Jump to content

Talk:Golden Rule/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

still not perfect (From Golden Rule Talk Page)

JFK's way of stating the golden rule might be better than the more common "do unto others as you would have done unto you" but it is still not perfect. The problem with the golden rule is everyone wants different things, and also some of those things are bad. Like if you see a hot girl you might want her to jump you and start tearing your clothes off, but that doesn't mean you should do that to her. But JFK's version has similar problems. Suppose you knew someone who was in prison, and if you were in their situation you would want someone to help you break out? It is easy to think of many other similar examples where difficulties would arise. I think a better way is "love your neighbor as yourself" because although it is more passive since it doesnt say to do anything, this is actually better because it keeps it more general, and if you love someone it implies that you would do good things to them and treat them very well. Of course it should be extended to everyone, not just to neighbors - "love each person as yourself." The only remaining problem is if you hate yourself. So maybe "Love each person as most people love themselves" but that sounds stupid, so how about "Love each person as one would love oneself." I think everyone gets what the Golden Rule is trying to say but when you take it literally it doesnt work. I'm just looking for the best way to state it. anyone have any ideas? TheTruth12 09:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think there needs to be a separate page for JFK's version of the golden rule. 7thGen claims that this is the useful version, but really it is barely more useful than the other versions (see my above argument). I think this article should just be part of the regular Golden Rule article. TheTruth12 09:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Love one another as you would love yourself.

TheTruth12, you apparently missed the footnote on the more useful version of the golden rule, which clearly states who authored it. Please go back and look again (it was not JFK). I sort-of said that JFK successfully used it, although of course he could not have used Harry Gensler's statement of it, really, because JFK was speaking about 30 years earlier. And I haven't looked at this article for a long time, and didn't realize how small the break was between JFK and the improved version itself. I've fixed that now.
And I do agree with you that the more useful version is still not perfect. I've looked at Harry Gensler's book on ethics (see his website mentioned in the above footnote), and I think he would agree with you and me that no perfect statement of the rule is possible. Probably he and I both feel that he came as close to it as a human can do. I actually like your version too, but Harry Gensler has worked on the golden rule and on ethics for decades, with good results -- his version helps or guides the user as I tried to spell out.
Since you are not a registered user, of course you don't have a talk page for me to use for this reply. And I should add, since your other WP contributions are mostly religious, that my interests are not religious at all, but ethical instead. And what "regular Golden Rule article" are you talking about? I suppose you meant Ethic of reciprocity. For7thGen 22:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

i agree, there doesnt seem to be a perfect way of saying it, but somehow we have an implicit notion of what it may mean. i made a mistake thinking that it orignated from JFK, but it is more clear in the article now. i meant the "Ethic of reciprocity" article. I am interested in both religion and ethics.

I've got it! "Care for others as much as you would like others to care for you." This is about a feeling rather than actions, but that's good b/c it is more general and so avoids the problems of the other wordings, and naturally you would want someone to care for you enough that it would motivate them to act kindly toward you. Also it says "as much" instead of "as" or "how," b/c the rule is not to treat others the exact same way you want to be treated, but to treat them as well as you would like to be treated. If you care for someone the way you care for yourself, you would treat them in a kind way that is likeable to them, even if it would be less likeable to you. The only problem i still see is people who hate themselves. I think this is the best way to state the concept that i have seen. I guess since i havent earned degrees or written books on ethics, it can't be in the article. Maybe someday.TheTruth12 01:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps another way of dealing with the issue would be to use a range of alternative ways of putting the golden rule - aalongside the existing ones at the head of the article. I have added one by Oscar Wilde, "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live", which has the advantage of specifically addressing the issue of respect & tolerance between differing peoples/faiths. Respect is a verb - specifically, both an attitude and a non-physical action - so one person's respect of lack of respect for another is no different to whether they help or or hurt them beyond the fact that it doesn't occur on a physical level. As a non-physical action, it is included in most forms of the golden rule (the Islamic quotation given is a notable exception), but is often actively ignored by religious groups, most notably the more extremist sects of the various Judeo-Christian faiths.

Contributed 02 07 Passive Reciprocity as taught by the silver rule, "Do no harm" (Robert Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D., The Life Principles, 1999, President of Gonzaga University) cannot be equated with the proactive reciprocity of the golden rule. Either eliminate the initial equation of reciprocity with the golden rule or allow this distinction in the definition, as I did.

Tobit

It might be worth mentioning that the Golden Rule as expressed by Christ is an inversion of the Golden Rule as expressed in Tobit 4:15. Since Tobit is deuterocanonical in Christianity and not part of Hebrew scriptures, I am not sure how it would fit into the 8-religion listing of this article, but I think it is interesting that there is a sort of reverse-version of the formulation in the Jewish and Christian traditions (basically, don't do to people what you don't want done to you). Egern.

Okay, on further thought, I realize that the formulation that you have in the Talmud is basically identical to what is in Tobit 4:15, so never mind! Egern.

DHC Comments:

1. This double negative version of the Rule in Tolbit: "And what you hate, do not do to anyone", is not the expression that Jesus used, but it is the form that Hillel adapted. 2. The Book of Tobit was written in Babylon, possibly about 450 BCE. It was during this period that the Jews were in exile in Persia, and even after the exile was abolished many remained there to establish in Babylon the great schools of talmudic study. So even without it being cannonical to the Jews it seems likely that Hillel was aware of the Book of Tolbit, because he first lived there.

Wiccan Rede

I remove the Wiccan line:

Wicca: The Wiccan Rede

"An it harm none, do what you will."

While this is pretty close to my own ethics as a libertarian, this isn't the golden rule at all. --Lee Daniel Crocker

After I removed this, and explained why, it was put back without explanation. This is not appropriate behavior. I'm quite willing to be convinced I'm wrong, but you do have to make the argument. Do not put this line back without engaging in argument here. --LDC

Apologies: I didn't read the /Talk first, so didn't see your comment -- The Anome

No problem, and in all fairness I didn't really make my case very clear either, so I'll make it clearer here: the Golden rule, in both it's positive and negative forms, says that you should judge your actions toward others by how you would prefer to be treated; i.e., that your own judgement of what is right and wrong in other's actions with respect to you is also right and wrong for you with respect to others. The Rede says no such thing: the Rede says that those actions which are harmful to others (no standard specified--so perhaps it could be what they consider harmful, not you) you should avoid, and otherwise you should do what makes you happy, regardless of whether that's what you want others to do. So, for example, if you enjoy singing, but you hate to hear others sing, by the golden rule you should not sing to others, because you wouldn't want others to sing to you. But by the Rede, if you knew someone who wanted to hear you sing (and was therefore not harmed by it), sing away--it makes you happy, and it doesn't harm anyone. Frankly, I consider it a vastly superior ethic to the golden rule, so I am upset that it is lumped together with its inferior cousin. --LDC

As a practicing witch, I would have to agree that while our faith does not permit the harming of others, the Wiccan Rede is completely inappropriate for this section, a Golden Gule is clearly a core message wherin you must; "treat others as you wish to be treated" whereas the message conveyed in the Reed is "nothing is wrong unless someone is harmed by your in/direct actions". Lee Daniel Crocker is correct, and I echo his sentiments about less enlightened Practitioners incorporating the rede here. --Tearz 00:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems to me that perhaps any mention of the Wiccan Rede should be omitted. If not, perhaps it should not be given the level of prominence (being listed before harm principle and liberty principle) since adherents of the religion are a tiny minority (0.06% of adults in the U.S.A according to [1]). Harm and Liberty principles are sufficient to discuss the difference between doing good and avoiding bad.--Red Baron 21:51, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources

I would like to see some sources for the Plato and Aristotle, if anybody has them. Plato argues in Crito that it is wrong to hurt one's enemies, so the Golden Rule is consistent with his ideas, but I can't find the quotes given in this article. Ocanter 18:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mencius

This is strange:

300 BCE "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." - Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113.8 (Mencius Vii.A.4?), Hinduism.

