Pensacola Discussion Forum
Would you like to react to this message? Create an account in a few clicks or log in to continue.

This is a forum based out of Pensacola Florida.


You are not connected. Please login or register

The bombings may not have been Tsarnaev's first murders....

5 posters

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Go down  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Guest


Guest

http://news.yahoo.com/boston-bomb-suspect-eyed-connection-2011-triple-murder-164354976--abc-news-topstories.html


This "nice looking" young man isn't looking so nice anymore.

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Already had the trial huh ?...

Guest


Guest

bluemoon wrote:http://news.yahoo.com/boston-bomb-suspect-eyed-connection-2011-triple-murder-164354976--abc-news-topstories.html


This "nice looking" young man isn't looking so nice anymore.

Idiots will still think that he's a heartthrob and was framed...better if he ended up like his departed brother...

Guest


Guest

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Already had the trial huh ?...

The government set him up...right?...

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Gomer Pyle would be a better Avatar for you...Sheezam.

Sal

Sal

newswatcher wrote:

Idiots will still think that he's a heartthrob and was framed...better if he ended up like his departed brother...

The article is regarding the "departed brother", Hambone.

lol.

2seaoat



The article is regarding the "departed brother", Hambone.


Red flags on an unsolved murder.....I am sure they are going to do some DNA testing post mortem, and would not be surprised if the older brother was in fact involved.....slitting throats is up close and personal.......plenty of DNA evidence off the victim's bodies.

Guest


Guest

2seaoat wrote:The article is regarding the "departed brother", Hambone.


Red flags on an unsolved murder.....I am sure they are going to do some DNA testing post mortem, and would not be surprised if the older brother was in fact involved.....slitting throats is up close and personal.......plenty of DNA evidence off the victim's bodies.

.................................

So is boxing, his sport of choice.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

It's hard for me to accept that the muslim goofiness alone could explain all this. Because I have never understood the appeal of that muslim shit. Especially when it's being fed to someone outside the middle east.

If he did what is alleged, that would make it easier to comprehend. Because while there would still be the muslim stuff associated with him, it would go beyond that to a really disturbed individual.
I hope it's true because that makes the whole thing be a little less scary.
Before this revelation I had to accept that what appear to be normal people in most ways can be triggered to become monsters only because of that muslim shit. And that would expand the population of potential perps to seemingly normal people. And hopefully there is a far smaller number of seriously deranged individuals than seemingly normal people.

It still would not account for Dzhokar though. I still have no understanding of him regardless if the brother is a psycho.

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:It's hard for me to accept that the muslim goofiness alone could explain all this. Because I have never understood the appeal of that muslim shit. Especially when it's being fed to someone outside the middle east.

If he did what is alleged, that would make it easier to comprehend. Because while there would still be the muslim stuff associated with him, it would go beyond that to a really disturbed individual.
I hope it's true because that makes the whole thing be a little less scary.
Before this revelation I had to accept that what appear to be normal people in most ways can be triggered to become monsters only because of that muslim shit. And that would expand the population of potential perps to seemingly normal people. And hopefully there is a far smaller number of seriously deranged individuals than seemingly normal people.

It still would not account for Dzhokar though. I still have no understanding of him regardless if the brother is a psycho.


Got the turds mixed up but is anyone surprised that the younger pos would now be blaming the dead pos?...it's like a murder trial and people get upset that the suspect/criminal shows no remorse...does that really matter?...Wish that both would have been eliminated...

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

newswatcher wrote:

Got the turds mixed up but is anyone surprised that the younger pos would now be blaming the dead pos?...it's like a murder trial and people get upset that the suspect/criminal shows no remorse...does that really matter?...Wish that both would have been eliminated...

Well firstly, a psychiatric diagnosis makes no difference to me.
If that had been my legs that got blown off, trust me, I would not care one iota, not even one little bit, about whether the monster who blew my legs off was deemed insane or not insane by shrinks.
Even if he was as insane as any human being has ever been insane, all I would care about is wanting his legs to be cut off so he could experience that first hand too. And then rot in solitary confinement for the rest of his life without those legs. Or after a year or two of living like that, then snuff him out to avoid paying more bills it will cost to keep confining him.
Eye for eye and legs for legs. Period.

Let alone the question of remorse or no remorse. He can be the most remorseful motherfucker who ever lived, but no amount of remorse would ever reattach my legs.

Sal

Sal

Bob wrote:

Well firstly, a psychiatric diagnosis makes no difference to me.
If that had been my legs that got blown off, trust me, I would not care one iota, not even one little bit, about whether the monster who blew my legs off was deemed insane or not insane by shrinks.
Even if he was as insane as any human being has ever been insane, all I would care about is wanting his legs to be cut off so he could experience that first hand too. And then rot in solitary confinement for the rest of his life without those legs. Or after a year or two of living like that, then snuff him out to avoid paying more bills it will cost to keep confining him.
Eye for eye and legs for legs. Period.

Let alone the question of remorse or no remorse. He can be the most remorseful motherfucker who ever lived, but no amount of remorse would ever reattach my legs.


Do you also approve of torture as a method of interrogation, or only as punitive measure?

Just curious.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Sal wrote:
Do you also approve of torture as a method of interrogation, or only as punitive measure?

Just curious.

Only as a punitive measure. I tend to be in agreement with John McCain on using torture as a method of interrogation.

But then again that would depend somewhat on the circumstances because I have few rules that don't allow for exceptions.
For example, if the evidence was just so obvious that a serial killer had done the killings, and after he was captured we knew he was keeping another child captive but we don't know where, and he refused to reveal that location, and if torture was the only way to obtain that information from him, then I would have no problem with using torture as a "method of interrogation".

But in my opinion, the use of the word "torture" when applied to what you might do to those marathon bombers is a valid use of the term ONLY if you also call what they did torture. And in my book blowing people's limbs off is a lot worse "torture" than a few minutes of waterboarding.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

By the way, just for the sake of discussion, my eye for eye and leg for leg concept in no way violates the principle of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Because if I set off bombs in a public place and blow peoples's legs off and I get caught, I will fully expect to receive the same treatment I dished out.
In fact, if you ever catch me doing what they did, I'll say flatly right now that you can do whatever you want with me. Preferably you'll do to me exactly what I proposed for them and saw my fucking legs off too. And if you like I'll sign a notarized statement to that effect right now.
There is no violation of the Golden Rule here.

Retribution and Reciprocity can easily co-exist. But if we actually did practice Reciprocity, there would no longer be any need for Retribution.

Sal

Sal

Bob wrote:By the way, just for the sake of discussion, my eye for eye and leg for leg concept in no way violates the principle of "do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
Because if I set off bombs in a public place and blow peoples's legs off and I get caught, I will fully expect to receive the same treatment I dished out.
In fact, if you ever catch me doing what they did, I'll say flatly right now that you can do whatever you want with me. Preferably you'll do to me exactly what I proposed for them and saw my fucking legs off too. And if you like I'll sign a notarized statement to that effect right now.
There is no violation of the Golden Rule here.

Retribution and Reciprocity can easily co-exist. But if we actually did practice Reciprocity, there would no longer be any need for Retribution.


And, therein lies the limitation to the Golden Rule.

It doesn't stop the cycle of violence.



Last edited by Sal on 4/23/2013, 3:21 pm; edited 1 time in total

TEOTWAWKI

TEOTWAWKI

Eye for an eye is simply a plea to let the punishment suit the crime. If you put out my eye it doesn't mean I can bury you in shit up to your neck and douse you with gasoline and set you on fire.... Evil or Very Mad

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:It's hard for me to accept that the muslim goofiness alone could explain all this. Because I have never understood the appeal of that muslim shit. Especially when it's being fed to someone outside the middle east.

If he did what is alleged, that would make it easier to comprehend. Because while there would still be the muslim stuff associated with him, it would go beyond that to a really disturbed individual.
I hope it's true because that makes the whole thing be a little less scary.
Before this revelation I had to accept that what appear to be normal people in most ways can be triggered to become monsters only because of that muslim shit. And that would expand the population of potential perps to seemingly normal people. And hopefully there is a far smaller number of seriously deranged individuals than seemingly normal people.

