+19

You should treat people however you think will make them better people, not what you think they deserve to be treated like, amirite?

92%Yeah You Are8%No Way
Watchful_questioneers avatar Life
Share
1 4
The voters have decided that Watchful_questioneer is right! Vote on the post to say if you agree or disagree.

This could be down to poor choice of wording, but it sounds like what you're trying to tell us to do is judge people and then treat them according to how we've judged they'll like us to treat them. Is this some attempt to reword the Confucius golden rule? I think you'll find his wording was way better, and clearer.

But in fact, you mention that we should treat people in such a way as we see fit to making them "better people" - can I ask, where do you draw your right to judge who is a person in need of improving? Your whole moral base here seems to dictate that each of us is superior to any other, and we must use our superiority to make others better like us. If people actually follow this rule, it will be total chaos!

This opinion piece is loaded with debatable, subjective and even incendiary language - like "better people", "deserve"...what has led you to believe you know the definitions of these things?

@TommyUK1234 This could be down to poor choice of wording, but it sounds like what you're trying to tell us to do is judge...

Let's make an example out of, say, an abusive person.
My point in this post is that instead of making them feel pain equal to that of what they've caused, we should actively try to make them less abusive through therapy such.
The distinction is that making them feel pain brings them nowhere close towards moral redemption and becoming better people, so it in no way benefits society, whereas trying to make them better people does.

While it does not singlehandedly allow everybody to turn around into saints, it may have prevented the problem in the first place. If, when this abusive person was a kid, his misbehavior was punished by making him feel guilty about it to a reasonable degree, rather than getting grounded for a long time, which he would instead just get angry about, then he would misbehave less. Over time, abusive tendencies would be significantly less likely to form.

Your argument about whether we have the right to judge what's best for people seems to be predicated on the notion that this is meant to be applied on a small a scale as possible-it's not. I only really mean it in situations where we think people deserve to feel pain or suffer. It's meant to make us acknowledge that forcing people to suffer usually won't make them better people. I don't see how you can have anything against people trying to improve each other, as opposed to taking out anger on each other.

It's not predicated on the basis that we're treating people how they want- maybe it happens to coincide, but not in instances where people don't want to become better people, or don't think there's a problem. There is a difference.

By "making someone a better person", i mean encouraging the rejection of what you perceive to be moral flaws. If you don't think we have the right to try to improve each other, then you're pretty much admitting you're not in favor of human interaction. We have a moral right to try to influence each other. Morally just people should develop "thicker skin" and the ability to recognize and resist moral corruption, while the morally flawed people can be helped by this. It's not overstepping our boundaries in any way- it's what we already do, only with more good channeled into it.

@Watchful_questioneer Let's make an example out of, say, an abusive person. My point in this post is that instead of making them feel...

OK, so you've confirmed in my head now that it is basically just bad wording then. As a rule to be applied to society, this is really quite bad, I believe. We already have the golden rule as coined by confucius which does encompass what you're talking about, but in a much clearer and more logical way. I would say that your rewording of the concept given to the world by one of its finest minds is unnecessary.

As for the last paragraph, about "making someone a better person", I would continue to argue that is not your place to judge who is a good person or not. And, by making your statement so sweeping and general, you give licence to millions to pass their terrible judgments over others which now come under the guise of "trying to help them improve themselves". What if a homophobe takes it upon themselves to try and turn gay people straight? In fact, there are some that do that. Are you saying that what these people encourage and do is right, just because they believe they are making people better?

What about Shariah law? Many muslims believe it will make us better people. Should we let them impose it on us? I'm interested to know how you'd take this incredibly vague idea and fairly apply it to the incredibly complex world we live in. If you decide to relent and accept that Confucius said it way better, then I'd understand that. He was a smart man.

@TommyUK1234 OK, so you've confirmed in my head now that it is basically just bad wording then. As a rule to be applied to...

Well, I'm not saying this to encourage any stronger action towards people than we already take- just instead of making people miserable for what we think they do wrong, we try to change it. Hopefully, if they're not actually doing anything wrong, they know it and know better than to conform to that one voice. Besides, we judge people all the time. The degree of action taken should reflect how credible our judgment is and how long we've known them.

I'm not telling one to go influence as many people as possible- only people who one would otherwise try to force into retribution by making someone suffer. If it doesn't make them change, then it's not retribution for any wrongs they've done.

It has to do more with influence than just being a nice person. It can be unpleasant to change, and so instead of the complicated process of pondering what you would want in their place, the deciding factor of how to treat people should be what influences them the most positively.

I think we have a right, and possibly obligation to influence each other, and we already do. We can just do it better.

Please   login   or signup   to leave a comment.