# Is The Golden Rule an Fi thing



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

"One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself."

to an Fe user, this probably sounds appalling, because they come from the frame of the other person, placing little to no importance on what they themselves feel/would feel. coming from the frame of "what would _I_ feel?" would be seen as selfish and not truly taking on what the other person is feeling (which, as an ENFP, does not interest me whatsoever). 

as an Fi user. the golden rule makes sense to me. when I act a certain way, I am usually not thinking "is the other person going to like this?", but rather "what would I think of this?" and "would I consider what I'm doing to be disrespectful, intrusive, malicious, etc?". I am kind and respectful to others out of principle, but the presumption that I am supposed to care about how the other person responds to me is kind of offensive. I can be perfectly respectful, kind and understanding, but if the person is a narcissistic aristocrat, supervisor or spoiled child, they will be offended because they want me to kiss their ass. at this point, an Fe user might think "give them what they want" (though I'm sure not all would be as supplicating as the impression I'm giving), but, at this point (no, well before it), I think "screw them, that's their problem". naturally, I am perfectly willing to listen if they have an explanation as to why they were offended (I have said some legitimately disrespectful things before without realizing it, and I was grateful for the feedback), but if it involves me pandering to someone's insecurity, over-sensitivity or inflated ego....they can go pleasure a horse. 

however, on a practical level, this doesn't always pan out
1) "treat others the way you want to be treated" only works if you are a reasonably healthy individual with a reasonable idea of what is morally acceptable. for those who aren't, it will likely do more harm than individually feeling out and adapting to the other person.
2) from a political standpoint, sometimes you need to kiss people's asses to make sure you keep getting a paycheck every 2 weeks. ideally, a work environment is one in which people can communicate honestly, openly and respectfully, but the truth is that many will use their position to bully people into agreeing with them, stroking their ego and consenting to all manner of disrespectful treatment. unless you are a narcissist yourself (in which case you would not likely be following this rule anyway), treating such a person the way _you_ want to be treated (ie, a normal human upon whom you bestow a base level of respect, courtesy, etc) is simply not going to be enough, because they want you to talk to them like you are below them.


----------



## EMWUZX (Oct 2, 2014)

My Fi is apparently appalling, but it is in my stack. I've always liked the Golden Rule; it seems to make sense to me.


----------



## TheProphetLaLa (Aug 18, 2014)

The golden rule appeals to me A LOT, and I'm pretty sure I use Fi, so I'd say yes.


----------



## Grandmaster Yoda (Jan 18, 2014)

According to the golden rule, if I wanted to be killed then I should kill other people. No they have their own feelings and desires. It's also true that people who want to die are sometimes also school shooters. Depressed and suicidal, they will take it out on others, to some extent even for fame and going out in a bang. Anyway, to me it seems better to have ethical behavior standards to be placed outside of an individual's perception. Hence Fi is my last shadow function.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

You know, sort of building off what @_Grandmaster Yoda_, in the past I would always bring up masochists when this point came up. The golden rule rightly assumes that everyone wants to be treated kindly... and they do, except people's interpretation of what it will be like to be treated kindly differs. Here is where our problem of the masochist steps in. And it doesn't even have to be that extreme. Say some folk genuinely don't mind being ignored and not having X person respond to them for however long, they aren't necessarily unhealthy but their thought on this differ, yet if they treat others like this.. well the problem it might cause is obvious. Some folk don't like dat. I don't like presents for my birthday, because of this should I necessarily never buy anyone else a present just because I personally don't enjoy them?

Shouldn't the focus be on how they would like to be treated? Why should I be using myself and determining what others will like or not like simply due to my personal preferences?

It's something which looks nice from a distance but has all these hole like things, lawyers could chew the fuck right out of it. I don't necessarily find it a best sort of guide or a foolproof one.

But anyway, that's been acknowledged. 

