Golden Rule

The Golden Rule is the principle of treating others as one would want to be treated by them. It is sometimes called an ethics of reciprocity, meaning that you should reciprocate to others how you would like them to treat you (not necessarily how they actually treat you). Various expressions of this rule can be found in the tenets of most religions and creeds through the ages.
The maxim may appear as a positive or negative injunction governing conduct:
The term "Golden Rule", or "Golden law", began to be used widely in the early 17th century in Britain by Anglican theologians and preachers; the earliest known usage is that of Anglicans Charles Gibbon and Thomas Jackson in 1604.
Possibly the earliest affirmation of the maxim of reciprocity, reflecting the ancient Egyptian goddess Ma'at, appears in the story of "The Eloquent Peasant", which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BCE): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do." This proverb embodies the do ut des principle. A Late Period (c. 664–323 BCE) papyrus contains an early negative affirmation of the Golden Rule: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."
In Mahābhārata, the ancient epic of India, there is a discourse in which sage Brihaspati tells the king Yudhishthira the following about dharma, a philosophical understanding of values and actions that lend good order to life:
The Mahābhārata is usually dated to the period between 400 BCE and 400 CE.
In Chapter 32 in the Book of Virtue of the Tirukkuṛaḷ (c. 1st century BCE to 5th century CE), Valluvar says:
Furthermore, in verse 312, Valluvar says that it is the determination or code of the spotless (virtuous) not to do evil, even in return, to those who have cherished enmity and done them evil. According to him, the proper punishment to those who have done evil is to put them to shame by showing them kindness, in return and to forget both the evil and the good done on both sides (verse 314).
The Golden Rule in its prohibitive (negative) form was a common principle in ancient Greek philosophy. Examples of the general concept include:
The Pahlavi Texts of Zoroastrianism (c. 300 BCE – 1000 CE) were an early source for the Golden Rule: "That nature alone is good which refrains from doing to another whatsoever is not good for itself." Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5, and "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29
Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BCE – 65 CE), a practitioner of Stoicism (c. 300 BCE – 200 CE), expressed a hierarchical variation of the Golden Rule in his Letter 47, an essay regarding the treatment of slaves: "Treat your inferior as you would wish your superior to treat you."
According to Simon Blackburn, the Golden Rule "can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition". A multi-faith poster showing the Golden Rule in sacred writings from 13 faith traditions (designed by Paul McKenna of Scarboro Missions, 2000) has been on permanent display at the Headquarters of the United Nations since 4 January 2002. Creating the poster "took five years of research that included consultations with experts in each of the 13 faith groups." (See also the section on Global Ethic.)
A rule of reciprocal altruism was stated positively in a well-known Torah verse (Hebrew: ואהבת לרעך כמוך‎):
According to John J. Collins of Yale Divinity School, most modern scholars, with Richard Elliott Friedman as a prominent exception, view the command as applicable to fellow Israelites.
Rashi commented what constitutes revenge and grudge, using the example of two men. One man would not lend the other his ax, then the next day, the same man asks the other for his ax. If the second man should say, "'I will not lend it to you, just as you did not lend to me,' it constitutes revenge; if 'Here it is for you; I am not like you, who did not lend me,' it constitutes a grudge. Rashi concludes his commentary by quoting Rabbi Akiva on love of neighbor: 'This is a fundamental [all-inclusive] principle of the Torah.'"
Hillel the Elder (c. 110 BCE – 10 CE) used this verse as a most important message of the Torah for his teachings. Once, he was challenged by a gentile who asked to be converted under the condition that the Torah be explained to him while he stood on one foot. Hillel accepted him as a candidate for conversion to Judaism but, drawing on Leviticus 19:18, briefed the man:
Hillel recognized brotherly love as the fundamental principle of Jewish ethics. Rabbi Akiva agreed, while Simeon ben Azzai suggested that the principle of love must have its foundation in Genesis chapter 1, which teaches that all men are the offspring of Adam, who was made in the image of God. According to Jewish rabbinic literature, the first man Adam represents the unity of mankind. This is echoed in the modern preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It is also taught that Adam is last in order according to the evolutionary character of God's creation:
The Jewish Publication Society's edition of Leviticus states:
This Torah verse represents one of several versions of the Golden Rule, which itself appears in various forms, positive and negative. It is the earliest written version of that concept in a positive form.
