The Golden Rule

[Ex-COG]

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".

 

I'm sure we all know this teaching, and probably most people who never went to church have heard it. It's presented as the supreme goal a human should strive for, and with which society could not survive without. But is it true?

 

It implies that others would want to be treated as you would want. Isn't this presumptuous? Kind of an "I like it, so you should too" attitude. For example, a Christian might think that if they were in a "heathen's" shoes, they would want someone to witnesses the "truth" to them; so the Christian goes out witnessing to the non-believer, no matter what this person feels about the experience. In high school, some of us joked about the rule, that no one would want a masochist to take it to heart.

 

When I worked with developmentally disabled adults, I was told not to do things for them, but to assist them. If they were able to answer, I was even to ask how they would like assistance, not just assume I knew the best way for them to do a task. I would think this is a better way to approach others, as it shows respect for the individual and their preferences.

 

Christianity (at least the more conservative branches) also claims to have the most moral and superior version of the rule. They admit you can find the teaching in other religions, but that Jesus taught it in a positive, active way. All those false religions presented it in a negative form, "Don't do to others, as you don't want them to do to you". I've since discovered this is false, as various forms of the Golden Rule are found through out the religious and ethical landscape. (For various versions of the rule, check here.

 

So...what's the final verdict on the Golden Rule? Useful as is; useful depending on the interpretation; the passive (don't do) is better than the positive; or chuck it all out the window? Does it have a role in the ex-christian life, or is there a better guide to living with your fellow man/woman?

[snookums]

Nah....not useful at all in my opinion. There's a suggestion that the individual can control other's by the way they behave.

I think an 'eye for an eye' is much more to the point... and why isn't that biblical 'golden rule' not highlighted? The war on Terror is certianly all about doing that.....so its not 'equal' but something the powerful like to fling out in order to control or to use to take the high moral ground...and boy don't the xians/conservatives love to do that.

 

I don't think it works (person to person) - to assume that everyone is following the same silly social rule.....is it about conformity? The so called safety of social cohesion.

 

I don't like the way some people (xians) need to change other's in order for them to exist in society.

 

I am not my 'brother's keeper'......here's another 'golden rule' that follows a similar vein. It seems a very arrogant stance to have in the world...to assume the position of 'teacher' or moral guide.

 

I wouldn't go so far as to call them 'golden rules', but cliques.

 

I also think its funny if you play around with those sayings and use them as bad sub titles in a bad movie starring infamous 'bad dudes'..ie..image Hitler saying that " Ve Do unto others as you vould have them do unto you".

totally blows it apart imho.....

 

eh..i'm full oh shit as is everyone else...no?

[Lycorth]

The Golden Rule has its merits, and certianly should be part of the default fashion of treatment we give to strangers, much like being wary and cautious. We should be wary of others and never let our desire to do good get out of hand, but all in all treat people fairly, or at least after the manner you'd like to be treated were you in the stranger's shoes.

 

The Golden Rule is good, but doesn't go far enough. What about those who attack you? Why continue doing good to those who would harm or kill you, if they could? Common sense dictates the law to us, and that law is indeed "eye for an eye." Self-preservation is perhaps the most consistently obeyed laws of nature, and only but rarely do other creatures permit themselves to be harmed or destroyed by others. To do so would just be unnatural, since at its foundation, Nature is all about survival. You simply can't survive if you let yourself become a doormat or stubbornly insist on doing good when the situation calls for you to open a can of whoop-ass.

 

For me, it's the Golden Rule upon first meeting and otherwise, until it's clear to me the other party doesn't intend to follow it themselves - then it's eye for an eye without regret.

[♦ nivek ♦]

"He who has the Gold makes the Rules" seems to be much more appropriate use of the so-thought "golden rule".

 

With enough geld in pocket, it simply does not matter what you do or say, you can bail your ass out of most calamities..

 

"More gold? Better Rules"

 

kL

[Thurisaz]

I agree that while the rule itself isn't bad, taking it the other way round (basing your reactions on other's actions) is probably better.

 

Or, to go "scriptural" for a moment , as the Poetic Edda states it:

 

"To a friend a man a friend shall prove

And gifts with gifts requite;

But men shall mocking with mockery answer

And fraud with falsehood meet."

 

[pandora]

I have always thought it should be "Do unto others as you would have done unto you."

[Entgegen]

Personally, I prefer the Platinum Rule:

 

"Do unto others as they want to be done unto"

[pandora]

I have always thought it should be "Do unto others as you would have done unto you."

 

 

Wait a sec... that's not what I meant. I meant "Do unto others as they would have done unto them."

 

What Entegen said... I really was thinking that, I just typed it all out too quickly and didn't edit.

[Ex-COG]

I think what we have here is a platitude that's trotted out in every situation (along with "turn the other cheek" and "give them your shirt, along with your coat" or what ever that other bible verse was) which has some significance, but overlooks the particularities of the situation at hand. You don't react the same way with different people in a variety of situations. Maybe these sayings, along with the multitude of folklore and old wives' tales we all learn growing up, should be used as a general guide, but not set in stone. Fit your reactions to the actions at hand. *gasp* Is this the dreaded "situational ethics" that Christians fear so much?

