[extropy-chat] Is the Golden Rule rational?

[Thomas]

On Dec 2, 2006, at 11:29 AM, Jef Allbright wrote:

> I would point out, again, that the context of rational decision- 
> making,
> including the scope of expected consequences (including interactees  
> and
> interactions over time), is what distinguishes "what works" from "what
> is moral" and that this distinction is of vital importance to
> implementing future systems of rational collaborative social
> decision-making.  I think we can either implement these systems
> intentionally, or they will emerge from the marketplace via  
> selection of
> what works--if we don't self-destruct before then.
>
> Strict libertarians will say that a free market is the pure,  
> correct and
> complete solution to this problem, but they tend to see growth as
> originating from within, rather than emerging from effective  
> interaction
> between self and the adjacent possible. Deeper thinkers see that
> intentionally cultivating a cooperative environment is just as  
> important
> as exploiting that environment. Thus my poetical exhortation to come
> down from the pristine peaks to the more fecund mountain valleys.

I haven't had time lately to participate in this discussion, but  
you're tugging my attention here.  Perhaps you could comment on a  
personal problem:  I was once told by a Rational Emotive therapist  
that I held an irrational belief that was causing me problems.  It  
was the golden rule.  Do "effective interaction" and  "cultivating a  
cooperative environment" imply a need for empathy and/or a ban on  
aggression?  Is the golden rule consistent with a rational society or  
a free market?  -- Thomas

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20061210/ab5b8b0e/attachment.html>