Malpass is going for the current woke trend of "It's all about me, me, me. I am my own god. You need to acknowledge (treat) me like how I want to be treated". It's very lame, removes any form of empathy and compassion and very post-post modern BS.
That's uncommon, usually atheists tend to say that the golden rule is ''nothing special'' (and not that it is a bad moral rule) because it was not invented by Jesus Christ - as if we christians didn't already know that -, but it was also used by Confucius, jewish rabbis and greek thinkers.
While I think Alex raises some reasonable points, I also partly agree that he short-changes the utility of the golden rule and fails to recognize some shortcomings of the platinum rule. Of course, we should also be cognizant of how others may differ from us in their situation and their desires, although perhaps that is a courtesy we would want of others and so extend also to our neighbor. Still, it may be that naively following the golden rule sometimes goes awry. That doesn't mean that it's not a useful tool for empathetic action. While I found your epistemic concern a bit silly, I agree that naively following the platinum rule can go awry in cases where people have destructive desires or want things in ignorance. Although again, the platinum rule is surely a useful tool. Maybe this is all a rather verbose way of saying that it's important to practice empathy and reciprocal altruism while accomodating others' varying situations and interests - within reason - and it's hard to take serious issue with that.
It sounds like the atheist is advocating the Platinum Rule: "Treat others as they want to be treated." While empathetic, this rule has several problems: -it assumes we always know others' preferences, which isn’t practical or feasible. -it can lead to unethical outcomes if someone’s desires are harmful or manipulative. Unlike the Golden Rule, which encourages moral consistency, the Platinum Rule can foster subjectivity and erode universal ethical standards. -accommodating everyone’s preferences can strain relationships, leading to imbalance and potential resentment. -itmay enable unhealthy behaviors by prioritizing individual desires over what is truly beneficial. While well-intentioned, the Platinum Rule has significant limitations and should be applied with caution, ideally alongside more universal ethical principles like the Golden Rule.
You can always ask somebody their preferences if you want. The main issue with the Golden Rule is assuming everyone is like you and wants what you want, so the Platinum Rule reminds you that you should ask people what they want. It doesn't mean you have to give it to them if it's objectively unethical.
@@Joker22593 But Joker, you DO want to be asked what you want and be treated in a personalized way. The Golden Rule already covers that. No one wants others to assume things about them.
The fact that he was not willing to steelman the interpretation, which is pretty basic and has an historical understanding to it, but rather butchers and strawmans it, shows he is not being genuine in seeking truth. Only pushing an agenda.
Almost nobody wants to go to prison when they commit a crime, therefore, according to Alex, we should not send people to prison. If a person wants to be set free, and we should do to people what they want, then we should set them free.
There is more, and it's a bit of a pity you didn't raise the point that within the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus first devotes a lot of attention to the 10 commandments with say all kinds of "Don't ...". Jesus wants more. He doesn't want a mere refrainment from actions "Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you". Rather, he puts the initiative on us: "DO to others". He encourages us not to merely respond to other people, but to proactively help them. So Malpass' comments are from the start a complete misunderstanding of the point of the golden rule within the sermon.
He misquoted Jesus, so he’s not arguing against what Jesus actually said. Jesus didn’t say to treat others the way you want to be treated, he said treat others as you would have them treat you.
@@myinternetname5911 that's a non sequitur. Two people including a saying doesn't mean Jesus said it. Also Luke uses a different line in Greek to Matthew so which one is the real quote from Jesus?
@@joostvanrens I would tell you, but scripture already has an answer for you: “For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.”
"treat others how they want to be treated", what about people who are mentally unhealthy? What about people who are misinformed? What about people with low confidence in themselves? By treating others how we want to be treated, (and he is misquoting Jesus here, but by his logic): we allow those who are stronger lift up those who need it most. It allows those who are brighter, lighten up those in darkness. God bless that man for his contribution though, never hurts to stimulate minds.
I've heard "treat others as they would like to be treated" as the Platinum Rule. I don't know, as an atheist I've got a lot more pressing complaints than fighting with the golden rule.
@@chrisazure1624 *-"What about sadist?"* Well that's the point isn't it... How do sadists want to "be treated" ?... The adjective "sadistic" tells us how the sadist behaves towards others, but it doesn't tell us much about how the sadist wants to be treated... So "what about sadists" ? ... Well... Nothing !
This guy, the atheist, did say something stupid. He’s just overthinking and being pedantic. I think he’s just trying to be clever for the sake of being clever-it’s too edgy. Fortunately, and I agree with, Matt Dillahunty (for example) who has used the golden rule brilliantly to demonstrate a secular basis for morality. *Point:* Just know what he said wasn’t atheism-since atheism has no tenants or principles. It was just an atheist saying something dumb. Atheism itself is still true.
The Golden Rule, which advises us to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is a fundamental ethical principle found across various cultures and belief systems. While it’s often interpreted as a guide for our actions, its greater role may be psychological. Here’s what we can glean from it: Psychological Reminder: The Golden Rule alerts us to everyday self-absorption and encourages us to consider our impact on others. It reminds us that we are peers deserving of comparable consideration. Universal Agreement: Despite its prominence in commonsense ethics, moral philosophy hasn’t fully explored the Golden Rule. Nevertheless, its spirit has likely helped prevent violence, exploitation, and discrimination throughout human history. In practice, the Golden Rule encourages empathy and other-directedness, making it a valuable guideline for treating others with kindness and respect.
Excellent analysis and rebuttal. I think the house analogy is very useful. My only input would be that I think the foundation of the house is to love God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. While I think loving our neighbor as ourselves is the framing of the house. All other ethical considerations make out the details of the house and are supported and guided by the framework and foundation. Anyway, loved this video.
