . ..
I guess which rule is "stronger" is philosophically debatable. I guess my way of looking at it is that the platinum rule helps to reduce the chance of offending other people by doing something for them that you think they want when they wouldn't want.
For instance: take a look at Terri Schiavo. Her parents may not want to die if they were in her position, but she may have wanted to die. Should the parents follow what they would want or her wishes.
If anything, the platinum rule encourages perception and empathy along with mutualism.
Yeah, but why say "this is a new ramble"? Were you talking about what I wrote, or saying that the "Platinumm Rule" discussion could be a new ramble?
By "stronger", I mean "more likely to be followed".
"Supposedly it helps to prevent assuming that you know what other people want"
It seems like it does the opposite, since you need to know (or assume) what they want in order to do it. Empirically its still the Golden Rule anyways since you are doing treating your friend the way they want to be treated, which is the same thing you want for your self. The main difference is that it only applies to people you know well.
I don't think the Golden Rule applies to moral issues like the Schiavo case. I think its more of a recognition that people are generally good and that we all benefit by trying to get along, not as a justification for difficult decisions or religious interpretations.
I think the "generally good" thing is key...you gotta give people the benefit of the doubt. Yeah, people are greedy and self-centered and will seek an advantage over their neighbors when the situation arises, but we're also social animals, and have long found that cooperation, at least with the "local tribe" is ultimately much more productive than getting into a lot of conflicts.
You can't look too much into it, but I liked how the one algorithm in a big Prisonrer's Dilemna over a wide population simulation that bit "Tit for Tat" (cooperate at first, then do whatever your neighbor just did) is "Tit for Two Tats", where you ignore the first blow, reply once to the next betrayal, and then try to be friends...it stops spirals of retaliation.
Ramble = talking about what you wrote in the main entry.
As for Platinum v Gold, ugh, it's too late to think more about it.