It still would not account for Dzhokar though. I still have no understanding of him regardless if the brother is a psycho.

........................................

And how would it affect this if the bummers had been devout Eastern Orthodox believers...?

This whole issue is more complicated than just his religion. The USSR did some tinkering with traditional boundaries and ethnic tribalism that goes way back in time....ie, nation building gone bad.

The Hatfields and McCoys was a pissin contest compared to the hatred and distrust that spawned both of those gangsters.

I read that the younger was wearing $900 sneakers a short time before the attacks. The idea that all of their seemingly large supply of cash came from stolen credit cards is a crack pipe dream.

BTW...those sneakers say a lot about his depth of character.


In related news, Justin and Selena were seen kissin' in Paris last week. No word yet on the price of their sneakers.



Last edited by William on 4/23/2013, 3:14 pm; edited 1 time in total

Guest


Guest

The bombings may not have been Tsarnaev's first murders.... Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTcNiuPp6Ndu-eUuknSJk1UZmcTPBck8ZnzTOHDw4umZb81a4Rt

Sure it does! You just have to be the...

*****CHUCKLE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=00oG5gtD0Ho

Laughing

Guest


Guest

TEOTWAWKI wrote:Eye for an eye is simply a plea to let the punishment suit the crime. If you put out my eye it doesn't mean I can bury you in shit up to your neck and douse you with gasoline and set you on fire.... Evil or Very Mad

................................

Teo, how many times has the usage of metaphors by this redneck caused a virtual shit storm of weeping and gnashing...?

Sometimes it's that pearls before swine thingy.






People who misuse literally make me metaphorically crazy.

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Sal wrote:
And, there in lies the limitation to the Golden Rule.

It doesn't stop the cycle of violence.[/font]

Well it doesn't stop anything when it's not in practice. In that regard it's no different from any other moral or ethical concept.

But if we all really lived by the principle "do unto others as you would have them do unto you", those brothers would not have bombed the Boston Marathon. That one brother would not have allegedly murdered before that.
Hitler and Bush would not have attacked and occupied other countries.
Saddam Hussein would not have kept his countrymen in a state of tyranny. The Ayatollah would not be blaming women when they're raped. The rapist would not have raped the woman. And on and on and on. It would cover just about everything we do to hurt each other. Excepting, as I said earlier, only for acts of masochism and I honestly don't much care about that anyway.

The principle "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" doesn't have to be just flowery rhetoric. If put it into actual practice, those are in my opinion the most profound words and the most profound concept the human intellect has or ever will conceive.
Because in my opinion, it's the only moral concept I've ever been made aware of which should appeal to every human being who has ever been given life. And every society of human beings which has ever been created.
To not respect the value of that principle describes a wild animal, not a human being. We alone have the potential to live by it if we so choose.




Last edited by Bob on 4/23/2013, 3:49 pm; edited 1 time in total

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Bob wrote: it's the only moral concept I've ever been made aware which should appeal to every human being who has ever been given life. And every society of human beings which has ever been created.




Oh and by the way, it's no coincidence that virtually every religion and every philosophy in human history has incorporated that concept as it's ultimate "law". The ultimate guide for ethical human behaviour. In fact that's exactly how the jewish bible characterizes it when it's referred to as "the law and the prophets".

Interesting isn't it, that it's the one thing every human society has understood and valued. But we just cannot seem to find a way to embrace it.

Guest


Guest

Bob wrote:
Bob wrote: it's the only moral concept I've ever been made aware which should appeal to every human being who has ever been given life. And every society of human beings which has ever been created.




Oh and by the way, it's no coincidence that virtually every religion and every philosophy in human history has incorporated that concept as it's ultimate "law". The ultimate guide for ethical human behaviour. In fact that's exactly how the jewish bible characterizes it when it's referred to as "the law and the prophets".

Interesting isn't it, that it's the one thing every human society has understood and valued. But we just cannot seem to find a way to embrace it.


.....................................................

I've seen enough episodes of No Reservations where Tony was a stranger in a strange land but the hospitality and willingness to open their homes to him is dictated by tribal dogma that borders on a sacrilegious act if not accepted.

I'm not stupid....I realize the programing is carefully planned out, but I have also seen things go south quickly over a loss of face or a quibble or perceived slight....a social faux pas.



We just ain't beatin' our kids like we used to, teachin' 'em what they don't want done to them, and teachin' 'em what not to do unto others.

It's a mixed message at best.

Guest


Guest

The "Goldren rule" is not limited to Christian or Islamic teachings. It has been around a long time.



I like this comment by Mr G Shaw.
It is possible, then, that the golden rule can itself guide us in identifying which differences of situation are morally relevant. We would often want other people to ignore any prejudice against our race or nationality when deciding how to act towards us, but would also want them to not ignore our differing preferences in food, desire for aggressiveness, and so on. The platinum rule, and perhaps other variants, might also be self-correcting in this same manner




A little background of the roots of the Rule.

Antiquity

[edit]Ancient Babylon
The Code of Hammurabi, (1780 BCE),[12] dealt with the reciprocity of the Lex talionis, in ways, such by limiting retribution, as they did concepts of retribution (literally "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth").

[edit]Ancient China
The Golden Rule existed among all the major philosophical schools of Ancient China: Mohism, Taoism, and Confucianism. Examples of the concept include:

"Zi Gong asked, saying, "Is there one word that may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not reciprocity such a word?" – Confucius[13][14]
"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." – Confucius[15]
"If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? "For one would do for others as one would do for oneself." – Mozi
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." –Laozi[16]
"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." –Laozi[17]
[edit]Ancient Egypt
An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BCE): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you."[18] An example from a Late Period (c. 664 BCE – 323 BCE) papyrus: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."[19]

[edit]Ancient Greece
The Golden Rule in its prohibitive form was a common principle in ancient Greek philosophy. Examples of the general concept include:

"Do not do to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." – Pittacus[20] (c. 640–568 BCE)
"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales[21] (c. 624 BC – c. 546 BC)
"What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either. " – Sextus the Pythagorean.[22] The oldest extant reference to Sextus is by Origen in the third century of the common era.[23]
"Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others." – Isocrates[24](436–338 BCE)
"What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." – Epictetus[25]
"It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing 'neither to harm nor be harmed'[26]), and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life." – Epicurus[27]
"...it has been shown that to injure anyone is never just anywhere." - Socrates, in Plato's Republic. Plato is the first person known to have said this.[28]
[edit]Ancient Rome
Seneca, maybe following Publilius Syrus,[29] told "ab alio expectes alteri quod feceris" (expect from others what you did to them)[30][31] and "non est quod credas quemquam fieri aliena infelicitate felicem" (it is not so, as you might believe, that one is made happy through the unhappiness of others)[32][33]

[edit]Ancient India
[edit]Sanskrit Tradition
In Mahābhārata, the ancient epic of India, comes a discourse where the wise minister Vidura advises the King Yuddhiśhṭhira thus, “Listening to wise scriptures, austerity, sacrifice, respectful faith, social welfare, forgiveness, purity of intent, compassion, truth and self-control - are the ten wealth of character (self). O king aim for these, may you be steadfast in these qualities. These are the basis of prosperity and rightful living. These are highest attainable things. All worlds are balanced on dharma, dharma encompasses ways to prosperity as well. O King, dharma is the best quality to have, wealth the medium and desire (kāma) the lowest. Hence, (keeping these in mind), by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself."