You say the golden rule is better than „treat others as they would like to be treated“ because sometimes others have disordered desires of how they want to be treated. But if you turn it around to yourself, if you had twisted desires towards yourself, wouldn‘t it be harmful to treat others with those desires?
I would like people to take my preferences into account in how they treat me. There. The Golden Rule encompasses the stupid "Platinum Rule". What a ridiculous wannabe revolutionary tripe.
That is Malpass' point. What you said is the platinum rule. The golden rule would be people only taking their own preferences into account when they treat you.
@@joostvanrens No. My preference is that my preference be taken into account. Therefore, I will take other people's preference in consideration. This is just someone trying to topple a monument so that he can stand in its place.
He doesn't realize? That his spin has the same problem that he is complaining about. "What if someone wants all their money to be stolen" can be applied to both, "What if I want you to allow me to steal all of your money" Holy molly, they guy in the middle, what happened to him and why at birth?
I was thinking the same, but Malpass' spin doesn't have the second part. Malpass only said : treat others how THEY'd like to be treated. He didn't say anything regarding how oneself would like to be treated by others... So... His spin is even less of an all encompassing ethical principle.
Treat others as they want to be treated is a teaching by chinese philosopher confucius. I 'm a Christian but after I heard this I was confused cause it kinda made more sense to me than Jesus' version...But I'm sure I'm wrong and that there must be more to this teaching by Jesus...ok, now I'm going to watch the rest of the video and see what I'm most likely missing. Great channel and thanks for the work you do to advance the Kindom Of Christ!
This shows that even good philosophers can make horribly ridiculous arguments. Reminds you they are not above their own biases and capable of saying really foolish things. These are the sorts of musings that give philosophy a bad name. Shame on you Alex, you are better than this.
Have you really never heard this before? Imagine treating God as you want to be treated. Cameron's right about one thing. It's a useful rule of thumb for those who lack empathy.
I've seen this idea before and immediately thought it was stupid. "Don't treat others as you want to be treated, threat them as they want to be treated." Hey, you know what most people want for themselves? A respect for their personal boundaries. Literally some people just try to think of something smart sounding to say and don't even examine it for one second I swear.
I think the point of this maxim is that the target audience were people who would do morally acceptable things to others, since that's what they would expect from others. In all other interpretations, it fails, even in Alex's, and yours. Your argument that people often want bad things for themselves, is just a mirror image of the maxim, and shares the same flaw. Because if people want for others what they want for themselves, and the latter is bad, then they'll do bad things to others. But if people want others to treat them, like they want to treat themselves, and they want to treat themselves badly, then you're back at the original issue. Your argument that people would be paralyzed and not do anything, because of the uncertainty about what people want, can also be flipped. Because people can be uncertain about what they want. And they can be more certain about what others want, even if those other people are uncertain about what they want.
Matthew 22:36-40 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
You should never act upon somebody without invitation or permisssion. Discussion is usually okay at random, but not action. "those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -CS Lewis.
You ever hear an argument that just sounds like it was invented as a means to discredit your opponent? Who in their right mind would think, "Treat other people the way you would want to be treated" is a bad idea? This argument just sounds like a "Well, if Jesus said it, I've got to figure out a reason to criticize it." It's about as authentic as a McDonald's cheeseburger.
I feel like the only way you could call Jesus stupid for stating the Golden Rule would be if in fact, we are all mind readers, then you could maybe utter those words, because it would be like "wait, why treat other how I want to be treated when I can read their thoughts and just treat them how they want to be treated" but because we are not mind readers the Golden Rule is a fantastic, brilliant in fact, moral pillar to move through life with.
I'm not sure I understood Malpass' point, but it seems to me that he was saying that people could be masochists, in which case "do onto others what you would have them do onto you" is basically a prescription to hurt people... Which would seem inappropriate for a peaceful, loving god ? You're only answer to that, Cameron, seems to simply deny that there are masochists... ? (I'm not sure Malpass' version solves the issue) Oh and by the way. the preacher's message of divine love is always undermined if he attacks mocks atheists 5 min before...
I don't think anyone would seriously interpret it to mean if you are a masochist it is ok to harm others, especially if read within context of sermon on the mount.
@@MarkPatmos Malpass' background is in the philosophy of logic and formal languages if I am not mistaken. Which means that Malpass probably takes the rule quite literally. As he does in his day to day job, he found a counter example to the rule (or at least a case in which the rule yields counter intuitive results) and then ran his argument. Possibly he wasn't really trying to be "interpret" anything, and he was probably not trying to be "charitable" (Cameron's word).
What’s does that mean. Someone desires to be treat badly? Some people should say it’s bad to have a gun in the same house a child lives in. Should we take away peoples gun rights because we think it’s bad? Or should we respect other peoples choices. I kept watching the video where this is addressed. This of this like gifts. Don’t only buy gifts for people that you would like to have. Put the other person first. Same with this, i hear the atheist saying the golden rule is incomplete and needs more added to it. What I hear you saying is someone could ask for a bomb for Christmas therefore only give them gifts you want. Is that a far analogy?
Jesus moral discussions, such as in the Sermon on the Mount, were about making a moral society by each person taking responsibility for all others in the community, recognizing our inherent connectedness. This is the opposite of modern individualism which puts the freedom of 'I' as paramount over the needs of others. Service is the ideal, just as he showed by washing the feet of his own disciples. With whatever resources and talents we have been blessed, we are called to put them to work.
