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

[polytropos]

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.”

I agree. The modern paradigm would be that the fornicator should permit others to fornicate, full stop. And it is good for him to do so insofar that he would not be hypocritical, but that alone is an impoverished moral description of his actions.

I think that any use of the golden rule has to be tethered by other moral principles. Should one intervene when another person is about to use heroin? Well, I would want someone to intervene if I were about to use heroin, but I am not addicted by heroin (golden rule). But the heroin addict does not want to be stopped, so if one follows the silver rule (do unto others as you think they would like you to do), it would seem that you shouldn’t stop him. So if one were to take the golden or silver rule as a basis for morality, it’s not really clear what one should do. If I permit someone to take heroin, then I am doing what I don’t want done to myself; if I prevent them, then I am not doing what they want done.

So taking the golden rule to imply tolerance, full stop, seems not to get very far, but you are right - that is its main application today. It yields inconsistent results. Recreational drug use is a great example, since there is a continuum of drugs varying in degree of dangerousness. Few people think that the most dangerous drugs should be used freely, but in the case of other drugs, people are more likely to have a “go ahead” sort of attitude. But the more dangerous drugs seem to show that the golden rule is not anyone’s foundation of morality, since eventually the “I value my freedom, so I will let him do whatever” attitude gives way to some other principle regarding self-harm.

 

[Peter_Plato]

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.

Actually, I would argue that the cone is more akin to the Golden Rule itself in your analogy. It is the “form” but not the substance of religious beliefs. On the surface it might appear that any belief system that agrees to the Golden Rule is, at base, agreeing to the same principle, but that would be like saying a snow cone is the same as an ice cream or yoghurt cone because they have the same “formal structure.”

Yet, it seems that the way the substance of the belief is spelled out or takes form in the Golden Rule (cone) that makes all the difference as to what “do onto others” implies to differing creeds.

 

[HardRockGTR]

Well, if you look at it that way, it makes sense.

 

[Portofino]

I think you’re right that the golden rule is not sufficiently refined to avoid certain dilemmas and contradictions.

Does it mean treat others as you’d like to be treated? They may not want to be treated as you would want to be treated, though there are certain general ways in which what people want tends to be uniform (I’ve not met one person yet who enjoys being lied to and taken advantage of, without their knowledge).

Does it mean treat others as they want to be treated, giving them what they want? This seems to be mere complaisance, ingratiation.

Does it mean treat others as you think would be best for them? This presumes that one has sufficient understanding of what is best for others; and if your perception of what is best for them differs from their perception of what is best for them, you will be at the least a nuisance and, at worst, a source of oppression. It’s not only gay marriage proponents that cry foul over other people telling them how to live their lives, “for their own good”; any defender of religious liberty does the same, arguing for the right of self-determination, the right to determine for themselves what is best for them, and not to have that determination made for them; not having others tell them what their principles are, or ought to be, but having the right to live according to the principles they themselves have chosen (unless it can be demonstrated that their actions cause harm to others, palpably and subject to a demanding burden of proof; the burden of proof rests on those who want to deprive others of their right to self-determination, rather than on those who wish to claim it for themselves, or to maintain a right they already enjoy).

 

[fhansen]

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.

The foundational principle in Chrisisnity is love: the greatest commandments. When they are obeyed, i.e. when we really do love, then the Golden Rule is ipso facto obeyed as well.

 

[PRmerger]

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.

The fact that there are 2 (or 4, 6 or 100) religious leaders who proclaim a truth ought not be misinterpreted as “therefore, this is a foundational moral principle”.

It simply means that this is a truth observed by a mulitude of religious leaders.

The point is: unless we view the human person as worthy of dignity, the Golden Rule is inutile.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

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.

I was piggybacking on Portofino’s post.

