Ethics and the Golden Rule
For philosophers, however, even a clarified or unbiased depiction of the golden rule cannot overcome its shortfalls in specificity and decisiveness. Ply the rule in the handling of complex and nuanced problems of complex institutions and it is at sea. We cannot imagine how to begin its application. Exercise it within networks of social roles and practices and the rule seems utterly simplistic. This said, the irony should not be lost here of critics setting the rule up to fail by over-generalizing its intended scope and standards for success. Maximum generalization is the dominant philosophical approach to the rule.
And in this form there is no question that its shortfalls are many. The rule seems hopeless for dealing with highly layered institutions working through different hierarchies of status and authority. Yet the rule has been posed by philosophers as the ultimate grounding principle of the major moral-philosophic traditions—of a Kantian-like categorical imperative, and a Utilitarian prototype. As noted, this is a tribal or clan rule, cast in highly traditional societies and nurtured there. There is no evidence that it was ever originally intended to define human obligations and problem solving within the human community writ large, or in complex institutional settings in particular.
In small-group interactions what would normally be tolerated as diversity of opinion and practice can be legitimately identified as problematic instead. Being like-minded, most often group members have expressed commitment to common beliefs, values, and responsibilities. But more important, the rule is vastly more detailed and institutionalized here than it seems because of its guidance by established practices, conventions, and understandings.
In such contexts, one can imagine a corollary to the golden rule that would make sense: Moreover, this corollary may not sanction an actual comeuppance of offenders, in violation of golden-rule spirit, functioning instead as a threat or gentle reminder of joint expectations. Marcus Singer, in standard philosophical style, portrays the golden rule as a principle, not a rule.
This is because it does not direct a specific type of action that can be morally evaluated in itself. Instead, it offers a rationale for generating such rules. It starts from an abstracted logical ideal, elaborating a theory around it by tracing its logical implications. Of course, philosophy need not start from the beginning when addressing a concept, nor be confined by an original intent or design or its cultural development.
The rest is chaff or flourish or unnecessary additives. Still, the distinction between principles and rules may not be as sharp as claimed. General rules rules of legal evidence, for example also can be used to derive more specific rules based on their logics; principles need not be consulted.
Consulting community reciprocity standards or conventions might be one. Thus, do nice things by consulting community standards would proceduralize a rule to generate more specific action directives. Again, no consultation with principles are needed. Most philosophical principles of ethics are explanatory, providing an ultimate ground for understanding prescriptions. These also can be used to justify moral rationales. The rule is not portrayed, then as a stationary intellectual object notched on the wall of an inquiring mind.
It takes on a life for the moral community living its life. This conceives ethical theory on the model of scientific theory, especially a physical theory with its laws of nature. These latter approaches typically use examples of ethical judgments that the author considers cogent, leaving the reader to agree or disagree on its intuitive appeal. Hare apparently feels that they are. But wishes, choices, preferences, and feelings of gladness certainly do not seem the same thing. Choices can come from wishes, though they rarely do, and one feels glad about the results of choices, if not wishes, generally.
Choosing is usually endorsing and expressing a want, whether or not it expresses a preference among desired objects. This is a tricky phrase. An alternative rendering is how you prefer they treat you, singling out the want that has highest priority for you in this peculiar context of mutual reciprocity, not necessarily in general. Further alternatives are treatments we would accept, or acquiesce in or consent to as opposed to actively and ideally choose or choose as most feasible.
These are four quite different options. Or would we have others do unto us as we believe or expect they should treat us based on our or their value commitments and sense of entitlement? Are the expectations of just the two or three people involved to count, or count more than the so-called legitimate expectations of the community? Such interpretations can ride the rule of gold in quite different directions, led by individual tastes, group norms, or transcendent religious or philosophical principles.
And we might see some of these as unfair or otherwise illegitimate. In such contexts, philosophical analysis usually answers questions, clarifying differences in concepts, meanings and their implications. I may choose, wish or want that you would treat me with great kindness and generosity, showing me an unselfish plume of altruism. But if I then was legitimately expected to reciprocate out of consistency, I might consent, agree, or acquiesce only in mutual respect or minimal fairness, at most.
From this consent logic we move toward Kantian or social contract versions of mutual respect and a sort of rational expectation that can be widely generalized. But we move very far from the many spirits of the golden rule, wishful and ideal. We move from expanding self-regard other-directedly to hedging our bets, which makes great moral difference. In psychology, by contrast, it has been identified with self-esteem and locus of control.
