[Recording Start]
Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Regarding the golden rule, we have a version called the information golden rule. It’s centered around information processing as a fundamental aspect. Essentially, we only value rocks to the extent that they’re relevant to information processors. The traditional golden rule advises treating others as you would treat yourself, which is widely accepted in North America. However, I think it’s flawed because it lacks a theory of mind. It’s more appropriate to treat people as they would want to be treated, not as you would want to be treated.
This traditional golden rule, as presented in most ethical and religious contexts, is fundamentally flawed. It’s a decent starting point, but without a theory of mind, it’s incomplete. If you incorporate a theory of mind, explicitly and not just inferred in modern interpretations, it wouldn’t be the golden rule anymore. It would transform into something else, albeit retaining a semblance of the original principle. Does that make sense?
Rosner: Yes.
Jacobsen: So, what’s good for you is good for you, and what’s good for me is good for me. There might be overlaps in many areas, but this isn’t always the case. Consider different people, like a serial killer or an insane person, or different relationships, like husband and wife, or wife and wife, or husband and husband. People have varying desires and needs, and these don’t always align. Therefore, the principle of doing unto others as you would have done to yourself fails in this context. This failure, I believe, fundamentally lies in the requirement of a theory of mind, indicating a significant shift in how we think about it.
Rosner: That seems like a valid argument. Ever since you proposed this more than 12 hours ago, I’ve been pondering it. The golden rule and everything around it are fraught with pitfalls that can undermine the whole concept. In our discussions about ethics, we’ve often returned to the golden rule as one of the more solid foundations, perhaps the only solid ground to build ethics on in a sea of uncertainty. However, the golden rule itself is subject to criticism. Going back to first principles, which themselves are just attempts at foundational truths and subject to being disproved by future or current thinkers, we start with the universe’s existence and our existence within it, though these are open to challenge. One of the primary questions is what can be convincingly deemed to exist? Ourselves, following Descartes’ ‘I think, therefore I am,’ or the wider world, which we must assume exists to provide a place for our existence, unless we’re part of a simulation, which opens another complex debate about reality. Accepting that, we delve into the question of why things exist, leading us into discussions about systems that are non-contradictory and capable of persistence.
[Recording End]
Authors
Rick Rosner
American Television Writer
Scott Douglas Jacobsen
Founder, In-Sight Publishing
In-Sight Publishing
License and Copyright
License
In-Sight Publishing by Scott Douglas Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. Based on a work at http://www.rickrosner.org.
Copyright
© Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing 2012-Present. Unauthorized use and/or duplication of this material without express and written permission from this site’s author and/or owner is strictly prohibited. Excerpts and links may be used, provided that full and clear credit is given to Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Rick Rosner, and In-Sight Publishing with appropriate and specific direction to the original content.
Rick Rosner 