At the turn of the era, the Jewish rabbis were discussing the scope of the meaning of Leviticus 19:18 and 19:34 extensively:
Commentators interpret that this applies to foreigners (e.g. Samaritans), proselytes ('strangers who reside with you') and Jews.
On the verse, "Love your fellow as yourself", the classic commentator Rashi quotes from Torat Kohanim, an early Midrashic text regarding the famous dictum of Rabbi Akiva: "Love your fellow as yourself – Rabbi Akiva says this is a great principle of the Torah."
In 1935, Rabbi Eliezer Berkovits explained in his work "What is the Talmud?" that Leviticus 19:34 disallowed xenophobia by Jews.
Israel's postal service quoted from the previous Leviticus verse when it commemorated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on a 1958 postage stamp.
The Golden Rule was proclaimed by Jesus of Nazareth during his Sermon on the Mount and described by him as the second great commandment. The common English phrasing is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Various applications of the Golden Rule are stated positively numerous times in the Old Testament: "You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against any of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD." Or, in Leviticus 19:34: "The alien who resides with you shall be to you as the native-born among you; you shall love the alien as yourself, for you were aliens in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God." These two examples are given in the Septuagint as follows: "And thy hand shall not avenge thee; and thou shalt not be angry with the children of thy people; and thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself; I am the Lord." and "The stranger that comes to you shall be among you as the native, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God."
Two passages in the New Testament quote Jesus of Nazareth espousing the positive form of the Golden rule:
A similar passage, a parallel to the Great Commandment, is to be found later in the Gospel of Luke.
The passage in the book of Luke then continues with Jesus answering the question, "Who is my neighbor?", by telling the parable of the Good Samaritan, which John Wesley interprets as meaning that "your neighbor" is anyone in need.
Jesus' teaching goes beyond the negative formulation of not doing what one would not like done to themselves, to the positive formulation of actively doing good to another that, if the situations were reversed, one would desire that the other would do for them. This formulation, as indicated in the parable of the Good Samaritan, emphasizes the needs for positive action that brings benefit to another, not simply restraining oneself from negative activities that hurt another.
In one passage of the New Testament, Paul the Apostle refers to the golden rule, restating Jesus' second commandment:
St. Paul also comments on the golden rule in the Epistle to the Romans:
The Old Testament Deuterocanonical books of Tobit and Sirach, accepted as part of the Scriptural canon by Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the non-Chalcedonian churches, express a negative form of the golden rule:
As prolific commentators on the Bible, multiple Church Fathers, including the Apostolic Fathers, wrote on the Golden Rule found in both Old and New Testaments. The early Christian treatise the Didache included the Golden Rule in saying "in everything, do not do to another what you would not want done to you."
Clement of Alexandria, commenting on the Golden Rule in Luke 6:31, calls the concept "all embracing" for how one acts in life. Clement further pointed to the phrasing in the book of Tobit as part of the ethics between husbands and wives. Tertullian stated that the rule taught "love, respect, consolation, protection, and benefits".
While many Church Fathers framed the Golden Rule as part of Jewish and Christian Ethics, Theophilus of Antioch stated that it had universal application for all of humanity. Origen connected the Golden Rule with the law written on the hearts of Gentiles mentioned by Paul in his letter to the Romans, and had universal application to Christian and non-Christian alike.
Basil of Caesarea commented that the negative form of the Golden Rule was for avoiding evil while the positive form was for doing good.
The Arabian peninsula was said to not practice the golden rule prior to the advent of Islam. According to Th. Emil Homerin: "Pre-Islamic Arabs regarded the survival of the tribe, as most essential and to be ensured by the ancient rite of blood vengeance." Homerin goes on to say:
From the hadith:
Ali ibn Abi Talib (4th Caliph in Sunni Islam, and first Imam in Shia Islam) says:
Muslim scholar Al-Qurtubi looked at the Golden Rule of loving your neighbor and treating them as you wish to be treated as having universal application to believers and unbelievers alike. Relying upon a Hadith, exegist Ibn Kathir listed those "who judge people the way they judge themselves" as people who will be among the first to be Resurrected.