"tasmād_dharma-pradhānéna bhavitavyam yatātmanā | tathā cha sarva-bhūtéṣhu vartitavyam yathātmani ||" (तस्माद्धर्मप्रधानेन भवितव्यं यतात्मना । तथा च सर्वभूतेषु वर्तितव्यं यथात्मनि ॥ Mahābhārata Shānti-Parva 167:9)

[edit]Tamil Tradition
In the Section on Virtue, and Chapter 32 of the Tirukkuṛaḷ (c. 200 BC - 500 AD), Tiruvaḷḷuvar says: Why does a man inflict upon other creatures those sufferings, which he has found by experience are sufferings to himself ? (K. 318) Let not a man consent to do those things to another which, he knows, will cause sorrow. (K. 316) He furthermore opined that it is the determination of the spotless (virtuous) not to do evil, even in return, to those who have cherished enmity and done them evil. (K. 312) The (proper) punishment to those who have done evil (to you), is to put them to shame by showing them kindness, in return and to forget both the evil and the good done on both sides. (K. 314)

[edit]Religion and philosophy

[edit]Global ethic
Main article: Towards a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration
The "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic"[34] from the Parliament of the World’s Religions[35][36] (1993) proclaimed the Golden Rule ("We must treat others as we wish others to treat us") as the common principle for many religions.[37] The Initial Declaration was signed by 143 respected leaders from all of the world's major faiths, including Baha'i Faith, Brahmanism, Brahma Kumaris, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Indigenous, Interfaith, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American, Neo-Pagan, Sikhism, Taoism, Theosophist, Unitarian Universalist and Zoroastrian.[37][38] In the folklore of several cultures{31} the Golden Rule is depicted by the allegory of the long spoons.

[edit]Bahá'í Faith
See also: Bahá'í Faith
The Writings of the Bahá'í Faith while encouraging everyone to treat others as they would treat themselves, go further by introducing the concept of preferring others before oneself:

O SON OF MAN! Deny not My servant should he ask anything from thee, for his face is My face; be then abashed before Me.
—Bahá'u'lláh[39]
Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself.
—Bahá'u'lláh[40][41]
And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself.
—Bahá'u'lláh[42][43]
Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not.
—Bahá'u'lláh[44][45][46]
Beware lest ye harm any soul, or make any heart to sorrow; lest ye wound any man with your words, be he known to you or a stranger, be he friend or foe.
—`Abdu'l-Bahá[47]
[edit]Buddhism
See also: Buddhism
Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama, c. 563 - c. 483 B.C.) made this principle one of the cornerstones of his ethics in the 5th century BCE. It occurs in many places and in many forms throughout the Tripitaka.

Comparing oneself to others in such terms as "Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I," he should neither kill nor cause others to kill.
—Sutta Nipata 705
One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter.
—Dhammapada 10. Violence
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
—Udanavarga 5:18
Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.[48]
[edit]Christianity
See also: Christian ethics
According to Simon Blackburn, although the Golden Rule "can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition", the rule is "sometimes claimed by Christianity as its own".[49] The "Golden Rule" has been attributed to Jesus of Nazareth: "Therefore all things whatsoever would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:12, see also Luke 6:31). The common English phrasing is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". A similar form appeared in a Catholic catechism around 1567 (certainly in the reprint of 1583).[50] The Golden Rule also has roots in the two old testament edicts, found in Leviticus 19:18 ("Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself"; see also Great Commandment) and Leviticus 19:34 ("But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God").

The Old Testament Deuterocanonical books of Tobit and Sirach, accepted as part of the Scriptural canon by Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Non-Chalcedonian Churches, also express a negative form of the golden rule:

"Do to no one what you yourself dislike."
—Tobit 4:15
"Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind your own dislikes."
—Sirach 31:15
At the time of Hillel, an elder contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth, the negative form of the golden rule already must have been proverbial, perhaps because of Tobit 4:15. When asked to sum up the entire Torah concisely, he answered:

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."
—Talmud, Shabbat 31a
Two passages in the New Testament quote Jesus of Nazareth espousing the golden rule:

Matthew 7:12

12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Luke 6:31

31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
A similar passage, a parallel to the Great Commandment, is Luke 10:25-28

25And one day an authority on the law stood up to put Jesus to the test. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to receive eternal life?”
26What is written in the Law?” Jesus replied. “How do you understand it?” 27He answered, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Love him with all your strength and with all your mind.’(Deuteronomy 6:5) And, ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ ”

28“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do that, and you will live.”.
The passage in the book of Luke then continues with Jesus answering the question, "Who is my neighbor?", by telling the parable of the Good Samaritan, indicating that "your neighbour" is anyone in need.[51] Jesus' teaching, however, goes beyond the negative formulation of not doing what one would not like done to themselves, to the positive formulation of actively doing good to another that, if the situations were reversed, one would desire that the other would do for them. This formulation, as indicated in the parable of the Good Samaritan, emphasises the needs for positive action that brings benefit to another, not simply restraining oneself from negative activities that hurt another. Taken as a rule of judgment, both formulations of the golden rule, the negative and positive, are equally applicable.[52]

In one passage of the New Testament Paul the Apostle refers to the golden rule:

Galatians 5:14

14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this;Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[edit]Confucianism
See also: Confucianism
己所不欲,勿施於人。
"What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others."
子貢問曰:“有一言而可以終身行之者乎”?子曰:“其恕乎!己所不欲、勿施於人。”
Zi gong (a disciple of Confucius) asked: "Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?"
The Master replied: "How about 'shu' [reciprocity]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?"
--Confucius, Analects XV.24, tr. David Hinton (another translation is in the online Chinese Text Project[53])
The same idea is also presented in V.12 and VI.30 of the Analects, which can be found in the online Chinese Text Project

[edit]Hinduism
See also: Hinduism
One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires.
—Brihaspati, Mahabharata (Anusasana Parva, Section CXIII, Verse Cool[54]
Also,

श्रूयतां धर्मसर्वस्वं श्रुत्वा चाप्यवधार्यताम्।
आत्मनः प्रतिकूलानि परेषां न समाचरेत्।।
If the entire “Dharma” (spiritual and moral laws) can be said in a few words, then it is - that which is unfavorable to us, do not do that to others. (Padmapuraana, shrushti 19/357-358)

In Mahābhārata, the ancient epic of India, comes a discourse where the wise minister Vidura advices the King Yuddhiśhṭhira thus, “Listening to wise scriptures, austerity, sacrifice, respectful faith, social welfare, forgiveness, purity of intent, compassion, truth and self-control - are the ten wealth of character (self). O king aim for these, may you be steadfast in these qualities. These are the basis of prosperity and rightful living. These are highest attainable things. All worlds are balanced on dharma, dharma encompasses ways to prosperity as well. O King, dharma is the best quality to have, wealth the medium and desire (kāma) the lowest. Hence, (keeping these in mind), by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself."

"tasmād_dharma-pradhānéna bhavitavyam yatātmanā | tathā cha sarva-bhūtéṣhu vartitavyam yathātmani ||" (तस्माद्धर्मप्रधानेन भवितव्यं यतात्मना । तथा च सर्वभूतेषु वर्तितव्यं यथात्मनि ॥ Mahābhārata Shānti-Parva 167:9)

[edit]Humanism
See also: Humanism
Many different sources claim the Golden Rule as a humanist principle:[55][56]

Trying to live according to the Golden Rule means trying to empathise with other people, including those who may be very different from us. Empathy is at the root of kindness, compassion, understanding and respect – qualities that we all appreciate being shown, whoever we are, whatever we think and wherever we come from. And although it isn’t possible to know what it really feels like to be a different person or live in different circumstances and have different life experiences, it isn’t difficult for most of us to imagine what would cause us suffering and to try to avoid causing suffering to others. For this reason many people find the Golden Rule’s corollary – “do not treat people in a way you would not wish to be treated yourself” – more pragmatic.[55]
The above is from the website Think Humanism

Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you. [is] (...) the single greatest, simplest, and most important moral axiom humanity has ever invented, one which reappears in the writings of almost every culture and religion throughout history, the one we know as the Golden Rule. Moral directives do not need to be complex or obscure to be worthwhile, and in fact, it is precisely this rule's simplicity which makes it great. It is easy to come up with, easy to understand, and easy to apply, and these three things are the hallmarks of a strong and healthy moral system. The idea behind it is readily graspable: before performing an action which might harm another person, try to imagine yourself in their position, and consider whether you would want to be the recipient of that action. If you would not want to be in such a position, the other person probably would not either, and so you should not do it. It is the basic and fundamental human trait of empathy, the ability to vicariously experience how another is feeling, that makes this possible, and it is the principle of empathy by which we should live our lives.[57]
The above is from the website Ebon Musings

According to Greg M. Epstein, a Humanist chaplain at Harvard University, " 'do unto others' ... is a concept that essentially no religion misses entirely. But not a single one of these versions of the golden rule requires a God".[58]

[edit]Islam
See also: Islam
The Golden Rule is implicitly expressed in some verses of Qur'an, but is explicitly declared in the sayings of Muhammad.