I could see it being an Fi thing. Filtering out how the self would feel and assuming it to be right if the self would feel good due to it.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

As others have said, there is a flaw in the design of that saying. And not just for masochists.

The issue comes from small, everyday matters, really.

For example-- If I like cheese and it's healthy for me, does that mean it's also healthy for you?

Cooking a meal for someone that you would love, but they find disgusting.

These small little details pile up, and cause issues. Mainly-- Communicating and finding out what other people can and will tolerate is very important in order to get along with others.

Some people are picky, and orderly, and dislike anything being out of place. Other people are extremely laid back. Some people like quiet while working, others like background noise.

This is why this saying falls flat-- Because there is no universal principle that can apply to the individual and shoot outwards to everyone. 

Everyone _is _individual, and thus, to treat someone properly, you need to _find out _how they would like to be treated.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

I'll compare Ti/Fe with Te/Fi.

I see Fe as the universalization of select or shared values amongst people. In ethics, the Kantian categorical imperative is a good example of Ti-Fe where only the laws that all people can adopt in non-contradiction are upheld. The non-contradiction is a logical grounding of Ti whereas the universalizing aspect of common values to be adopted by groups of people is Fe; the grounding is generally a priori. e.g. murder is bad not because you'll experience pain, but because murder universalized would reduce humanity to non-being.

The Te>Fi axis is typically utilitarian as it tends to justify Fi convictions through consequences. The golden rule does seem like an application of Fi>Te and is also a posteriori; it has the moral propensity that begins with its convictions, acts upon them, and evaluates the outcome of actions upon others w.r.t. said convictions. Fi can be seen in moral philosophies of say Nietzsche that evaluate the good in terms of individual/innate qualities such as strength of character, heroism, and personal suffering towards their personal convictions. e.g. murder is bad because the consequences are painful to myself, and by projection to others. However, murder could also be justified if other convictions such as will to power were upheld.

In short, the means-ends of Ti-Fe are the universe of people (brotherhood), Te-Fi means-ends are itself (individual).


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

nonnaci said:


> I'll compare Ti/Fe with Te/Fi.
> 
> I see Fe as the universalization of select or shared values amongst people. In ethics, the Kantian categorical imperative is a good example of Ti-Fe where only the laws that all people can adopt in non-contradiction are upheld. The non-contradiction is a logical grounding of Ti whereas the universalizing aspect of common values to be adopted by groups of people is Fe; the grounding is generally a priori. e.g. murder is bad not because you'll experience pain, but because murder universalized would reduce humanity to non-being.
> 
> ...


I think what you're saying is interesting, and it seems to me that Ti is responsible for a cohesive framework for the value system, and Fe gleans the values from outside of itself, as well as maintains that external manifestation of the value system much more smoothly than Te.

Whereas Te is responsible for the real life application of the value system for the Fi user ("right" actions and their consequences). Te must have Fi check up on whether or not the value system feels right from within.

Perhaps Fe looks inward for consistency in the external application (at some invisible framework connecting people and upholding an ideal model of relationships).

I don't think Fi and Fe are so different, as they both involve brotherhood and the individual, but the process they take in trying to harmonize both are different. Fe listens to the chorus and notices when someone is out of tune to improve the cohesiveness of the song, Fi listens to their inner song and tries to fit it into the outside noise. Fe listens inward to see how to harmonize with everyone singing together, and Fi listens to the chorus, as if it is them, to see how it needs to change to fit their ideal version of the song. Both have to give and take a little to work together and it's not really as extreme (at least the motivations aren't) as that.

IDK. I probably shouldn't use music as an analogy because I know nothing about it at all except that I could not play the clarinet as a kid--I basically had to shut up because it was always out of tune (I just pretended to play during the school performance).


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Here is how I see it:

We want people to be themselves. Everybody wants to be themselves. Fe thinks they are helping Fi become themselves. Fi thinks Fe is an obstacle for becoming themselves. Both are right. 