What I was going for It’s not a literal reading as you are implying. Because I eat a certain way doesn’t mean that everyone does. I am aware that there are other ways of eating so I can ask questions like do you have any dietary restrictions. I just don’t serve what I’d like to be served. It’s a nuanced response, not so different from diplomacy. Different cultures have different norms, each are respected in order to treat the person with respect. Because you take the time to determine how someone would like to be treated you recognize their inherent dignity. If you didn’t then why bother.

 

[PRmerger]

Because you take the time to determine how someone would like to be treated you recognize their inherent dignity.

Why do people have inherent dignity, Roscoe?

What makes them different from a random mixture of carbon, nitrogen, et al?

 

[Peter_Plato]

The foundational principle in Chrisisnity is love: the greatest commandments. When they are obeyed, i.e. when we really do love, then the Golden Rule is ipso facto obeyed as well.

This is a good point because while “Do unto others…” comes across as a moral “rule of thumb” for how to act, Jesus uses the word “love” when specifying the underlying moral foundation.

And one of the scribes came and heard them arguing, and recognizing that He had answered them well, asked Him, “What commandment is the foremost of all?” Jesus answered, "The foremost is, ‘Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; and you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind, and with all your strength.’ “The second is this, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.” (NAS, Mark 12:28-31)

In John, Jesus specifies how the word “love” is to be understood. He says, “as I have loved you,” which provides the content for the “as yourself” in the above quote. We are to love others in the way that we are loved by Jesus, not simply in the way we imagine we would like to be loved.

“A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” (NIV, John 13:34-35)

I would suggest that love in this context is not simply “having an affection for,” but rather having the kind of concern that Jesus has for the life that has been gifted to each of us. A recognition that life does not come from bread alone (nor with circuses as a side dish) but from “every word that comes from the mouth of God” (with reference back to Meltzerboy’s posts.)

To summarize…

“Do unto others” cannot, by itself, be a moral principle because it doesn’t provide content; just as “treat everyone equally,” from the standpoint of justice is empty because it doesn’t distinguish treating everyone equally bad from any other form that equally might take.

Clearly, whenever Jesus made reference to something like the Golden Rule, he provided the moral or spiritual perspective from which to view it: i.e., his unconditional love, the eternal love of God.

To abstract the Golden Rule from that context empties it of content and makes it appear to justify whatever moral position the “as thyself” proponent who cites it is attempting to promulgate.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Why do people have inherent dignity, Roscoe?

What makes them different from a random mixture of carbon, nitrogen, et al?

Because we are human.

 

[PRmerger]

Because we are human.

That is simply a tautology, Roscoe. It is not insightful at all.

It’s like saying, “Turnips are vegetables because they are turnips.”

Can you offer a more coherent, reasoned approach to your profession that human beings have dignity?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

That is simply a tautology, Roscoe. It is not insightful at all.

It’s like saying, “Turnips are vegetables because they are turnips.”

Can you offer a more coherent, reasoned approach to your profession that human beings have dignity?

We value our own lives, we live human lives. We value human life.

 

[Peter_Plato]

We value our own lives, we live human lives. We value human life.

I think what PR is getting at is, “In what way are we to value human life?” What does that “valuing” look like? It is the detailing of the word “value” that makes all the difference. (A point that has been the subject of this thread, i.e., What does valuing others "as thyself” look like?)

If human life is viewed as simply complex molecular interaction, then it is not clear that having mere complexity makes human life any more “inherently” valuable than the slightly less complex molecular interaction that makes a pot-bellied pig a pot bellied pig.

An atheist materialist or eliminativist conception of “human life” has implications concerning “valuing” that are certainly different than a Christian’s conception.

Having eternal worth to the Intentional Ground of all Being (aka God) has very different moral repercussions for how we are to value others than does a view of human existence as merely everchanging molecular interaction that has been randomly constructed by evolution.

The latter seems to have no moral implications whatsoever, precisely because a strictly material ground of being provides no moral framework at all.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

I think what PR is getting at is, “In what way are we to value human life?” What does that “valuing” look like? It is the detailing of the word “value” that makes all the difference. (A point that has been the subject of this thread, i.e., What does valuing others "as thyself” look like?)