The problem with the golden rule is that not everyone wants to be treated the same way. Treating others how you would have them treat you could frustrate or anger or even harm those other people. For example, consider a Catholic who would wish to be dragged to an exorcist if he starts exhibiting behavior that is un-Christian, and an atheist who doesn't even believe in demons. Clearly, the Catholic should not drag the atheist to an exorcist for exhibiting un-Christian behavior. That would be a terrible idea. That is an example of how the golden rule can fail. The problem with the platinum rule is that people dont always want to treat other people in the way they wish to be treated. Consider a suicidal individual who doesn't have the guts to go through with the act, and wants someone else to terminate them instead. Clearly, most people wouldn't want to do that. And theres a good case to be made that we should help the suicidal person to mive away from that desire. This is where the platinum rule fails. I think a better formulation of these rules might be, "Don't treat others in ways they wish not to be treated." Nobody is coerced to act in any particular way per this rule, as they can always simply disengage and walk away if they wish. It's in a similar vein as, "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all." Nobody will frustrate or harm or anger anyone if we all followed this rule. Of course, there may be givernment-imposed breaches of the rule in order to preserve the wellbeing of people with self-destructive desires, but that is already the case with the other rules, so I don't see it as a critique of the rule itself. The rule is meant for everyday civillian interactions on the street.
*-" think a better formulation of these rules might be, "Don't treat others in ways they wish not to be treated." Nobody is coerced to act in any particular way per this rule, as they can always simply disengage and walk away if they wish."* Food for thoughts : What if *"the way they wish not to be treated"* is that you DON'T walk away from them... What if the person in question is someone who has just robbed a bank. They wish not to be imprisoned...
This is why strong bias should be fought against because it comes at the cost of your logic. The fact that Malpass took aim at the Golden Rule shows he’s picking a bone just to pick one. And not doing a good job either. Reasonable athiests, man, don’t tell me you’re backing this fallacious take?
The phrases “truly good” and “disordered desires” do a lot of heavy lifting here. It’s a Christian’s excuse to treat “sinners” like crap because it’s the “loving” thing to do. I’d also like to know how one can live in a way that “reflects the character of God”? Man has given God his character and omni attributes. If God exists, we have no way of knowing anything about its character (and please don’t quote the Bible - because God’s character is all over the place in those texts). Maybe God is evil? Or at the very least indifferent.
You're engaging in the mindreading fallacy by assuming those phrases are dog whistles for bullying. You're also assuming that bullying is going on at any appreciable scale, which you need evidence for.
If you want to know about the divine attributes, I reccomend Aquinas 101 on RUclips, or just reading the Summa Theologica if you're ready to engage with deep philosophy directly.
@@Joker22593 Cameron specifically said that as Christians we can’t follow the “platinum rule” because: 1. we can’t read minds (which I sort of agree with - although I’m not sure its necessarily) and 2. because some people might have “disordered desires” which do not align with what is “truly good”. This is not a dog whistle. I would argue that it’s a rewording of the Christian phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin”. Aquinas no doubt was very smart and influential, especially within the Catholic tradition. He gives God eight specific attributes and although I haven’t read his “Summa Theologica”, then goes on to defend these attributes using a mix of philosophy and theology (divine revelation). From what I understand (and it isn’t much), Aquinas seems to believe that we can know the Divine Attributes through a priori reason (philosophy) and divine revelation. However, several, if not all of the divine attributes are problematic (both philosophically and biblically). And because we’ve “discovered” them by means of philosophy, theology and divine revelation rather than through empirical methods AND because we have no verifiable way of testing them, then how can we say for certain that they must be one way and not some other way?
Hey resident atheist here. Heres why I think the golden rule falls just slightly short. Lets say I dont believe in god and am perfectly content that way. As a christian you may feel the urge to pray for me to see the light, as you may want another christian do to you when you face doubt. I think it'd be immoral for you to tell me you'll pray for me, as that would be annoying. At the heart of "treat others the way they want to be treated" is to take a step back from your intuitions and to treat others how they want to be.
Why lie? It has nothing to do with shared human experience, it isn't treat others as you expect the average human would like to be treated, it's treat them as _you_ would like to be treated. Hence the masochism comment. You definitely do not want an extreme masochist to treat you the way they want to be treated. Use your head.
In some ways it is stupid when it handicaps a populace from defending themselves. Like in Europe now and many of them welcoming their replacement, to be nice
It would not be a problem if we were strong in the faith. But alas, big parts of Europe are very, very secular now. So we can't stand against peple who act with conviction
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers (12) Therefore . . . whatsoever.-The sequence of thought requires, perhaps, some explanation. God gives His good things in answer to our wishes, if only what we wish for is really for our good. It is man’s highest blessedness to be like God, to “be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect,” and therefore in this respect too he must strive to resemble Him. The ground thus taken gives a new character to that which otherwise had already become almost one of the “common-places” of Jewish and heathen ethics. Perhaps the most interesting illustration of the former is the well-known story of the Gentile inquirer who went to Shammai, the great scribe, and asked to be taught the law, in a few brief words, while he stood on one foot. The Rabbi turned away in anger. The questioner then went to Hillel, and made the same demand; and the sage turned and said, “Whatsoever thou wouldest that men should not do to thee, that do not thou to them. All our law is summed up in that.” And so the Gentile became a proselyte. A like negative rule is quoted by Gibbon (Decl. and Fall, c. liv., note 2) from Isocrates, not without a sneer, as if it anticipated the teaching of the Christ. The nearest approach to our Lord’s rule is, however, found in the saying ascribed to Aristotle, who, when asked how we should act towards our friends, replied, “As we would they should act to us” (Diog. Laert., v. 1, § 21). All these, however, though we may welcome them as instances of the testimonium animæ naturaliter Christianæ (as Tertullian calls it), are yet wanting in the completeness of our Lord’s precept, and still more do they fall below it in regard of the ground on which the precept rests, and the power given to perform it. Yet even here, too, there is, of necessity, an implied limitation. We cannot comply with all men’s desires, nor ought we to wish that they should comply with ours, for those desires may be foolish and frivolous, or may involve the indulgence of lust or passion. The rule is only safe when our own will has been first purified, so that we wish only from others that which is really good. Reciprocity in evil or in folly is obviously altogether alien from the mind of Christ. The last segment hit the nail on the head: "We cannot comply with all men’s desires, nor ought we to wish that they should comply with ours, for those desires may be FOOLISH and FRIVOLOUS, or may involve the indulgence of LUST or PASSION. The rule is only safe when our own will has been FIRST purified, so that we wish only from others that which is really GOOD. Reciprocity in evil or in folly is obviously altogether alien from the mind of Christ."