An INFJ for example would help a person be themselves, by telling them who they are, with brutal honesty. Or what we think is honesty. And INFP would tell a person to be themselves, by being genuine. But that is what INFJ is saying too. We want to find out what genuine is first though, not just accept this thing that arrived at our doorstep. I have never examined this person. I can't take what they say at face value. Most people think what others tell you, tells you who they are. I know it is what I have to drag out of them.

Ti-Fe are more team players. Te-Fi are more star players. I want to make you a good team player, because success requires team work. Others want to make you a star.


----------



## Fern (Sep 2, 2012)

I mean, I don't think my internal experiences are so unique that they can't apply to other people.

And sometimes it's just a matter of common courtesy.


----------



## LostFavor (Aug 18, 2011)

I'm not convinced it's Fi-specific, to be honest. What you're seeing here is a lot of Fe users pointing out the flaws of the philosophy, but I seriously doubt most of the Fi users who said they believe in the golden rule go around following it 100% blindly without any thought for exceptions. Even if they aren't totally cognizant of the exceptions, they are probably still taking them into account. I mean, heck, you already went through a bunch of nuance concerning it in the OP alone.

I sort of believe in the golden rule, but I adapted and adjusted it pretty early on. "Do unto others as they would have you do unto them... within reason." Which avoids the problem of me being broken and listens for what their preferences are, while assessing whether their preferences are even something I can or should reasonably fulfill.

I think subconsciously I nonetheless sometimes ask the question "what would I want done in X situation?" But I'm pretty sure that's just reflexive empathy at work. For example, if someone makes a mistake, I might tease the person, but (especially depending on the enormity of the mistake) I'm probably going to sympathize because I know that's what I would want done and what nearly every human being wants done in that situation.


----------



## nonnaci (Sep 25, 2011)

meltedsorbet said:


> I think what you're saying is interesting, and it seems to me that Ti is responsible for a cohesive framework for the value system, and Fe gleans the values from outside of itself, as well as maintains that external manifestation of the value system much more smoothly than Te.
> 
> Whereas Te is responsible for the real life application of the value system for the Fi user ("right" actions and their consequences). Te must have Fi check up on whether or not the value system feels right from within.
> 
> ...


I liken Fe-Fi to a dialectical tension between values (collective vs individualistic); normative ethics is the ground from which individual morals can be differentiated against. If the universe is an unfolding process, then it must avoid both the stagnation of over-collectivized values, and the isolating effects of heightened individualism (we'd be back in a state-of-nature). From such a perspective, Fe-Fi are two aspects of the Universal Will (two sides of the same coin) and thus the same (a nihilistic conclusion in that case). Transcending this aspect, I do not know how.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> As others have said, there is a flaw in the design of that saying. And not just for masochists.
> 
> The issue comes from small, everyday matters, really.
> 
> ...


This is where things get messy. Because people need certain amino acids for example. If we accept the premise that humans want to live healthily, we can objectively come up with some things. We do that in medicine and science. But the original premise has never been proven. Or how to live a life. Philosophical questions. There is no golden rule. That is like alchemy. Everyone is different. 

*“Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way around or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves."

*-Bruce Lee

That is Fe. Nice. You are right. That is why Jung invented this shit. To show that people are different, and there is no golden rule.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> According to the golden rule, if I wanted to be killed then I should kill other people.


Lol, why are you so negative?
The rule has another version, "One should _not_ treat others as one would _not_ like others to treat oneself." More often I feel this way instead of the original.
But yeah they are the same at the end.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

uncertain said:


> Lol, why are you so negative?
> The rule has another version, "One should _not_ treat others as one would _not_ like others to treat oneself." More often I feel this way instead of the original.
> But yeah they are the same at the end.