These are quite different orientations, setting different generalizable expectations in oneself and in others. It is not clear that generalizing self-love captures appropriate other-love. Common opinion has it that love of others should be more disinterested and charitable than love of self, or self-interest. We feel that it is fine to be hard on ourselves on occasion, but more rarely hard on others. We are our own business, but they are not. They are their own business. It seems morally appropriate to sacrifice our own interests but not those of others even when they are willing.
We should not urge or perhaps even ask for such sacrifice, instead taking burdens on ourselves. Joys can be shared, but not burdens quite as much. We are to be nicer, fairer, and more respectful of others than of ourselves. In fact, ethics is about treating others well, and doing so directly.
To treat ourselves ethically is a kind of metaphor since only one person is involved in the exchange, and the exchange can only be indirect. We are not held blameworthy for running our self-esteem down when we think we deserve it, but we are to esteem others even when they have not earned it. Kant, by contrast, poses equal respect for self and other, with little distinction. We are to treat humanity, whether in ourselves or others, as an end in itself and of infinite value.
He also poses second-rung duties to self and other toward the pursuit of happiness—a rational, and so self-expressively autonomous, approach to goods. This might be thought to raise a serious question for altruism—the benefiting of others at our expense. Given duties to self and duties to others, even pertaining to the pursuit of happiness, it is not clear what the grounds would be for preferring others to oneself.
Yet one would be honored as generous, the other selfish. Throughout his ethical works and essays on religion, however, Kant speaks of philanthropy, kindness, and generosity in praising terms without giving like credit to self-interest. Some would criticize this penchant for treating others better than ourselves as a Christian bias against self-interest, too often cast as selfishness.
But it seems in line with the very purposes of ethics, which is how to interact with others, not oneself. Most of the population originally introduced to the golden-rule family of rules was uneducated and highly superstitious, even as most may be today. The message greets most of us in childhood. Its Christian trappings growing most, at present, in politically oppressive third-world oligarchies where sophisticated education is hard to come by. Likely the rule was designed for such audiences.
It was designed to serve them, both as an uplifting inspiration and form of edification, raising their moral consciousness. Otherwise well-educated and experienced folk can be remarkably unskilled at such perspective-taking tasks. How we properly balance empathy with cognitive role-taking is a greater sticking point, plaguing psychological females and feminist authors as much as the rest.
Such integration problems make it unclear how to follow the golden rules properly in most circumstances. And that is quite a drawback for a moral guideline, if the rule is an action guideline. We might then be advised to seek a different approach such as an interpersonal form of participatory democracy, as was previously noted.
Again, these are precisely the sorts of uncertainties and questions that philosophical analysis and theory is supposed to help answer by moving from common sense to uncommonly good sense. But at some point they move to considerations that serve distinctly theoretical and intellectual purposes, removed from everyday thinking and choice. Their morally relevant qualities cannot compete in importance with our other personal features. Indeed, we cannot identify with, much less respect these one-sided, disembodied essences enough to overrule the array of motivations and personal qualities that match our sense of moral character and concern.
The theoretical rationality of maximizing good, even with prudence built in, is obviously extremist and over-generalized. But as philosophers say, the logics of good and reason in Utilitarianism cannot help but extend to maximization—it is simply irrational, all things considered, to pursue less of a good thing when one can acquire more good at little effort.
If so, then perhaps all the worse generalization and consistency, which will be avoided by being reasonable and personable. Many of us wish theory to upgrade common sense, not throw it out the window with the golden rationale in tow. Both present and likely future philosophical accounts may be unhelpful in bringing clarity to the golden rule in its own terms, rather distorting it through overgeneralization.
Still, the crafting of general theory in ethics is an important project. It exposes ever deeper and broader logics underlying our common rationales, the golden rule being one. It is important for some to review these fundamental issues for treating the golden rule philosophically. Relative to a commonsense understanding of the golden rule, it is a heady conceptual experience to see this simple rule of thumb universalized--inflated to epic proportions that encompass the entire blueprint for ethical virtue, reasoning, and behavior for humankind.
Such is the case with Kantian and Utilitarian super-principles. Now to see that faith reinforced by the most rigorous standards of secular reasoning is quite an affirmation. It can also be recruited as a powerful ally in fending off secular criticism. Often we fail to recognize that extreme reductionism is the centerpiece of the mainstream general theory project. The whole point is to render the seemingly diverse logics of even conflicting moral concepts and phenomena into a single one, or perhaps two.