If human life is viewed as simply complex molecular interaction, then it is not clear that having mere complexity makes human life any more “inherently” valuable than the slightly less complex molecular interaction that makes a pot-bellied pig a pot bellied pig.

An atheist materialist or eliminativist conception of “human life” has implications concerning “valuing” that are certainly different than a Christian’s conception.

Having eternal worth to the Intentional Ground of all Being (aka God) has very different moral repercussions for how we are to value others than does a view of human existence as merely everchanging molecular interaction that has been randomly constructed by evolution.

The latter seems to have no moral implications whatsoever, precisely because a strictly material ground of being provides no moral framework at all.

I am saying it begins as an egocentric position and it expands from there. Because we value our own lives we can surmise that others have value, to themselves and inherently. It can extend outwardly from there. An extreme example is Jainism’s Ahimsa.

 

[Peter_Plato]

I am saying it begins as an egocentric position and it expands from there. Because we value our own lives we can surmise that others have value, to themselves and inherently. It can extend outwardly from there. An extreme example is Jainism’s Ahimsa.

Yes, but this is precisely the problem. The manner and extent to which you value your own life becomes the determiner for how you value the lives of others. If you don’t value your own life very much then to, as you say, “extend that outwardly,” means you will not value the lives of others very much.

That is why Jesus’ words to love “as I have loved you” or to value others with the eternal value that God bestows transcends the “egocentric position” and makes valuing of others not dependent upon egocentric valuing which can only be contingent.

That is why, without God, morals can only be contingent or pragmatic matters and never be obligatory because they can only begin at an egocentric position.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Yes, but this is precisely the problem. The manner and extent to which you value your own life becomes the determiner for how you value the lives of others. If you don’t value your own life very much then to, as you say, “extend that outwardly,” means you will not value the lives of others very much.

That is why Jesus’ words to love “as I have loved you” or to value others with the eternal value that God bestows transcends the “egocentric position” and makes valuing of others not dependent upon egocentric valuing which can only be contingent.

That is why, without God, morals can only be contingent or pragmatic matters and never be obligatory because they can only begin at an egocentric position.

If a person doesn’t value their own life, what can compel them to value another? If they don’t value this this life what do they care for an afterlife? Hell, Heaven, oblivion whats the difference to someone that doesn’t care?

It all starts with valuing you own life.

 

[PRmerger]

Because we value our own lives we can surmise that others have value, to themselves and inherently.

This is not a necessary inference.

One could just as easily surmise, “Because we value our own lives, all other human persons are inferior.”

Why do you necessarily conclude that value of your own life insists value on others?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

This is not a necessary inference.

One could just as easily surmise, “Because we value our own lives, all other human persons are inferior.”

Why do you necessarily conclude that value of your own life insists value on others?

Because I have to eat I can surmise that other humans have to eat as well.

 

[PRmerger]

Because I have to eat I can surmise that other humans have to eat as well.

That doesn’t necessarily translate to “Therefore they have inherent dignity.”

Your claim that others have the same value as yourself is rooted in what?

Again, you could just as easily conclude, “I value myself. Therefore all others are inferior to me.”

Think about where your paradigm of “All human persons have inherent dignity” is borne from.

Where did you get this idea?

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

That doesn’t necessarily translate to “Therefore they have inherent dignity.”

Your claim that others have the same value as yourself is rooted in what?

Again, you could just as easily conclude, “I value myself. Therefore all others are inferior to me.”

Think about where your paradigm of “All human persons have inherent dignity” is borne from.

Where did you get this idea?

We are social animals. We and our closest ape relatives function in complex social groups, we need each other for survival. Our lives have value not only to ourselves but also to the larger social structure.

We start by inherently valuing ourselves. We have a survival instinct. Our first experience is as a child relying on their parents. We value our own lives and others fulfill our needs. As we grow older and are able to reason we see our place in the greater society and our place in it.