From the Qur'an: the first verse recommends the positive form of the rule, and the subsequent verses condemn not abiding the negative form of the Golden Rule:

“...and you should forgive And overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you? And Allah is The Merciful Forgiving.”
— Qur’an (Surah 24, "The Light," v. 22)
“Woe to those... who, when they have to receive by measure from men, they demand exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due”
— Qur’an (Surah 83, "The Dealers in Fraud," vv. 1–4)
“...orphans and the needy, give them something and speak kindly to them. And those who are concerned about the welfare of their own children after their death, should have fear of God [Treat other people's Orphans justly] and guide them properly.”
— Qur’an (Surah 4, "The Women," vv. 8-9)
“O you who believe! Spend [benevolently] of the good things that you have earned... and do not even think of spending [in alms] worthless things that you yourselves would be reluctant to accept.”
— Qur’an (Surah 2, "The Calf," v. 267)
“They assign daughters to Allah, Who is above having a child [whether male or female] and to themselves they assign what they desire [which is a male child]; And when the news of the birth of a female child is brought to one of them His face darkens and he hides his inward Grief and anger... They attribute to Allah what they dislike [For themselves] and their tongues assert the lie that the best reward will be theirs! Undoubtedly, the Hell fire shall be their lot and they will be foremost [in entering it].”
— Qur’an (Surah 16, "The Honey Bees," vv. 57-62)
From the hadith, the collected oral and written accounts of Muhammad and his teachings during his lifetime:

A Bedouin came to the prophet, grabbed the stirrup of his camel and said: O the messenger of God! Teach me something to go to heaven with it. Prophet said: “As you would have people do to you, do to them; and what you dislike to be done to you, don't do to them. Now let the stirrup go! [This maxim is enough for you; go and act in accordance with it!]”
—Kitab al-Kafi, vol. 2, p. 146
“None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”
—An-Nawawi's Forty Hadith 13 (p. 56)[59]
“Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself, that you may be a believer.”
—Sukhanan-i-Muhammad (Teheran, 1938)[60]
“That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.”[60]
“The most righteous person is the one who consents for other people what he consents for himself, and who dislikes for them what he dislikes for himself.”[60]
Ali ibn Abi Talib (4th Caliph in Sunni Islam, and first Imam in Shia Islam) says:

“O' my child, make yourself the measure (for dealings) between you and others. Thus, you should desire for others what you desire for yourself and hate for others what you hate for yourself. Do not oppress as you do not like to be oppressed. Do good to others as you would like good to be done to you. Regard bad for yourself whatever you regard bad for others. Accept that (treatment) from others which you would like others to accept from you... Do not say to others what you do not like to be said to you.”
—Nahjul Balaghah, Letter 31 [61]
[edit]Jainism
See also: Jainism and Ahimsa in Jainism
In Jainism, the golden rule is firmly embedded in its entire philosophy and can be seen in its clearest form in the doctrines of Ahimsa and Karma

The following quotation from the Acaranga Sutra sums up the philosophy of Jainism:

Nothing which breathes, which exists, which lives, or which has essence or potential of life, should be destroyed or ruled over, or subjugated, or harmed, or denied of its essence or potential. In support of this Truth, I ask you a question – "Is sorrow or pain desirable to you ?" If you say "yes it is", it would be a lie. If you say, "No, It is not" you will be expressing the truth. Just as sorrow or pain is not desirable to you, so it is to all which breathe, exist, live or have any essence of life. To you and all, it is undesirable, and painful, and repugnant.[62]
Saman Suttam of Jinendra Varni[63] gives further insight into this precept:-

All the living beings wish to live and not to die; that is why unattached saints prohibit the killing of living beings.
—Suman Suttam , verse 148
Just as pain is not agreeable to you, it is so with others. Knowing this principle of equality treat other with respect and compassion.
—Suman Suttam , verse 150
Killing a living being is killing one's own self; showing compassion to a living being is showing compassion to oneself. He who desires his own good, should avoid causing any harm to a living being.
—Suman Suttam , verse 151
[edit]Judaism
See also: Judaism
[edit]Context
The Jewish sage and martyr Rabbi Akiba, following Hillel the Elder (c.110 BCE, died 10 CE[64]), had singled out the Golden Rule (Leviticus 19:18) as a basic principle of the Torah meaning, that the principle of love must have its foundation in Genesis verse 1, which teaches that all men are the offspring of Adam who was made in the image of God (Sifra, Ḳedoshim, iv.; Yer. Ned. ix. 41c; Genesis Rabba 24).[65] According to Jewish rabbinic literature, the first man Adam represents the unity of mankind. This is echoed in the modern preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And it is also taught, that Adam is last in order according to the evolutionary character of God's creation:[65]

"Why was only a single specimen of man created first?[65] To teach us that he who destroys a single soul destroys a whole world and that he who saves a single soul saves a whole world;[65] furthermore, so no race or class may claim a nobler ancestry, saying, 'Our father was born first'; and, finally, to give testimony to the greatness of the Lord, who caused the wonderful diversity of mankind to emanate from one type.[65] And why was Adam created last of all beings?[65] To teach him humility; for if he be overbearing, let him remember that the little fly preceded him in the order of creation."[65]

[edit]Sources
The Golden Rule originates in a well-known Torah verse (Hebrew: "ואהבת לרעך כמוך"):

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.
—Leviticus 19:18
The Jewish Publication Soceity's edition of Leviticus:

Thou shalt not hate thy brother. in thy heart; thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him. 18 Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. [66]
This Torah verse represents one of several versions of the Golden Rule, which itself appears in various forms, positive and negative. It is the earliest written version of that concept in a positive form.[11]

At the turn of the eras, the Jewish rabbis were discussing the scope of the meaning of Leviticus 19:18 and 19:34 extensively:

The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I the LORD am your God.
—Leviticus 19:34
Commentators summed up foreigners (= Samaritans), proselytes (= 'strangers who resides with you') (Rabbi Akiba, bQuid 75b) or Jews (Rabbi Gamaliel, yKet 3,1; 27a) to the scope of the meaning.

The Sage Hillel formulated a negative form of the golden rule. When asked to sum up the entire Torah concisely, he answered:[67]

That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn it.
—Talmud, Shabbat 31a, the "Great Principle"
On the verse, "Love your fellow as yourself," the classic commentator Rashi quotes from Torat Kohanim, an early Midrashic text regarding the famous dictum of Rabbi Akiva: "Love your fellow as yourself — Rabbi Akiva says this is a great principle of the Torah."[68]

Israel's postal service quoted from the previous Leviticus verse when it commemorated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on a 1958 postage stamp.[69]

[edit]Mohism
See also: Mohism
If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself.
—Mozi
Mozi regarded the golden rule as a corollary to the cardinal virtue of impartiality, and encouraged egalitarianism and selflessness in relationships.

[edit]Platonism
See also: Platonism
The Golden Rule appears to be present in at least one of Plato's dialogues:

One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him."
—Plato's Socrates (Crito, 49c) (c. 469 BC–399 BCE)
[edit]Quakerism
"Oh, do as you would be done by. And do unto all men as you would have them do unto you, for this is but the law and the prophet." Postscript to the Quaker peace testimony, signed by George Fox.

