Golden Rule In Philosphy - Essay Example

The Golden Rule Throughout history and in every culture, some concept of religion has emerged to greater or lesser extent. The Greeks felt they were presided over by a great number of gods and demi-gods who shared their own personal faults and vices. Today’s world largely believes in a single god with the differences existing in how this single god expects his people to behave. As history has shown, though, regardless of whether actions are carried out in the name of religion or not, belief systems can be and have been labeled either ‘good’ or ‘bad.’ When one looks back over history to consider whether a religion or non-religious nation was ‘good’ or ‘bad’, assessments are typically made based upon how their actions have affected their fellow man. This seems to suggest that there is a single base conception held by most societies that serves as the foundation for a general moral code. It has been suggested that what is known as the Golden Rule stands as that foundational concept behind the world’s generalized moral code. How this code is interpreted, instilled or ignored within a given society determines how history will judge it. Those whose actions have been undertaken with a view to the common good of all man will be more often considered in a more positive light than those whose actions have been taken to the detriment of a large proportion of the population without extreme physical provocation. By understanding what is meant by the Golden Rule and the arguments defending it as the foundational element of theism, the question can then be turned around to examine how the Golden Rule argues for theism. For many people, the Golden Rule carries little actual meaning beyond the surface concept of “Do to others as you would have them do to you” (Luke 6:31; NIV). For these people, the meaning of the Golden Rule essentially equates with the idea that if you don’t want your laptop stolen from your backpack, don’t steal someone else’s. However, the basic concept of the rule goes much deeper than this simplified impression. The idea of the Golden Rule is reinforced in Matthew, “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” (7:12; NIV), taking the idea a little deeper as it calls more explicitly for thoughtful action. This statement requires the individual to consider first what they expect from others before acting. Despite this suggestion that the Golden Rule goes deeper than simply the surface effort of abstaining from actions that might harm others, as had been the ancient conception, but also considering what type of behavior is desired from others so one might act, the underlying concept of the Golden Rule is perhaps best summarized in the Old Testament, well before Jesus’ transmission of it. The words come through Moses, who is told, “Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18; NIV, emphasis added). This goes well beyond the realm of considering what sort of behavior one might wish others to adopt toward themselves, but to consider what would be most helpful to themselves. More than simply considering what behaviors others could engage in to help oneself, but it becomes necessary to consider whether this help for oneself contributes to the betterment of the group or the society. Following this, it is also important to consider where the line is drawn between helping and hindering through enabling and how to preserve one’s autonomy within this environment. Finally, it is necessary to consider where the neighbor is coming from, their background, culture, beliefs and knowledge, before it can be determined what is best for them (Wattles, 1996). Thus, loving one’s neighbor as oneself takes on depths of meaning that reach perhaps beyond what the average human can actually achieve. The value lies in the trying. That the underlying concepts of the Golden Rule are the basis for most of the world’s religions is evidenced in the many ways this idea has been expressed within the various known religions. It has already been demonstrated how this rule applies to Judaism through the Old Testament and Christianity through the New Testament; however, versions of the Golden Rule also exist in at least six other major world religious traditions. Not all of them are stated in exactly the same way, nor are they all placed on a positive axis; however, they all convey the same deep adherence to a principle of mutual respect, community spirit, humane treatment and expected behavior. For example, Islam teaches “Not one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself” (Forty Hadith of an-Nawawi 13 cited in Wilson, 1991). Asian traditions also reflect the ideas of the Golden Rule in their major religions. The principle in Jainism is stated, “A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated” (Sutrakritanga 1.11.33 cited in Wilson, 1991). Confucius is quoted as having told his followers, “Try your best to treat others as you would wish to be treated yourself, and you will find that this is the shortest way to benevolence” (Mencius VII.A.4 cited in Wilson, 1991). The major belief systems coming out of India also illustrate the idea somewhat from the reverse as the Hindu Mahabharata states “One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality. All other activities are due to selfish desire” (Anusasana