Hussein bin Ali bin Awn al-Hashemi (102nd Caliph in Sunni Islam), repeated the Golden rule in the context of the Armenian genocide, thus, in 1917, he states:
In Mandaean scriptures, the Ginza Rabba and Mandaean Book of John contain a prohibitive form of the Golden Rule that is virtually identical to the one used by Hillel.
The writings of the Baháʼí Faith encourage everyone to treat others as they would treat themselves and even prefer others over oneself:
Also,
Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama, c. 623–543 BCE) made the negative formulation of the golden rule one of the cornerstones of his ethics in the 6th century BCE. It occurs in many places and in many forms throughout the Tripitaka.
The Golden Rule is paramount in the Jainist philosophy and can be seen in the doctrines of ahimsa and karma. As part of the prohibition of causing any living beings to suffer, Jainism forbids inflicting upon others what is harmful to oneself.
The following line from the Acaranga Sutra sums up the philosophy of Jainism:
The same idea is also presented in V.12 and VI.30 of the Analects (c. 500 BCE), which can be found in the online Chinese Text Project. The phraseology differs from the Christian version of the Golden Rule. It does not presume to do anything unto others, but merely to avoid doing what would be harmful. It does not preclude doing good deeds and taking moral positions.
In relation to the Golden Rule, Confucian philosopher Mencius said "If one acts with a vigorous effort at the law of reciprocity, when he seeks for the realization of perfect virtue, nothing can be closer than his approximation to it."
Mozi regarded the golden rule as a corollary to the cardinal virtue of impartiality, and encouraged egalitarianism and selflessness in relationships.
The "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic" from the Parliament of the World's Religions (1993) proclaimed the Golden Rule ("We must treat others as we wish others to treat us") as the common principle for many religions. The Initial Declaration was signed by 143 leaders from all of the world's major faiths, including Baháʼí Faith, Brahmanism, Brahma Kumaris, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Indigenous, Interfaith, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American, Neo-Pagan, Sikhism, Taoism, Theosophist, Unitarian Universalist and Zoroastrian. In the folklore of several cultures the Golden Rule is depicted by the allegory of the long spoons.
In the view of Greg M. Epstein, a Humanist chaplain at Harvard University, "'do unto others' ... is a concept that essentially no religion misses entirely. But not a single one of these versions of the golden rule requires a God." Various sources identify the Golden Rule as a humanist principle:
John Stuart Mill in his book, Utilitarianism (originally published in 1861), wrote, "In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. 'To do as you would be done by,' and 'to love your neighbour as yourself,' constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality."
According to Marc H. Bornstein, and William E. Paden, the Golden Rule is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights, in which each individual has a right to just treatment, and a reciprocal responsibility to ensure justice for others.
However, Leo Damrosch argued that the notion that the Golden Rule pertains to "rights" per se is a contemporary interpretation and has nothing to do with its origin. The development of human "rights" is a modern political ideal that began as a philosophical concept promulgated through the philosophy of Jean Jacques Rousseau in 18th century France, among others. His writings influenced Thomas Jefferson, who then incorporated Rousseau's reference to "inalienable rights" into the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776. Damrosch argued that to confuse the Golden Rule with human rights is to apply contemporary thinking to ancient concepts.
The Platinum Rule has been said to be stated as, "Do to others as they would have you do to them." Taken in the spirit of the Golden Rule, this suggests one should be familiar or at least consider the desires of the person they're interacting with. However, this is the flaw of the rule in that it requires one to stereotype or make broad assumptions about a strangers interests and personality before interacting with them. These kind of assumptions are often erroneous and therefore a prudent person would avoid the interaction knowing their assumptions are likely incorrect. This rule is prohibitive to communication and prefers no interaction over any interaction with strangers. On occasion, stereotypes may be applied and in rare cases are largely correct. In those situations this rule can be applied successfully.
On the other hand, the Platinum Rule is broadly successful when interacting with familiar people and directs that all interaction be conducted in a manner the person would like to be treated. This demonstrates respect and the desire to favorably regard the person one is interacting with. Unfortunately, this can lead to a dependent relationship, developing a psychological tendency to expect similar treatment in all relationships and avoid forming new relationships where this treatment would not exist simply from not knowing the individuals preferences.
