Hidden on Golden Rule

Just as a caring human father gives good gifts to his children, so, too, God gives good things to those who ask Him verses Verse 12 then concludes the thought: The word therefore connects the Golden Rule verse to the preceding assurances that we can ask God for help in our lives and receive it. The book of James also tells us the source of everything good in our lives: There are many passages in the Bible that make a connection between how we live our lives—specifically, how we deal with others—and how God deals with us.

Two such verses can be found in the Sermon on the Mount. We all want to receive mercy when we need it, but we may not always be so eager to extend it to others! God clearly expects us to be merciful if we expect to receive the same from Him. In the model prayer in Matthew 6, we notice the same principle being applied to forgiveness and forgiving: In the area of judging others, Jesus made it quite clear that we will receive judgment from Him in the same manner we judge others.

Jesus Christ Himself is our judge Finally, there is laid up for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will give to me on that Day, and not to me only but also to all who have loved His appearing. For laying aside the commandment of God, you hold the tradition of men—the washing of pitchers and cups, and many other such things you do. Earlier, we saw in James 1: No, in reality it would be harmful to give a motorcycle to a year-old. If its function is primarily psychological, its conceptual or theoretical faults are not key.

If its design is small-scale, fit to primary relations, its danger of allowing adherents to be stepped on is not key. The golden rule is not only a distinct rationale within a family of related rationales. It is a general marker, the one explicit component in networks of more implicit rationales and specific prescriptions. Teachings that abstract the rule from its implicit corollaries and situational expectations fail to capture what the rule even says. As a socializing device, the rule helps us identify our roles within mutually respectful and cooperating community.

How well it accomplishes this socializing task is another crucial mark of its adequacy, perhaps the most crucial. The prospect of first engaging this rule typically captures childhood imaginations, like acquiring many highly useful social skills. 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.

The foregoing appeals for feasibility are not primarily defenses of the golden rule against criticism. They are clarifications of the rule that expose misconceptions, central to its long-standing reputation. We now question, also, the much admired roles of empathy and role-taking in the golden rule, which can ease adherence to it, but are not necessary.

The rule is certainly not a guideline for empathizing or role-taking process, as most believe and welcome. Their numbers seem legion. The golden rule can be adhered to in other ways. The golden rule is much-reputed for being the most culturally universal ethical tenet in human history. This suggests a golden link to human nature and its inherent aspirations. It recommends the rule as a unique standard for international understanding and cooperation—noble aims, much-lauded by supporters.

In support of the link, golden logic and paraphrasing has been cited in tribal and industrialized societies across the globe, from time immemorial to the present. This supposedly renders the rule immune to cultural imperialism when made standard for human rights, international law, and the spreading of western democracy and education—a prospect many welcome, while others fear it. Note that if the golden rule is truly distinct from the related principles such as loving thy neighbor as thyself and feeding the poor, these cherished claims for the rule are basically debunked.

Analysis of this endless stream of sightings shows no more than a family resemblance among distinct rationales See golden rule website in references below. Still others promote charity, forgiveness and love for all. Culturally, the golden rule rationale is mostly confined to certain strands of the Judeo-Christian and Chinese traditions, which are broad and lasting, at least until recently, but hardly universal See Wattles The original statement of the golden rule, in the Hebrew Torah, shows a rule, not an ethical principle, much less the sort of universal principle philosophers make of it.

And even a devout Jew is likely to lose concentration when perusing these outdated, dubious and less than riveting observations. No fair reading of Levitticus XIX: For in Levitticus the commandment is merely not to judge an offender by his offense, and thereby hold a grudge against a fellow Jew for committing it. But love him as yourself. The latter, a crucially different principle, is meant here differently than we now interpret it as well. Seen amid such concrete and mutually understood practices of a small tribe, the golden rule poses no role-taking test. Any community member can comply simply by knowing which reciprocity practices are approved or frowned on.