It is very surprising to find how far a rationale can be extended to cover types of cases beyond its seeming ken—to see how much the virtues of golden kindness or respect, for example, can be recast as mere components of a choice process. Character traits, as states of being, appear radically different from processes of deliberation, problem solving, and behavior after all.
But the most salient psychological features of virtuous traits fade into the amoral background once the principled source of their moral relevance and legitimacy is redefined. Universalization reveals how the basically sound rationale of the golden rule can go unexpectedly awry at full tilt. This shows a hidden chink in its armor.
But reducing principles also can overcome the skepticism of those who see the rule as a narrow slogan from the start. The rule can do much more than expected, it turns out, when its far-reaching implications are made explicit.
The Golden Rule
Universalization, in principle, reduces to absurdity in this sense. This is what philosophical research on the matter turns up. One liability concerns justice. Wishing forgiveness, or at least to be given a second chance, has much to be said for it. Looking across situations, imagining the social practices and legitimate expectations that result, social members who commit offenses will suffer the luck of the draw.
The accountability mechanism of society will not establish a uniform policy of punishment or recompense. You got judge X or you mugged a nice guy—wish I had. For moral individualists or libertarians, this is no problem. Who can complain about getting either fair treatment or beneficial treatment? We accept this discretionary arrangement in many everyday settings. Consider how this same sense of being mistreated and perhaps resentful will arise in most small groups of peers.
Why the favoritism—you value her that much more than me? And that is unjust. Moral liberals will be especially offended by this result. As with many conflicts between moral camps, both sides have a point, which each side seems committed not to acknowledge. And thus far, no way of integrating these rival positions has gained general consensus. Like any general principle, perhaps, the golden rule also seems incapable of distinguishing general relationships and responsibilities from special ones—responsibilities toward family members, communities of familiars and co-workers, not the wide world of strangers.
A proper explanatory principle will allow us to derive such corollaries from its core rationale. But the golden rule falls short: Compare it with the Utilitarian grounding principle of maximizing good. Maximizing is an ideal logic of reason. Good is an ideal of value of value. We can imagine how a most rational approach to value would promote special situations and relationships, why it would function differently there than in other situations, and why such situations and relationships have special value.
Additional good results from family and friendship institutions when members treat each other as special, and especially well. This is difficult at best, and not clearly a reliable way to maximizing good. It may detract from the good in fact. Also, what is the rationale for treating others as well as those closest to us? Why is showing favoritism toward our favorites a problem? The golden rule itself does not say or explain. In work situations, are we to ignore who is the boss or supervisor, who is the rank-and-file employee, who is the support staff doing clerical or janitorial work?
These are serious problems for the golden rule. At a minimum, corollaries would have to be added to the rule explaining how roles and relationships figure in. Treat others as you would choose to be treated in the established social role you each occupy and its legitimate expectations, mother, father, or teacher to children and vice versa, spouses and friends to each other, peer co-workers, supervisor to rank-and-file employees and vice versa, and so forth. Alan Gewirth has proposed a rule in which we focus on mutual respect for our generic rights alone. This would leave all sorts of other choices to other rationales or to our discretion that the golden rule does not, placing restraints on the rule that it would not currently acknowledge.
Both of these alternatives have horrible consequences for the golden rule however. Rights simply do not cover enough ethical behavior to rule out forms of psychological cruelty, callousness, and interpersonal exclusion. The reciprocity they guarantee is compatible with most forms of face-to-face interaction that lack it, especially in public peer-relations such as the school or job site, but also in friendships and the family. Where the ethics or ethos of a society is barbaric, and its hierarchies authoritarian, taking perspectives within roles legitimates these characteristics.
How should a superior race reciprocate with members of a near sub-human race? This inequality problem is egregious also in adhering to prevailing social reciprocity-conventions applying to roles. Neither ethically skilled role-taking nor empathy can set matters right. Despite its assets, there are further reasons to think that the general theory project is inappropriate for many ethical rationales, the golden rule being perhaps chief among them. Its expose of golden rule faults is more misleading than helpful.
General theory assumes that the true and deeper logic of a rationale comes out through generalization, which often is not the case. This should be obvious when theorists note that a rationale cannot avoid certain far-flung implications, no matter how alien or morally outrageous they seem. Rationalist by nature, general theory also assumes that the structure or logic of the rationale is the thing, not its psychological function, emotive effect, or motivational power.
The fault here is not emphasizing rational components, but failing to integrate additional components into it adequately. And failing to provide a type of general explanation might not then be a failing. We can start with an ideal explanatory principle, ideally structured to capture the explanatory logic of equal consideration or perspective taking.
