[Alamo-Girl]

Out of curiosity, which pre-Christian ideologies supported the concept of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" based on unfailing love - no matter what the others might say or do, consistently forgiving all such offenses as if they never happened?

[tpaine]

Alamo-Girl wrote:
Out of curiosity, which pre-Christian ideologies supported the concept of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" based on unfailing love - no matter what the others might say or do, consistently forgiving all such offenses as if they never happened?

---

Beats me sweetums. Hugs, and thanks for your lovely loaded questions.

[Tribune7]

Out of curiosity, which pre-Christian ideologies supported the concept of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" based on unfailing love - no matter what the others might say or do, consistently forgiving all such offenses as if they never happened?

That was a lovely loaded question. :-)

Good night, A-G.

[tortoise]

Out of curiosity, which pre-Christian ideologies supported the concept of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" based on unfailing love - no matter what the others might say or do, consistently forgiving all such offenses as if they never happened?

I question your question. Even Christians believe in punishment, which is all that is required in the case of defection.

A pedestrian and more fully expressed version of the Golden Rule from mathematics would be like the following: Do unto others as you have them do unto you. But if they do harm, punish in like kind.

These are really key theorems in game theory, that the maximally optimal behavior is to "cooperate" with others whenever possible, but if others "defect" or harm you, optimality is obtained by retaliating in like kind.

Since you are interested in this kind of thing, I will point out that these assumes rough parity in the nature of the agents involved. If one posits strong disparities in the fundamental capabilities (not natures) of the agents (e.g. man versus animals), then the optimality of interaction looks quite a bit different. Generally speaking, humans tend towards optimal behaviors on average. The reason is simple economics; optimal behavior is powerful multiplier of utility. Grossly sub-optimal behaviors are terribly expensive and not sustainable, particularly in the face of competition from groups that behave in more optimal ways.

(One can make some get into some really interest theological discussions from game theory due to some of the interesting consequences of asymmetric agents e.g. God versus man. Frankly though, I don't think this forum is up for it; people have a hard time dealing with asymmetric game theory.)