But you have to know people to know how they want to be treated. That is the point. Why do you think Jesus hung out with prostitutes, and Jung and Freud with mental patients? They have to meet them, and evaluate them. They know they aren't everybody.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> This is where things get messy. Because people need certain amino acids for example. If we accept the premise that humans want to live healthily, we can objectively come up with some things. We do that in medicine and science. But the original premise has never been proven. Or how to live a life. Philosophical questions. There is no golden rule. That is like alchemy. Everyone is different.
> 
> *“Be like water making its way through cracks. Do not be assertive, but adjust to the object, and you shall find a way around or through it. If nothing within you stays rigid, outward things will disclose themselves."
> 
> ...


Bruce Lee might've said that, but he gets it from the Tao. I like that philosophy, but then, I'm Fe too. Most eastern philosophies tend towards Fe cognition, methinks. :kitteh: 

I notice that people even want to use personality typing as a golden rule-- But, it's shown again and again that people are still individuals within type.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

I was just thinking of a perfect example of this. Airplane pilot. Nobody actually swears an oath that the purpose of the flight is to be safe, but it is understood by all. But all it takes is one pilot, to have a different purpose, and control the fate of them all. That is why countries don't let their top leaders travel together. Because one loose cannon, can bring down it all.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> Bruce Lee might've said that, but he gets it from the Tao. I like that philosophy, but then, I'm Fe too. Most eastern philosophies tend towards Fe cognition, methinks. :kitteh:
> 
> I notice that people even want to use personality typing as a golden rule-- But, it's shown again and again that people are still individuals within type.



Tao is an organic process. Nobody owns, or creates it. Everybody just says it in a different way. Jesus said it too. Spinoza. Everybody has their own path.


----------



## Word Dispenser (May 18, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Tao is an organic process. Nobody owns, or creates it. Everybody just says it in a different way. Jesus said it too. Spinoza. Everybody has their own path.


Truth. 

Same could be said about anything that could be said, really. :kitteh:


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Word Dispenser said:


> Truth.
> 
> Same could be said about anything that could be said, really. :kitteh:


Everything is distorted. I said that Lee would be distorted like Jesus, if he was around back then. You obviously can't do that to Lee. Because there is evidence of him, and him preaching against that. Jesus basically wanted everyone to find their path. To move freely. Like Lee. Tao. But the Church grabbed the path, and directed it that way. All good ideas are misdirected.


----------



## uncertain (May 26, 2012)

FearAndTrembling said:


> But you have to know people to know how they want to be treated. That is the point.


But a lot of times you don't know them. The golden rule would be a general and safe rule. It's just natural. You don't want to be treated mean, right? That's how I grew, too. The "not" version I mention is even safer. So if I am not doing things to others, I am not intruding, doing unpleasant things to people, either.

It's way easier for me to treat others the way I would like to be treated, than to imagine what they may or may not like. I don't trust myself on that. And how can you expect the other person to like what you do to them if you the doer don't like it, you don't believe in what you are doing?


----------



## Wayside (Nov 29, 2012)

The golden rule is a good reminder of when we've strayed from basic human decency. When we are treating people like objects and "others", it asks us to take a closer look at why we are treating them the way we are and whether that's okay. So in that sense it's a good device for showing us when our motivations in how we treat other people are off track. And I'd say it's best suited for introducing children to the concept of putting themselves in other people's shoes and adjusting their behaviour accordingly. It's not an advanced or all-encompassing moral concept by any means and it's certainly no good when applied in a strict, legalistic sense to the precise ways we treat others. In fact I would say that one of the most common causes of relationship difficulties is applying the golden rule like this. I notice that people very often do treat others as they would like to be treated and are then befuddled when the other person doesn't do what they would do. And instead of looking into what went wrong and the legitimate differences between themselves and others, too often they judge, act indignant, get angry, hold a grudge, etc.

I don't think it's selfish at all to allow that other people may have an experience similar to your own, but it's ego-centric not to allow any experience other than your own to be permissible. 