There is no need to generalize from commonsense, distorting a rule designed only for commonsense purposes, in a restricted locale. It allows us to strip bare what holds the golden rule together beneath surface content that often matters little to its substance. How we do unto our mother or our child or our co-worker, even when their basic personhood is most at stake, requires a remarkably different form of address to convey equal consideration. Patronizing someone a parent in showing respect, can convey disrespect. These are essential moral matters, golden-rule matters, not just a matter of discretionary style.
Obviously modern democratic constitutions have brought advancing the common good into line with securing individual rights simply by retaining both principles in their own terms and using each to regulate the other. Even the lush empathy of Utilitarian intent, so key to who sacrifices or willingly serves, was eventually ejected from its general theory. The golden rule spirit may be one explanation. The apparent association between the golden rule and the maximizing super-principle came basically from the central role of compassion in early Utilitarian theorizing.
When people become experienced with each other, recognizing common needs, hopes and fears, failures and successes, they are moved to act with mutual understanding. This increases their like-mindedness and mutual identification in turn. The resulting sense of connection nurtures increasing indifference toward the narrow desires of those concerned, whether in oneself or others. Membership in, and contribution to shared community becomes defining.
This is how golden rule other-directedness and equality moves toward full mutuality in the pursuit of overall social good. Like most key tenets of ethics, the golden rule shows two major sides: Both the Kantian and Utilitarian traditions focus on only one side, furthering the great distinctions in philosophical ethics—the deontology-teleology and justice-benevolence distinctions.
For the general theory project, this one-sidedness is purposeful, a research tool for reductive explanation. The Utilitarian, Charles Dickens, probably draped most golden-rule content and spirit over the utilitarian side in his Christmas Carol. Mankind was my business, the common welfare was my business; charity, mercy, forbearance and benevolence were, all, my business. In a small way here, Dickens highlighted the direct and visible hand of Utilitarian economics in contrast to the invisible hand of Utilitarian Adam Smith and his capitalist economics—a hand Dickens found quite lacking in compassion or egalitarian benefit.
The each-is-to-count-for-one equality of the golden rule is portrayed as a proven, socially institutionalized means to social good. What speech more heartily hits the golden tones of the golden rule? What seems needed to philosophize ably about the golden rule, and its relatives are theoretical models fit for rules of thumb.
These would be know-how models, defined by the conceptual work it draped around algorithms, operations, and steps in procedures for putting rules into effect. As noted, these may be psychological rules for taking certain moral points of view, rules of problem solving, negotiation, making contributions to ongoing practices, interactions, and more unilateral actions.
These components would be given a context of use and interrelated in crucially different ways, with suggestions for interrelating them further. Illustrations would be provided of their application and misapplication, at high, medium, and low quality. The resulting combination would be provided overall structure and comprehensibility which would include the rationales needed to explain and justify its components. Rationales for applying the procedures would allow unique and flexible alliances among components fit for particular functions and novel situations.
These are of greatest importance to its practicality and success. And, of like importance, background frameworks would be provided for how to practice the rule, indicating the difference in orientation of the novice and expert user. Relative to mainstream philosophical theory, this project might seem historically regressive, even anti-philosophical. Applied ethics already boasts hundreds of decision-making step procedures. For traditional philosophers the small-scale common-sense rationales involved also may seem philosophically uninteresting.
Resubmitting the range of ethical concepts to it suggests that the aims and consequences of actions, combined with quality of experience, may be all that ethics comes to, personal integrity and inherent rights aside. Thus the rules of thumb discussed by Mill in his Utilitarianism were quickly deserted by philosophers for rule-utilitarianism. This built newly generalized principles into the very structure of maximization maximize the regard for rights as inherent and inviolable , turning the pre-existing utilitarian principle regarding rights and all else as means to social good into a super-principle, as some term it.
There was a time when moral theorist simply dismissed intuitionist and applied theory approaches. Hare does above, Rawls did in his hallowed A Theory of Justice , calling them half-theories. These theories cited piecemeal and ungrounded insights where the completing of conceptual structure was required to provide a full explanatory account. But these forward-looking theorists worked such piecemeal views into pluralist, hybrid, or eclectic theoretical forms. The golden rule can find a place here, a merely somewhat generalized, medium-sized or right-sized place, allowing it to function as a lived ethic, readily applicable to everyday life to several ends.