If a kind of imaginative role-playing is contemplated, one need only conjure up images of community elders frowning or fawning over a variety of choice options and everyday practices. Neither in eastern nor western traditions did the golden rule shine alone. Thus viewing and analyzing it in isolation misses the point. Generosity meant hospitality to the stranger or alien as well, remembering that the Jews were once strangers in a strange land.

Farmland was to lay fallow each seventh year like the Sabbath when God rested so that, in part, the poor then could find rest there, and room to grow Deuteronomy XV: Turning the other cheek Luke 6: What neighbor would strike or steal from you taking our cloak so that you must give him your coat also Matthew 5: This far exceeds what the golden rule asks—simply that we consider others as comparable to us and consider our comparable impacts on them.

These do not represent fair or equal reciprocity in fact. Ask how you would wish to be treated if you were a shameful abuser or even homeless person. They feel this is what they deserve. To abuse-counselors and homeless shelter workers, this goes without saying. What the abusive and homeless should want, or calculate as their desert, may be something different.

But golden-rule role-taking will not tell. There is one area where the golden rule extends too far, directly into the path of a turning of the other cheek.

Why the Golden Rule is the Secret of Success

When we are seriously taken advantage of or mistreated, the rule bids that we treat them well nonetheless. We are to react to unfair treatment as if it were fair treatment, ignoring the moral difference. Critics jump on this problem, as they should, because the golden rule seems designed to highlight such cases. Here is where the rule most contrasts with our typical, pre-moral reaction, while also rising above Old Testament justice.

In the process, it promotes systematic and egregious self-victimization in the name of self-sacrifice.

• La gran distorsión (Spanish Edition);
• Ithaka?
• Secret of the golden ratio revealed;
• The Queer Letters!
• Why the Golden Rule is the Secret of Success;

Yet, is self-sacrifice in the name of unfairness to be admired? Benevolence that suborns injustice, rather than adding ideals to it, seems morally questionable. Moreover, under the golden rule, both victimization and self-victimization seems endless, promoting further abuse in those who have a propensity for it. No matter how much someone takes advantage of us, we are to keep treating them well.

The Golden Rule

Here the golden rule seems simply unresponsive. Its call to virtuous self-expression is fine, as is its reaction to the equal personhood of the offender. But it neither addresses the wrong being committed, nor that part of the perpetrator to be faulted and held accountable. Interpersonally, the rule calls for a bizarre response, an almost obtuse or incomprehensible one. It can certainly be integrated into the high-road alternative.

Navigation menu

In this type of case, the golden rule sides with its infeasible siblings. And this asks too much. These criticisms have merit, but can be mitigated. There is no such proviso in the rule. As the Gandhi-King method has shown, it is perfectly legitimate to fault the action—even condemn the action—while not condemning the person, or taking revenge. The practice of abusing or taking advantage of someone does not define its author as a person after all, even when it is habitual.

The wrongs anyone commits do not eradicate his good deeds, nor our potential for reform. And the golden rule has us recognize that. But the spirit of silent self-sacrifice is found more in the sibling principles than the golden rule, and should be kept there. There are nice and not so nice ways to make this point. If Yeshua is our guide, not so nice approaches are acceptable. If this be love, then it is certainly hard love, especially when we note that Yeshua faults the person here, not just the act. We must also see these cases in social context to see how far the golden rule bids us go.

If we are sensible, and have friends, it is unlikely we will place ourselves in the vicinity of serious abusers, or remain there. When used in this context, without alteration, the golden rule poses an alternative to the typical ways these practices are performed. But it remains this sort of special principle.

Among its aims, the rule certainly seems bent on goals like rectification, recompense and reform, but indirectly. Arguably the rule has us exemplify the right path—the path the perpetrator might have taken, but did not, thus demonstrating its allure, its superiority. Ideally, a perpetrator will think better of his practice, apologizing for past wrongs and making up for them. At least it might move him to abandon this sort of practice. And if moral processes are not awakened, then at least placing the offender in a morally disadvantageous position within the group will bring pressures to bear on his behavior.