I guess if you don't value yourself you may not value others, but you should both value yourself as well as others would be a better understanding of golden rule. It is like taking turn the other cheek out of context and treating it as an absolute law, when I don't think Jesus was intending to be a fascist with His teachings.
@@fredwilson2748 Camron explained it in the video. Jesus’ command to love your neighbor as yourself is proceeded by the great commandment to love God with your whole being.
There is a reason why scholars think the red letters have the origin of an high eq and IQ....this atheist ....ya can't say the same for the origin of his thoughts
He's just attacking Jesus out of cynicism. If he dropped the cynicism, and took an honest look at the Bible, it would answer almost of all his questions.
In 'An Introduction to Logic' the philosopher Harry Gensler proves the Golden Rule using formal logic (provided that you accept the universalizability of morality, which virtually everyone does).
His argument doesn’t work, because treating others the way you would have them treat you obviously includes taking their healthy and moral preferences into account… just as you would have them do unto you.
The atheists panel is disassociate from the context of the conversation Jesus is quoted of. At 4:50 is the assumption reformed mind makes but not them since they dont have principles as atheists(?).
That is not true. Confucius said to treat others as they want to be treated. Jesus said to treat others as you would have them treat you. If someone comes up to you and says hit me Confucius teachings would have you hit them. Jesus teaching would restrain you from hitting them if you didn't wish to get hit.
@@fredwilson2748 The golden rule of Confucianism is “do not do unto others what you would not want others to do unto you.” You're splitting hairs if you think the way Jesus expressed it is radically different. It amounts to two sides of the same coin.
people desiring bad things is an issue. but it can also be used (and is often used) to delegitimize valid, harmless desires. think of the desires of gay people for example. and unfortunately it seems like most Christians don't apply the same ethical standards (not even close to the same) when it comes to non-human animals.
Seriously... This is the best you can do? I know you're pretty much in the sub basement when it comes to quality apologists, but this was just sad. The Golden Rule had existed in one form or another for hundreds of years before Jesus added his own flavour to it. It had existed in Ancient Egypt and Ancient India already in very similar formats. What I find hilarious about this guy is that he doesn't appear to read anything external to Christian teachings so he is woefully uneducated when it comes to the simple knowledge that Christianity is simply a re-tread of earlier religions (Zoroastrianism is a prime example) where both the Judaic and Christian religious leaders wrote their texts based on older teachings from previous religions and just added to them.
@@rodrigorivers2469 nope. Just exhaustion and exasperation at those who replace academics and study with hyperbole and hope to get away with it in front of an uneducated audience.
![Quando Rondo - Life Goes On [Official Music Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/eIf3fhMXAow/mqdefault.jpg)
![GUILTY GEAR -STRIVE- Season Pass 4 Playable Character #1 [Queen Dizzy] Trailer](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/nXDsAgYXXv4/mqdefault.jpg)
Malpass is going for the current woke trend of "It's all about me, me, me. I am my own god. You need to acknowledge (treat) me like how I want to be treated".
It's very lame, removes any form of empathy and compassion and very post-post modern BS.
lol youre past the point of choking on petersons rod, youre digesting it
"woke" 🤡
That's uncommon, usually atheists tend to say that the golden rule is ''nothing special'' (and not that it is a bad moral rule) because it was not invented by Jesus Christ - as if we christians didn't already know that -, but it was also used by Confucius, jewish rabbis and greek thinkers.
They pride themselves on being smart then say super stupid things.
Probably the stupidest thing Alex malpass has said so far, and he’s usually really smart.
Right up there with believing in actual infinities.
Astonishing that Malpass would make such a poorly supported claim.
Whenever I hear Atheists make statements like that, I wonder if they studied philosophy to start with.
The "Platinum Rule" is a flawed modern sociology take that is pushed by modern corporations.
Have other atheists said this? This isn’t a function of atheism so I doubt it. I think it’s just him. And it was silly and over-thought.
@@DM-dk7jsyou mean under thought.
And I wonder if they're past room temperature (in Celsius) IQ
No but then again we have theology majors who are atheist
While I think Alex raises some reasonable points, I also partly agree that he short-changes the utility of the golden rule and fails to recognize some shortcomings of the platinum rule.
Of course, we should also be cognizant of how others may differ from us in their situation and their desires, although perhaps that is a courtesy we would want of others and so extend also to our neighbor. Still, it may be that naively following the golden rule sometimes goes awry. That doesn't mean that it's not a useful tool for empathetic action.
While I found your epistemic concern a bit silly, I agree that naively following the platinum rule can go awry in cases where people have destructive desires or want things in ignorance. Although again, the platinum rule is surely a useful tool.
Maybe this is all a rather verbose way of saying that it's important to practice empathy and reciprocal altruism while accomodating others' varying situations and interests - within reason - and it's hard to take serious issue with that.
I thought the golden rule is “those who have the gold make the rules.”
Me too !
It sounds like the atheist is advocating the Platinum Rule: "Treat others as they want to be treated." While empathetic, this rule has several problems:
-it assumes we always know others' preferences, which isn’t practical or feasible.