There is a certain satisfaction as well to using the most ancient but enduring epigrams of ethics, such as the golden rule, to create the most cutting-edge theoretical forms. Serious innovation in ethics is a long time coming.
Arguably, the golden rule has not been seriously updated in its own terms—conceptually, procedurally and culturally since B. The golden rule long preceded these. Such notions were formulated and plied in an age of rampant superstition, seasoned by deep misconceptions about the nature of reality, human nature psychology and social organization. Modern empirical research has had difficulty finding the stable psychological traits that we continue to call virtues.
If stable traits exist at all, they may not be organized morally. If they are, their stability and supposed resistance to situational factors of morality appears remarkably weak Kohlberg a, Myers, chs.
But philosophers have given hardly a thought to the real prospect that there may be no such things—no real phenomena to cover our grab-bag folk terms. Virtue theorists seem unparsed as they experience a philosophical upswing. Brain research has uncovered forms of mental computation that differ significantly from what we term reasoning or emotion.
This should be producing experimental revamping of ethical thinking. Haidt, primarily have provided grounds for undue skepticism. The golden rule enjoys the reputation of enduring wisdom, even if its lack of conceptual sophistication leaves philosophers cold. But its ancient origin should make us wonder if it is in fact perennial hot air, misleading even regarding the framework in which moral philosophy is done.
The model of general theory, based on general laws, still enjoys mainstream status in moral philosophy, despite challenges that have diminished its domination. But consider what has happened to its scientific mentor. Important new innovations in physics are questioning the use of general theories marked by laws of nature, gravity, and the like, holding that this centerpiece of physics for centuries was a wrong turn from the beginning that led to the dead end of string theory and an inability to understand quarks and quantum mechanics.
In part, this results from challenging the value of sophistication in views like string theory that consider it explanatory to posit non-existent and unknowable scores of reality dimensions for realities we observe. More, these cutting-edge, potentially revolutionary ideas are being proliferated in high-level physics in such popular outlets as Discover Magazine April p. Where are the parallels in ethics? There is nothing like a fundamental explanation to decide an issue and take specific action, is there? Before a rule like the golden one is either slighted or acknowledged, moral philosophy should consider innovative approaches to conceiving such rules, their fitness to current practice, and perhaps what we can learn from converting the rule to a programmable algorithm for autonomous agent programming.
A possible step in a new direction, if originated in more than century-old thinking, is attempted below. It routinely violates the basic structure of human embodiment, the laws of human motivation, and the principles of rational choice of behavior based on them, as depicted above. James may have confused the rule with sibling principles when making this blanket observation. James identifies certain common features and aftereffects in these putatively supernatural experiences, including ecstatic happiness and sense of liberation, expansive sense of self, and a self-diffusion into those nearby--selflessness of a special, merging sort.
He notes, likewise, an overflowing urge to love, give and aid others, nurture and support unlimited others, with unlimited energy, and no sense of sacrifice to oneself. James cites ways in which the lasting sensibilities of this experience suborn the asceticism, spiritual purity, and willing material poverty associated with saintliness Lect. This is not the most morally reassuring depiction of the golden rule as a phenomenon, but so it goes. Imagine now that there are a third and fourth avenue to these experiences or to the proclivities and golden behaviors that result.
One, the third, might involve the secular spiritual transformation that comes from single-mindedness. Certainly in religion this is what is meant by terming someone holy or a living saint. This is also the secular goal of Confucian practice, to make li behavioral ritual yi character. This is the indirect pursuit of the golden rule that focuses on ideally good means to ideally good ends. The differential diagnosis here identifies devotion that leads to embodiment as the cause of golden rule effect.
And this devotion need not include any following or practicing rules of thumb like the golden rule, purposely fulfilling duties, or practicing those conventional activities associated with being morally upright. Now consider a fourth avenue, much more common to everyday ethics.
Here, doing good or being fair is a part-time activity, undertaken alongside hosts of alternatives. It is developed through socialization and reflective practice relative to the normative institutions of society. Social norms are internalized and habituated in action, even to the point of what we call character traits. When dealing with others, and typical moral issues, we gain a sense of proper reciprocity and the need for a certain egalitarianism in how we show respect. In addition, we hear of various rules and principles advising us on how to do this.
Among these are members of the golden rule family, perhaps the golden rule itself. One flirts with following those rules of thumb within reach, the way one finds oneself tempted to buy a product one sees advertised. And slowly the rule becomes a partial habit of heart and hand, an implicit directive. Still, the rule is sometimes consciously referred to as a reminder. In the first, one experiences satori or enlightened awakening in a sudden flash. It is not known how, even a non-devotee may be blessed by this occurrence.