What is Mencius doing here ? (I'll remove if no comments)

No comments: I move this to talk page : [[4th century BC|300 BCE]] "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." - Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113.8 (Mencius Vii.A.4?), [[Hinduism]]. gbog 03:30, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Actually, looking over this version of the Mahabharata, I can find the above quotation, but not the one that's actually in the article as it now stands ("5:1517" doesn't make any sense to me, but Anusasana Parva 113.8 is perfectly clear). grant 04:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Karma

I don't understand Jaknouse's additions:

A common modern variant of this rule is the phrase What goes around comes around. This is very similar to the Wiccan or Neopagan rule of threefold return: what one does is returned to one threefold.

I don't see the relation, the golden rule does not speak of rewards or punishment.

The idea of reciprocal ethics is often confused with karma, a concept of Buddhism.

Sorry about this intrusion, but Karma is a fundamental principle of Hindu theology and ethics, arising much before the advent of Buddhism.

Primarily attribute to Hindu, no? - Jeandré, 2004-04-19t13:59z

I will admit that there is a slight difference here, it is between theoretical reciprocity and actual reciprocity. But both are intended to make the same ethical statement, one of ethics' most fundamental statements: that the way that you treat others is equivalent in value to the way that they treat you. jaknouse 16:10, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Not at all. Karma, and the "rule of threefold return" (how arbitrary can we get? Why not, say, tenfold?), suppose there is some sort of supernatural/metaphysical/mumbojumbo accounting department that tabulates the "weights" of different actions and then imposes the requisite "balance". Therefore, if anything "bad" happens to you, you must have done something to deserve it, and if someone else does something "bad" to you, you can supposedly take comfort in the notion that "justice" will be dished out to them somehow, whether you find out about it or not. The "ethic of reciprocity", while deeply flawed for its own reasons, is at least a little more realistic in that it only says that one should treat others in THE HOPE that they would treat you the same way, whether they do or not. (As you say, theoretical versus actual -- but the two are absolutely not equivalent in any way!) And of course, different people have different opinions about how the world is "supposed" to work, so someone else may well follow the "ethic of reciprocity" and treat you exactly as they would wish to be treated, but not at all how YOU think someone in your situation should be treated. Suppose, for example, someone believes in some particular flavor of metaphysics in which people have "souls" that need to be somehow "saved", and so they would hope that if their own soul were in danger, someone would come along and "save" them, no matter what it would take, regardless of any worldly concerns like legality -- and so they try to "save" the souls of others, many of whom may not believe they require any such "salvation" and find the imposition objectionable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.238.26 (talk) 16:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Dates

Two things:

  1. 500 BCE is the first year of the 5th century BCE, not part of the 6th century BCE (there is no year 0, so the first century BCE was the hundred years from 100 BCE – 1 BCE).
  1. All dates with BCE/BC should be linked, even if they're redundant. I'm adding functionality to the date formatting display preferences so that users can choose whether to see BCE or BC. This needs dates to be linked, in order to work (just as all Month_Day dates should be linked to allow custom formatting).

--Wclark 00:53, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)

I'm glad dates were added but why is there no date for the Torah? What consideration is there for the oral tradition predating the written account? 66.140.67.75 16:02, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Dan

Golden Rule - Lev 19:18

"....but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord. JPS.
"....but thou shalt love thy neighbour's well-being as t'were thine own: I am G-D." Hirsch.
Following the Golden Rule is in your own self-interest; it is not altruism; it is biological neccessity.

That is hard to believe. If so, then why in the world are people so self-absorbed by nature??

People do a lot of stupid things by nature. One reason it is in your own best interest to treat others as yourself is because they will usually treat you back the same way.

The lung must love the heart's well-being and vice versa.

I believe the problem here to be the use of the expression "by nature".

There are several diferent interpretations and points of view towards the human nature and, since none of them could fairly claim absolute proven superiority, we can not, in a NPOV environment, use the human nature as a source for any actions, wise or fool.

It is certain that we do stupid things, but it may be for an infinite set of reasons, almost all of them concerned to our difficulty in handling desire and our (almost perfect) ignorance about the true principles that lead to happiness and enlightment (both reasons not necessarily connected to our nature).

So, it is possible (and quite plausible) that following the Golden Rule may be an abolute necessity, while, at the same time, that we do not follow the Golden Rule very often (anorexia nervosa may cause a person not to follow a necessary rule - "one must eat"). kibernetes

The Law of Organic Interdependance

Scripture and Spinoza declare that G-D is ONE to establish that EVERYTHING is bound into one grand ORGANIC Interdependence; from this intuition, by deduction, "in working clothes", logically flows the Golden Rule "love your neighbor..." and enlightened self-interest. The Golden Rule says that you are your brother's keeper in the sense that your heart is your lung's keeper, and your lung is your heart's keeper—the interdependence of the parts for the life of the total organism.
If declaring "G-D is ONE", does not trigger the concept of the "Organic Interdependence of Parts" then "G-D is ONE" is just words without meaning.

The Law of Organisms

The Law of Organisms for individuals (and for nations) they grow (rise) when the critical mass of the parts are organically interdependent, they die (fall) when the critical mass of the parts are not organically interdependent.

Yesselman 23:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Principle

The current edit of "principle" and "criticism" miss the main point of the golden rule, that is emphasy and mutual respect. O.K. it's a bit of original research but hey, golden rule is reference to general cultural heritage so no one doctrine or philosophy can claim monopoly to it. Plus, it miss reference to the classical liberal idea of no harm principle. FWBOarticle

Finish doing draft. I believe this version is superior to the previous one in term of coherence if not in Engrish. Plus, this edit explain why Golden "rule" had to be merged under "Ethic" of reciprocity. The point is that there is no "rule" in Golden rule. FWBOarticle

Proposal to split "History" section

I think "History" section should be split into "Religion" and "Philosoph". Moreover, I believe we can expand the article significantly if we create "Ethics of reciprocity and Law" or "Ethics of reciprocity and Diplomacy" and "Ethics of reciprocity and Human right". Don't know, but we could add "Golden rules and Business" as well but I'm not so sure if we have enough content. I think this help to trim the "principle" section because large portion of the content can be transfered to each section to avoid duplication. FWBOarticle

Cleanup

I've tried to clean up the English in this but I confess I'm rather confused by some of this - especially the section on Hitler's comment. I really don't follow what is being said there about the connection between the golden and "silver" rules; my attempt to improve the English may have just made it even more confused. I also think there needs to be a clearer exploration of the commonalies and differences between the negative and positive versions of the rule and of the relation of concepts of reciprocity to ideas about one expects to be treated by others. Paul B 18:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