[edit]Scientology
See also: Scientology
Consistent with the observation by Walter Terence Stace "that 'doing as you would be done by' includes taking into account your neighbor's tastes as you would that he should take yours into account" (see Criticisms and responses to criticisms), Scientology addresses the issue concerning differences in values or interests by focusing on the values and interests of the recipient of the conduct:

Thus today we have two golden rules for happiness: 1. Be able to experience anything; and 2. Cause only those things which others are able to experience easily.
—Scientology: A New Slant on Life, Two Rules for Happy Living[70][71][72]
[edit]Sikhism
See also: Sikhism and Karma
Whom should I despise, since the one Lord made us all.
—p.1237, Var Sarang, Guru Granth Sahib, tr. Patwant Singh
The truly enlightened ones are those who neither incite fear in others nor fear anyone themselves.
—p.1427, Slok, Guru Granth Sahib, tr. Patwant Singh
I am a stranger to no one, and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all.
—p.1299, Guru Granth Sahib
[edit]Taoism
See also: Taoism
The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful.
—Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49
Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.
—T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien
[edit]The Way to Happiness
See also: The Way to Happiness
The Way to Happiness expresses the Golden Rule both in its negative/prohibitive form and in its positive form. The negative/prohibitive form is expressed in Precept 19 as:

19. Try not to do things to others that you would not like them to do to you.
—The Way to Happiness, Precept 19[73][74]
The positive form is expressed in Precept 20 as:

20. Try to treat others as you would want them to treat you.
—The Way to Happiness, Precept 20[75][76]
[edit]Wicca
See also: Wicca
These eight words the Rede fulfill, 'an ye harm none do as ye will.
—The Wiccan Rede
Here ye these words and heed them well, the words of Dea, thy Mother Goddess, "I command thee thus, O children of the Earth, that that which ye deem harmful unto thyself, the very same shall ye be forbidden from doing unto another, for violence and hatred give rise to the same. My command is thus, that ye shall return all violence and hatred with peacefulness and love, for my Law is love unto all things. Only through love shall ye have peace; yea and verily, only peace and love will cure the world, and subdue all evil."
—The Book of Ways, Devotional Wicca
[edit]Pop culture
Be excellent to each another.
—Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure
Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.
—Monty Python's Meaning of Life
Don't be a dick.
—Wil Wheaton[77]
It's okay when it's in a threeway.
—Andy Samberg and Justin Timberlake [78]
[edit]Other contexts

[edit]Human rights
According to Marc H. Bornstein, and William E. Paden, the Golden Rule is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights, in which each individual has a right to just treatment, and a reciprocal responsibility to ensure justice for others.[79]

However Leo Damrosch argued that the notion that the Golden Rule pertains to "rights" per se is a contemporary interpretation and has nothing to do with its origin. The development of human "rights" is a modern political ideal that began as a philosophical concept promulgated through the philosophy of Jean Jacques Rousseau in 18th century France, among others. His writings influenced Thomas Jefferson, who then incorporated Rousseau's reference to "inalienable rights" into the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776. Damrosch argued that to confuse the Golden Rule with human rights is to apply contemporary thinking to ancient concepts.[80]

[edit]Psychology
If the negative/prohibitive form of the Golden Rule would stand alone, it would simply serve as a proactive motivation against wrong action. But the Golden Rule in general actually serves as a motivation toward proactive action. As Dr. Frank Crane put it, "The Golden Rule is of no use to you whatsoever unless you realize that it's your move!"[81]

[edit]Criticisms and responses to criticisms

Many people have criticized the golden rule; George Bernard Shaw once said that "the golden rule is that there are no golden rules". Shaw suggested an alternative rule: "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same" (Maxims for Revolutionists; 1903). Karl Popper wrote: "The golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever reasonable, as they want to be done by" (The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 2). This concept has recently been called "The Platinum Rule"[82] Philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Bertrand Russell[citation needed], have objected to the rule on a variety of grounds.[83] The most serious among these is its application. How does one know how others want to be treated? The obvious way is to ask them, but this cannot be done if one assumes they have not reached a particular and relevant understanding.

[edit]Differences in values or interests
Shaw's comment about differing tastes suggests that if your values are not shared with others, the way you want to be treated will not be the way they want to be treated. For example, it has been said that a sadist is just a masochist who follows the golden rule[by whom?]. Another often used example of this inconsistency is that of the man walking into a bar looking for a fight.[84]

[edit]Differences in situations
Immanuel Kant famously criticized the golden rule for not being sensitive to differences of situation, noting that a prisoner duly convicted of a crime could appeal to the golden rule while asking the judge to release him, pointing out that the judge would not want anyone else to send him to prison, so he should not do so to others.[85] Kant's Categorical Imperative, introduced in Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, is often confused with the Golden Rule.

[edit]Responses to criticisms
Walter Terence Stace, in The Concept of Morals (1937), wrote:

Mr. Bernard Shaw's remark "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may be different" is no doubt a smart saying. But it seems to overlook the fact that "doing as you would be done by" includes taking into account your neighbor's tastes as you would that he should take yours into account. Thus the "golden rule" might still express the essence of a universal morality even if no two men in the world had any needs or tastes in common.[86]
Marcus George Singer observed that there are two importantly different ways of looking at the golden rule: as requiring (1) that you perform specific actions that you want others to do to you or (2) that you guide your behavior in the same general ways that you want others to.[87] Counter-examples to the golden rule typically are more forceful against the first than the second.

]

It is possible, then, that the golden rule can itself guide us in identifying which differences of situation are morally relevant. We would often want other people to ignore any prejudice against our race or nationality when deciding how to act towards us, but would also want them to not ignore our differing preferences in food, desire for aggressiveness, and so on. The platinum rule, and perhaps other variants, might also be self-correcting in this same manner

Guest


Guest

Hallmarkgrad1 wrote:The "Goldren rule" is not limited to Christian or Islamic teachings. It has been around a long time.



I like this comment by Mr G Shaw.
It is possible, then, that the golden rule can itself guide us in identifying which differences of situation are morally relevant. We would often want other people to ignore any prejudice against our race or nationality when deciding how to act towards us, but would also want them to not ignore our differing preferences in food, desire for aggressiveness, and so on. The platinum rule, and perhaps other variants, might also be self-correcting in this same manner




A little background of the roots of the Rule.

Antiquity

[edit]Ancient Babylon
The Code of Hammurabi, (1780 BCE),[12] dealt with the reciprocity of the Lex talionis, in ways, such by limiting retribution, as they did concepts of retribution (literally "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth").

[edit]Ancient China
The Golden Rule existed among all the major philosophical schools of Ancient China: Mohism, Taoism, and Confucianism. Examples of the concept include:

"Zi Gong asked, saying, "Is there one word that may serve as a rule of practice for all one's life?" The Master said, "Is not reciprocity such a word?" – Confucius[13][14]
"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." – Confucius[15]
"If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? "For one would do for others as one would do for oneself." – Mozi
"The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful." –Laozi[16]
"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." –Laozi[17]
[edit]Ancient Egypt
An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant, which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BCE): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do thus to you."[18] An example from a Late Period (c. 664 BCE – 323 BCE) papyrus: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."[19]

[edit]Ancient Greece
The Golden Rule in its prohibitive form was a common principle in ancient Greek philosophy. Examples of the general concept include:

"Do not do to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." – Pittacus[20] (c. 640–568 BCE)
"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales[21] (c. 624 BC – c. 546 BC)
"What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either. " – Sextus the Pythagorean.[22] The oldest extant reference to Sextus is by Origen in the third century of the common era.[23]
"Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others." – Isocrates[24](436–338 BCE)
"What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." – Epictetus[25]
"It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly (agreeing 'neither to harm nor be harmed'[26]), and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living a pleasant life." – Epicurus[27]
"...it has been shown that to injure anyone is never just anywhere." - Socrates, in Plato's Republic. Plato is the first person known to have said this.[28]
[edit]Ancient Rome
Seneca, maybe following Publilius Syrus,[29] told "ab alio expectes alteri quod feceris" (expect from others what you did to them)[30][31] and "non est quod credas quemquam fieri aliena infelicitate felicem" (it is not so, as you might believe, that one is made happy through the unhappiness of others)[32][33]

[edit]Ancient India
[edit]Sanskrit Tradition
In Mahābhārata, the ancient epic of India, comes a discourse where the wise minister Vidura advises the King Yuddhiśhṭhira thus, “Listening to wise scriptures, austerity, sacrifice, respectful faith, social welfare, forgiveness, purity of intent, compassion, truth and self-control - are the ten wealth of character (self). O king aim for these, may you be steadfast in these qualities. These are the basis of prosperity and rightful living. These are highest attainable things. All worlds are balanced on dharma, dharma encompasses ways to prosperity as well. O King, dharma is the best quality to have, wealth the medium and desire (kāma) the lowest. Hence, (keeping these in mind), by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself."

