Last edited:
The Golden Rule [large picture]
- Thread starter Roman
- Start date
I really love Taoism approach to life to consider everything as part of one, it is quite unique from all other religions where you are regarded as separate entity.
Do to others as to self. The idea here is that we must do good deeds to others the way we do good deeds to ourselves. However this thought forgets that if we do not do anything to ourselves we do not do anything to others. In Taoism it seems that we are part of everything and must act always and held responsible for we are always that.
Do to others as to self. The idea here is that we must do good deeds to others the way we do good deeds to ourselves. However this thought forgets that if we do not do anything to ourselves we do not do anything to others. In Taoism it seems that we are part of everything and must act always and held responsible for we are always that.
I would be more in favor of the golden rule if it were expressed in negatives. EG:
The Do unto others . . . . view opens the door to coercing behavior believed to be good.
Few people object to laws against murder, theft, fraud, et cetera. Such laws are intended to prevent positive action which is harmful.
I would hate to see Good Samaritan laws passed. Should I be coerced to help my neighbor if he has serious problems? Should I be prosecuted for not attempting to save a child from an auto accident? Should I be forced to contribute to charitable causes?
- Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
The Do unto others . . . . view opens the door to coercing behavior believed to be good.
Few people object to laws against murder, theft, fraud, et cetera. Such laws are intended to prevent positive action which is harmful.
I would hate to see Good Samaritan laws passed. Should I be coerced to help my neighbor if he has serious problems? Should I be prosecuted for not attempting to save a child from an auto accident? Should I be forced to contribute to charitable causes?
Its misleading to represent it as such.
For instance I think you would be hard pressed to find a commentary on the vedas that establishes the "golden rule" as central ... although it certainly turns up regularly in upadharmic (or sub-religious) treatises.
IOW the golden rule is fine as a general introduction to civilized life.
But spiritual life has bigger issues at hand than mere civil introductions .... after all, even civility doesn't diminish the problem of assigning eternal values to temporary objects (which is what tends to under-ride a lot of our incivility anyway ....)
Jesus' alleged golden rule is
Matt 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Luke 6:31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
You may think it sounds good, but lets get a pearl of wisdom from 500 years earlier from Confucius
"Do not do to others, what you do not want done to yourself"
"What one does not wish for oneself, one ought not to do to anyone else"
The same?
"No I don't think so", look at it closer.
Confucius says what you should not do and jesus says what you should do.
What's the difference? I hear you ask, a lot really, if you should do unto others the things you like, it doesn't consider what other people like. if you like to drive fast for example, you should do it regardless of whether your passenger likes it. Because jesus say we should do it unto them.
But with Confucious we can see where the wisdom starts to shine, he says don't do to others, even though you may like driving fast, you should kill your speed, because you passenger may not like it.
So in Jesus(christianity) or Islams case, which would use the words of the ethic of reciprocity in such a way, it should be demoted to the "Tin Rule" as it is most certainly not Golden.
It is probably there basis for trying to enforce there views on others.
Matt 7:12 So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.
Luke 6:31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
You may think it sounds good, but lets get a pearl of wisdom from 500 years earlier from Confucius
"Do not do to others, what you do not want done to yourself"
"What one does not wish for oneself, one ought not to do to anyone else"
The same?
"No I don't think so", look at it closer.
Confucius says what you should not do and jesus says what you should do.
What's the difference? I hear you ask, a lot really, if you should do unto others the things you like, it doesn't consider what other people like. if you like to drive fast for example, you should do it regardless of whether your passenger likes it. Because jesus say we should do it unto them.
But with Confucious we can see where the wisdom starts to shine, he says don't do to others, even though you may like driving fast, you should kill your speed, because you passenger may not like it.
So in Jesus(christianity) or Islams case, which would use the words of the ethic of reciprocity in such a way, it should be demoted to the "Tin Rule" as it is most certainly not Golden.
It is probably there basis for trying to enforce there views on others.
Last edited:
He who has the gold, makes the rules.
AAAAh-men
all in good time my son.Oh gee, tell us wise man, how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?
for now I think its more important to be able to distinguish between a primary religious principle and a secondary one ...
So the difference between a big lie and a real whopper?
Do to others as you would have them do to you. EQUALS
Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
Neither means it's good to force things on others because it's what you like or approve of.
Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
Neither means it's good to force things on others because it's what you like or approve of.
Even if that's where your values lie, yes, that would be the first base of analytic investigation regardless .... (mind you, the volume of your values could very well render any analytic investigation pointless due to the pending emotional issues)
Last edited:
So what do you do in a situation where someone is in danger yet unaware of/unable to recognize it.
Do you let them be, because everyone is equal or do you offer some sort of assistance because just as you value safety you are sure others equally value safety?
Sciencelovah
Registered Senior Member
This got me thinking, so basically the world religions share the similar value, don't they? I wonder what else are similar and how much similarity do any religion has with each other.
Too bad Roman isn't here anymore to respond, but I'd like to keep this discussion alive as a tribute to him...
Superficially there are unsurprising similarities in many major religions. I say unsurprising because they've been in contact with each other for since their various inceptions and they deal with humans and human desires, fears and situations.
Of course there are many deep differences as well. Ones they are willing to kill each other over.
You might scare up a copy of Aldous Huxley's "The Perennial Philosophy."
Inzomnia,
The examples listed come in two opposing concepts -
1. Don't do harm to others.
2. Do to others what you think is good.
Islam and Christianity are the two supporters of (2). The primary problem here is that it is they that have decided what is good for everyone else and the rule encourages them to inflict their values on others, whether solicited or not.
The wiser (1) is the passive non intrusive/violent philosophy.
I note that the Wiccan rede is not listed - "an harm none do what thou will".
Note also a primary principle of the Libertarian movement - you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others.
Well not really.
The examples listed come in two opposing concepts -
1. Don't do harm to others.
2. Do to others what you think is good.
Islam and Christianity are the two supporters of (2). The primary problem here is that it is they that have decided what is good for everyone else and the rule encourages them to inflict their values on others, whether solicited or not.
The wiser (1) is the passive non intrusive/violent philosophy.
I note that the Wiccan rede is not listed - "an harm none do what thou will".
Note also a primary principle of the Libertarian movement - you should be free to do as you choose with your own life and property, as long as you don't harm the person and property of others.
Sciencelovah
Registered Senior Member
This was why I asked how much is the similarity among them? Are they fundamentally the same and so perhaps come from the same root, or are they fundamentally different?
Well, if you worded it that way, I can see what do you mean. But isn't the number (2) supposed to be: "do to others what you think is good if it's done onto you?", so basically it's the same thing with (1)? :shrug:
Anyway, I'm sorry, I am so sleepy for now, mabye I'll come back to this thread tomorrow. Ciao
“ Originally Posted by StrangerInAStrangeLa
Do to others as you would have them do to you. EQUALS
Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
Neither means it's good to force things on others because it's what you like or approve of. ”
I said nothing about everyone being equal & I don't see it being related to the current discussion.
Obviously, what I value & how I value it is not the same as what everyone else values.
Do to others as you would have them do to you. EQUALS
Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.
Neither means it's good to force things on others because it's what you like or approve of. ”
I said nothing about everyone being equal & I don't see it being related to the current discussion.
Obviously, what I value & how I value it is not the same as what everyone else values.
hence the suggestion that "Neither means it's good to force things on others because it's what you like or approve of" is problematized by a person holding the value that another's well being is at stake.
Are you on drugs?