O.K., hitler may have been a bad example. In some primitive tribe, in case of famine (I think Inuit but I could be wrong), old, to unburden his community, simply leave the tribe and die. So silver rule could mean that if the rule is impose as law, it imply utilitarian/majoritarian totalitarianism. I just wanted to use hitler to point out morally negative consequence. Inuit example is a positive example because it is an act of self sacrifice for the good of others.. FWBOarticle
It is now stated in the very beginning of the article, that the negative (or passive) form of the golden rule is often referred to as the silver rule (Robert Spitzer). This is also easy to check by searching in google. In the "Criticism:" part of the section "Interpretation" this silver rule misinterpreted as the supplementary rule mentioned in previous "non-aggression" part (Karl Popper). This interpretation is not citated, and I can not find any citation after a long search. I will edit the "Criticism:" part to be consistent with the beginning of the article. Kopovoi 16:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Golden Rule and the Categorical Imperative of Immanuel Kant

I suggest that Kant's Categorical Imperative, a logical ethical formulation, be mentioned/included in line with this Golden Rule. You may notice that Categorical Imperative comes close with this moral rule and people, by and large, seem to admit that it's an "improved version" of the Golden Rule. I'm also wondering why there is no mention of Confucius about the Goldern Rule? I do remember my teacher telling me it was Confucius who first formulate this idea. (Condorhero)

I believe, Categorical Imperative is Deontological argument while Golden rule is more in line with virtue argument. Clear exposition of deontological argument (along the line of S&M paradox) probably make this distinction clear. Anyway, consequential, deontological and virtue arguments are standard set of philosophial argument so feel free to expand it. Confucius probably belong to section dedicated to "Ancient thinkers" or something like that. FWBOarticle

"neighbor"

Clarified use of term "neighbor" in Jewish scripture ("kinsman") and in Jesus' teaching (not just kinsman). Jonathan Tweet 03:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

All of the Leviticus commentaries I could find, both in print at my house and on the web, do not illustrate that Jesus disagrees with God here. I will make a note that "some interpret" this as being the case, as I've heard this interpretation in informal Christian settings myself. However, I think it's far less pithy than just leaving debatable clarifications off completely. 207.172.172.221 18:50, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Jesus doesn't disagree with Moses (or God, if that is your interpretation); he merely supersedes the old law. It is not an interpretation to say that "the children of thy people," in Leviticus, are Jews. However, I would concede that the mere fact that somebody posed the question to Jesus implies that some Jews were already extending, in their own hearts, the commandment of Moses. Ocanter 19:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
I have straightened this out in the article. The article (and your discussion here) incorrectly focused only on Leviticus 19:18. That verse indeed relates only to fellow Israelites, and were it the only mention of the "love thy ___" commandment, Jesus would indeed have broadened it from fellow Israelite to all of humankind. But it is not the only mention of the commandment. Instead, Leviticus 19:34 expressly commands to "love the stranger as yourself" and thus broadens the commandment from fellow Israelites to all of humankind. In other words, the universalization of the commandment is not an innovation by Jesus, but is fully and expressly contained in Leviticus 19. Kunstderfuge 16:43, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
I removed the sentence "Leviticus 19:34 is important because it universalizes the edict of Leviticus 19:18 from "one of your people" to all of humankind." Major Jewish sources say that the "stranger" in Leviticus 19:34 is a convert, and not "all of mankind". There are minority views that say it can also be applied to a ger toshav, which is a non-Jew living in the Land of Israel who has accepted the Noachide laws upon himself. As to which of these views is more correct, it's not for me (nor Wikipedia) to say. If someone were to find a Jewish source which claims that the verse does apply to "all of mankind", it would still be only one position among many, and as such, should not be presented as fact on Wikipedia. -LisaLiel (talk) 19:54, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Hinduism

We need something from the ancient books: Vedas and Upanishadas, as the Mahabharata (or the Geeta) cannot be considered to contain the essence of the religion.


Antonym to the Golden Rule

If you want to link to concepts that are antagonistic or opposite to the Golden Rule, then Preemptive attack certainly fits the bill. It is more closely related to revenge (ahead of time....;-). It is more in line with the joke "do unto others before they do unto you," which is exactly what a preemtive attack does. It is not synomous, but antonymic, to the Golden Rule, and thus doesn't belong there, unless you want to label it as such. Hmmmm....maybe that's not a bad idea. -- Fyslee 21:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Islam

GunnarRene added a bunch of material about the Quran contradicting the Golden Rule. If we want that material on this page, then we should add a bunch of material from the Bible that also contradicts the Godlen Rule. Plus do the same with other religions. Or we should remove the material that GunnarRene added. Jonathan Tweet 01:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Put it all in! Arrow740 01:05, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Political Influences

This article only mentions the implications of the rule on "Eastern" politics/philosophy. I believe that this section shoudl be expanded, as it is also the basis of Western politics as well. The golden rule is a part of the Judeo-Christian views, and Western philosophy and politics is heavily based on Judeo-Christian thought. The United States are especially dependent upon this rule, because it is the foundation of most of the Bill of Rights. This needs to be included, but I don't believe I am the proper person to edit this section. I would prefer someone who knows a little more than me.-Hairchrm 03:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

DHC adds: There are strong political/economic implications by the Golden Rule and by the Double Negative version of it that Hillel used.

To express love (in the original Rule by Moses and Jesus) in the economic sense is to perform charitable acts, particularly by giving alms to the poor. The practice of welcoming poor people to eat at the house of a wealthy largesee was the expression of the Rule mentioned in parts of the Bible, especially in the pre-Jesus parts of the New Testament. This kind of behavour introduces the idea of social responsibility, it being expressed by the equal distribution of worldly goods, which has both socialist and communist (Marxist) trends. Thus it is possible to identify the original version of the Golden Rule with Socialism. However, since this kind of behavour is non-conditional on what the receipent gives (or has previously given) to the community, it also has psychological aspects. It is seen as the expression of a Mother-Love for her child, for which there are no pre-conditions. This behavour is expressed in many places in the subsequent Christian kind of love and the symbols of the established church. This behavour may have roots from the prior heathen religious practices from which the early Christians were converted, but could not completely abandon.

To oppose doing harm (in the double negative version of the Rule by Tobit and Hillel) is to restrain ones behavour and avoid creating unnecessary waste, polution, disturbance etc. Whilst there are no specific acts involved, there are many places where our current economic and macroeconomic behavour is criticised by this version of the rule. For example, the deliberate holding of land and other natural resources out of use including subsidising their non-use. This is harmful to the economy and the population because of the effect on all of the land-values and on the rent which is taken from the land that is in use. Thus the cost of produces goods (that require the use of the 3 factors of production, land, labor and capital, according to Adam Smith), is artifically raised and consequently harm is done in the reduced amout of trade that results. This is due to both the lack of earnings by a partly unemployed population and by the increased costs and prices (due to the high ground-rents returned for their production). It causes a reduced demand on the goods that are available for sale.

The implication of the double negative version of the Rule is not Socialism in any sense of the word, but it is akin to Liberalism (i.e. it is not in support of any group of people having a common political alliegence, but this policy is favourable in general and applicable to everyone living in then country). As such it agrees with the ideals stated in the General Charter of the United Nations, in paragraphs 1 and 25 (which see), both dealing with the provision of individual freedom. A country which has laws to restrict and regulate the use of land and to permit its speculation is clearly harming itself by the above arguement. This neglect of the double negative version of the Rule is also a denial of this part of the U.N. Charter. Unfortunately this situation applies to most of the civilized world.

