Is the Golden Rule a Foundational Moral Principle or A Rule of Thumb?

[Peter_Plato]

I intended to post this in a thread related to opposition to gay marriage being hateful, but that thread was summarily closed. I am hoping that Mr. Turner will continue this discussion.

Mr. Turner made the following observation concerning the Golden Rule and included a number of Biblical quotes to support his contention.

It is the moral principle that underpins most religions and philosophies.

To which I intended to reply:

All your quotes notwithstanding, the golden rule is not to be considered a “moral principle” because it doesn’t “underpin” the ethics of Christianity.

Definition of principle:

principle
1.
a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.

The fundamental truth of Christianity is not that we should treat others the way we want them to treat us, because, as a fundamental truth, that would be consistent with sadomasochism.

No, the fundamental truth that underpins or forms the foundation of Christianity is that all human beings are valued eternally by the infinite ground of all reality, aka God. Given THAT basic understanding, i.e., that each of us has eternal - and not just consensual or contractual worth - we are obligated to treat others according to our understanding of that worthiness.

Thus the Golden Rule follows from the more foundational ethical belief concerning human value.

From that basic or foundational understanding we can reason to (recall the definition of principle) the moral rule of thumb that we SHOULD treat others as we would want to be treated, GIVEN the manner WE should be treated as creations valued by the ground of all reality.

That is why the Golden Rule is, strictly speaking, a “rule of thumb” and not a moral principle.
Here’s the definition from Wikipedia:

A rule of thumb is a principle with broad application that is not intended to be strictly accurate or reliable for every situation. It is an easily learned and easily applied procedure for approximately calculating or recalling some value, or for making some determination.

Clearly, the Golden Rule is not a foundational principle, as you claim, because it assumes the person citing it is familiar with and agrees to the foundational belief that human beings do have eternal value. It is, as the definition from Wikipedia states, the “easily learned,” “easily applied,” procedure for “recalling some value” (the eternal worth of others) or “making some determination” (how to treat them.)

It cannot be the “foundational principle” because without the assumption of eternal worth, the Golden Rule can be quite effectively applied by someone who hates everyone, including themselves, to go on a shooting spree. If he wants to be killed, the Golden Rule would seem to encourage him in the direction of killing anyone he encounters.

The Golden Rule is, therefore, not foundational, but rather functions a “rule of thumb” derived by “a chain of reasoning” (as the definition of principle cited above shows) from the more foundational moral premises of Christianity.

That is the way Christ intended it to be understood; that much is clear. It was intended as a quick and dirty means of assessing how to act in a challenging and pressing situation based on the foundational belief that all humans have equal and eternal worth. It was not an explication of the underlying reality that God values every human being eternally, which is the necessary moral principle undergirding the Golden Rule.

 

[bsroufek]

Matthew 7:12: “In everything, do unto others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”

Since this is a command of Jesus and His words are everlasting, and considering how “all important” He says it is, it does “underpin” Christianity and is Foundational and obligatory; though you claim it is not.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

To piggy back on Brian’s post.

The context for Christianity is Judaism. Hillel the Elder a near contempory of Jesus put it this way:

“What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder#The_Golden_Rule

If Jesus and Hillel are not enough Yahweh states:

Lev 19:18

Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your fellow countrymen. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

 

[meltzerboy]

To piggy back on Brian’s post.

The context for Christianity is Judaism. Hillel the Elder a near contempory of Jesus put it this way:

“What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn”

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillel_the_Elder#The_Golden_Rule

If Jesus and Hillel are not enough Yahweh states:

Lev 19:18

Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your fellow countrymen. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

And the Oral Torah (Talmud) even adds to this: “Rejoice not when thine enemy falls.”

 

[polytropos]

The Golden Rule cannot be the foundational principle, for what I do or do not do to others is contingent on my own opinions about morality, which may not be right. A hedonist (say) may want others to permit him to fornicate, so by the Golden Rule he permits others to fornicate. That does not seem to be what is intended.