Those around cannot help but notice the whole new range of behaviors that come out, filled with the compassion of a bodhisattva. To the master, it is daily life and interaction: The third way is that of gradual enlightenment. One meditates for its own sake, with no special aim in mind—no awaited lightning strike from the blue. Compassion grows beside it, imperceptibly, until one is bodhisattva. To the recipient, Zen-mind seems ordinary mind. We learn to act, in some respects, as a master or exemplar would, but without embodying the character being expressed, or being truly self-expressive in our actions.
What we call ethics as a whole—the ethics of duties, fulfilling obligations, adhering to responsibilities, and respecting rights can be seen as this sort of partial simulation. We develop moral habits, of course, some of which link together in patterns and proclivities. But we would not continue to carry around a sense of ethical assembly instructions or recipes needing sometimes to refer to them directly—if we were ethics, if we embodied ethics. Where else in our daily lives do we look to principles, rules of thumb or formula supplied as advice by a colleague or co-worker to proceed at what we already supposedly can do?
- Petit livre de - Dîners improvisés (LE PETIT LIVRE) (French Edition).
- Step 4 - Balance mineral level in your body.
- Red and Green Apples!
- An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers..
- Navigation menu.
- Golden Rule.
When we are a worker, we just work. When we are ethical, we often pause and consult a manual. This is not to deny automaticity or self-reliant reasoning in ethics. The golden rule displays one algorithm for programming exemplary fair behavior, which can be habituated by repetition and even raised to an art by practice. Virtue ethics habits and deliberation ethics normative ethics fall here.
What we are simulating are side-effects of a moral condition. We are trying to be good, by imitating symptoms of being good. A behavioral route can be taken instead to these simulations, side-stepping direct reference to the rule. In some ways it is more revealing of our simulation. Here we engage in repetitive behaviors that conform to a reciprocity convention that conforms to the rule. We do not act out of adherence to the rule, but only out or imitation of its applications or illustrations. This again was the Aristotelian approach to learning virtues and also the Confucian approach for starting out.
In Japan, this sort of approach extended from the Samurai tea ceremony to the Suzuki method of learning the violin See Gardner Such programming is akin to behavioral shaping in behaviorist psychology though it rests primarily on principles of competence motivation, not positive and negative reinforcement. Social psychology has discovered that the single best way to create or change inner attitudes and motivations is to act as if one already possessed them.
Over time, through the psychology of cognitive dissonance reduction, aided by an apparent consistency process in the brain, the mind supplies the motivation needed Festinger , Van Veen, and others, These processes contradict common opinion on how motivations are developed, or at least it does so long as our resolve does. Unless one keeps the behavior going, by whatever means, our psychology will extinguish the behavior for its lack of a motivational correlate. Here, as elsewhere, the golden rule can act as a conceptual test of whether the group reciprocity conventions of a society are ethically up to snuff.
As a means to more morally direct simulation, those interested in the golden rule can try alternative psychological regimens—role-taking is one, empathy might be another. And these can be combined. Those who assume that exemplars must have taken these routes in their socialization may prefer such practices to conventional repetition. However, each is discretionary and but one practical means to it. Each has pros and cons: In certain cultures, mentoring, mimicking and emulating exemplars will be the way to go.
Perhaps one can also try the way of humor: When is a Rule Not a Rule, but a Description? References and Further Reading 1. Fowler , Kohlberg , Putting these considerations together allows us to identify where the golden rule may be operating unnoticed as a matter of routine—in families, friendships, classrooms and neighborhoods, and in hosts of informal organizations aiming to perform services in the community. Sibling Rules and Associated Principles The foregoing appeals for feasibility are not primarily defenses of the golden rule against criticism. The Rule of Love: Agape and Unconditionality To some, the gold in the golden rule is love, the silver component, respect.
Ethical Reductionism Both present and likely future philosophical accounts may be unhelpful in bringing clarity to the golden rule in its own terms, rather distorting it through overgeneralization. Ill-Fitting Theory Over-Generalizing Rules of Thumb Despite its assets, there are further reasons to think that the general theory project is inappropriate for many ethical rationales, the golden rule being perhaps chief among them. Know-How Theory And Medium-Sized Rationales What seems needed to philosophize ably about the golden rule, and its relatives are theoretical models fit for rules of thumb.