In the religion/psychological sense the version is closer to Judism where the kind of love expressed is the more mature Father-Love, which is conditional on previous good behavour, and which is thretening if and when the people behave badly. Example of this are strewn throughtout the Old Testament, leading to the loss of two Temples and the (temporary) exile of the Jewish people from their promised heratige, namely the Land of Cannan. It is therefore suggested that the current failure to follow the double negative version of this Rule in macroeconomic matters will result in collective punishment for the civilisations involved. In fact we are beginning to see this effect being expressed by the global warming due to increased CO2 emissions, after the selfish expenditure of carbon-based fuels on personal trivalites.

Looking for Good

Of note should be the fact that, while most versions of the Golden Rule are about not doing to other people what you don't want them to do to you (e.g., if you don't want someone to hit you, don't hit them), what was said by Jesus is that we should treat others the way we want to be treated (e.g., if you would like people to help you, you should be a helpful person). Isn't that a fundamental difference? Is peace only the absence of war? Is love just about not being mean? Being truly kind is about action and initiative. It's about looking for opportunities to do GOOD to others. That is the crux of the Golden Rule. Lailichka 16:41, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree with that, except that I would say that even to do good is not enough; you have to actually love other people. I think originally Christians learned that teaching from Jesus, and that that was fundamentally different from the teachings of Moses, Confucius, etc., but at a certain point, probably for political reasons, we started trying to equate the other religions with our own, finding parallels wherever we could, and this resulted in the widespread notion that Jesus' teaching was just one example of a moral principle that is common to all people. It would be interesting to see this article discuss the "history of the golden rule," that is, to discuss when Christians started using the term "golden rule" to describe (presumably) Christ's teaching, and when they first started trying to identify that teaching with teachings in other traditions. It's funny, because the whole point of the story of the Good Samaritan was that you should have mercy on someone even if he was of a different people. So we don't have to believe that Moses invented the Golden Rule, if we believe it is our duty to show compassion to non-Christians as well as Christians. Ocanter 00:44, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
The Biblical quote attributed to Jesus is certainly not the only, or oldest 'positive' statement of the Golden Rule - so this discussion is moot. For example, even of what is already quoted on the page, see:
Hinduism's "The true rule of life is to guard and do by the things of others as they do by their own"
Sikhism's "As you see yourself, see others as well; only then will you become a partner in heaven"
Buddhism's "One should seek for others the happiness one desires for one's self" or "I will act towards others exactly as I would act towards myself" etc. 87.232.47.20 18:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Sufisticated
I have not found any source for the quote from "Hinduism." It seems to be translated awkwardly, wherever it is from. What does it mean to "guard and do by the things of others?" It doesn't even make sense in English. Maybe you can give us a source, and then we can talk about it. Sikhism, is, of course, both much later than and much influenced by Islam, which is, of course, much later than and much influenced by Christianity. The Buddhist teaching is the only one which supports your argument, because Buddha predates Christ. But even then, it is not clear that the quote itself predates the Gospels. In the "Golden Rule" web page, it is only listed as "unattributed material." Have you done some research on the date for that quote? Do you even know what written source it is from?
My point, brother, was not so much that it was the first to be a positive statement to do good, but that it was different from previous Jewish teaching in two very important ways, and thus the first statement of the rule in the Jewish tradition. It differed from the law of Moses in that it extended mercy to all human beings. It differed from the teaching of Hillel in that it prescribed both love and positive action. I would argue that in the context of Jesus' teaching, it means more still than that, but that involves a deeper religious understanding, so I didn't go into it. The precedent in Buddhism is indeed something, especially if it can be shown to go back to Buddha himself. I would ask you to do a little research in that direction, and please let us know what you find, with sources, of course. The strange "quote from Hinduism" also requires some investigation if you're going to go around citing it. Please see if you can actually find it in print and if you can make sense of it.
Whenever somebody says that there is no need to discuss a point any further, I take it as a strong indication that there is much need to discuss it further. Please enlighten us with sources.
Ocanter 17:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
I did a little research in an attempt to corroborate something of what you said. I have verified that there is no work in the Library of Congress catalogue that has the words Siglo and Vada together, nor is there any subject heading that has them. The keyword search for "Siglo AND Vada" brings up some Sanskrit, but I have not found the words Siglo and Vada together as a phrase, and anyway, I can't read Sanskrit. You're going to have to help us out, if you really believe what you've said. Otherwise, I am going with my gut feeling that the "Siglo-Vada Sutta" does not exist, or else is mistitled here, and in all probability, misdated, and quite possibly, misquoted. As for "Hinduism," I'm afraid that's a little too broad for me to start with. Sources, man. Ocanter 18:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

1. In the main article, the first quote is displayed as "- Moses". However, this is Moses citing Jahweh. Especially the last part of the quote "I am the LORD", is of course not a saying of Moses but of God himself, who spoke to and through Moses. I edited this somewhat. 2. The teaching of Jesus does not only include reciprocity. What Jesus means is a change of mentality. It is not 'do good, receive good'. On some other Bible-verses (can't quote right now), He even tells the people that it is wrong to do something good if your only goal is to receive something in return. The reward is for the mentality of being charitable (in gratitude of the one whose first gift to humankind was life itself and of willing to give your entire life to others), not alone by the actions performed. Did no changes in the main page, just wanted to extrapolate on this. -- Frank van de Nieuwenhof (guest), Feb 14th 2007.

Distinction of Passive and Proactive Reciprocity

Contributed 02 07 Passive Reciprocity as taught by the silver rule, "Do no harm" (Robert Spitzer, S.J., Ph.D., The Life Principles, 1999, President of Gonzaga University) cannot be equated with the proactive reciprocity of the golden rule. Either eliminate the initial equation of reciprocity with the golden rule or allow this distinction in the definition, as I did. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Daveheathr216.70.175.201 (talk) 00:40, 16 February 2007 (UTC).

It is now stated in the very beginning of the article, that the negative (or passive) form of the golden rule is often referred to as the silver rule (Robert Spitzer). This is also easy to check by searching in google.

In the "Criticism:" part of the section "Interpretation" this silver rule misinterpreted as the supplementary rule mentioned in previous "non-aggression" part (Karl Popper). This interpretation is not citated, and I can not find any citation after a long search. I will edit the "Criticism:" part to be consistent with the beginning of the article. Kopovoi 16:50, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

comment was added by daveheathr


Tit for Tat

Just to make things clear, pure tit for tat doesn't really have anything to do with ingroups or outgroups. It just requires the you treat someone else the way they have previously treated you (after initially cooperating with them). Should the statement in the article be changed? 128.2.153.69 18:21, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Tit for Tat and in-group are not inherently connected. In fact tit for tat often occurs within the in-group.—Red Baron 15:51, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The whole "Interpretation" section is written ruther clumsy and inconsystent. I have already corrected some points. You guys better correct such an obwious errors immediately and without discussion. Kopovoi 09:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I do it.

passive vs proactive

Hey, just wanted to bring to attention that saying there is a difference between a passive voice(silver) and proactive(golden) is complete christian spin. The Guy From Gonzaga is a jesuit preist.