"tasmād_dharma-pradhānéna bhavitavyam yatātmanā | tathā cha sarva-bhūtéṣhu vartitavyam yathātmani ||" (तस्माद्धर्मप्रधानेन भवितव्यं यतात्मना । तथा च सर्वभूतेषु वर्तितव्यं यथात्मनि ॥ Mahābhārata Shānti-Parva 167:9)

[edit]Tamil Tradition
In the Section on Virtue, and Chapter 32 of the Tirukkuṛaḷ (c. 200 BC - 500 AD), Tiruvaḷḷuvar says: Why does a man inflict upon other creatures those sufferings, which he has found by experience are sufferings to himself ? (K. 318) Let not a man consent to do those things to another which, he knows, will cause sorrow. (K. 316) He furthermore opined that it is the determination of the spotless (virtuous) not to do evil, even in return, to those who have cherished enmity and done them evil. (K. 312) The (proper) punishment to those who have done evil (to you), is to put them to shame by showing them kindness, in return and to forget both the evil and the good done on both sides. (K. 314)

[edit]Religion and philosophy

[edit]Global ethic
Main article: Towards a Global Ethic: An Initial Declaration
The "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic"[34] from the Parliament of the World’s Religions[35][36] (1993) proclaimed the Golden Rule ("We must treat others as we wish others to treat us") as the common principle for many religions.[37] The Initial Declaration was signed by 143 respected leaders from all of the world's major faiths, including Baha'i Faith, Brahmanism, Brahma Kumaris, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Indigenous, Interfaith, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American, Neo-Pagan, Sikhism, Taoism, Theosophist, Unitarian Universalist and Zoroastrian.[37][38] In the folklore of several cultures{31} the Golden Rule is depicted by the allegory of the long spoons.

[edit]Bahá'í Faith
See also: Bahá'í Faith
The Writings of the Bahá'í Faith while encouraging everyone to treat others as they would treat themselves, go further by introducing the concept of preferring others before oneself:

O SON OF MAN! Deny not My servant should he ask anything from thee, for his face is My face; be then abashed before Me.
—Bahá'u'lláh[39]
Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself.
—Bahá'u'lláh[40][41]
And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself.
—Bahá'u'lláh[42][43]
Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not.
—Bahá'u'lláh[44][45][46]
Beware lest ye harm any soul, or make any heart to sorrow; lest ye wound any man with your words, be he known to you or a stranger, be he friend or foe.
—`Abdu'l-Bahá[47]
[edit]Buddhism
See also: Buddhism
Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama, c. 563 - c. 483 B.C.) made this principle one of the cornerstones of his ethics in the 5th century BCE. It occurs in many places and in many forms throughout the Tripitaka.

Comparing oneself to others in such terms as "Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I," he should neither kill nor cause others to kill.
—Sutta Nipata 705
One who, while himself seeking happiness, oppresses with violence other beings who also desire happiness, will not attain happiness hereafter.
—Dhammapada 10. Violence
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
—Udanavarga 5:18
Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.[48]
[edit]Christianity
See also: Christian ethics
According to Simon Blackburn, although the Golden Rule "can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition", the rule is "sometimes claimed by Christianity as its own".[49] The "Golden Rule" has been attributed to Jesus of Nazareth: "Therefore all things whatsoever would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them" (Matthew 7:12, see also Luke 6:31). The common English phrasing is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". A similar form appeared in a Catholic catechism around 1567 (certainly in the reprint of 1583).[50] The Golden Rule also has roots in the two old testament edicts, found in Leviticus 19:18 ("Do not seek revenge or bear a grudge against one of your people, but love your neighbor as yourself"; see also Great Commandment) and Leviticus 19:34 ("But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God").

The Old Testament Deuterocanonical books of Tobit and Sirach, accepted as part of the Scriptural canon by Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodoxy, and the Non-Chalcedonian Churches, also express a negative form of the golden rule:

"Do to no one what you yourself dislike."
—Tobit 4:15
"Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind your own dislikes."
—Sirach 31:15
At the time of Hillel, an elder contemporary of Jesus of Nazareth, the negative form of the golden rule already must have been proverbial, perhaps because of Tobit 4:15. When asked to sum up the entire Torah concisely, he answered:

"That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn."
—Talmud, Shabbat 31a
Two passages in the New Testament quote Jesus of Nazareth espousing the golden rule:

Matthew 7:12

12Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Luke 6:31

31And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
A similar passage, a parallel to the Great Commandment, is Luke 10:25-28

25And one day an authority on the law stood up to put Jesus to the test. “Teacher,” he asked, “what must I do to receive eternal life?”
26What is written in the Law?” Jesus replied. “How do you understand it?” 27He answered, “ ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Love him with all your strength and with all your mind.’(Deuteronomy 6:5) And, ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ ”

28“You have answered correctly,” Jesus replied. “Do that, and you will live.”.
The passage in the book of Luke then continues with Jesus answering the question, "Who is my neighbor?", by telling the parable of the Good Samaritan, indicating that "your neighbour" is anyone in need.[51] Jesus' teaching, however, goes beyond the negative formulation of not doing what one would not like done to themselves, to the positive formulation of actively doing good to another that, if the situations were reversed, one would desire that the other would do for them. This formulation, as indicated in the parable of the Good Samaritan, emphasises the needs for positive action that brings benefit to another, not simply restraining oneself from negative activities that hurt another. Taken as a rule of judgment, both formulations of the golden rule, the negative and positive, are equally applicable.[52]

In one passage of the New Testament Paul the Apostle refers to the golden rule:

Galatians 5:14

14For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this;Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
[edit]Confucianism
See also: Confucianism
己所不欲,勿施於人。
"What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others."
子貢問曰:“有一言而可以終身行之者乎”?子曰:“其恕乎!己所不欲、勿施於人。”
Zi gong (a disciple of Confucius) asked: "Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?"
The Master replied: "How about 'shu' [reciprocity]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?"
--Confucius, Analects XV.24, tr. David Hinton (another translation is in the online Chinese Text Project[53])
The same idea is also presented in V.12 and VI.30 of the Analects, which can be found in the online Chinese Text Project

[edit]Hinduism
See also: Hinduism
One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behavior is due to selfish desires.
—Brihaspati, Mahabharata (Anusasana Parva, Section CXIII, Verse Cool[54]
Also,

श्रूयतां धर्मसर्वस्वं श्रुत्वा चाप्यवधार्यताम्।
आत्मनः प्रतिकूलानि परेषां न समाचरेत्।।
If the entire “Dharma” (spiritual and moral laws) can be said in a few words, then it is - that which is unfavorable to us, do not do that to others. (Padmapuraana, shrushti 19/357-358)

In Mahābhārata, the ancient epic of India, comes a discourse where the wise minister Vidura advices the King Yuddhiśhṭhira thus, “Listening to wise scriptures, austerity, sacrifice, respectful faith, social welfare, forgiveness, purity of intent, compassion, truth and self-control - are the ten wealth of character (self). O king aim for these, may you be steadfast in these qualities. These are the basis of prosperity and rightful living. These are highest attainable things. All worlds are balanced on dharma, dharma encompasses ways to prosperity as well. O King, dharma is the best quality to have, wealth the medium and desire (kāma) the lowest. Hence, (keeping these in mind), by self-control and by making dharma (right conduct) your main focus, treat others as you treat yourself."

