Allegedly the Golden Rule of utilitarianism. It's also unsatisfactory.
If you'd really love to be grabbed by a total stranger in public, have your pants (US) and pants (UK) pulled down, and be spanked on your bare bottom, do you really have the right to do that to someone else?
The authors on SOL are great at thinking up new worlds. Have any of them come up with a better alternative? If so, I'd like to read the story.
AJ
Have any of them come up with a better alternative?
Define better.
The problem is that "better" is entirely subjective and we probably can't come up with something everyone would agree with.
Define better.
It's one of those situations where it's easier to point out when something doesn't work.
It may involve a compromise between the rights of the person who wants to spank and be spanked versus a person who doesn't, or some system of rights prioritising.
AJ
It's one of those situations where it's easier to point out when something doesn't work.
Again, it's subjective. What doesn't work for one person may well work just fine for another.
What doesn't work for one person may well work just fine for another.
It's the principle. If it doesn't work for everyone, it doesn't work. Obviously, since "Do as thou wouldst be done by" is so popular, particularly amongst religionists, it's not the worst possible principle.
AJ
After reading this, I thought up a system that might work in a story... the author will need to flesh it out a bit but I put down the basics in the Forum Story Ideas section under Social Streamlining Consent.
Rules, of a fashion, for this do indeed exist.
do you really have the right to do that to someone else?
That is a separate question. One of consent.
My understanding, is that rules of behaviour exist, but only to those 'in the know'. Separating truth from rumour is a complicated and time consuming process, but... Every 'scene' has a set of defined rules that are known to those versed in the 'scene' and are used, both to get to the point, and to weed out 'imposters' or 'newbies'.
These 'rules' are going to be specific to the 'scene'.
Certain ways of wearing clothes, (allegedly) originated in prisons to inform other inmates as to the 'availability' of the wearer. Like wearing trousers in a way to show underwear.
There are ways to park your car and the status of the car to show the level of involvement of the occupants (side lights on/off/, windows down/up/, sun visors up/down etc etc).
The type of drinks on the table in bars catering to certain demographics, that whilst mean nothing to vanillas other than the possibility that the person at the table happens to like that drink, actually tells those (of that scene) what the drinker is after (and it's not the drink).
There are 'parties' where the attendees will wear certain accessories that broadcast the level of consent and kink to others.
Certain tattoos exist as public signs of kink that have subsequently entered 'mainstream' use without the mainstream knowing the background. For instance, visible tattoo's of dogs paws. At face value, all very cute, but is still used as a nod and wink as to the bestial proclivities of the tattooed, the type and position of the tattoo relating to the boundaries acceptable to the tattooed.
The list goes on.
This is important to your original question AJ, as it answers your question, which is really one about consent.
do you really have the right to do that to someone else?
If you are in a situation of like minded individuals (even if they are a stranger to you), and a specific individual has visibly (or situationally) given consent for a specific action (no words are needed) as per the rules of that scene and you act accordingly, then yes, they/you have the right.
Where things become problematic, is when someone not of the scene, finds themselves in the scene and is totally oblivious to all the subtle signs and signals.
Do you 'really have the right to do that to someone' who is oblivious/naive to the actions/state of dress that they are broadcasting without their knowledge? No.
Edit: Added a missing 'y'.
The reciprocal is the problem and the Golden Rule does not work without its reciprocal.
Do As Thou Wouldst Be Done By
Wouldst thou be done by as thou do?
Together they represent a Utopian rather than utilitarian concept.
Utopianism only works in fiction with a lot of suspension of disbelief.
That's my philosophical take on it.
Your world view may disagree. ;)
Gary
Wouldst thou be done by as thou do?
Well yes. The subject of my example would love to be grabbed by a total stranger in public, have their pants (US) and their pants (UK) pulled down, and be spanked on their bare bottom :-)
My world view isn't adequately formed.
AJ
This is an interesting discussion. The BDSM lifestyle and community has continued to evolve. Nowdays, dealing with post-me-too and post-covid, consent in the BDSM world is a very touchy subject. Things that would have occurred as a matter of course 20 years ago, or even 15 years ago, now require negotiation.
The two subsets of the evolving culture that still retain some of the "old school" elements are the Gorean culture and a subset known as "spankos." With the spankos, if a girl brats to you at one of their parties, that's deemed an invitation to take them over your knee and give them a good thorough spanking.
Now, even with the way things have evolved, if two (or three) are in an established relationship, they can, and will, make their own rules. This can work well if the people know what they're about. In essence, the Dominant in the relationship is providing the stability and security of a structure governed by simple, but consistently enforced, rules. Enforcement is by discipline, and if the two are into the benefits that sado-masochism can provide (endorphin highs, known as sub-space or Top-space) that element also can be included.
But as I've said, going outside a relationship can be tricky, and socially dangerous these days. It's become so easy to dabble in the community that it's also become easy for fringe players to bring their vanilla values into the equation as well.
As far as stories go, there aren't that many that are written by people who actually live in that lifestyle. Sad but true.
I hope this makes at least some sense.
I didn't intend my request to be limited to BDSM stories. It just happened to be the first example I thought of where "Do as thou wouldst be done by" causes problems.
If Lazlo Zalezac were still alive, it would be interesting to see what sort of story he could make out of it since he was adept at taking societal problems and magnifying them into dystopian nightmares.
AJ
D'Accord - I will expand the scope of my musings on the subject.
One classification that I think of involves stories where the protagonist is helpful and respectful, but also expects, and sometimes demands, that the respect and courtesy be returned. One that immediately comes to mind is "The Future of Miss Powers."
"Do As Thou Wouldst Be Done By" -- Allegedly the Golden Rule of utilitarianism.
I'm not sure where this came from, but it has nothing to do with utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism focus on the consequences or outcomes of an action rather than the action itself. In utilitarianism, a action is ethically good if it produces the best outcomes for the greatest number of people.
Honestly, there doesn't appear to be much philosophical different between "Do As Thou Wouldst Be Done By" and the Golden Rule as stated in the Bible: "do to others what you would have them do to" (Matthew 7:12). It's just a slightly different phrasing but the meaning is the same.
It's also unsatisfactory.
Note that all ethical systems are unsatisfactory when you study them in detail. It is always possible to come up with unusual scenarios that cause conflicts between what feels right and how a system of ethics defines right. This is one of the big points of contention in philosophy.
The most common way of dealing with the issue is to point out that these situations are so rare that they shouldn't impact normal life and so extreme that all moral systems would break down. We should focus on ethics for day-to-day life, not what happens when applying the system to an unreasonable situation.
This, too, is unsatisfying intellectually, but that's sort of the point. Life, ethics, and actions cannot be defined and quantified in a purely theoretical manner and reduced to black and white choices of what is best.
I'm not sure where this came from, but it has nothing to do with utilitarianism.
That's what I found on one website when I researched the quote. Naturally I can't find it again :-(
Life, ethics, and actions cannot be defined and quantified in a purely theoretical manner and reduced to black and white choices of what is best.
I'd be less concerned by this if there was some way of identifying potential conflicts in advance.
AJ
I like Lazlo Zalezac's rule in John Carter: If it harms none, then do it. The harm means physical, emotional, financial, and mental.
Th second part was: Protect thee weak from the strong.
That's a restatement of one of the key phrases in Wicca, which is itself a modified version of Aleister Crowley's "True Will" philosophy.
Crowley's phrasing was "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
Wicca takes that and adds the modifier: "An it harm none, do what thou wilt."