It is a similar issue to conscience. One should always obey one’s conscience. It does not follow that it is right to obey a bad conscience, just that to defy one’s conscience (even if the conscience is poorly formed) is to will evil.

The same seems to be true for the Golden Rule. One should obey the Golden Rule, for otherwise one would be a hypocrite. But obeying the Golden Rule is not sufficient for a moral life. If one has an ill-formed conscience or does not practice the virtues, then one still must obey the Golden Rule. But if the Golden Rule leads to sinful acts (even sinful acts that one would like to be allowed), one is still immoral. If one disobeys the Golden Rule, then one is willing evil.

So following the Golden Rule is necessary but not sufficient for the moral life. Its proper execution requires other moral principles (“the whole Torah,” “love,” “the Law and the Prophets”) for the Golden Rule to have any substantive application.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Matthew 7:12: “In everything, do unto others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.”

Since this is a command of Jesus and His words are everlasting, and considering how “all important” He says it is, it does “underpin” Christianity and is Foundational and obligatory; though you claim it is not.

I think you misunderstand what I am saying.

My point is that coming out of a basic understanding of the nature of God and man, the Golden Rule is, indeed, obligatory, but it is not “foundational” because it requires the foundational understanding of the eternal worth of human beings to precede it.

Without that foundation, “doing to others as you would have them do to you” allows a non caring person to do to others what s/he does not care happens to them. A suicidal person, or someone who wants to die, need not care about the fates of others but still are acting according to “as you would have them do to you.”

The point is, as a rule of thumb derived from the more foundational principle of humans having eternal worth, the Golden Rule is obligatory, it just is not foundational, nor does it “underpin” Christian ethics, but rather comes out of a proper understanding of them.

 

[Della]

I just wanted to add to the great points made by others, that the Golden Rule is the summation of the parts of the Ten Commandments that deal with our relationships with other human beings. It is important to note that they follow after, and are dependent upon the first Commandments concerning our obligations to God–because God is the Creator of man and all things, and it is, therefore, only in the context of who God is in relation to us that the Golden Rule makes any moral sense.

 

[Peter_Plato]

If Jesus and Hillel are not enough Yahweh states:

Lev 19:18

Take no revenge and cherish no grudge against your fellow countrymen. You shall love your neighbor as yourself. I am the LORD.

Of course, you do understand that “love your neighbor as yourself” depends or is conditional upon “I am Lord,” do you not?

That is why the first commandment is, “Thou shalt love The Lord with your whole heart, your whole soul and with your whole mind.” It is the unreserved acknowledgement that God is the Creator of all, from whom all value and worth come that forms the context for the second (in priority) commandment of “love your neighbor as yourself.”

Jesus, it appears, disagrees with Hillel that only one commandment constitutes the “entire law.” He insisted on two, and made the first “the greatest” and foundational one.

And one of them, a doctor of the Law, putting him to the test, asked him, “Master, which is the great commandment in the Law?” Jesus said to him, “‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind.’ This is the greatest and the first commandment. And the second is like it, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.’ On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.” (Matthew 22:35-40)

Without the first, the second loses its foundation because, as Polytropos pointed out, the “as yourself” stipulation loses its context and ground. It defines the standard to mean whatever a malformed conscience defines it to mean.

 

[meltzerboy]

I intended to post this in a thread related to opposition to gay marriage being hateful, but that thread was summarily closed. I am hoping that Mr. Turner will continue this discussion.

Mr. Turner made the following observation concerning the Golden Rule and included a number of Biblical quotes to support his contention.

To which I intended to reply:

All your quotes notwithstanding, the golden rule is not to be considered a “moral principle” because it doesn’t “underpin” the ethics of Christianity.

Definition of principle:

The fundamental truth of Christianity is not that we should treat others the way we want them to treat us, because, as a fundamental truth, that would be consistent with sadomasochism.