"tasmād_dharma-pradhānéna bhavitavyam yatātmanā | tathā cha sarva-bhūtéṣhu vartitavyam yathātmani ||" (तस्माद्धर्मप्रधानेन भवितव्यं यतात्मना । तथा च सर्वभूतेषु वर्तितव्यं यथात्मनि ॥ Mahābhārata Shānti-Parva 167:9)

[edit]Humanism
See also: Humanism
Many different sources claim the Golden Rule as a humanist principle:[55][56]

Trying to live according to the Golden Rule means trying to empathise with other people, including those who may be very different from us. Empathy is at the root of kindness, compassion, understanding and respect – qualities that we all appreciate being shown, whoever we are, whatever we think and wherever we come from. And although it isn’t possible to know what it really feels like to be a different person or live in different circumstances and have different life experiences, it isn’t difficult for most of us to imagine what would cause us suffering and to try to avoid causing suffering to others. For this reason many people find the Golden Rule’s corollary – “do not treat people in a way you would not wish to be treated yourself” – more pragmatic.[55]
The above is from the website Think Humanism

Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you. [is] (...) the single greatest, simplest, and most important moral axiom humanity has ever invented, one which reappears in the writings of almost every culture and religion throughout history, the one we know as the Golden Rule. Moral directives do not need to be complex or obscure to be worthwhile, and in fact, it is precisely this rule's simplicity which makes it great. It is easy to come up with, easy to understand, and easy to apply, and these three things are the hallmarks of a strong and healthy moral system. The idea behind it is readily graspable: before performing an action which might harm another person, try to imagine yourself in their position, and consider whether you would want to be the recipient of that action. If you would not want to be in such a position, the other person probably would not either, and so you should not do it. It is the basic and fundamental human trait of empathy, the ability to vicariously experience how another is feeling, that makes this possible, and it is the principle of empathy by which we should live our lives.[57]
The above is from the website Ebon Musings

According to Greg M. Epstein, a Humanist chaplain at Harvard University, " 'do unto others' ... is a concept that essentially no religion misses entirely. But not a single one of these versions of the golden rule requires a God".[58]

[edit]Islam
See also: Islam
The Golden Rule is implicitly expressed in some verses of Qur'an, but is explicitly declared in the sayings of Muhammad.

From the Qur'an: the first verse recommends the positive form of the rule, and the subsequent verses condemn not abiding the negative form of the Golden Rule:

“...and you should forgive And overlook: Do you not like God to forgive you? And Allah is The Merciful Forgiving.”
— Qur’an (Surah 24, "The Light," v. 22)
“Woe to those... who, when they have to receive by measure from men, they demand exact full measure, but when they have to give by measure or weight to men, give less than due”
— Qur’an (Surah 83, "The Dealers in Fraud," vv. 1–4)
“...orphans and the needy, give them something and speak kindly to them. And those who are concerned about the welfare of their own children after their death, should have fear of God [Treat other people's Orphans justly] and guide them properly.”
— Qur’an (Surah 4, "The Women," vv. 8-9)
“O you who believe! Spend [benevolently] of the good things that you have earned... and do not even think of spending [in alms] worthless things that you yourselves would be reluctant to accept.”
— Qur’an (Surah 2, "The Calf," v. 267)
“They assign daughters to Allah, Who is above having a child [whether male or female] and to themselves they assign what they desire [which is a male child]; And when the news of the birth of a female child is brought to one of them His face darkens and he hides his inward Grief and anger... They attribute to Allah what they dislike [For themselves] and their tongues assert the lie that the best reward will be theirs! Undoubtedly, the Hell fire shall be their lot and they will be foremost [in entering it].”
— Qur’an (Surah 16, "The Honey Bees," vv. 57-62)
From the hadith, the collected oral and written accounts of Muhammad and his teachings during his lifetime:

A Bedouin came to the prophet, grabbed the stirrup of his camel and said: O the messenger of God! Teach me something to go to heaven with it. Prophet said: “As you would have people do to you, do to them; and what you dislike to be done to you, don't do to them. Now let the stirrup go! [This maxim is enough for you; go and act in accordance with it!]”
—Kitab al-Kafi, vol. 2, p. 146
“None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.”
—An-Nawawi's Forty Hadith 13 (p. 56)[59]
“Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself, that you may be a believer.”
—Sukhanan-i-Muhammad (Teheran, 1938)[60]
“That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.”[60]
“The most righteous person is the one who consents for other people what he consents for himself, and who dislikes for them what he dislikes for himself.”[60]
Ali ibn Abi Talib (4th Caliph in Sunni Islam, and first Imam in Shia Islam) says:

“O' my child, make yourself the measure (for dealings) between you and others. Thus, you should desire for others what you desire for yourself and hate for others what you hate for yourself. Do not oppress as you do not like to be oppressed. Do good to others as you would like good to be done to you. Regard bad for yourself whatever you regard bad for others. Accept that (treatment) from others which you would like others to accept from you... Do not say to others what you do not like to be said to you.”
—Nahjul Balaghah, Letter 31 [61]
[edit]Jainism
See also: Jainism and Ahimsa in Jainism
In Jainism, the golden rule is firmly embedded in its entire philosophy and can be seen in its clearest form in the doctrines of Ahimsa and Karma

The following quotation from the Acaranga Sutra sums up the philosophy of Jainism:

Nothing which breathes, which exists, which lives, or which has essence or potential of life, should be destroyed or ruled over, or subjugated, or harmed, or denied of its essence or potential. In support of this Truth, I ask you a question – "Is sorrow or pain desirable to you ?" If you say "yes it is", it would be a lie. If you say, "No, It is not" you will be expressing the truth. Just as sorrow or pain is not desirable to you, so it is to all which breathe, exist, live or have any essence of life. To you and all, it is undesirable, and painful, and repugnant.[62]
Saman Suttam of Jinendra Varni[63] gives further insight into this precept:-

All the living beings wish to live and not to die; that is why unattached saints prohibit the killing of living beings.
—Suman Suttam , verse 148
Just as pain is not agreeable to you, it is so with others. Knowing this principle of equality treat other with respect and compassion.
—Suman Suttam , verse 150
Killing a living being is killing one's own self; showing compassion to a living being is showing compassion to oneself. He who desires his own good, should avoid causing any harm to a living being.
—Suman Suttam , verse 151
[edit]Judaism
See also: Judaism
[edit]Context
The Jewish sage and martyr Rabbi Akiba, following Hillel the Elder (c.110 BCE, died 10 CE[64]), had singled out the Golden Rule (Leviticus 19:18) as a basic principle of the Torah meaning, that the principle of love must have its foundation in Genesis verse 1, which teaches that all men are the offspring of Adam who was made in the image of God (Sifra, Ḳedoshim, iv.; Yer. Ned. ix. 41c; Genesis Rabba 24).[65] According to Jewish rabbinic literature, the first man Adam represents the unity of mankind. This is echoed in the modern preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And it is also taught, that Adam is last in order according to the evolutionary character of God's creation:[65]

"Why was only a single specimen of man created first?[65] To teach us that he who destroys a single soul destroys a whole world and that he who saves a single soul saves a whole world;[65] furthermore, so no race or class may claim a nobler ancestry, saying, 'Our father was born first'; and, finally, to give testimony to the greatness of the Lord, who caused the wonderful diversity of mankind to emanate from one type.[65] And why was Adam created last of all beings?[65] To teach him humility; for if he be overbearing, let him remember that the little fly preceded him in the order of creation."[65]

[edit]Sources
The Golden Rule originates in a well-known Torah verse (Hebrew: "ואהבת לרעך כמוך"):

You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.
—Leviticus 19:18
The Jewish Publication Soceity's edition of Leviticus:

Thou shalt not hate thy brother. in thy heart; thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him. 18 Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. [66]
This Torah verse represents one of several versions of the Golden Rule, which itself appears in various forms, positive and negative. It is the earliest written version of that concept in a positive form.[11]

At the turn of the eras, the Jewish rabbis were discussing the scope of the meaning of Leviticus 19:18 and 19:34 extensively:

The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I the LORD am your God.
—Leviticus 19:34
Commentators summed up foreigners (= Samaritans), proselytes (= 'strangers who resides with you') (Rabbi Akiba, bQuid 75b) or Jews (Rabbi Gamaliel, yKet 3,1; 27a) to the scope of the meaning.