 

I see the general meaning behind the Golden Rule. Society wouldn't last very long if no one ever thought to consider the other guy, yet it's also important to consider yourself. It's the balance between self-interest and community harmony. And as Varokhar and Thurisaz implied, sometimes eye for an eye might be called for.

 

I also see how the Golden Rule and "turn the other cheek" might be used against nonassertive people; they can end up being taken advantage of by others. That's how I am; I've always tried to be careful when talking and working with people not to step on their toes (even if they might need a good digit stomping!). So I would try to be gentle even when I would hint at what needs to be done. Of course, I didn't get the response I expected, and would end up frustrated. "Why isn't this working, God?!?!?!) I would feel used. Instead of "turn the other cheek" and "do unto others" I needed an assertiveness training course! The whole thing is if you are a healthy individual, you'll know how to treat the other person, and also how to stand up for yourself.

[jrmarlin]

Even christians do not adhere to the Golden Rule. Look at their bloody history of violence, discrimmination, bigotry, harrassment, coercion, extortion and rape of others in the world around them. You can see very clearly they do not follow the Golden Rule - usually it is the non-christians that follow and actually practice it.

[Thackerie]

The Xians may like to claim that they invented the Golden Rule, but the truth is that it - or some version of it - is part of just about every major religion in the world. And it also seems to be part of the philosophy of every nice agnostic and atheist I ever met (and that's just about all of them!)

 

I think the Golden Rule makes a lot of sense. I don't think it should be tossed out with the bathwater just because an obnoxious Xian might use it to justify "witnessing," i.e., harassing, other people. If this happens, just return the favor - that is, if the Xian attempting to convert you thinks he/she is treating you how he/she wants to be treated, thank them for "sharing" and then give them a no-holds-barred serving of your own take on the god question, right back. That'll either shut 'em up or frustrate the hell out of them. Great fun, either way.

[Ouroboros]

It implies that others would want to be treated as you would want. Isn't this presumptuous? Kind of an "I like it, so you should too" attitude. For example, a Christian might think that if they were in a "heathen's" shoes, they would want someone to witnesses the "truth" to them; so the Christian goes out witnessing to the non-believer, no matter what this person feels about the experience. In high school, some of us joked about the rule, that no one would want a masochist to take it to heart.

I think that's reversing the meaning of the rule. I do think the gold rule is good. But people misunderstand it just like the Christians you refer to above. It doesn't say "make others do to you what you want to do to them".

 

The golden rule is older than the gospels and what this alleged Jesus said. It is documented from philosophers 100-250 (IIRC) BCE.

 

Lately I've realized the gospels actually have a couple of rules that all tie together and few Christians really understand the them. They are:

 

- do to others what you want them do to you

- don't judge, unless you will be judged

- love your neighbor as yourself

...etc

 

It is all about respecting others, and realize that you are not better or smarter or more worth than the people you live with and are surrounded by. This is the basic principle of "all men are born equal and have the right to life, liberty and pursue of happiness." It's the foundation for a democratic and free society (even though the critique could be it's pure individualism).

 

When you have groups that works on making the country a theocracy, they don't realize they break these rules from the Bible, because they would never like or agree to a group of Buddhists making the country based on Buddhist laws, or a more present subject like Muslims making the country Islamic. Christians would be outraged if such forces where lobbying, but they don't have any problem doing it themselves. That's extremely hypocritical and immoral according to the Bible. The Christians of today America are just like the Pharisees and Sadducees the alleged Jesus was preaching against. They've become their own enemies.

 

Well, that was a long post about me just saying "yes, the golden rule is valid"...

[jrmarlin]

It is all about respecting others, and realize that you are not better or smarter or more worth than the people you live with and are surrounded by. This is the basic principle of "all men are born equal and have the right to life, liberty and pursue of happiness." It's the foundation for a democratic and free society (even though the critique could be it's pure individualism).

 

When you have groups that works on making the country a theocracy, they don't realize they break these rules from the Bible, because they would never like or agree to a group of Buddhists making the country based on Buddhist laws, or a more present subject like Muslims making the country Islamic. Christians would be outraged if such forces where lobbying, but they don't have any problem doing it themselves. That's extremely hypocritical and immoral according to the Bible. The Christians of today America are just like the Pharisees and Sadducees the alleged Jesus was preaching against. They've become their own enemies.

 

Well, that was a long post about me just saying "yes, the golden rule is valid"...

A couple of things... As I said on my thread, "Do unto others as you would yell persecution if done unto you..." Is the Golden Rule for Christianity.

 

A very interesting observation, Hans -- and highly correct. The downfalls of most groups has been the result of inner-destruction rather than out. This is a very good trend indeed.

[pandora]

Exactly... it's about respect, not some broad license to sit passively and not seek the truth when it offends others. PC-ism is not included in my definition.