References and Further Reading Allen, C. Conducting Ethical Research in Cyberspace. The Measurement of Moral Judgment. Vol I, New York: A Guide to Peer Counseling. A theory of Cognitive Dissonance. The Art of Loving. The psychology of human development and the quest for meaning. All Men Are Brothers. The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Notes on a Program of Philosophical Justification. Abortion and the Golden Rule. Philosophy and Public Affairs. Empathy and its Development. The Varieties of Religious Experience. Groundwork for a Metaphysics of Morals. NY, Harper and Row. The Child as a Moral Philosopher.
The Cognitive-developmental Approach to Socialization. Handbook of Socialization Theory. A Modern Statement of the Socratic View. The Book of Mencius. McGraw-Hill, chapters 4, 6, and 8. Double Day and Company. A Feminine Approach To Ethics. University of California Press. Beyond Good and Evil. A Theory of Justice. The Growth of Interpersonal Understanding: Role-taking Development in Early Childhood. NY, Oxford University Press.
Author Information Bill Puka Email: An encyclopedia of philosophy articles written by professional philosophers. The Golden Rule is the principle of treating others as one's self would wish to be treated. It is a maxim that is found in many religions and cultures. The Golden Rule can be considered an ethic of reciprocity in some religions , although other religions treat it differently.
The maxim may appear as either a positive or negative injunction governing conduct:. The idea dates at least to the early Confucian times — BC according to Rushworth Kidder , who identifies that this concept appears prominently in Buddhism , Christianity , Hinduism , Judaism , Taoism , Zoroastrianism , and "the rest of the world's major religions". Yet, as with any historically prominent maxim, the Golden Rule is not without its controversy as seen in the Criticism section below. The term "Golden Rule", or "Golden law", began to be used widely in the early 17th century in Britain by Anglican theologians and preachers; [8] the earliest known usage is that of Anglicans Charles Gibbon and Thomas Jackson in Possibly the earliest affirmation of the maxim of reciprocity, reflecting the ancient Egyptian goddess Ma'at , appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant , which dates to the Middle Kingdom c.
Do to the doer to make him do. Listening to wise scriptures, austerity, sacrifice, respectful faith, social welfare, forgiveness, purity of intent, compassion, truth and self-control—are the ten wealth of character self. O king aim for these, may you be steadfast in these qualities. These are the basis of prosperity and rightful living. These are highest attainable things. All worlds are balanced on dharma , dharma encompasses ways to prosperity as well. Hence, keeping these in mind , by self-control and by making dharma right conduct your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself.
He furthermore opined that it is the determination of the spotless virtuous not to do evil, even in return, to those who have cherished enmity and done them evil. The Golden Rule in its prohibitive negative form was a common principle in ancient Greek philosophy. Examples of the general concept include:. The Pahlavi Texts of Zoroastrianism c. Seneca the Younger c. According to Simon Blackburn , the Golden Rule "can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition".
A rule of altruistic reciprocity was first stated positively in a well-known Torah verse Hebrew: You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD. Hillel the Elder c. Once, he was challenged by a gentile who asked to be converted under the condition that the Torah be explained to him while he stood on one foot.
Hillel accepted him as a candidate for conversion to Judaism but, drawing on Leviticus What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: Hillel recognized brotherly love as the fundamental principle of Jewish ethics. This is echoed in the modern preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Why was only a single specimen of man created first? To teach us that he who destroys a single soul destroys a whole world and that he who saves a single soul saves a whole world; furthermore, so no race or class may claim a nobler ancestry, saying, 'Our father was born first'; and, finally, to give testimony to the greatness of the Lord, who caused the wonderful diversity of mankind to emanate from one type.
And why was Adam created last of all beings? To teach him humility; for if he be overbearing, let him remember that the little fly preceded him in the order of creation. The Jewish Publication Society's edition of Leviticus states:. Thou shalt not hate thy brother. This Torah verse represents one of several versions of the Golden Rule , which itself appears in various forms, positive and negative.
It is the earliest written version of that concept in a positive form. At the turn of the eras, the Jewish rabbis were discussing the scope of the meaning of Leviticus The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: On the verse, "Love your fellow as yourself," the classic commentator Rashi quotes from Torat Kohanim, an early Midrashic text regarding the famous dictum of Rabbi Akiva: Israel's postal service quoted from the previous Leviticus verse when it commemorated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on a postage stamp.
