Do you think the phrase "treat people the way they treat you" is correct?
Your subjective opinion and arguments are important.
Categories
- Art (356)
- Other (3,632)
- Philosophy (2,814)
- Psychology (4,018)
- Society (1,010)
Recent Questions
- Why did everyone start to hate the Russians if the U.S. did the same thing in Afghanistan, Iraq?
- What needs to be corrected in the management of Russia first?
- Why did Blaise Pascal become a religious man at the end of his life?
- How do I know if a guy likes you?
- When they say "one generation", how many do they mean?
If we consider the situation in the context of the expression “an eye for an eye”, which has already been mentioned by one author (another version of the name is “you to me, I to you”), then perhaps there is something in this: for example, to lend money to someone who previously lent you and, on the contrary, not to lend to someone who once refused you a similar request (although there may be exceptions). There is even an old saying on this subject, which I inherited from my great – grandmother: “With a brother-like a brother, with an enemy – like a soldier.”
And what about those people who didn't treat you at all? For example, do I need to give up my seat to an elderly woman in transport? She wasn't inferior to you, was she?” And it won't yield, most likely… this expression is unlikely to work here, so in each case you have to decide individually.
The scheme “Treat people the way they treat you” is dangerous because there is always a risk of transferring the attitude – good or bad – to those people and situations that have remained in the past, to people in the present and future, and even extrapolating it not to a person or even to a specific type of people, but to humanity as a whole. I.e.: “Three years ago I was deceived by a friend – now I will never trust people”; “My superiors are I don't have to consider their comfort.” There is no logic, but this is common.
If the expression “treat people the way they treat you” is taken without any corrections, but exactly as you wrote it, then it represents the principle of “pay back the same”, that is, as another person treats me , so I treat him. This principle is called “an eye for an eye”, implying the symmetry of behavior or its mirror image.
Symmetry of behavior, like any other model of behavior, has its positive and negative sides. My subjective opinion is that it is difficult for me to give you an unambiguous answer as to whether I think this expression is correct or not. The unambiguity of the answer depends on the context of the specific situation, which is not described in your question.
For example, if someone smiles at me, I will probably smile back at them. Or, if someone is hostile to me, then it will be difficult for me to meet the other person with an open mind.
Mirror behavior is triggered as a form of interaction with other people. This form of interaction is very important in the process of human learning, for example, through imitation = the work of mirror neurons. These same mirror neurons allow a person to put themselves in the shoes of another, showing empathy and empathy.
In addition, mirroring behavior is associated with a global sense of justice, which is born in childhood – ” if he does not give us his toy, then we will not give it to him either!” If someone behaves aggressively towards me, I can respond in kind to defend myself, prevent myself from being humiliated or insulted. However, constant or automatic reliance on the principle of symmetrical behavior is not justified in all situations and can lead to undesirable consequences, in particular, to problematic conflict relationships.
Therefore, when interacting, communicating with other people, it is important to understand,
This principle makes a person passive, reactive – that is, one who only reacts to the surrounding reality, but does not show any initiative himself. And about the blood feud in the next answer is a good argument. In the final analysis, no, this is definitely not the principle that is suitable for all people, if everyone starts behaving like this, then no one will do anything to other people until something is done to them.
No, I don't think it's correct. Rather, “treat people the way you want them to treat you.” For example, if you were deceived and betrayed, I believe that it is wrong to deceive and betray in response, if you are “watered with mud” in the queue or in the comments, then it is wrong to respond with the same mud.
In this regard, I adhere to the parable:
An old man is humiliated by two young guys, a man passes by and asks: “Why don't you answer them? Put them in their place!”
The old man answers: “See the dirty rag?
Put it on!”.
Passerby: “I don't want to.”
Old man: “I don't want to either.”
Therefore, I am sure that whatever people do, they should not be harmed in return. But if they treat me with kindness, and I treat them with kindness – only in this case the expression works.
It's the right thing to do with people the way you want them to do with you. It is necessary to treat people according to their actions. If they do good, then they are good people. If they do evil, they are bad people. The good ones should be helped, the bad ones should be resisted. It doesn't matter how they feel about you personally.
I think it's only right if I'm a hermit. They don't know I exist, and I've forgotten about them. The question is a little incorrect – there are a lot of people, you can't fit with one measure.
Of course not.On the contrary,I believe that it is more correct to treat people the way I want people to treat me.And then I will have a good rapport with people and less problems.
This is right on the one hand and wrong on the other! You can't always interpret a person's behavior! The commandment speaks about equal rights, and no more, every person deserves to be treated humanly! It's about equality of people! Human life –
sacred!
No, of course not. According to this principle, one wrong action can lead to a vicious cycle of slaughter for many generations. It seems to me that it is more correct to understand the motivation of a person and reduce the negative to nothing.
That is, treat people so that in the end everyone is in the black.
“Treat people the way you want them to treat you”, you misspelled it and because of this, the message took on a different meaning. Treat people the same way you want them to treat you. You have the same consequence written.
No, of course not. People are all different.
The simplest example: I am a heterosexual, and I (oh horror! :)) began to show signs of attention to some…unconventional. Am I supposed to love him back? I have nothing against him, but … 🙂
People should be treated fairly.
No. All people are different, see the world differently and relate to it. This also applies to people's attitudes. In addition, the attitude may be incorrect intentionally or not. Close people are more open to each other and therefore have more accurate and complete information. But knowledge and attitude can often go separately, for example, for educational purposes or because of the desire not to lose someone dear to you.
When you know a person better, it is easier to accept criticism and objective information from them. Therefore, objectivity is always important, but taking into account the psychology of a particular person.
Everyone has both good and bad qualities. Knowing this, it is necessary to take into account in the relationship. Such feelings as envy, revenge, excessive criticism and eternal discontent, etc. harm not only the relationship, but also the person himself, closing him off from others and poisoning life without joy. Do not respond in kind, you must always be yourself.