As to whether it's an Fi thing I don't think that is the right question. From my own experience as an Fi-dom, my values can rarely be put into words and any attempt to express them usually miss the mark. I think what I would do is take the golden rule and reflect on it to better understand where it fits within my system of values. I might state the golden rule to demonstrate some underlying principle I believe in, but...Okay, not sure where I'm going with this and have some other things I need to get to. I think the more pertinent question in relation to functions is how each function would process the golden rule. Also, maybe Fi users would sympathize more with it. Or maybe feelers in general. Things get muddy when I try to understand how and Fe user might view the golden rule....


----------



## tangosthenes (Oct 29, 2011)

I have always thought of it like this, and I'm Fe: treat others as you would want to be treated. All this tells you is to not stray from basic lines of human decency. Don't be a dick to people, and they won't be a dick to you. It doesn't account for every little thing, just the common understanding of what it is good to treat people like. This is just the maxim for fairness.

edit: interesting note, I used the same wording as the Fi user above me did


----------



## aendern (Dec 28, 2013)

Yes, of course.


----------



## Red Panda (Aug 18, 2010)

I definitely use that rule, but in the "negatives" version = _do not do to others what you wouldn't want to be done to you_. It comes naturally to me really, probably because I internalized it when I was a kid. Of course, if others want me to treat them in a different way I'll do it (as long as it's something I can actually do), but it's a general rule of behavior unless circumstances demand otherwise.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Grandmaster Yoda said:


> According to the golden rule, if I wanted to be killed then I should kill other people. No they have their own feelings and desires. It's also true that people who want to die are sometimes also school shooters. Depressed and suicidal, they will take it out on others, to some extent even for fame and going out in a bang. Anyway, to me it seems better to have ethical behavior standards to be placed outside of an individual's perception. Hence Fi is my last shadow function.


I should clarify, the Golden rule is "treat others the way you want to be treated _by others_" so the suicidal/depressed part isn't really relevant unless like @O_o mentioned, you include masochists.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I should clarify, the Golden rule is "treat others the way you want to be treated _by others_" so the suicidal/depressed part isn't really relevant unless like @__ mentioned, you include masochists.


But every person is different, and rules are competing everywhere. I want people to help me. Others don't want that. How do I decide? What if some guy wants slavery? That guy wants slaves. That is his will. What if he wants to be a slave? I don't respect the individual will. I want it dragged out into the public atmosphere, to be examined. Golden rule is like alchemy. It is turning all people, magically into one. It is way for masters to hide their slaves.


----------



## O_o (Oct 22, 2011)

Red Panda said:


> I definitely use that rule, but in the "negatives" version = _do not do to others what you wouldn't want to be done to you_. It comes naturally to me really, probably because I internalized it when I was a kid. Of course, if others want me to treat them in a different way I'll do it (as long as it's something I can actually do), but it's a general rule of behavior unless circumstances demand otherwise.











THERE YOU ARE. 
Red Panda. 
I was thinking about you lately. And why I haven't seen you around, I see you have switched from ENTP and joined the INFP clan. 
When and how did this happen?


----------



## Rayos (Mar 28, 2012)

When I realized the flaw in the rule, I came up with my own, The Diamond Rule: treat others the way they want to be treated.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> But every person is different, and rules are competing everywhere. I want people to help me. Others don't want that. How do I decide? What if some guy wants slavery? That guy wants slaves. That is his will. What if he wants to be a slave? I don't respect the individual will. I want it dragged out into the public atmosphere, to be examined. Golden rule is like alchemy. It is turning all people, magically into one. It is way for masters to hide their slaves.


I don't understand this... if someone wants to be a slave, then what? So not everyone wants that.... what collective standard should guide an individual if what they want simply isn't the same as what everyone wants? There are circumstances where a person is in danger simply because they don't have an identity, they're fair game because they don't belong to anything; the individual means nothing... what standard is adequately ethical?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Marsibil said:


> I don't understand this... if someone wants to be a slave, then what? So not everyone wants that.... what collective standard should guide an individual if what they want simply isn't the same as what everyone wants? There are circumstances where a person is in danger simply because they doesn't have an identity, they're fair game because he doesn't belong to anything; the individual means nothing... what standard is more adequately ethical?