Further, the use of a double negative in a sentence is equal to a positive version. Thanks. Darwinzape 16:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

How it is important, who the guy is?
There is also a book "Golden Rules And Silver Rules Of Humanity: Universal Wisdom Of Civilization" by Q. C. Terry. You can find it on amazon.com. The both rules are written on its cover: amazon.com/image. So it is obviously reffered. Kopovoi 09:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


Its important to bring to attention people who have biased views. The Jesuit preist is not a credible source. His spin is so bad that it doesnt even take into account that using double negatives in a sentence is the same as a positive sentence! The point of the golden rule is to "treat poeple how you want to be treated". There is no passive or proactive version!

I removed this nonsense below:

"Similar statement have been made with other traditions, which teach a passive reciprocity. These teachings do not explicitly require generosity or charity, but merely prohibit harming others. These are referred to as the silver rule. (Robert Spitzer, The Life Principles, 1999)"

I am new to this cite but I just cant stand by and allow people to push a religious agenda. To say jesus was the only one to advocate a golden rule and the rest of religions are passive(negative, silver etc) is specious. The links below should help. Darwinzape 16:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/goldrule.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

Please excuse me for reverting your edit. I didn't realize that this was the explanation for it (I thought it was a blind edit by an unnamed user). Having stated this, your beef seems to be with holding up Christianity above other religions as if it were the only religion espousing the GR. This would truly be NPOV if it were true of this article. However,
  1. looking at the lines previous to the one you have deleted, we find references to the GR in Judaism and Islam.
  2. The lines beneath your deletion do not describe the GR.
If you have an issue with the low number of enumerated sources of the GR, then by all means cite the sources found in other religions/philosophies. But by deleting this sentence you remove the valid distinction between prescribing good (the Golden Rule) and proscribing bad (the so-called Silver Rule). Incidentally, I had never heard of the "Silver Rule" before reading this article
Red Baron 19:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Dear Darwinzape. I see you are new here and can not stand by. But can you please be little a bit patient. We just started discussion and you have already delete its point. People spent some time to mention the difference between both formulation. I just gave another link to the book by Q. C. Terry where it is referred. The same book is referred in your own link!. Please do not just remove the usefull information. We work hard on improoving the article. I suggest to put the Silver rule in "Iterpretation" Section. Kopovoi 20:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The silver rule is in no way offending. Negative and passive is just grammatical properties of the formulation. Do you want do discuss the difference between "two negation" and "double negation", equivalence of "do" and "not do" or another logical problems? Kopovoi 20:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)


No big deal Baron. But wouldnt you also remove an outright absurdity if you saw one in an article? Well that's what I did.

Ok Kopovio you dont seem to be a bit interested in addressing my points. You seem to be pushing a religious view of that priest. I find it odd that you have ignored all my links and reverted back to your specious source. Just because your priest book was somehow linked at the bottom of one of my links in no way gives it merit. Again, your source isn't credible due to the fact that it incorrectly asserts a difference between all other religions quotes of the golden rule and Christianities. That's absurd!


Also, another problem I see with your view is that you believe all other religions have stated the golden rule in a passive sentence. That's not true. Confucius quote is a double negation as well all other quotes that are listed in the article.

I have never sad it. I not belive it - it is just wrong. All religions have both passive and also active sentences. You obviosly do not understand my point. It was enough to change one word (These _teachings_ do not explicitly require generosity/These _statements_ do not explicitly require generosity) in the sentence that you delete first, to make it absolutely correct, and not offending anymore. Kopovoi 13:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The two sayings below are identical:

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." — Jesus (c. 5 BCE—33 CE)

AND

"What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." -- Analects of Confucius, Chapter 15, Verse 23

So by the double negative rule we have:

"What you do wish upon yourself, extend to others" -- Analects of Confucius, Chapter 15, Verse 23

Its all very simple. Both quotes mean "treat others as you want to be treated. The fact that one uses two negatives doesn't change its meaning. So saying one is positive and the other negative is incorrect.

http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/doubneg.html

Honestly Kopovio you haven't a leg to stand on with your golden/silver distinction. It is bias and ill conceived of logic. Darwinzape 23:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

After such "logical" explanations I really loose any will to improove wikipedia. I take a brake. Kopovoi 16:10, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

There you go again Kopovoi ignoring the points I made. You have been pushing a christian view on the golden rule. that is now obvious. Perhaps you should take your message to a christian apologetics page where it will find a home. Darwinzape 05:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Kopovoi 13:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC) : Stop insulting me with the groundless accusations. I am an atheist and physicist. And I interested in ethics, for me it has nothing to do with my religions believes. So you are wrong about me and my intentions (and may be about something else ;) I only informed you about some links on the internet, which you obviously do not like. You believe they are absurd and POV. Which is your POV. I do not ignore your point of view. I just have another one. So we are going discuss it.

What really disturb me is that you already deleted and continue delete contributions from the article not waiting the discussion end and ignoring others people opinions (my, and Red Baron, and the other people who add the information). You can notice that the information you delete was not added by me. Apply the Golden rule to your action: Would you want, that somebody delete your contribution, believing it is absurd? Why you do this? Do not think you do editing. What you do is actually partial reverting. Please read Help:Reverting Resolving_disputes about that. I will write my comment about the different formulations of the rule at the end of the page. Kopovoi 12:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

About your logical argument: It is a bit more complicated. Saying "I do kill him" means I do some action. "I do not kill him" means no action. "not kill" is not an action, it means "do nothing". ( Some can even argue, that it means "do anything, except killing." Negating "do nothing" again will result "do something" or "do anything", depends what you mean by negating, but you will not get "not kill" again. Using imperative "do this" people normally means some action. Using imperative "do not this" they mean passivity (no action). For some active verb one can find a passive verb which approximately means its negation (do not heal him ~ let him die), and formulate a sentence without "do not" (this has nothing to do with passive voice). But this will not make the sentence active ("let him die" is not "kill him"). The active/passive distinction is actually not about how much "not" is in the sentence. There is scientific discussions about moral consequences of that distinction (is killing worse then letting die). E.g. Jonathan Bennet is arguing with Allan Donagan in "Ethics": "We can apply Donagan's active/passive distinction (as I call it) in enough cases to be able to asses it and compare it with my positive/negative one." ("Negation and Abstention: Two Theories of Allowing." Jonathan Bennett, Ethics, Vol. 104, No. 1. (Oct., 1993), p. 89.). Action/Omission distinction, Causation and the Making/Allowing Distinction. So, please, do not say there is no the distinction! Kopovoi 12:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I did carefully read your links, I find the "treat"-formulation also good, but it hides the active/passive distinction (it does not tell it is not exist, it just hides it), what I do not find appropriate. It is not stated on the pages, that there is no positive/negative formulations or distinctions (actually it is even stated on one link, as I sad). Logically it does not mean that there is no such distinctions. Look at the article itself! It is full with the negative/positive citation. You could believe they all mean the same, but let other people have and express their opinions. I sympathize with you, some people use that distinction in their religious discussions which offend you. As already Red Barron sad to you, "cite the sources" where you prove them wrong, ADD your interpretation. But again, do not delete others people contributions (better even if you return them back, until the discussion ends). I do not have time now. I will write my comment about the formulations and edit propositions at the end of the page. Please wait with your answer till I finish. Kopovoi 12:52, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Rule in specifics

Someone removed the example:

  • the average teenage male would be charged with making inappropriate advances on females by whom he is attracted.