Parva 113.8 cited in Wilson, 1991). Buddhism, another system originating in India, states, “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” (Sutta Nipata 705 cited in Wilson, 1991). There are even traces of the Golden Rule in many African traditional religions. Wilson (1991) provides an example of a Yoruba proverb (from the region of present day Nigeria) which states, “One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts.” Even the Native American people developed numerous cultures that seemed to take the principles of the Golden Rule to heart. For example, an ancient Pueblo Indian saying translates to mean “We are all in one nest” with its full connotations of brotherhood and mutual support and caring (Thomas et al, 1993). Throughout the known world and even across the sea, some form of the Golden Rule was a part of the general religious code for a great many of the people. The idea that the Golden Rule is a recognized factor in most of the world’s religions was recognized by the 1993 Parliament of the World’s religions in a signed statement called Towards a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration. After enumerating the various ways in which the earth and its peoples are being harmed every day in the modern world, the declaration states: “There is a principle which is found and has persisted in many religious and ethical traditions of humankind for thousands of years: ‘What you do not wish done to yourself, do not do to others.’ Or in positive terms: ‘What you wish done to yourself, do to others.’ This should be the irrevocable, unconditional norm for all areas of life, for families and communities, for races, nations and religions” (Kung et al, 1993). Affirming this statement, and its application within the modern world, more than 140 leaders from different faiths throughout the world signed this initial declaration to signify their agreement with its principles, statements and intention. The presence of the same sentiment in so many varied scriptures, each created at different times and in different places, most of which had little to no direct contact with each other begins to hint at the idea that the Golden Rule as it has now become called has its source in some greater than human consciousness. While there is no way of knowing whether primitive peoples, such as those who followed Moses or those who may have predated him in other portions of the globe, were capable of understanding the supreme wisdom of their words as they uttered them, the fact that they are repeated in so many places, times and cultures to such a high degree of similarity eliminates much of the possibility of coincidence. “The very commitment to a certain scripture as revelation implies faith that the ideals of divinity have been expressed in human language; the revealed word functions as a paradigm, a guide from the spirit world, even if no human leader has the status of a paradigm” (Wattles, 1996:184). As Descartes might argue, the very idea that we have a conception of a paradigm of behavior in spite of the fact that we have no true paradigm before us suggests something of a higher nature at work. In the Torah, the words that comprise the Old Testament’s conception of the Golden Rule are attributed to God himself, while they are given to Jesus in the New Testament. The idea that these words are inspired by a divine or inhumanly wise source is conveyed in each and every tradition in which the rule appears, yet it is as practical and down-to-earth as any other statement offered. Indeed, it is often this source of the rule to which individuals appeal when they feel their basic human dignities have been violated. Through the Golden Rule, individuals are able to gain a sense of what is right and good within a given community based upon what they see of the people around them. When a rich man throws away an entire steak dinner because it is not cooked to his taste in front of a poor child starving on the street just outside the window, one can begin to appreciate the nature of prayer. In our most fervent hopes and dreams, we, as human beings, have a tendency to wish for the same basic things and to hope to avoid the same basic things. “Our similar biological and social/psychological structures ensure that our desires and fears will also be similar. And such similarities are what allow each of us a window into each other’s inner self. Very few people enjoy being lied to, called names, stolen from, injured, or otherwise provoked. While almost every last one of us loves having friends, sharing experiences, good health, good meals, etc. Those are part of who we all are” (Babinski, 2005). When we see scenarios such as what is described above, we have a tendency to appeal within our own minds to whatever governing force we might believe in as a source and enforcer of the principles of the Golden Rule. This may come in the form of prayer to God, Jesus or some other named divinity or it may be an appeal to a more abstract concept such as the idea of Karma, which is itself directly derived from the principles of the Golden Rule. “The shortest explanation of karma that I know is: ‘you get what you give.’ In other words; whatever you do intentionally to others, a similar thing will happen to yourself in the future” (Harderwijk, 2007). While this is a very simplified explanation, the concept of Karma basically rests on the principle of the Golden Rule with an element of retribution thrown in as action invites equal and opposite reaction. Even should one not feel at all inclined to believe in the concept of a supernatural power but instead rests one’s faith upon the principles of science from which the saying ‘equal and opposite reaction’ occurs, there remains an underlying belief in some invisible force that will make all things equal eventually and thus, a sense of something greater than ourselves. Scientists have had difficulty reconciling the ‘coincidence’ of the Golden Rule’s appearance throughout the globe. Some, such as Edward Westermarck, argue that the reason for this is based upon prehistoric societies’ basic need to survive: “one’s obligations were to one’s family and clan; then they expanded to include the tribe. Norms requiring humane treatment of outsiders had special leverage for the next stage in moral evolution” (cited in Wattles, 1996: 183). This argument seems to hold some weight, yet what was the driving force for societies to continue to adhere to this doctrine or to include it within their religious, rather than purely social, code? Within this argument, no explanation is provided as to why this concept became associated, even peripherally, with the divine. Yet others have suggested a neurotheological approach to the question, stating, “If it’s really true that all religions have this ethical principle, across continents and across centuries, then it is more likely to have a hardwired scientific basis than if it was just a neighborhood custom” (Donald Pfaff cited in “Brains are Hardwired”, 2008). Again, however, the question is begged, why should we be hardwired to this degree and why, if we are ‘hardwired’ to follow the Golden Rule, is it necessary to have it so expressly stated in so many of the world’s theologies, both past and present? The answer again lies in its universal applicability and dependence upon divine intervention. At some point, regardless of one’s belief system, the soul is called to account for the actions it’s taken throughout the course of a lifetime. Whether this is the threat of eternal hellfire, the fear of the depravities of the next life or the simple reactive forces of physics, there is a greater force at work than what we, as humans can understand and this is, for many, the very definition of God. The Golden Rule is a concept that seems very simple on the surface but that actually delves deeply into just what it means to be human. While its simple instruction to treat others as we would like to be treated seems straightforward enough, there are infinite nuances as we attempt to discover just how we would like to be treated and how that might translate to someone who has different likes, dislikes, values or traditions. Thus, we are asked to understand an individual’s differences from ourselves even as we are instructed to treat them as if they were ourselves. This simple yet complex concept has been taught to people throughout the millennia of human existence through almost all of the world’s major religions in each time period and culture to greater or lesser extent. Its prevalence throughout history defies any attempt to attribute this to mere coincidence and begins to suggest some form of divine universal code. Regardless of whether one believes in God, a concept of God under another name or is limited to placing one’s faith in science alone, the Golden Rule has a tendency to create belief in a universal order that cannot be denied. Even should one be only capable of accepting the practical element of the Golden Rule, understanding that treating others with the respect and dignity one expects to be given is necessary to accomplish social and personal goals, practicing the Golden Rule as much as possible remains a worthy pursuit. The Native American view on this is perhaps most helpful here – ‘We all live in the same nest’. If we are to survive with each other, we must learn how to work with each other to create a world in which no one feels it’s necessary to steal, to maim, to torture, to destroy but are all instead working toward fulfilling the Golden Rule by providing everyone with what each individual feels they are entitled to. Works Cited Babinski, Ed. “The Golden Rule and Christian Apologetics.” (October 26, 2005). May 5, 2008 < http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/religion/golden.html> “Brains are Hardwired to Act According to the Golden Rule.” Science Daily. March 23, 2008. Harderwijk, Rudy. “Buddhist Karma.” A View on Buddhism. (December 13, 2007). May 5, 2008 < http://buddhism.kalachakranet.org/karma.html#1> Kung, Hans et al. Towards a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration. Chicago: Parliament of the World’s Religions, 1993. NIV (Holy Bible, New International Version). Colorado Springs, CO: International Bible Society, 1984. Thomas, David Hurst; Jay Miller; Richard White; Peter Nabokov; & Philip J. Deloria. The Native Americans: An Illustrated History. Atlanta: Turner Publishing, 1993. Wattles, Jeffrey. The Golden Rule. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996. Wilson, Andrew. “The Golden Rule.” World Scripture: A Comparative Anthology of Sacred Texts. International Religious Foundation, 1991. Read More