If somebody wants to be a slave, then they will treat everybody else like they want to be a slave. That is why the Golden Rule falls apart.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> If somebody wants to be a slave, then they will treat everybody else like they want to be a slave. That is why the Golden Rule falls apart.


that just sounds weird and cross eyed... like I wanna be slave, so I guess you wanna be a slave too.... then what?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Marsibil said:


> that just sounds weird and cross eyed... like I wanna be slave, so I guess you wanna be a slave too.... then what?


Then you treat them like you want to be treated, like a slave. That is why it doesn't work. Anybody can have their own pet golden rules, that are contradictory.


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

FearAndTrembling said:


> Then you treat them like you want to be treated, like a slave. That is why it doesn't work. Anybody can have their own pet golden rules, that are contradictory.


but as I understand it, slaves serve people... so like, if you're treating another like they want to do the same that whole thing seems like it implodes or something... like what does that make you, a slave's slave slaving slaves into slavery... it seems like what everyone's already doing anyway.


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Marsibil said:


> but as I understand it, slaves serve people... so like, if you're treating another like they want to do the same that whole thing seems like it implodes or something... like what does that make you, a slave's slave slaving slaves into slavery... it seems like what everyone's already doing anyway.


lol. Exactly. We are all slaves. And many slaves don't know they are slaves. Whose rules are we even abiding? I don't know. All I know is I supposedly consented to all this stuff. Whose golden rule is it? Who is this guy?


----------



## Glory (Sep 28, 2013)

basically if you can't relate with someone, you shouldn't make assumptions as to what they want cause you're not that person... that's how I think, and it does piss me off when someone else makes some kinda theory 'bout what I want or what I'm thinkin because they have some ethical sentiments and experienced something vaguely similar. ... doesn't that imply Fi tho? I really hate this kinda topic >_<


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

What's the Golden Rule? And where is its monetary value on Wall Street?


----------



## FearAndTrembling (Jun 5, 2013)

Marsibil said:


> basically if you can't relate with someone, you shouldn't make assumptions as to what they want cause you're not that person... that's how I think, and it does piss me off when someone else makes some kinda theory 'bout what I want or what I'm thinkin because they have some ethical sentiments and experienced something vaguely similar. ... doesn't that imply Fi tho? I really hate this kinda topic >_<


You can't know yourself, until you know other people. What do you compare? Self has no meaning without others. Ethics has no meaning either. It is how you rightly position yourself among others. It is like sports, you don't keep the same defense on the field, or same lineup every time. You adjust. You learn from others. The more people you talk to, the more you learn. 

"The shoe that fits one person pinches another; there is no recipe for living that suits all cases."

-Jung


----------



## Quernus (Dec 8, 2011)

I don't really like that saying, although it is useful to use with small children who don't yet comprehend that others exist outside of relation to them.

I do think "what would I want someone to do for _me _in this situation" as guidance in how to act. But, I realize someone else may want something different than I would. When that happens, I feel stuck and not sure what to do, getting all Fi-ish about it ("Oh no I'm not doing a helpful thing, they must hate me, I feel so anxious now, I feel so guilty now, I I I feel"). 

I agree that we shouldn't consider ourselves *responsible* for how other people feel about what we do or say, but I am practising the idea of "getting outside myself" and experimenting with different actions or reactions based on what the other person might want, since I recognize I might not know. So if I'm apologizing, I try to minimize the "I feel guilty about ____" and rather try to focus on "It was wrong to do ____ to you, I can understand why you might feel like _____". I think that's important. On the other hand, it pisses me off if people expect me to be able to do this perfectly or naturally. I'm a Fi-dom, this is how I process meaning.