No, the fundamental truth that underpins or forms the foundation of Christianity is that all human beings are valued eternally by the infinite ground of all reality, aka God. Given THAT basic understanding, i.e., that each of us has eternal - and not just consensual or contractual worth - we are obligated to treat others according to our understanding of that worthiness.

Thus the Golden Rule follows from the more foundational ethical belief concerning human value.

From that basic or foundational understanding we can reason to (recall the definition of principle) the moral rule of thumb that we SHOULD treat others as we would want to be treated, GIVEN the manner WE should be treated as creations valued by the ground of all reality.

That is why the Golden Rule is, strictly speaking, a “rule of thumb” and not a moral principle.
Here’s the definition from Wikipedia:

Clearly, the Golden Rule is not a foundational principle, as you claim, because it assumes the person citing it is familiar with and agrees to the foundational belief that human beings do have eternal value. It is, as the definition from Wikipedia states, the “easily learned,” “easily applied,” procedure for “recalling some value” (the eternal worth of others) or “making some determination” (how to treat them.)

It cannot be the “foundational principle” because without the assumption of eternal worth, the Golden Rule can be quite effectively applied by someone who hates everyone, including themselves, to go on a shooting spree. If he wants to be killed, the Golden Rule would seem to encourage him in the direction of killing anyone he encounters.

The Golden Rule is, therefore, not foundational, but rather functions a “rule of thumb” derived by “a chain of reasoning” (as the definition of principle cited above shows) from the more foundational moral premises of Christianity.

That is the way Christ intended it to be understood; that much is clear. It was intended as a quick and dirty means of assessing how to act in a challenging and pressing situation based on the foundational belief that all humans have equal and eternal worth. It was not an explication of the underlying reality that God values every human being eternally, which is the necessary moral principle undergirding the Golden Rule.

I understand what you are saying. That is, without G-d’s definition of the eternal, unconditional, and equal worth of every human being, there is no foundation on which to build the Golden Rule, which may thus even be misinterpreted as you point out. At the same time, the foundation alone, while essential, does not suffice. What Hillel the Elder seemingly dismisses as “commentary” to the Torah is also necessary to study and practice, for just as in the construction of an edifice, without building upon the foundation, one has no home in which to live.

 

[ProVobis]

Modern meaning of the Golden Rule: He who has the gold makes the rules.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I understand what you are saying. That is, without G-d’s definition of the eternal, unconditional, and equal worth of every human being, there is no foundation on which to build the Golden Rule, which may thus even be misinterpreted as you point out. At the same time, **the foundation alone, while essential, does not suffice. **What Hillel the Elder seemingly dismisses as “commentary” to the Torah is also necessary to study and practice, for just as in the construction of an edifice, without building upon the foundation, one has no home in which to live.

I take it what you mean by “the foundation alone…does not suffice” is that the mere awareness of the eternal value of human beings does not necessarily result in moral behaviour that “lives out” that awareness.

That is, I think, what Jesus meant when he said the second commandment is “like” the first in that the second commandment is necessarily bound to and flows from the first.

The priority of the first remains foundational, however, because if God values all human beings eternally then to act without due regard for their eternal value is to implicitly - by our actions - deny that God valuing humans has any meaning for us and their value is merely what we choose to make it.

That is why the second commandment “is like” the first. Our valuing of others to be “like” and comes from God’s eternal valuing of us.

 

[HardRockGTR]

I’d just like to say that this is a very interesting discussion and both sides reason very well in their arguments. I must however, take side of the OP as I agree that although the Golden Rule is primordial in nearly all religions, it is not a foundation for such.

A crude analogy would be that an ice cream cone’s primordial ingredient is ice cream, but its foundation is the cone.

 

[Portofino]

It depends on how one understands that Golden Rule. For example, for some, “treat others as you would want to be treated” could be interpreted very literally, such that a woman who abhors the wearing of veils could – in good conscience – support a law prohibiting other women from wearing a veil, even if that veil were being worn for religious reasons. She could even reason that such a prohibitive law is for other women’s “own good.”