Despite the unusual cases stifling interaction or individuals developing a demand for this behavior from others, the Platinum Rule requires due consideration, self-control, and receiver analysis. Taken altogether, the Platinum Rule represents a gesture of kindness, and is an established norm in various industries, such as marketing, medical care, motivational speaking, and many others. As a consequence, some argue the Golden Rule is outdated, self-absorbed, and grossly fails to consider the needs of others.
Some published research argues that some 'sense' of fair play and the Golden Rule may be stated and rooted in terms of neuroscientific and neuroethical principles.
The Golden Rule can also be explained from the perspectives of psychology, philosophy, sociology, human evolution, and economics. Psychologically, it involves a person empathizing with others. Philosophically, it involves a person perceiving their neighbor also as "I" or "self". Sociologically, "love your neighbor as yourself" is applicable between individuals, between groups, and also between individuals and groups. In evolution, "reciprocal altruism" is seen as a distinctive advance in the capacity of human groups to survive and reproduce, as their exceptional brains demanded exceptionally long childhoods and ongoing provision and protection even beyond that of the immediate family. In economics, Richard Swift, referring to ideas from David Graeber, suggests that "without some kind of reciprocity society would no longer be able to exist."
Study of other primates provides evidence that the Golden Rule exists in other non-human species.
Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche have objected to the rule on a variety of grounds. One is the epistemic question of determining how others want to be treated. The obvious way is to ask them, but they might give duplicitous answers if they find this strategically useful, and they might also fail to understand the details of the choice situation as you understand it. We might also be biased to perceiving harms and benefits to ourselves more than to others, which could lead to escalating conflict if we are suspicious of others. Hence Linus Pauling suggested that we introduce a bias towards others into the golden rule: "Do unto others 20 percent better than you would have them do unto you" - to correct for subjective bias.
George Bernard Shaw wrote, "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same." This suggests that if your values are not shared with others, the way you want to be treated will not be the way they want to be treated. Hence, the Golden Rule of "do unto others" is "dangerous in the wrong hands", according to philosopher Iain King, because "some fanatics have no aversion to death: the Golden Rule might inspire them to kill others in suicide missions."
Walter Terence Stace, in The Concept of Morals (1937) argued that Shaw's remark
Immanuel Kant famously criticized the golden rule for not being sensitive to differences of situation, noting that a prisoner duly convicted of a crime could appeal to the golden rule while asking the judge to release him, pointing out that the judge would not want anyone else to send him to prison, so he should not do so to others. On the other hand, in a critique of the consistency of Kant's writings, several authors have noted the "similarity" between the Golden Rule and Kant's Categorical Imperative, introduced in Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (See discussion at this link).
This was perhaps a well-known objection, as Leibniz actually responded to it long before Kant made it, suggesting that the judge should put himself in the place, not merely of the criminal, but of all affected persons and then judging each option (to inflict punishment, or release the criminal, etc.) by whether there was a “greater good in which this lesser evil was included.”
Marcus George Singer observed that there are two importantly different ways of looking at the golden rule: as requiring (1) that you perform specific actions that you want others to do to you or (2) that you guide your behavior in the same general ways that you want others to. Counter-examples to the golden rule typically are more forceful against the first than the second.
In his book on the golden rule, Jeffrey Wattles makes the similar observation that such objections typically arise while applying the golden rule in certain general ways (namely, ignoring differences in taste or situation, failing to compensate for subjective bias, etc.) But if we apply the golden rule to our own method of using it, asking in effect if we would want other people to apply the golden rule in such ways, the answer would typically be no, since others' ignoring of such factors will lead to behavior which we object to. It follows that we should not do so ourselves—according to the golden rule. In this way, the golden rule may be self-correcting. An article by Jouni Reinikainen develops this suggestion in greater detail.
It is possible, then, that the golden rule can itself guide us in identifying which differences of situation are morally relevant. We would often want other people to ignore any prejudice against our race or nationality when deciding how to act towards us, but would also want them to not ignore our differing preferences in food, desire for aggressiveness, and so on. This principle of "doing unto others, wherever possible, as they would be done by..." has sometimes been termed the platinum rule.
Charles Kingsley's The Water Babies (1863) includes a character named Mrs Do-As-You-Would-Be-Done-By (and another, Mrs Be-Done-By-As-You-Did).