The common English phrasing is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". A similar form of the phrase appeared in a Catholic catechism around certainly in the reprint of Love foreigners as you love yourselves, because you were foreigners one time in Egypt. I am the Lord your God. Two passages in the New Testament quote Jesus of Nazareth espousing the positive form of the Golden rule:. Do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets. A similar passage, a parallel to the Great Commandment , is Luke Love him with all your strength and with all your mind.
The passage in the book of Luke then continues with Jesus answering the question, "Who is my neighbor? Jesus' teaching goes beyond the negative formulation of not doing what one would not like done to themselves, to the positive formulation of actively doing good to another that, if the situations were reversed, one would desire that the other would do for them.
This formulation, as indicated in the parable of the Good Samaritan, emphasizes the needs for positive action that brings benefit to another, not simply restraining oneself from negative activities that hurt another. In one passage of the New Testament , Paul the Apostle refers to the golden rule:. The Arabian peninsula was known to not practice the golden rule prior to the advent of Islam. Fakir al-Din al-Razi and several other Qur'anic commentators have pointed out that Qur'an Similar examples of the golden rule are found in the hadith of the prophet Muhammad.
The hadith recount what the prophet is believed to have said and done, and traditionally Muslims regard the hadith as second to only the Qur'an as a guide to correct belief and action. From the hadith , the collected oral and written accounts of Muhammad and his teachings during his lifetime:. A Bedouin came to the prophet, grabbed the stirrup of his camel and said: O the messenger of God!
Teach me something to go to heaven with it. Now let the stirrup go! That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind. The most righteous person is the one who consents for other people what he consents for himself, and who dislikes for them what he dislikes for himself. O' my child, make yourself the measure for dealings between you and others. Thus, you should desire for others what you desire for yourself and hate for others what you hate for yourself. Do not oppress as you do not like to be oppressed. Do good to others as you would like good to be done to you.
The Golden Rule - Think Humanism
Regard bad for yourself whatever you regard bad for others. Accept that treatment from others which you would like others to accept from you Do not say to others what you do not like to be said to you. Deny not My servant should he ask anything from thee, for his face is My face; be then abashed before Me. And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself.
Content Metrics
Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires. By making dharma your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself [48]. If the entire Dharma can be said in a few words, then it is—that which is unfavorable to us, do not do that to others. Buddha Siddhartha Gautama, c. It occurs in many places and in many forms throughout the Tripitaka.
Comparing oneself to others in such terms as "Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I," he should neither kill nor cause others to kill. One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter. Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill. The Golden Rule is paramount in the Jainist philosophy and can be seen in the doctrines of Ahimsa and Karma.
As part of the prohibition of causing any living beings to suffer, Jainism forbids inflicting upon others what is harmful to oneself. The following quotation from the Acaranga Sutra sums up the philosophy of Jainism:. Nothing which breathes, which exists, which lives, or which has essence or potential of life, should be destroyed or ruled over, or subjugated, or harmed, or denied of its essence or potential. In support of this Truth, I ask you a question — "Is sorrow or pain desirable to you?
If you say, "No, It is not" you will be expressing the truth. Just as sorrow or pain is not desirable to you, so it is to all which breathe, exist, live or have any essence of life. To you and all, it is undesirable, and painful, and repugnant. In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.
Saman Suttam of Jinendra Varni [53] gives further insight into this precept: Just as pain is not agreeable to you, it is so with others. Knowing this principle of equality treat other with respect and compassion. Killing a living being is killing one's own self; showing compassion to a living being is showing compassion to oneself. He who desires his own good, should avoid causing any harm to a living being. Precious like jewels are the minds of all. To hurt them is not at all good. If thou desirest thy Beloved, then hurt thou not anyone's heart.
The same idea is also presented in V. The phraseology differs from the Christian version of the Golden Rule. It does not presume to do anything unto others, but merely to avoid doing what would be harmful. It does not preclude doing good deeds and taking moral positions, but there is slim possibility for a Confucian missionary outlook, such as one can justify with the Christian Golden Rule. The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own.
He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: For one would do for others as one would do for oneself. And so if states and cities do not attack one another and families do not wreak havoc upon and steal from one another, would this be a harm to the world or a benefit? Of course one must say it is a benefit to the world. Mozi regarded the golden rule as a corollary to the cardinal virtue of impartiality, and encouraged egalitarianism and selflessness in relationships. Here ye these words and heed them well, the words of Dea, thy Mother Goddess , "I command thee thus, O children of the Earth, that that which ye deem harmful unto thyself, the very same shall ye be forbidden from doing unto another, for violence and hatred give rise to the same.