A less literal-minded, more principle-based application of the Golden Rule would take it to a higher level of abstraction, saying, “how would I feel if someone forced me to live in such a way that violated my deeply held principles?” Thus, “treat others as you would wish to be treated” might mean that you are tolerant of others wearing a veil for religious reasons, even if one would never a veil oneself (nor care in the slightest, if anyone rendered illegal something which one had no desire to do in the first place).

One of the premises of religious liberty is this more abstract understanding of the golden rule. Thus, it’s not, “how would you feel if someone prohibited you from practicing Islam?” but rather “how would you feel if someone prohibited you from practicing Catholicism?” Frankly, it is a premise of individual liberty, as well – respect for the autonomy of others, because one wants one’s own autonomy respected (including having one’s autonomy respected by others who think that one’s own path is “obviously wrong” or harmful and that one needs to be “saved” from one’s way of life – “for one’s own good” – whether that way of life be Islam, Judaism, Catholicism, Scientology, “the gay lifestyle,” or secular humanism).

 

[Portofino]

It cannot be the “foundational principle” because without the assumption of eternal worth, the Golden Rule can be quite effectively applied by someone who hates everyone, including themselves, to go on a shooting spree. If he wants to be killed, the Golden Rule would seem to encourage him in the direction of killing anyone he encounters.

There again, I think it depends on how literal-minded one is in one’s interpretation of that Golden Rule. According to a literal-minded interpretation, the shooter is permitted to shoot at others, because he would be perfectly fine if others shot at him.

Interpreted on a more abstract, principle-based level, however, this application of the Golden Rule would be based on a misunderstanding.

It would be like a human being practicing the golden rule on a fish by pulling it out of the water, with the justification that, “what I want are huge, clean bursts of air to fill my lungs. Therefore, I am perfectly justified in exposing the fish to the open air, even if it kills him.”
A more intelligent application of the Golden Rule would be, “for me, it is necessary for my survive to breathe fresh air. For the fish, it is necessary for its survival to be submerged in water. I would no more want to pull the fish from the water and expose it to the air, then I would want to be robbed of air and submerged in water.”

Cases where the Golden Rule need no longer be applied? When doing so would itself be condoning the violation of the Golden Rule vis-a-vis others (thus, one is justified in interfering with the killer and “violating” his autonomy, even though one would never want one’s own autonomy violated). Yet that shooter is, by definition, breaking the Golden Rule vis-a-vis others, in failing to “live and let live.”

 

[Peter_Plato]

The Golden Rule cannot be the foundational principle, for what I do or do not do to others is contingent on my own opinions about morality, which may not be right. A hedonist (say) may want others to permit him to fornicate, so by the Golden Rule he permits others to fornicate. That does not seem to be what is intended.

Actually, this is part of the reason I brought the issue up to begin with. Without the foundational ethical principles of Christianity, the Golden Rule is often trotted out as an exemplar of what justice means and that the Golden Rule leads, necessarily, to not interfering in the morals of others because “I don’t want anyone interfering with mine.”

The point here is that the value of others, and what that means to their well-being, does not depend upon MY conception of their well-being (as the rule taken by itself seems to imply,) but rather on what it means to be human and that value as an ontological reality.

Others are valuable, not to the extent I choose to value them ("…as you would have them do to you…",) but, rather, as bestowed by the eternal ground of all existence, God. The ground for the determination of the value of others was never intended to be placed in the transient and alterable value one has for oneself, which then implicitly condones whatever immoral behaviour “I” find unobjectionable and makes that behaviour permitted by God by reverse logic back to the Golden Rule.

The unmooring of the Golden Rule from its foundational ethical principles results in this kind of misguided thinking.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There again, I think it depends on how literal-minded one is in one’s interpretation of that Golden Rule. According to a literal-minded interpretation, the shooter is permitted to shoot at others, because he would be perfectly fine if others shot at him.