I think it is a good example, and would like to replace it. Any thought to the contrary?—Red Baron 15:36, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Makes more sense than the Dieter and Perfectionist examples. A dieter doesn't want other people commenting on their caloric intake, and perfectionist don't need other people to critique them, as they do it themselves.

Incorrect Biblical Reference

One of the Bible verses referenced is Luke 10:25. However, this passage says nothing about the golden rule. The passage that the author intended to reference is Luke 10:27 which reads as follows, "He answered: " 'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind'; and, 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (New International Version)

Request for Comment: Golden/Silver Rules Distinction

This is a dispute as to whether a sentence should be replaced (perhaps with alteration) distinguishing between

  1. the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you; and
  2. the Silver Rule: do not unto others as you would have them not do unto you

—17:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Statements by editors previously involved in dispute

  • I am new to this cite but I just cant stand by and allow people to push a religious agenda. To say jesus was the only one to advocate a golden rule and the rest of religions are passive(negative, silver etc) is specious. Darwinzape 16:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • If you have an issue with the low number of enumerated sources of the GR, then by all means cite the sources found in other religions/philosophies. But by deleting this sentence you remove the valid distinction between prescribing good (the Golden Rule) and proscribing bad (the so-called Silver Rule). Incidentally, I had never heard of the "Silver Rule" before reading this article--Red Baron 19:33, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
  • The silver rule is in no way offending. Negative and passive is just grammatical properties of the formulation. Do you want do discuss the difference between "two negation" and "double negation", equivalence of "do" and "not do" or another logical problems? Kopovoi 20:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

Complete simplification

Considering that this is one of the longest pages on the site, I think it could easily be argued that it could all be simplified to saying that "The Ethic of Reciprocity," also known as the "Golden Rule," is a very commonly held code of conduct followed by most religions that says a pesron should treat their neighbors (or all human beings, perhaps all living beings) well, which in the vast majority of situations would be the way that you would want to be treated. Then you could list the religions that have teachings consistent with this idea, and linking to the actual primary source of that teaching. I don't know how I've written so much about this but it could easily be shortened to "Treat others well" or, as it's more often heard at least in the US or in my experience, "do onto others as you would want for yourself." I scanned the whole page, reading the same thing over and over, and the only interesting thing I picked up on (not to discriminate, remember I merely scanned after I realized it was clearly overdone) was that Islam does not specifically teach this as most religions do, and somehow, maybe, mention that fact as it is of interest, I thought. I would have rather not have read that much and just heard the same thing written slightly different in 356 slightly culturally different ways. A link to some instances, like killing a person who is suicidal, maybe could take you to another page such as something like "Challenges to the universal applicability" to the "Golden Rule" or something considerably better conceived than my idea, because I went over my head there. It should just all fit on a little less than 1 page, maybe half at most, with links to information that were clear and weren't consistent with the rest of the information, which is that most everyone that's thought about social ethics feels this way. However, some troublemakers try to be Socrates and ask the killing of a person who doesn't enjoy life question and maybe the ideologies that don't adhere or clearly state a policy resembling this like the fact I read on Islam there, but with all the anti-Islam sentimentality out there it definitely shouldn't be singled out for that, if it really was the only example. In summation, The entry for this subject shouldn't be more than a basic definition, up to 2 sentences at most. Then maybe suggestions for other reading, maybe 1 or 2 subcategories. Then at the bottom there should be links to different versions of it that have been said famously, or a category just plainly stating that, it is commonly taught in ethics, both secular and religious. I strongly suggest this page just be simplified to a very concise definition and summary of the most relevant related topics or criticisms.

How about we produce a separate article on "Golden Rule in World Religious Texts"? I think the list of quotes is quite useful and well-documented, but perhaps it's not what everyone wants to see here; a link can easily lead it to them though, with just an ultra-brief summary on the GR page.--ScottForschler (talk) 03:21, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Listed Under the 'Logic' Category

Just curious, I noticed this was listed under the "Logic" category. Aren't logic and ethics two different things and shouldn't be grouped together? Shouldn't there be a distinction?

68.115.90.55 02:20, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Universal section command removal

The passage below is a Christian POV. It claims that Jesus was the only one to advocate a golden rule and all others are passive/negative./silver. That is completely false. All the quotes in the article mean the exact same thing i.e. "treat others as you want to be treated". The whole passage below is clearly not a neutral point to of view but rather that of a Christians who apparently doesn't understand the usage of double negatives. the only reason the Jesus quote doesn't use double negatives is because it is much later than that of Confucius, Zoroaster and others.

The following links support the view that Confucious etc are in fact saying the same thing as jesus.

http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/goldrule.htm http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

Also, the use of double negatives is equal to a positive. So there cannot be a distinction of the golden rule like that of silver/passive and golden positive.

http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/doubneg.html


"Some formulations, such as those of Confucius and Hillel, are merely passive or negative, while others, such as those of Moses and Jesus, are active or exhortative, beginning with "do", "love," or "treat." The expressions of the Golden Rule given by Moses and Jesus explicitly state a positive moral command to love others or treat others as oneself. Moses in the Torah recorded the command "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself: I am the LORD." (Leviticus 19:18"

Darwinzape 05:43, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

active(positive)/passive(negative) distinction

First of all I want to cite the wikipedia policy WP:DR:"None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented".

Facts: There are Positive(active) formulations of the reciprocity ethic: There is enough citation in text. There are Negative(passive) formulations of the reciprocity: Even more citation in text of the article. The is "treat" formulation: (Seneca,Kennedy, Gensler, beginning of the article), which is grammatically positive, but due to unclear activity of the verb treat, considering by some as joining both (positive and negative formulations). This is pure facts about ethic of reciprocity and this should be clearly reflected in the article.

Naming conventions:

1. Some authors refer the positive formulations as Golden Rule. (most popular in US)

2. Some refer the negative formulation as Golden Rule. (very rare, some which only mention Confucius, I have also a philosophy book in German.)

3. Some refer "treat" formulation as Golden Rule. (Gensler)

4. Some refer both (positive and negative) formulation as golden rule. (Parlament of World Religions)

5. Some refer positive as Golden Rule and negative as Silver Rule. ("Examining Trends in Ethics" J.Spitzer, "Golden Rules And Silver Rules Of Humanity: Universal Wisdom Of Civilization" by Q. C. Terry.)

6. Some refer all three as Golden Rule. ( mostly pages which are a bunch of citation related to golden rule (see google).)

One citation to all formulations: (British Humanist Association)

We can consider this conventions as facts, or as different points of view with verified citation but they should be represented it the article. May be except number 2 (which is wary rare) and 6 (which is not suitable to use, because it is not clear which formulations is meant). I see it just suitable if we continue to use in the article following convention:

1. If it is positive formulated - Golden Rule.

5. If it is negative formulated - Silver Rule.

3. If it is "treat" formulation (when it is not important if it is positive or negative, as in the beginning of the article - Golden Rule

4. If it is both formulations we can just say so. Omitting Silver Rule brings following complications: using "Negative formulated Golden Rule" is confusing, as negative formulation alone is not referred as Golden Rule (2 convention). If some just say "Golden Rule", it is not clear (when it is important) is he means positive, "treat" or negative formulation?