Exemplifying fairness in this way also shows demonstrates putting the person first, holding his status paramount relative to his actions, and our sense of offense. Exemplifying a moral high road, so as to edify others does not show passivity or weakness. It is normally communicated in a strong, positive pose. Standing above a vengeful or masochist temptation uplifts the supposed victim, not making him further trodden down. Indeed, its courageous spirit is key in working its effect, an effect achieved by Gandhi, King and legions of followers under the most morally hostile conditions.

Again, these realities of the rule can only be seen in context, looking into the subtleties of interpersonal relating, communicated emotion, performance before a social audience and the like. The mere logic or golden principle of the thing is silent on them. The same holds for the less feasible sibling rules of the golden rule family, from giving to the poor to turning the other cheek.

Trying them out makes a world of difference in understanding what they say. Second, we find that people do not generally ask much, especially when they see you at risk of being taken advantage of for your exceptional good will. Finding simple ways to make the most needy more self-reliant—such as simply encouraging them to be so—also may lighten the helping load. The good it does may be exceptional. No full mitigation may be possible here. The golden rule, if not exacerbating the problem in practice, at least serves to legitimatize it. Its rationale has been exploited by many, including some Christian churches and clergy who suborn victimization as a lifestyle, especially for wives and mothers.

A rule cannot be responsible for those who misuse it, or fail to grasp its purposes. But those sustaining the rule bear a responsibility to clarify its intent. It certainly would be better if the rule itself made its intentions clear or included illustrations of proper use. Currently, it relies on the chance intervention of moral teachers or service organizations—those opposed to, say, domestic violence.

Confucian writing was definitely not geared to rank and file Chinese, much less children learning their moral lessons. This is an intolerable shortfall for an egalitarian socialization tool. The first involves taking a perspective, the second, gaining similar life experience in an ongoing way. But of course we may not know how to love ourselves, or how to do so in the right way. Given that we may not be loving enough to ourselves, loving our neighbor is best accomplished by referring to prevailing standards.

Our own proclivities or values are certainly not the final word. We must consult the community, its ethical conventions or scriptures including Kantian or Utilitarian scriptures. The last word comes through a critical comparison of these conventions, in experience, with our proclivities and values. Neither we nor our neighbors likely think it is legitimate, or even kind, to give a thief additional portions of our property. Doing so might well be masochistic, or even egotistical, thinking about our own character development most, thereby exacerbating crime and endangering the community.

Instead, perhaps, we might wish to steal it. Role-taking cannot guide us here. In fact, it could easily lead us astray in various misguided directions. Some would consider it ideal to be unconcerned with property because it puts spiritual concerns over materialism, or it puts charity before just desert. Others could make a case for better balancing the competing principles involved.

What good does role-taking do here? The golden rule is not meant to raise such questions. Philosophers deal with these problems by standardizing the way roles are taken, the thinking that goes on in the roles, and so forth. This is what the Kantian veil of ignorance or Rawlsian original position or Habermasian ideal speech rubric is for. But surely the commonsense role-taking precepts we are talking about here do not even dream of such measures. Prescriptions for role-taking are likely prominent in many cultures both for the increased psychological perspective they breed and the door they open to better interpersonal interaction.

The interpersonal skill involved is perhaps the best explanation of their widespread use and praise, not their power of edification. It is true that if we truly wished to treat others as ourselves, or the way we would want to be treated—if we were them, not ourselves merely placed in their position— role-taking would help.

But it is not unusual for primarily psychological or interpersonal tools to aid ethics without being part of ethics itself. If we truly took that perspective, we would not have to empathize. Even if we took the perspective without the associated emotion, our task would then be to conjure up the emotion in the perspective.

More, in any relevant context, the golden rule urges to think before we act, then imagine how we would feel, not how the other would.

This is not how one empathizes. Emotionally, the appropriate orientation toward causing someone possible harm is worry or foreboding. Consider more closely what we are supposed to achieve from role-taking and empathy via the golden rule. We get a sense of how others are different from us, and how their situation differs from ours, uniquely tailored to their perspective and feelings on the matter.