-it can lead to unethical outcomes if someone’s desires are harmful or manipulative. Unlike the Golden Rule, which encourages moral consistency, the Platinum Rule can foster subjectivity and erode universal ethical standards.
-accommodating everyone’s preferences can strain relationships, leading to imbalance and potential resentment.
-itmay enable unhealthy behaviors by prioritizing individual desires over what is truly beneficial.
While well-intentioned, the Platinum Rule has significant limitations and should be applied with caution, ideally alongside more universal ethical principles like the Golden Rule.
You can always ask somebody their preferences if you want. The main issue with the Golden Rule is assuming everyone is like you and wants what you want, so the Platinum Rule reminds you that you should ask people what they want. It doesn't mean you have to give it to them if it's objectively unethical.
@@Joker22593 But Joker, you DO want to be asked what you want and be treated in a personalized way. The Golden Rule already covers that. No one wants others to assume things about them.
The real Platinum Rule is 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength.' The Golden Rule happens to follow out of it.
The fact that he was not willing to steelman the interpretation, which is pretty basic and has an historical understanding to it, but rather butchers and strawmans it, shows he is not being genuine in seeking truth. Only pushing an agenda.
Are you talking about Cameron?
@@goldenalt3166 No, the atheist
@@Barri-rj9vt Cameron used exactly the same understanding of the verse. What do you think the verse means?
@@goldenalt3166 Exactly what Cameron said it meant.
@@Barri-rj9vt That Christians can't be empathetic so they need another method to try to get along?
When you work so hard to disprove religion that you throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The Incarnation is the supreme act of empathy.
Almost nobody wants to go to prison when they commit a crime, therefore, according to Alex, we should not send people to prison.
If a person wants to be set free, and we should do to people what they want, then we should set them free.
Average atheist philosopher
There is more, and it's a bit of a pity you didn't raise the point that within the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus first devotes a lot of attention to the 10 commandments with say all kinds of "Don't ...". Jesus wants more. He doesn't want a mere refrainment from actions "Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to you". Rather, he puts the initiative on us: "DO to others". He encourages us not to merely respond to other people, but to proactively help them.
So Malpass' comments are from the start a complete misunderstanding of the point of the golden rule within the sermon.
He misquoted Jesus, so he’s not arguing against what Jesus actually said. Jesus didn’t say to treat others the way you want to be treated, he said treat others as you would have them treat you.
He misquoting Matthew.
@@joostvanrens Luke includes the saying too, so both were recording the words of Jesus.
@@myinternetname5911 that's a non sequitur. Two people including a saying doesn't mean Jesus said it.
Also Luke uses a different line in Greek to Matthew so which one is the real quote from Jesus?
@@joostvanrens I would tell you, but scripture already has an answer for you: “For this people’s heart has grown dull, and with their ears they can barely hear, and their eyes they have closed, lest they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears and understand with their heart and turn, and I would heal them.”
@@myinternetname5911 I guess you also don't know what Jesus said then
"treat others how they want to be treated", what about people who are mentally unhealthy? What about people who are misinformed? What about people with low confidence in themselves? By treating others how we want to be treated, (and he is misquoting Jesus here, but by his logic): we allow those who are stronger lift up those who need it most. It allows those who are brighter, lighten up those in darkness. God bless that man for his contribution though, never hurts to stimulate minds.
I've heard "treat others as they would like to be treated" as the Platinum Rule. I don't know, as an atheist I've got a lot more pressing complaints than fighting with the golden rule.
What about sadist?
@@chrisazure1624 Yeah I think that and Cameron's arguments are pretty good rebuke of this idea.
@@chrisazure1624 *-"What about sadist?"*
Well that's the point isn't it... How do sadists want to "be treated" ?... The adjective "sadistic" tells us how the sadist behaves towards others, but it doesn't tell us much about how the sadist wants to be treated... So "what about sadists" ? ... Well... Nothing !
@@MrGustavier Doesn't he want willing participants?
@@chrisazure1624 Who ?
This guy, the atheist, did say something stupid. He’s just overthinking and being pedantic. I think he’s just trying to be clever for the sake of being clever-it’s too edgy.
Fortunately, and I agree with, Matt Dillahunty (for example) who has used the golden rule brilliantly to demonstrate a secular basis for morality.
*Point:* Just know what he said wasn’t atheism-since atheism has no tenants or principles. It was just an atheist saying something dumb. Atheism itself is still true.
Yes, pedantic and uncharitable are the best descriptions of this criticism.
I thought that was Dillahunty
The Golden Rule, which advises us to “do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is a fundamental ethical principle found across various cultures and belief systems. While it’s often interpreted as a guide for our actions, its greater role may be psychological. Here’s what we can glean from it:
Psychological Reminder: The Golden Rule alerts us to everyday self-absorption and encourages us to consider our impact on others. It reminds us that we are peers deserving of comparable consideration.
Universal Agreement: Despite its prominence in commonsense ethics, moral philosophy hasn’t fully explored the Golden Rule. Nevertheless, its spirit has likely helped prevent violence, exploitation, and discrimination throughout human history.
In practice, the Golden Rule encourages empathy and other-directedness, making it a valuable guideline for treating others with kindness and respect.
Excellent analysis and rebuttal. I think the house analogy is very useful. My only input would be that I think the foundation of the house is to love God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. While I think loving our neighbor as ourselves is the framing of the house. All other ethical considerations make out the details of the house and are supported and guided by the framework and foundation. Anyway, loved this video.
I raised my son the way I wished I would’ve wanted to be raised.
You say the golden rule is better than „treat others as they would like to be treated“ because sometimes others have disordered desires of how they want to be treated.
But if you turn it around to yourself, if you had twisted desires towards yourself, wouldn‘t it be harmful to treat others with those desires?
I would like people to take my preferences into account in how they treat me.