Distinctions: Some argue that there is no difference between positive and negative formulations. Even if the first formulation tell you what to do, but second what not to do, and first is about what you want, but second is about what you not want. The question is indeed interesting, but does not directly connected with the point of the overall discussion, as you need to have both formulation to discuss their equivalence. Some argue moral difference (or equivalence) of the both formulations. E.g. Is killing a man worse than not healing him (causing his death) and what if he has cancer (euthanasia case). The question is even more interesting but also has no connection to our discussion. (You need both formulations to discuss the question). See my comments and citations on this matter in "passive vs proactive" section before.

Edit propositions: A minimal proposition is to edit the controversial statement "Similar statement have been made with other traditions, which teach a passive reciprocity. These teachings do not explicitly require generosity or charity, but merely prohibit harming others. These are referred to as the silver rule. (Robert Spitzer, The Life Principles, 1999)." so that it not offend some people. This could be "There is also negative formulations of the rule, so called passive reciprocity. These formulations do not explicitly require generosity or charity, but prohibit harming others. These are sometimes (Robert Spitzer,2003 referred to as the silver rule." I propose also to restore the reverted(deleted) controversial statements and edit them in the same way. Such statements, which consider whole religion or tradition to be active or passive rather to consider only formulations (citations or statements) as positive(active), passive(negative) or neutral, should be corrected, if they are not true (like for Wicca with their noharm principle). Or lets say, if the statements are not verifiably referenced.

I suggest also to move some part of section "Interpretations" in a new "Criticism" Section, which will have critic on the Golden Rule and could also have some similar formulations like "Do not do unto others as you would they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same." George Bernard Shaw(Maxims for Revolutionists) or "The golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever possible, as they want to be done by." Karl Popper (The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 2).

The section about which formulation of golden rule is more suitable, practical, morally better, etc. could be also added. The are people who think the Silver rule is better than Golden.(British Humanist Association) Kopovoi 19:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)




It still seems Kopovio that you have not addressed ANY of my points. Rather, you have been talking over me citing ad nausem "Spitzer said this" crap. Well Spitzer is obviously expressing a Christian POV(He's a Jesuit priest for god sake!).

Kopovio, your new argument seems to be that because there are more than one interpretation of the golden rule that its ok for you to interject a Christian POV. You have now just PROVEN your bias.

Also, I cant stress it enough no amount of spin you bring will reverse the double negative rule. It is well established in formal logic as the double negation rule. So unless you propose to refute the rules of logic you're stuck with a particular POV ( which is obviously Christian).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_negative_elimination

Beyond the logical issue(sic) I cant begin to fathom how you think calling Jesus's quote positive/golden and all other religious/philosophical quotes negative/passive silver is fair.

But if your position has now changed as it appears that you are in fact advocating a PARTICULAR POV( Christian) than by all means make sure that you say Christian POV or Jesuit priest POV or Kopovio and Red Baron POV etc. Your suggestion of adding a criticism section sounds like a good idea.

I just wish you would address your fundamental faulty premise( negative/positive distinction of the golden rule). I know you learned in elementary school that two negatives in a sentence make a positive. Even little five year olds know this. Any addition of contextual content is a POV i.e. Christian, buddda, Muslim. Thus you're advocating a Christian POV


Darwinzape 05:57, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

No Christian POV

The major thrust of the argument by darwinzape is that Jesus is promoted above others in formulations of the GR. I cannot see it. There are complete sections devoted to non-Christian versions, besides the citations right at the beginning giving equal representation to Judaism, then Christianity, then Islam (chronological order). Let us leave the false notion of POV behind us please.

The major thrust of kopovoi is that we should allow for grammatical differences. This I do see. My argument is clearly copied above in the RFC heading and it has never been confronted.—Red Baron 17:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


Red Baron you have no argument. You appear to be just cheerleading for Kopovio. You Talk about grammmatical differences yet you fail to address that jesus's Quote has been outdated by 500 years or more. Speaking in double negatives was common and jesus's quote only represents a later form of the golden rule. But this is really moot since in modern english we would say that speaking in double sentences is poor grammer. Are you really saying that a ~500 BCE confucious should be penalized for the use of double negatives? What the hell are you saying?


Perhaps you would like to address the logical question below.

Do you think that the two sentences below are equal? In other words, are they EQUIVALENT or have the same VALUE if we were to symbolize and then put them into truth tables?


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

"What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." Confucius

Darwinzape 06:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)


Dear Darwinzape! Please read my answer at the and of "passive vs proactive" section. Seems like you overlook it. Kopovoi 14:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The imperatives "do this" "do not do this" has no logical value. They are not false and not true. You can not negate them like predicates or put them in truth table. Applying "do not do" to some action is not negating it in the boolean logic sense. I could never deny the double negation rule. (I have my university degree and years of scientific work. I studied predicate logic, math-logic, computer logic and the hell what else logic.) It is just so that the double negation has little to do with the active and passive reciprocity. "Help him" does not follow from "do not kill him". "do not steal" is not the same as "give a present". Kopovoi 14:54, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

The discussed question could have something to do with "Double negative elimination" or "Law of excluded middle", if the possible actions of a person would only be restricted to actions directed to other people. But I have a lot of possibilities to do things for myself, not following neither golden, not silver rule, being egoist. I can additionally follow silver rule, avoiding doing bad things for other people. It is easy. Most people live like this. I do. I do not do unto others as I would have them do unto me. I do not follow the golden rule (positive golden rule). So it is possible. This means golden and silver rule are not the same. What can be simpler? Kopovoi 15:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

It is also possible to follow only positive(active) rule and not to follow negative(passive) rule. E.g. the person who does this, can edit a wikipedia page, trying to harmonize it with his believes and points of view, sincerely wishing to improve it and he want that other do the same unto him. Ignoring the passive rule, he fail not to do things like deleting others people contributions, insulting other people with humiliating accusations, ignoring their points of view, which he surely do not wish for himself. Kopovoi 21:16, 11 April 2007 (UTC)



Kopovoi, you MOST certainly are a stubborn fool! How hard is it to understand that a double negative sentence equates to a positive one? You say you studied logic? BULLSHIT! You cant even get past a basic rule of sentence negation. You have ignored all links which point to your elementary mistake of a positive/negative distinction.

Wikipedia:Civility

Also, the quotes in question can in fact be symbolized. ALL claims can be symbolize. Even in fuzzy logic you can show values that differ. You really want to take a position that the quotes below lack a truth value? That they do not claim to be true or false?I guess then that my claim "do unto others that you dont want to be done to you" isn't false? What the hell is a matter with you?

This your claim is not logically false. It is also not true. Like the both formulations of golden rule. They have no logical value. Not everything that you personally do not like is logically false.Kopovoi 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

You're talking out of your ass about having any logic training. Perhaps it would be too elementary to symbolize the quotes below to prove their positive value but this appears to not always be the case given people like you. Simply said, you're a moron. I've wasted too much time with your obvious religious bias. You want to say that two negatives in a sentence equal a negative? Fine!

I just call the passive formulation "negative", because the sentence contains "do not". And I call it passive, because it tells what should not be done, leaving what should be done to the active formulation. I write this already at the end of the "passive vs proactive" section, and I told you already, that you fail to read the answer. Otherwise you would know that I have nothing to do with christianity. Just cool down, read all my answers, try to understand what I mean. I addressed all your points already.Kopovoi 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Go do that on your local christian apologetic website. Please do not attempt to discriminate against other religions/philosophers by calling their claims negative! I will be monitoring this article for your vandalism in the future.