We then put ourselves in their place with these differences in tact, added on to ours, and subtracting from ours where necessary. But this already is a consequence of applying the rule, not a way of applying it. Putting oneself in their place here would not seem a good idea. Neither would empathy, as opposed to prediction. Without involving others, such role-taking is a unilateral affair, whether well-intended or otherwise.

Fairer and more respectful alternatives would involve not only consulting others on their actual outlooks, but including them in our decision making. To some, the gold in the golden rule is love, the silver component, respect.

The love connection is likely made in part by confusing the golden rule with its sibling, love thy neighbor as oneself. This could render like interest in others as other-love. But this is not really in the spirit of unconditional love. This formulation has appeal though it ignores an important reality. Though we might wish to be treated ideally, we might not wish, or feel able to reciprocate in kind. Keeping mutual expectations a bit less onerous—especially when they apply to strangers and possible enemies—may seem more palatable.

But this is to think in interested and conditional terms.

Secret of the golden ratio revealed

Agapeistic love is disinterested or indifferent, if in a lushly loving way. Its bestowal is not based on anything in particular about the person, but only that they are a person. This sufficiently qualifies them as a beloved. And agape does not come out of us as an interest we have, whether toward people, the good, or anything similar. It comes only out of love, expressing love, or the good luring us with its goodness. Our staking claim or aim toward the good as a personal goal is not involved. The same is true for self-regard. We love ourselves because we are lovable and valuable, like anyone else.

The basic or essential self, the soul within us is lovable whether we happen to like and esteem ourselves or not. The most obvious ethical implication of agape is that it is not socially discriminating. We do not love people because they are attractive, or hold compatible views, or work in a profession we respect. Are they friend, stranger, or opponent?

• How To Make Money Online: Expert Advice;
• The Golden Rule | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
• Ant (Animal).
• Golden Rule.

Most surprising, we do not prefer those close to us or in a special relationship, including parent and child. Children in agapeistic communities are often raised by the adults as a whole, and in separate quarters from parents, primarily inhabited by peers. For moral idealists, agape is most alluring. To love in a non-discriminating way has a certain unblemished perfection to it. Pursuing moral values simply for their value or goodness seems clearly more elevated than pursuing them out of personal preference. Loving someone because they happen to be related to us, or a friend, or could do us a favor is shown up as somewhat cheap and discriminatory by comparison.

Seeing ourselves as special is revealed for the trap it is—being stuck with ourselves and our self-preference, a burden to aspiration. What is this condition but the ultimate hold of ego over, binding us to all our attachments? In philosophy, intellectual ego is a chief obstacle between us and truth, causing us to believe ourselves because we are ourselves, despite knowing that there are thinkers just as wise or wiser, with just as well-seasoned beliefs. Why be led around by the nose of our particular beliefs and interests just because they blare most loudly in our heads? Agape is worth pondering as a fit purveyor of the golden rule.

What could be more golden? But promoting other-directedness is its remedy, not unconditionality. We could indeed be faulted for ignoring others as persons, treating them like potted plants in the room, but that would only result if they craved our notice, attention, or participation.

Typically, it would be fine with others if we just went about our business while not getting into theirs. As with empathy, we cannot be uninterested on demand, or even after practicing to do so long and hard. And if we do not have our self-identified interests taken seriously, we feel that we are not taken seriously, whether we ideally should or not. Ethics is not only about ideals, nor in fact, primarily about ideals.

If interest were not key to ours and theirs, the golden rule would be moot. With unconditional love, reciprocity is beside the point, along with its social reciprocity conventions. Taking any perspective is the same as taking any other. So is taking the perspective of any particular other. Happening to be ourselves, or a particular other, and taking that as a basis for favoritism, seems a condition—a failure in unconditionality. I could have been anyone, any of them, as they could have been me. So why do I take who I am or who they are so seriously?.