There. The Golden Rule encompasses the stupid "Platinum Rule". What a ridiculous wannabe revolutionary tripe.
That is Malpass' point. What you said is the platinum rule.
The golden rule would be people only taking their own preferences into account when they treat you.
@@joostvanrens No. My preference is that my preference be taken into account. Therefore, I will take other people's preference in consideration.
This is just someone trying to topple a monument so that he can stand in its place.
@@j-psavoie8173 sure but that only goes for you. That is not a rule.
@@joostvanrens Yes, I am rather unique in wanting other people to consider my preferences when deciding how they treat me. 🙃
@@j-psavoie8173 i like how you fully embrace the platinum rule
He doesn't realize? That his spin has the same problem that he is complaining about. "What if someone wants all their money to be stolen" can be applied to both, "What if I want you to allow me to steal all of your money" Holy molly, they guy in the middle, what happened to him and why at birth?
A fun thing I learned: No one wants their money to be "stolen". If they did, then it wasn't stolen.
I was thinking the same, but Malpass' spin doesn't have the second part. Malpass only said : treat others how THEY'd like to be treated. He didn't say anything regarding how oneself would like to be treated by others... So... His spin is even less of an all encompassing ethical principle.
Treat others as they want to be treated is a teaching by chinese philosopher confucius. I 'm a Christian but after I heard this I was confused cause it kinda made more sense to me than Jesus' version...But I'm sure I'm wrong and that there must be more to this teaching by Jesus...ok, now I'm going to watch the rest of the video and see what I'm most likely missing. Great channel and thanks for the work you do to advance the Kindom Of Christ!
This shows that even good philosophers can make horribly ridiculous arguments. Reminds you they are not above their own biases and capable of saying really foolish things.
These are the sorts of musings that give philosophy a bad name. Shame on you Alex, you are better than this.
“Once we have learned to love our neighbors as ourselves, perhaps then we will be allowed to love ourselves as our neighbors.”
CS Lewis
Seems like a willful misunderstanding of Jesus on the guys part.
Jesus lives! ♥️ and is Yahweh God 🙏🏻 Christ ✝️ and King 👑
This has to be the best example of being a contrarion i have ever seen. Literally arguing with something just to argue with it.
Have you really never heard this before? Imagine treating God as you want to be treated.
Cameron's right about one thing. It's a useful rule of thumb for those who lack empathy.
@@goldenalt3166 Okay
I've seen this idea before and immediately thought it was stupid. "Don't treat others as you want to be treated, threat them as they want to be treated."
Hey, you know what most people want for themselves? A respect for their personal boundaries. Literally some people just try to think of something smart sounding to say and don't even examine it for one second I swear.
The Golden Rule is Selfish?
THE WHOLE CIRCUS HAS ARRIVED IN TOWN!
I think the point of this maxim is that the target audience were people who would do morally acceptable things to others, since that's what they would expect from others. In all other interpretations, it fails, even in Alex's, and yours.
Your argument that people often want bad things for themselves, is just a mirror image of the maxim, and shares the same flaw. Because if people want for others what they want for themselves, and the latter is bad, then they'll do bad things to others. But if people want others to treat them, like they want to treat themselves, and they want to treat themselves badly, then you're back at the original issue.
Your argument that people would be paralyzed and not do anything, because of the uncertainty about what people want, can also be flipped. Because people can be uncertain about what they want. And they can be more certain about what others want, even if those other people are uncertain about what they want.
Matthew 22:36-40 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
You should never act upon somebody without invitation or permisssion. Discussion is usually okay at random, but not action.
"those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." -CS Lewis.
Alex makes a good point! Imagine if a masochist went around treating others as they want to be treated! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
You ever hear an argument that just sounds like it was invented as a means to discredit your opponent? Who in their right mind would think, "Treat other people the way you would want to be treated" is a bad idea? This argument just sounds like a "Well, if Jesus said it, I've got to figure out a reason to criticize it." It's about as authentic as a McDonald's cheeseburger.
I feel like the only way you could call Jesus stupid for stating the Golden Rule would be if in fact, we are all mind readers, then you could maybe utter those words, because it would be like "wait, why treat other how I want to be treated when I can read their thoughts and just treat them how they want to be treated" but because we are not mind readers the Golden Rule is a fantastic, brilliant in fact, moral pillar to move through life with.
I'm not sure I understood Malpass' point, but it seems to me that he was saying that people could be masochists, in which case "do onto others what you would have them do onto you" is basically a prescription to hurt people... Which would seem inappropriate for a peaceful, loving god ?
You're only answer to that, Cameron, seems to simply deny that there are masochists... ? (I'm not sure Malpass' version solves the issue)
Oh and by the way. the preacher's message of divine love is always undermined if he attacks mocks atheists 5 min before...
I don't think anyone would seriously interpret it to mean if you are a masochist it is ok to harm others, especially if read within context of sermon on the mount.
@@MarkPatmos Malpass' background is in the philosophy of logic and formal languages if I am not mistaken. Which means that Malpass probably takes the rule quite literally. As he does in his day to day job, he found a counter example to the rule (or at least a case in which the rule yields counter intuitive results) and then ran his argument.
Possibly he wasn't really trying to be "interpret" anything, and he was probably not trying to be "charitable" (Cameron's word).
Don't forget the corollary, "Return good for evil."
What’s does that mean. Someone desires to be treat badly? Some people should say it’s bad to have a gun in the same house a child lives in. Should we take away peoples gun rights because we think it’s bad? Or should we respect other peoples choices.
I kept watching the video where this is addressed. This of this like gifts. Don’t only buy gifts for people that you would like to have. Put the other person first. Same with this, i hear the atheist saying the golden rule is incomplete and needs more added to it. What I hear you saying is someone could ask for a bomb for Christmas therefore only give them gifts you want. Is that a far analogy?