----------



## Deadly Decorum (Feb 23, 2014)

I was thinking about this the other day.

As a kid I *hated* that statement. What I want isn't always what others desire. In a way it views the world as revolving around one's self. I concluded it was an Fi statement.

"Treat others the way they want to be treated" is likely more akin to the Fe philosophy.


----------



## Acadia (Mar 20, 2014)

I like what Buddhism teaches: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful."
But it is essentially the golden rule; istps are ultimately Fe users. I test with Fi high in my stack, but still. 
I do think Fe and Fi can agree on many things.


----------



## Chesire Tower (Jan 19, 2013)

What function encompasses the rule: "Do unto others as they do unto you"?


----------



## niss (Apr 25, 2010)

Neither Fe nor Fi.

And many in this thread have missed the point of the saying. It is taken from the Bible and is not supposed to mean that you should give someone exactly what you would like, but that your attitude should be one of rendering kindness, regardless of how others treat you. Here it is in context:



> But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,
> 
> Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.
> 
> ...


The important thing is to have an attitude of good intentions.


----------



## Inveniet (Aug 21, 2009)

I don't think the golden rule is an exlusive Fi thing.
However it is easy to use Fi to reason like the golden rule.

You can ask what the worth of the golden rule is.
And you could say that it shines a light on the principle of reciprocity.
I think (as others have pointed out) that it assumes that people want what is good for themself.
This breaks down in traumatized people who seek out not so good things.

My Fi has rejected the golden rule time and time again 
as it forces me into behaviours that I don't experience as helpful.
The golden rule is often not worth it.
You got to be more flexible than that.


----------



## Im FiNe (Oct 17, 2013)

Is the Golden Rule an Fi thing? No, it's a morality, ethical thing. It isn't related to cognitive functions.

What is it? Well, it is a powerful tool recorded a couple of places in the New Testament. It's presentation is in the positive, "Do to others as you would have done to you," or as C.S. Lewis oft referenced it, "Do as you would be done by." While aspects of restraint are inherently built into the thought process, it generally is more than refraining from negatives. As with power tools properly used it can be very useful. Improper use can result in shoddy results and can injure, maim, or kill.

It is powerful in that it is a concise abstraction meant to be applied to any situation with any people. It wasn't meant to be a codified rule or list of things but rather a guiding principle. At its foundation is the desired intent for _shalom_ and that properly first directed human-to-God from which spills human-to-human right relationships.

Many offered that _treating people the way that they want to be treated_ is better than "Do as you would be done by." A couple of others (@Aelthwyn and @_niss_) previously offered the correction to the misunderstanding. The intention is right relational connection with others. That means the opposite of assuming (in most cases) what others want but rather connecting with them to learn what they want. Bear in mind, however, that the foundation on which this guideline stands is built upon the idea that there are certain moral rights and wrongs. Providing something another desires that is not good is not the intention. 

How do I want to treat myself? Let's take an example of hunger. If I am hungry, then I would get something to eat. Usually it would be food that was accessible that I enjoy eating. I won't define the particulars of "accessible" and "what I enjoy" or "what tastes good to me". The point is that whatever the food would be would have those qualities. So if I encounter a person who is hungry, then I should consider offering that person food that I have access to that the other person would enjoy/like. Now I must allow that the hungry person may not want to eat at the time I offer due to personal reasons (diet, fasting, upcoming meal). I wouldn't force the person to eat.

A more concise presentation (yet all the more abstract, not concretely defined and regulated) would be this: love others. You don't have to like them. You don't have to become bff's. Love them. Care about other people. Be compassionate. Do and say things that encourage and build each other up. Look out for others who have less than you (whether that be material goods/food, physical ability, emotional ability, cognitive ability, _etc_.). Be willing to lay down your life for them.

Sound difficult? You bet it is. People of their own capabilities and will are unable to follow perfectly this way of living.


----------