Quotes in question:

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

"What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others." Confucius

Links Kopovoi refuses to acknowledge:

I do not refuse to acknowledge the links. Kopovoi 17:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Both links refer to the golden rule as a cross cultural precept. Hey, that's just what the wikipedia article says in the intro!

http://www.jcu.edu/philosophy/gensler/goldrule.htm

http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc.htm

The use of double negatives is equal to a positive. So there cannot be a distinction of the golden rule like that of silver/passive and golden positive. Any attempt to do so is spin.

http://leo.stcloudstate.edu/grammar/doubneg.html


Darwinzape 23:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Silver/golden rule distinction comments

Other people have apparently commented on the absurdity of a silver rule. Using some guy's book on Amazon.com as a source is bad for wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Silver_rule

Darwinzape 05:02, 16 April 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, Darwinzape, I think you're completely misunderstanding Kopovoi's point regarding the truth value of imperatives. A grammatically imperative sentence is not a statement of fact--if I say, "Raise your right hand!" that's neither a true statement nor a false statement, because in terms of its logical content it isn't a statement at all. Same goes for "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It's advice, not a statement.

As for the whole double-negative thing: it's true that in classical Aristotelean logic NOT (NOT (A)) is the SAME thing as (A). But that doesn't mean that every sentence with two "not"s in it is logically equivalent to the same sentence with both "not"s removed.

For instance, is "It is not Tuesday and it is not Friday" the same thing as "It is Tuesday and it is Friday"?

Of course not, because the "not"s are applying to totally different predicates. Same goes for the different versions of the Golden Rule we're discussing--the "not"s fall in different clauses, so whatever your third-grade teacher told you about double negatives doen't apply--even if you change the sentences from imperative sentences into declarative sentences.

65.213.77.129 (talk) 21:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)


All or some?

This article is largely original research. I don't think that the "ethic of reciprocity" includes treating members of other religious groups badly, and as such certains inclusions here are highly misleading, as some of the material presented as injunctions to follow the golden rule only apply in treatment of co-religionists. Arrow740 22:34, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Epicurus

I think Epicurus merits being mentioned in this article, as an ancient source of a more philosophical and secular strain of thought that has the ethic of reciprocity:

"Natural justice is a pledge of reciprocal benefit, to prevent one man from harming or being harmed by another" -http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Epicurus

Content discussion

Let's presume that the result of the current AfD will be keep, or even speedy keep. There seem to be (at least) two rather divergent opinions on what should or should not be included. Let's discuss, rather than see the page devolve into an edit war. - jc37 09:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Jc37 is right, the article is important and deserves a bit of cool discussion, but one user seems to override every other POV here. There is a huge issue that the article does not yet address: why is the rule so prevalent? It cant be simple decisions to adopt it by religious leaders.Perhaps its due to universal human facts, empathy, mirror neurons, whatever. Perhaps there is a universal basis for religion, expressed differently in each manifestation of religion?

I would favour removing the many quotations, which are excessive, to a Wikiquote page as suggested earlier, and then editing to produce a briefer, more informative article. I don't want to edit now, until things settle down. TonyClarke 06:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you haven't read WP:OR. We must have a reliable source connecting a particular quote to the "ethic of reciprocity." Arrow740 06:17, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have, thanks, and it doesn't imply what you say it does IMO. It says there must be a reliable source, and the quotes were from some pretty reliable sources, if not 21C academics. If your way was applied, then a reliable source would have to verify the reliable source, then another reliable source... The statement that an academic thinks that a quote from the Prophet supports the Golden Rule is a preposterously artificial and uninformative thing to state in a public encyclopedia, and one that doesn't do our image any good. I hope common sense can rule here.TonyClarke 07:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes a reliable source is indicated by the guideline and often decided by concensus. Wikipedians are almost never included. Arrow740 08:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I said they were? Your brief responses don't help communication. Are you saying that these quotes, which I agree are excessve in number, don't supprt the prevalence of the Golden Rule unless a book says that they do? TonyClarke 08:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

The fact is that content should always be sourced to a reliable source. This makes more work for us, but it results in a more stable and worthwhile article. Arrow740 08:22, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So are the Koran and the BIble are not reliable sources? I think you are needlessly concerned about the possibility of a universal religion, which you think will threaten your particular faith. But I think that possibility should strengthen and broaden your faith, not undermine it. Come out of your corner and lighten up! TonyClarke 10:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians are not reliable sources for interpretations of those books. For example, if it says somewhere "don't do to your brother what you wouldn't have him to do you," that could only refer to people in the tribe. That would presumably not be an example of some kind ethic regarding the treatment of all other people. It is for this reason that we need reliable sources. I don't know what you're talking about with this "universal religion" idea. Arrow740 20:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

But Wikipedians are not interpreting these books, they are quoting them: if the Koran says it, and every other major religious scripture has a similar message, that itself is a significant fact which is not the outcome of interpretation. Readers have to be presented with the facts, they can interpret for themselves, and when there is an original interesting interpretation then of course it can be referenced etc.. But in general, these quotes do not need backed up by reliable sources, since they are themselves reliable sources, to be accepted or not by individual readers. If all religious scriptures advocated violence, then that would not be an outcome of interpretation, but they don't. They say something else, ie hint at an ethic of recipocity, as illustrated by their quotes. TonyClarke 14:15, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedians do original research when they provide quotes here as evidence of some kind of ethic. Arrow740 21:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Religion section

I am removing this section, because it seems to be the main problem. It is poorly sourced, many sections are just empty, and just adds POV to the article. There isn't anything legitimate or absolutely necessary in this section related to the topic.--SefringleTalk 06:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

So remove just the empty sections. Hornplease 08:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Exactly, please don't remove sourced content.Bless sins 20:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Arrow740, can you explain why you keep removing sourced content from the Islam section.Bless sins 03:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

I am stating the POV succinctly. Arrow740 03:44, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
You're removing a whole lot of content. [2] You would be half justified if this article was already very long. But it isn't.Bless sins 03:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

For religions

I found this site for religions if people want to incorporate it into this page. Don't know too much about credibility or anything... http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/pecorip/SCCCWEB/INTRO_TEXT/Chapter%208%20Ethics/Categorical_Imperative.htm (towards the middle) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.165.224.88 (talk) 21:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Extra Bible Quote

I found it interesting that the material from Luke is referenced, but not the actual quote from Matthew 7:12 (NIV) "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." I won't delete the Luke material, because it is certainly related, however this particular quote is the more succint version, and it is more similar to some of the other quotes in the article. It needs to be in here, so I'm adding it. Tehpeabody 16:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Image representing Chistianity changed

Picture representing 'Chistianity' was here Ichthys.

I think this image is mostly 20th century American right wing political bumper sticker and has very little to do with 2000 year old Christianity, so I changed it to the cross. Warbola (talk) 19:58, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jainism logo.png

Image:Jainism logo.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

— Κaiba 18:58, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

The image being used in this article is the svg format from Commons, I guess the png format can be deleted. BBhounder (talk) 21:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Golden_Rule/Archive_1&oldid=1144743745"