The Sage Hillel formulated a negative form of the golden rule. When asked to sum up the entire Torah concisely, he answered:[67]

That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn it.
—Talmud, Shabbat 31a, the "Great Principle"
On the verse, "Love your fellow as yourself," the classic commentator Rashi quotes from Torat Kohanim, an early Midrashic text regarding the famous dictum of Rabbi Akiva: "Love your fellow as yourself — Rabbi Akiva says this is a great principle of the Torah."[68]

Israel's postal service quoted from the previous Leviticus verse when it commemorated the Universal Declaration of Human Rights on a 1958 postage stamp.[69]

[edit]Mohism
See also: Mohism
If people regarded other people's families in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one would do for oneself.
—Mozi
Mozi regarded the golden rule as a corollary to the cardinal virtue of impartiality, and encouraged egalitarianism and selflessness in relationships.

[edit]Platonism
See also: Platonism
The Golden Rule appears to be present in at least one of Plato's dialogues:

One should never do wrong in return, nor mistreat any man, no matter how one has been mistreated by him."
—Plato's Socrates (Crito, 49c) (c. 469 BC–399 BCE)
[edit]Quakerism
"Oh, do as you would be done by. And do unto all men as you would have them do unto you, for this is but the law and the prophet." Postscript to the Quaker peace testimony, signed by George Fox.

[edit]Scientology
See also: Scientology
Consistent with the observation by Walter Terence Stace "that 'doing as you would be done by' includes taking into account your neighbor's tastes as you would that he should take yours into account" (see Criticisms and responses to criticisms), Scientology addresses the issue concerning differences in values or interests by focusing on the values and interests of the recipient of the conduct:

Thus today we have two golden rules for happiness: 1. Be able to experience anything; and 2. Cause only those things which others are able to experience easily.
—Scientology: A New Slant on Life, Two Rules for Happy Living[70][71][72]
[edit]Sikhism
See also: Sikhism and Karma
Whom should I despise, since the one Lord made us all.
—p.1237, Var Sarang, Guru Granth Sahib, tr. Patwant Singh
The truly enlightened ones are those who neither incite fear in others nor fear anyone themselves.
—p.1427, Slok, Guru Granth Sahib, tr. Patwant Singh
I am a stranger to no one, and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all.
—p.1299, Guru Granth Sahib
[edit]Taoism
See also: Taoism
The sage has no interest of his own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is faithful.
—Tao Teh Ching, Chapter 49
Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.
—T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien
[edit]The Way to Happiness
See also: The Way to Happiness
The Way to Happiness expresses the Golden Rule both in its negative/prohibitive form and in its positive form. The negative/prohibitive form is expressed in Precept 19 as:

19. Try not to do things to others that you would not like them to do to you.
—The Way to Happiness, Precept 19[73][74]
The positive form is expressed in Precept 20 as:

20. Try to treat others as you would want them to treat you.
—The Way to Happiness, Precept 20[75][76]
[edit]Wicca
See also: Wicca
These eight words the Rede fulfill, 'an ye harm none do as ye will.
—The Wiccan Rede
Here ye these words and heed them well, the words of Dea, thy Mother Goddess, "I command thee thus, O children of the Earth, that that which ye deem harmful unto thyself, the very same shall ye be forbidden from doing unto another, for violence and hatred give rise to the same. My command is thus, that ye shall return all violence and hatred with peacefulness and love, for my Law is love unto all things. Only through love shall ye have peace; yea and verily, only peace and love will cure the world, and subdue all evil."
—The Book of Ways, Devotional Wicca
[edit]Pop culture
Be excellent to each another.
—Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure
Try and be nice to people, avoid eating fat, read a good book every now and then, get some walking in, and try and live together in peace and harmony with people of all creeds and nations.
—Monty Python's Meaning of Life
Don't be a dick.
—Wil Wheaton[77]
It's okay when it's in a threeway.
—Andy Samberg and Justin Timberlake [78]
[edit]Other contexts

[edit]Human rights
According to Marc H. Bornstein, and William E. Paden, the Golden Rule is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights, in which each individual has a right to just treatment, and a reciprocal responsibility to ensure justice for others.[79]

However Leo Damrosch argued that the notion that the Golden Rule pertains to "rights" per se is a contemporary interpretation and has nothing to do with its origin. The development of human "rights" is a modern political ideal that began as a philosophical concept promulgated through the philosophy of Jean Jacques Rousseau in 18th century France, among others. His writings influenced Thomas Jefferson, who then incorporated Rousseau's reference to "inalienable rights" into the United States Declaration of Independence in 1776. Damrosch argued that to confuse the Golden Rule with human rights is to apply contemporary thinking to ancient concepts.[80]

[edit]Psychology
If the negative/prohibitive form of the Golden Rule would stand alone, it would simply serve as a proactive motivation against wrong action. But the Golden Rule in general actually serves as a motivation toward proactive action. As Dr. Frank Crane put it, "The Golden Rule is of no use to you whatsoever unless you realize that it's your move!"[81]

[edit]Criticisms and responses to criticisms

Many people have criticized the golden rule; George Bernard Shaw once said that "the golden rule is that there are no golden rules". Shaw suggested an alternative rule: "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same" (Maxims for Revolutionists; 1903). Karl Popper wrote: "The golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever reasonable, as they want to be done by" (The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 2). This concept has recently been called "The Platinum Rule"[82] Philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Bertrand Russell[citation needed], have objected to the rule on a variety of grounds.[83] The most serious among these is its application. How does one know how others want to be treated? The obvious way is to ask them, but this cannot be done if one assumes they have not reached a particular and relevant understanding.

[edit]Differences in values or interests
Shaw's comment about differing tastes suggests that if your values are not shared with others, the way you want to be treated will not be the way they want to be treated. For example, it has been said that a sadist is just a masochist who follows the golden rule[by whom?]. Another often used example of this inconsistency is that of the man walking into a bar looking for a fight.[84]

[edit]Differences in situations
Immanuel Kant famously criticized the golden rule for not being sensitive to differences of situation, noting that a prisoner duly convicted of a crime could appeal to the golden rule while asking the judge to release him, pointing out that the judge would not want anyone else to send him to prison, so he should not do so to others.[85] Kant's Categorical Imperative, introduced in Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, is often confused with the Golden Rule.

[edit]Responses to criticisms
Walter Terence Stace, in The Concept of Morals (1937), wrote:

Mr. Bernard Shaw's remark "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may be different" is no doubt a smart saying. But it seems to overlook the fact that "doing as you would be done by" includes taking into account your neighbor's tastes as you would that he should take yours into account. Thus the "golden rule" might still express the essence of a universal morality even if no two men in the world had any needs or tastes in common.[86]
Marcus George Singer observed that there are two importantly different ways of looking at the golden rule: as requiring (1) that you perform specific actions that you want others to do to you or (2) that you guide your behavior in the same general ways that you want others to.[87] Counter-examples to the golden rule typically are more forceful against the first than the second.

]

It is possible, then, that the golden rule can itself guide us in identifying which differences of situation are morally relevant. We would often want other people to ignore any prejudice against our race or nationality when deciding how to act towards us, but would also want them to not ignore our differing preferences in food, desire for aggressiveness, and so on. The platinum rule, and perhaps other variants, might also be self-correcting in this same manner

The bombings may not have been Tsarnaev's first murders.... Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQOXLfY5bKGxK8kPTqKZiQ9jSsh4PfQaaEV5kuX8Lqhvhn58fwM

And of course you use the golden rule in everything you do.

*****SMILE*****

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhat-xUQ6dw

Rolling Eyes

Hospital Bob

Hospital Bob

Well done, HMG.

I've met hallmarkgrad and spent time walking with him, damaged eagle.
And he has never said or done anything that was not golden rule around me.

But of course none of us is jesus or mohammed. We can only aspire to be perfect. Not be perfect.

Sponsored content



Back to top  Message [Page 1 of 2]

Go to page : 1, 2  Next

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum