Sort By:
+5 Rank Up Rank Down
Dec 9, 2012
bnt: but if I don't want others to interfere with my life i won't interfere with other's life. So the positive version is safe.

Wait it isn't... if you're a masochist.

In fact the safer rule could be "do unto others what others would like you to do unto them." but it would have not been very useful for those first Christians who were trying to change the world.

Anyway rules can have limits but listening to the voice of your conscience should help greatly.
+4 Rank Up Rank Down
Dec 9, 2012
This is one of the funniest Sunday strips in quite some time. It's fun to see the boss lose this one.
-1 Rank Up Rank Down
Dec 9, 2012
MichaelRosen got it right - and this is why the "positive" Christian version of the Rule has been so problematic. It gives them a license to go beyond good works and in to the realm of interference. Jehovah's Witnesses at your front door are following their version of the rule. Moralists who want to ban all lifestyles but their own are practicing it too. Better to stick to the "negative" version, which implies that you should leave people alone to be themselves.
+28 Rank Up Rank Down
Dec 9, 2012
Scott Adams is merely demonstrating the fallacy of over-applying popular aphorisms. The Golden Rule in both its negative and positive forms is generally an excellent policy, but leads to absurdity when over-applied. In this example, if everybody gives $100 to everyone else, everyone receives no net financial gain and wastes time passing around money. Sometimes the positive version of the Golden Rule means very same thing as the negative version: you wouldn't want others to waste your time passing around money, so do the same thing for them you'd like them to do for you by keeping your money to yourself.
0 Rank Up Rank Down
Dec 9, 2012
saiken: Dilbert trapped :)
Get the new Dilbert app!