2:49 I was literally holding both my hands over my face in disbelief as you said that lmao
Jesus moral discussions, such as in the Sermon on the Mount, were about making a moral society by each person taking responsibility for all others in the community, recognizing our inherent connectedness.
This is the opposite of modern individualism which puts the freedom of 'I' as paramount over the needs of others.
Service is the ideal, just as he showed by washing the feet of his own disciples.
With whatever resources and talents we have been blessed, we are called to put them to work.
Fundamental thing is he is not right upstairs ! Agree with you KJV 1611 ! God bless in Jesus name !
The problem with the golden rule is that not everyone wants to be treated the same way. Treating others how you would have them treat you could frustrate or anger or even harm those other people. For example, consider a Catholic who would wish to be dragged to an exorcist if he starts exhibiting behavior that is un-Christian, and an atheist who doesn't even believe in demons. Clearly, the Catholic should not drag the atheist to an exorcist for exhibiting un-Christian behavior. That would be a terrible idea. That is an example of how the golden rule can fail.
The problem with the platinum rule is that people dont always want to treat other people in the way they wish to be treated. Consider a suicidal individual who doesn't have the guts to go through with the act, and wants someone else to terminate them instead. Clearly, most people wouldn't want to do that. And theres a good case to be made that we should help the suicidal person to mive away from that desire. This is where the platinum rule fails.
I think a better formulation of these rules might be, "Don't treat others in ways they wish not to be treated." Nobody is coerced to act in any particular way per this rule, as they can always simply disengage and walk away if they wish. It's in a similar vein as, "If you don't have anything nice to say, then don't say anything at all." Nobody will frustrate or harm or anger anyone if we all followed this rule.
Of course, there may be givernment-imposed breaches of the rule in order to preserve the wellbeing of people with self-destructive desires, but that is already the case with the other rules, so I don't see it as a critique of the rule itself. The rule is meant for everyday civillian interactions on the street.
I think when people propose the golden or platinum rule, they intuitively mean what you describe.
*-" think a better formulation of these rules might be, "Don't treat others in ways they wish not to be treated." Nobody is coerced to act in any particular way per this rule, as they can always simply disengage and walk away if they wish."*
Food for thoughts :
What if *"the way they wish not to be treated"* is that you DON'T walk away from them...
What if the person in question is someone who has just robbed a bank. They wish not to be imprisoned...
When I read the description I thought, "That's probably either a typo or I'm misremembering who Alex Malpass is"
I'm shocked I was wrong...
This is why strong bias should be fought against because it comes at the cost of your logic. The fact that Malpass took aim at the Golden Rule shows he’s picking a bone just to pick one. And not doing a good job either. Reasonable athiests, man, don’t tell me you’re backing this fallacious take?
The phrases “truly good” and “disordered desires” do a lot of heavy lifting here. It’s a Christian’s excuse to treat “sinners” like crap because it’s the “loving” thing to do.
I’d also like to know how one can live in a way that “reflects the character of God”? Man has given God his character and omni attributes. If God exists, we have no way of knowing anything about its character (and please don’t quote the Bible - because God’s character is all over the place in those texts). Maybe God is evil? Or at the very least indifferent.
You're engaging in the mindreading fallacy by assuming those phrases are dog whistles for bullying. You're also assuming that bullying is going on at any appreciable scale, which you need evidence for.
If you want to know about the divine attributes, I reccomend Aquinas 101 on RUclips, or just reading the Summa Theologica if you're ready to engage with deep philosophy directly.
@@Joker22593 Cameron specifically said that as Christians we can’t follow the “platinum rule” because: 1. we can’t read minds (which I sort of agree with - although I’m not sure its necessarily) and 2. because some people might have “disordered desires” which do not align with what is “truly good”. This is not a dog whistle. I would argue that it’s a rewording of the Christian phrase “love the sinner, hate the sin”.
Aquinas no doubt was very smart and influential, especially within the Catholic tradition. He gives God eight specific attributes and although I haven’t read his “Summa Theologica”, then goes on to defend these attributes using a mix of philosophy and theology (divine revelation). From what I understand (and it isn’t much), Aquinas seems to believe that we can know the Divine Attributes through a priori reason (philosophy) and divine revelation. However, several, if not all of the divine attributes are problematic (both philosophically and biblically). And because we’ve “discovered” them by means of philosophy, theology and divine revelation rather than through empirical methods AND because we have no verifiable way of testing them, then how can we say for certain that they must be one way and not some other way?
Hey resident atheist here. Heres why I think the golden rule falls just slightly short.
Lets say I dont believe in god and am perfectly content that way. As a christian you may feel the urge to pray for me to see the light, as you may want another christian do to you when you face doubt. I think it'd be immoral for you to tell me you'll pray for me, as that would be annoying.
At the heart of "treat others the way they want to be treated" is to take a step back from your intuitions and to treat others how they want to be.
The golden rule is treat others as you would have them treat you. I will pray for you.
@@fredwilson2748 i never disagreed on that. i dont know why u said this
i also dont know why ur trying to annoy me. cant u get along with atheists?
This is bad even for atheists. This is low brow.
Why lie? It has nothing to do with shared human experience, it isn't treat others as you expect the average human would like to be treated, it's treat them as _you_ would like to be treated. Hence the masochism comment. You definitely do not want an extreme masochist to treat you the way they want to be treated. Use your head.
In some ways it is stupid when it handicaps a populace from defending themselves. Like in Europe now and many of them welcoming their replacement, to be nice
It would not be a problem if we were strong in the faith.
But alas, big parts of Europe are very, very secular now.
So we can't stand against peple who act with conviction
What if they are sadist? Should we act towards them as they wish even if we find it objectionable?
Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers
(12) Therefore . . . whatsoever.-The sequence of thought requires, perhaps, some explanation. God gives His good things in answer to our wishes, if only what we wish for is really for our good. It is man’s highest blessedness to be like God, to “be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect,” and therefore in this respect too he must strive to resemble Him. The ground thus taken gives a new character to that which otherwise had already become almost one of the “common-places” of Jewish and heathen ethics. Perhaps the most interesting illustration of the former is the well-known story of the Gentile inquirer who went to Shammai, the great scribe, and asked to be taught the law, in a few brief words, while he stood on one foot. The Rabbi turned away in anger. The questioner then went to Hillel, and made the same demand; and the sage turned and said, “Whatsoever thou wouldest that men should not do to thee, that do not thou to them. All our law is summed up in that.” And so the Gentile became a proselyte.
A like negative rule is quoted by Gibbon (Decl. and Fall, c. liv., note 2) from Isocrates, not without a sneer, as if it anticipated the teaching of the Christ. The nearest approach to our Lord’s rule is, however, found in the saying ascribed to Aristotle, who, when asked how we should act towards our friends, replied, “As we would they should act to us” (Diog. Laert., v. 1, § 21). All these, however, though we may welcome them as instances of the testimonium animæ naturaliter Christianæ (as Tertullian calls it), are yet wanting in the completeness of our Lord’s precept, and still more do they fall below it in regard of the ground on which the precept rests, and the power given to perform it. Yet even here, too, there is, of necessity, an implied limitation. We cannot comply with all men’s desires, nor ought we to wish that they should comply with ours, for those desires may be foolish and frivolous, or may involve the indulgence of lust or passion. The rule is only safe when our own will has been first purified, so that we wish only from others that which is really good. Reciprocity in evil or in folly is obviously altogether alien from the mind of Christ.
The last segment hit the nail on the head:
"We cannot comply with all men’s desires, nor ought we to wish that they should comply with ours, for those desires may be FOOLISH and FRIVOLOUS, or may involve the indulgence of LUST or PASSION. The rule is only safe when our own will has been FIRST purified, so that we wish only from others that which is really GOOD. Reciprocity in evil or in folly is obviously altogether alien from the mind of Christ."
Not if you're a naracist like Jesus.
@@goldenalt3166 LOL. That's just precious. Remember to call him that when you stand before him.
@@chrisazure1624 He already knows.
@@goldenalt3166 Yes, He does. I just want to see you say it to his face.
Malpass is cringe here. Misses the point entirely
Makes a lot of sense. Thank you :)
I guess if you don't value yourself you may not value others, but you should both value yourself as well as others would be a better understanding of golden rule. It is like taking turn the other cheek out of context and treating it as an absolute law, when I don't think Jesus was intending to be a fascist with His teachings.
Jesus command of the golden rule presupposes the discipleship of the recipient.
How so?
@@fredwilson2748 Camron explained it in the video. Jesus’ command to love your neighbor as yourself is proceeded by the great commandment to love God with your whole being.
Sloth, Goonies.
There is a reason why scholars think the red letters have the origin of an high eq and IQ....this atheist ....ya can't say the same for the origin of his thoughts
He's just attacking Jesus out of cynicism. If he dropped the cynicism, and took an honest look at the Bible, it would answer almost of all his questions.
🤦♂️ x 1,000,000 to the 12th power.
And the devil is a lies and the Father of lies😅
I guess we can't expect someone without the Spirit of God to know of the things of the Spirit.
In 'An Introduction to Logic' the philosopher Harry Gensler proves the Golden Rule using formal logic (provided that you accept the universalizability of morality, which virtually everyone does).
His argument doesn’t work, because treating others the way you would have them treat you obviously includes taking their healthy and moral preferences into account… just as you would have them do unto you.
The atheists panel is disassociate from the context of the conversation Jesus is quoted of. At 4:50 is the assumption reformed mind makes but not them since they dont have principles as atheists(?).
The golden rule originated with Confucius in China, some 500 years B.C.E.
That is not true. Confucius said to treat others as they want to be treated. Jesus said to treat others as you would have them treat you. If someone comes up to you and says hit me Confucius teachings would have you hit them. Jesus teaching would restrain you from hitting them if you didn't wish to get hit.
@@fredwilson2748 The golden rule of Confucianism is “do not do unto others what you would not want others to do unto you.”
You're splitting hairs if you think the way Jesus expressed it is radically different. It amounts to two sides of the same coin.
people desiring bad things is an issue. but it can also be used (and is often used) to delegitimize valid, harmless desires. think of the desires of gay people for example. and unfortunately it seems like most Christians don't apply the same ethical standards (not even close to the same) when it comes to non-human animals.
@@phill234 but you also don't apply the same ethical standards to animals.
Bruh lookin like nerd chester bennigton.
And men love darkness: Heavenly Father in Jesus Christ name I Renounce darkness in Jesus name please 😅
Seriously... This is the best you can do? I know you're pretty much in the sub basement when it comes to quality apologists, but this was just sad. The Golden Rule had existed in one form or another for hundreds of years before Jesus added his own flavour to it. It had existed in Ancient Egypt and Ancient India already in very similar formats. What I find hilarious about this guy is that he doesn't appear to read anything external to Christian teachings so he is woefully uneducated when it comes to the simple knowledge that Christianity is simply a re-tread of earlier religions (Zoroastrianism is a prime example) where both the Judaic and Christian religious leaders wrote their texts based on older teachings from previous religions and just added to them.
Lol somebody seems full of spite.
@@rodrigorivers2469 nope. Just exhaustion and exasperation at those who replace academics and study with hyperbole and hope to get away with it in front of an uneducated audience.