My point is that precisely without understanding the foundational ethical principles of Christianity, the inherent value of human beings, an understanding of what it means to be human and a proper conception of “the good,” any interpretations of what the Golden Rule entails are, at best, open to all manner of dispute.

This is why the Golden Rule cannot be used to argue a moral perspective without prior reference to a sound set of ethical principles, which is, precisely, why I said it could not be foundational to religious or moral beliefs, but, rather, a “rule of thumb” that follows from them.

This does NOT mean the Golden Rule is NOT obligatory, but it does mean it is obligatory ONLY for well-formed consciences capable of sound moral thinking, who know what it means to be human and have a proper conception of the “good,” all of which it presumes.

 

[meltzerboy]

I take it what you mean by “the foundation alone…does not suffice” is that the mere awareness of the eternal value of human beings does not necessarily result in moral behaviour that “lives out” that awareness.

That is, I think, what Jesus meant when he said the second commandment is “like” the first in that the second commandment is necessarily bound to and flows from the first.

The priority of the first remains foundational, however, because if God values all human beings eternally then to act without due regard for their eternal value is to implicitly - by our actions - deny that God valuing humans has any meaning for us and their value is merely what we choose to make it.

That is why the second commandment “is like” the first. Our valuing of others to be “like” and comes from God’s eternal valuing of us.

Although your interpretation of what I meant by “The foundation alone…does not suffice” sounds as good or better than my own, what I actually meant is that by studying the Bible, we learn how G-d wants us to value others so that we may behave according to the value G-d places on other people. If we don’t know what is expected of us, we may err in our behavior even though our intentions are good. Thus the foundation must be filled in by what Hillel the Elder calls “commentary.” G-d is in the details, so to speak, as well as in the basic principles.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

There other iterations of the golden rule outside Christianity

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Obviously they aren’t dependent on the Christian understanding of God yet arrive roughly at the same place. As pointed out earlier a myopic reading isn’t suffient. As Catholic reads scripture so must the golden rule be interpreted.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Although your interpretation of what I meant by “The foundation alone…does not suffice” sounds as good or better than my own, what I actually meant is that by studying the Bible, we learn how G-d wants us to value others so that we may behave according to the value G-d places on other people. If we don’t know what is expected of us, we may err in our behavior even though our intentions are good. Thus the foundation must be filled in by what Hillel the Elder calls “commentary.” G-d is in the details, so to speak, as well as in the basic principles.

Thank you for clarifying. I fully agree, which is why I wish to also address the post by Mr. Turner that immediately followed yours.

It is not true that every belief set arrives “roughly at the same place,” precisely because the foundations for what constitutes “as you would have them do to you” depends completely upon the nature of the “me” that the moral belief system has proposed.

As you say above, it is studying the Word of God, that one comes to see what is involved in being treated with eternal dignity so that we can even begin to understand what acting with respect to the eternal dignity of others might look like.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There other iterations of the golden rule outside Christianity

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rule

Obviously they aren’t dependent on the Christian understanding of God yet arrive roughly at the same place. As pointed out earlier a myopic reading isn’t suffient. As Catholic reads scripture so must the golden rule be interpreted.

I am not entirely clear how the two bold faced phrases in your post are consistent. Certainly not on the surface.

It is not so much that the Catholic “interprets” the Golden Rule, but rather that the foundational moral principles and beliefs that lead a Catholic to subscribe to it and agree as to its authority underlie that assent.

It is only a surface view of the Golden Rule, a view that does not “get” how it must be underpinned, that would conclude anyone who subscribes to it must subscribe to “roughly the same thing.”

The whole question of what you tolerate in others, what is morally optional and what the “end good” might be is totally contingent upon what you feel YOU are obligated to, what YOU ought to be allowed to do as a question of choice and what YOUR view of the final end good or purpose of a human life actually is.