Unlike every other ethic, agape provides no basis for according ourselves special first-person discretion or privacy. The self-other gap is transcended. In principle, when we raise our spoon filled with breakfast cereal at the morning table, the matter of whose mouth it goes into is in question. Some agapeists would not go this far, instead keeping our self-identification intact. But there is good reason to go farther. And of course there are the turn the other cheek precepts of Yeshua, which push in this direction.

In any event, ethics is not built for such concerns. It is a system designed to handle conflicts of interest, the direction of interests toward values and, perhaps, the upgrading and transformation of interests into aspirations. Agape would function, within the golden rule, as something more like a song or affirmation for the self-transformations achieved. It is the very admirable diminution or lack of self-interest, in agapeistic love and in social discrimination that puts an agapeistic golden rule out of reach.

Its double dose of moral purity and perfection puts it doubly out of reach. We arguably cannot be perfect as our Father in Heaven is perfect or complete. We also cannot realistically strive toward it, and most likely should not. Secularly, its beautiful intentions have unwanted consequences. We wish to be loved for us, for our self-identity and the values we identify with. When we are not loved this way, we do not feel loved at all—not loved for whom we are. We are entitled to it. We build rights around it.

And we feel callously disregarded when a loving gaze shows no special glint of recognition as it surveys us among a group of others. This is less egoism than a sense of distinctness and uniqueness within the additional expectations of realized relationship. Putting the matter more generally, human motivational systems come individually packaged. They are hard-wired to harboring and pursuing interest. And a valid ethics is designed to serve human nature, even as it strives to improve it.

If we can transcend human nature, then we need a different system of values, or perhaps nothing like an ethical system. We have risen beyond good and evil, indifferent to harm of death.. We are born, and remain psychologically individualized throughout life, not possessed of a hive mind in which we directly share our choice-making and experiences. We are each unquestionably possessed of this natural, immutable division of moral labors, which gives us direct and reliable control only of our own self. Hence we are held responsible only for our own actions, expected to do for ourselves, provided special standing to plead our own case of mistreatment, and accorded great discretion in our own individual sphere, to do as we like.

When agapeistic morality puts our very nature on the spot, bidding us to recast basic motivations to suit—when it sets us in lifetime struggle against ourselves—it fails to acknowledge morality as our tool, not primarily our taskmaster. These considerations provide the needed boundary line to situate the golden rule this side of a feasibility-idealism divide. The golden rule is indeed designed for human nature as it is and for egos with interests, trying to be better to each other. Christian agape, like Buddhist indifference and non-attachment is said to be inexpressible in words.

It can only be understood correctly through direct insight and experience. Granted, adherents of these ideals place the achievement of spiritual insight out of common hands. Only a few of the most gifted or fortunate adherents achieve it in a lifetime. How can this be? Let's examine the salesman, the entrepreneur, again. And short of that, he has no claim to your money. That persuasiveness is frequently seen as seduction, something corrupt, something dangerous.

But when was the last time you were actually "seduced" into buying a car? Most people need a car; and if salesmen had such magical powers, wouldn't you just keep buying cars until your entire front lawn was filled, much as a cocaine addict ruins himself financially to pay his dealer? Perhaps the salesman is better at selling than you are at buying, but that's certainly not the salesman's fault. He could indeed cheat you, and again, some do. But we have courts for that, and police; and in times past, cheating frequently ended in the cheater's death. Plus, reputation is a big deal: That is not a formula for sustainable success.

The salesman is just trying to feed his family. He needs money more than the car he's selling; you need a car more than the money you're holding: Now multiply that simple transaction across an entire civilization. How much richer are Americans today than before the automobile? And how many other businesses, and jobs, exist because of that one invention, and because of the people who sold it? The compounding effect is staggering. The world's per capita GDP--roughly, the amount of wealth per person--stayed pretty much flat for all of time until the middle of the 18th Century, when people began to embrace this idea.

Allowing entrepreneurs a legal framework in which to pursue their vision created the entire modern world, from candlelight and doctors using leeches to iPhones and robotic surgeries in just years. How does the Golden Rule apply? Go back to the beginning, to the salesman before the sale. How does he get money? Yes, he must sell something.

Yes he must persuade.