The Golden Rule

To Christians who believe that the they have a monopoly on human morality:~


The Golden Rule is what the vast majority of nonbelievers use as their moral standard and I believe that we have that in common with most theists.

The Golden Rule has been a part of human ethics for a very long time and no group can claim ownership of it. It's generally found within most religions across history as well as the thoughts of secular ethical philosophers.

The first known enunciation of the Golden Rule is from around 4500 years ago by the Mesopotamian King Ur-Nammu.

After that it is found in ancient Hindu texts. The Brahman version dating back to 1000 BCE was
"This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain done unto you."

In the 5th century BCE Socrates said
"Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you."

In the 4th century BCE Plato said
"May I do to others as I would that they should do unto me."

One of my favorite versions is from Confucius in 500 BCE
"Do unto another what you would have him do unto you, and do not do unto another what you would not have him do unto you. Thou needest this law alone. It is the foundation of all the rest."

This is what Aristotle said
"We should conduct ourselves toward others as we would have them act toward us."

According to ancient Roman Paganism it's
"The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves."

Under Taoism it's:
"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss."

Under Zoroastrianism
"Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others."

More close to home, in Judaism it's
"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary."

Under Islam it�s
�No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.�

And finally this is what Matthew claimed that Jesus said in his writings from around 70 CE,
"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."



Just a thought.....

Different to the Golden Rule I knew:
"Them that's got the gold makes the rules!"

A very useful analysis of something that I am sure many many Christians take to heart from the Ten Commandments, whether or not they commit adultery or covet their neighbors' asses.

Do you mean for everyone to accept that it is a valid moral construct, or to make Christians feel less secure that they don't "own" the concept and are not morally superior?

Ironic that some of these individuals were executed, don't ya think?

Very well put lunachick. I've looked into this myself and would like to add another thought that came to me. This is where confucius, as you've posted, was careful enough to word things completely.

One version being said:
"Do unto another what you would have them do unto you."

Another version being said:
Do not do unto another what you would not have them do unto you."

While these may seem to be the same, there is a very small difference which can lead to it's undoing. It is important to understand both for their separate meaning as well as their unified meaning.

For example if you apply version one in a situation where your aid/advice/involvement is neither desired nor welcomed then doing to others, even with good intent, may have better results if not done. What I may like you may not, so I should not push it on you, or vise versa. You can also have ill results from using version two by itself just change the situation.

Put both versions together, as Confucius has, along with NOT ASSUMING what is good for one is good for everyone else or what is good for everyone else is good for one. It may seem obvious, but think about how may times and how many people you've seen who've missed the subtle difference.

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
Different to the Golden Rule I knew:
"Them that's got the gold makes the rules!"

LOL! Just don't pay yer fart tax.

A very useful analysis of something that I am sure many many Christians take to heart from the Ten Commandments, whether or not they commit adultery or covet their neighbors' asses.

It is the Christians ideal that they have a monopoly on morality, via the 10 Commandments, that I take the greatest exception to. My post is to show that what is contained with the 10 Commandments (and bear in mind that many denominations within Christianity have variations of them) are the result of human evolution and the basic tenets of morality are universal, and require no god(s).

Do you mean for everyone to accept that it is a valid moral construct, or to make Christians feel less secure that they don't "own" the concept and are not morally superior?

Yes.


[Edited on 5-9-2003 by lunachick]

Originally posted by mishapscott
Ironic that some of these individuals were executed, don't ya think?

Yes. And I'm sure others in the future will also be executed/persecuted. You can see it in nations that are the most devout followers of "religious" dogma, today.

Are you aware that the most religious nations on Earth today are Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan, Iran, Pakistan, America. (I do have to confirm this - I'm going from memory, here - and I'm having a Friday night beer or two!)

But what fine company each keeps, huh?

[Edited on 5-9-2003 by lunachick]

Originally posted by mOjOm
Very well put lunachick. I've looked into this myself and would like to add another thought that came to me. This is where confucius, as you've posted, was careful enough to word things completely.

One version being said:
"Do unto another what you would have them do unto you."

Another version being said:
Do not do unto another what you would not have them do unto you."

While these may seem to be the same, there is a very small difference which can lead to it's undoing. It is important to understand both for their separate meaning as well as their unified meaning.

For example if you apply version one in a situation where your aid/advice/involvement is neither desired nor welcomed then doing to others, even with good intent, may have better results if not done. What I may like you may not, so I should not push it on you, or vise versa. You can also have ill results from using version two by itself just change the situation.

Put both versions together, as Confucius has, along with NOT ASSUMING what is good for one is good for everyone else or what is good for everyone else is good for one. It may seem obvious, but think about how may times and how many people you've seen who've missed the subtle difference.

Hmmmm. I'm going to have to reply to this post, mOjOm, tomorrow. I've been having a beer or three with my neighbour and becoming as fuzzy as a Noah on a new strip of land. So I will think this one through tomorrow evening, after all my family duties, etc.

I will say in passing, however - that I guess it's all in translation...and the bible and it's errancy/inerrancy is as fallible to translation as is any other written/spoken thing in the world throughout the ages of man.

I really don't think that too many Christians believe that they are the only ones who can be moral. In fact most Christians shoud believe that most men should be innately moral and want to do good because "the law is written in their hearts".

Romans 2:13
13. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God's sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous.
14. (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law,
15. since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.)

In short all men have consciences and should inherently know what is right and what is wrong. It is the way God built us.

Well,
It doesn't matter what religion you are,
The basic rule is be good an others are good to you.
If you are a bad person,people will be bad to you unless they are bad...

You cannot judge the moral motives of another.
Only God can do that.
You're not God are you?
- Tassadar

what about the golden rule he who has gold has power, lmao what bull#

Originally posted by banjoechef
what about the golden rule he who has gold has power, lmao what bull#

Actually, it's true.

The "common" golden rule fails in the face of a Masochist or other "perverted" individual. If pain gives me pleasure than I'm happy to harm another.

The "do not assume" is the key to using the golden rule.

Originally posted by ktprktpr
The "common" golden rule fails in the face of a Masochist or other "perverted" individual. If pain gives me pleasure than I'm happy to harm another.

The "do not assume" is the key to using the golden rule.

Yes yes yes.....Very good!!!

The golden rule is a good idea but is incomplete or could be re-worded to help against misinterpretation.

It assumes 1.) That You(others) should be doing unto others(you) in the first place. and 2.) That what is to be done is a universal thing. Like ktprktpr points out, someone may like a little pain, or a lot of pain, but that doens't hold true for all. I may like and have evidence that Doc Martin boots are the best shoes ever and the most comfy but that doesn't mean everyone would agree or should agree.

A updated Golden Rule might be:
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but do not do unto others what they do not want you to do to them.

The Golden Rule...in its many a varied forms was given by men, to men, as a "moral code." The very essence of any "moral code" or Golden Rule is one thing.....unconditional Love.

regards
seekerof