Talk:Ethic of reciprocity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] still not perfect (From Golden Rule Talk Page)
JFK's way of stating the golden rule might be better than the more common "do unto others as you would have done unto you" but it is still not perfect. The problem with the golden rule is everyone wants different things, and also some of those things are bad. Like if you see a hot girl you might want her to jump you and start tearing your clothes off, but that doesn't mean you should do that to her. But JFK's version has similar problems. Suppose you knew someone who was in prison, and if you were in their situation you would want someone to help you break out? It is easy to think of many other similar examples where difficulties would arise. I think a better way is "love your neighbor as yourself" because although it is more passive since it doesnt say to do anything, this is actually better because it keeps it more general, and if you love someone it implies that you would do good things to them and treat them very well. Of course it should be extended to everyone, not just to neighbors - "love each person as yourself." The only remaining problem is if you hate yourself. So maybe "Love each person as most people love themselves" but that sounds stupid, so how about "Love each person as one would love oneself." I think everyone gets what the Golden Rule is trying to say but when you take it literally it doesnt work. I'm just looking for the best way to state it. anyone have any ideas? TheTruth12 09:29, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't think there needs to be a separate page for JFK's version of the golden rule. 7thGen claims that this is the useful version, but really it is barely more useful than the other versions (see my above argument). I think this article should just be part of the regular Golden Rule article. TheTruth12 09:41, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Love one another as you would love yourself.
- TheTruth12, you apparently missed the footnote on the more useful version of the golden rule, which clearly states who authored it. Please go back and look again (it was not JFK). I sort-of said that JFK successfully used it, although of course he could not have used Harry Gensler's statement of it, really, because JFK was speaking about 30 years earlier. And I haven't looked at this article for a long time, and didn't realize how small the break was between JFK and the improved version itself. I've fixed that now.
- And I do agree with you that the more useful version is still not perfect. I've looked at Harry Gensler's book on ethics (see his website mentioned in the above footnote), and I think he would agree with you and me that no perfect statement of the rule is possible. Probably he and I both feel that he came as close to it as a human can do. I actually like your version too, but Harry Gensler has worked on the golden rule and on ethics for decades, with good results -- his version helps or guides the user as I tried to spell out.
- Since you are not a registered user, of course you don't have a talk page for me to use for this reply. And I should add, since your other WP contributions are mostly religious, that my interests are not religious at all, but ethical instead. And what "regular Golden Rule article" are you talking about? I suppose you meant Ethic of reciprocity. For7thGen 22:25, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
i agree, there doesnt seem to be a perfect way of saying it, but somehow we have an implicit notion of what it may mean. i made a mistake thinking that it orignated from JFK, but it is more clear in the article now. i meant the "Ethic of reciprocity" article. I am interested in both religion and ethics.
I've got it! "Care for others as much as you would like others to care for you." This is about a feeling rather than actions, but that's good b/c it is more general and so avoids the problems of the other wordings, and naturally you would want someone to care for you enough that it would motivate them to act kindly toward you. Also it says "as much" instead of "as" or "how," b/c the rule is not to treat others the exact same way you want to be treated, but to treat them as well as you would like to be treated. If you care for someone the way you care for yourself, you would treat them in a kind way that is likeable to them, even if it would be less likeable to you. The only problem i still see is people who hate themselves. I think this is the best way to state the concept that i have seen. I guess since i havent earned degrees or written books on ethics, it can't be in the article. Maybe someday.TheTruth12 01:37, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
-
- Perhaps another way of dealing with the issue would be to use a range of alternative ways of putting the golden rule - aalongside the existing ones at the head of the article. I have added one by Oscar Wilde, "Selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live", which has the advantage of specifically addressing the issue of respect & tolerance between differing peoples/faiths. Respect is a verb - specifically, both an attitude and a non-physical action - so one person's respect of lack of respect for another is no different to whether they help or or hurt them beyond the fact that it doesn't occur on a physical level. As a non-physical action, it is included in most forms of the golden rule (the Islamic quotation given is a notable exception), but is often actively ignored by religious groups, most notably the more extremist sects of the various Judeo-Christian faiths.
[edit] Tobit
It might be worth mentioning that the Golden Rule as expressed by Christ is an inversion of the Golden Rule as expressed in Tobit 4:15. Since Tobit is deuterocanonical in Christianity and not part of Hebrew scriptures, I am not sure how it would fit into the 8-religion listing of this article, but I think it is interesting that there is a sort of reverse-version of the formulation in the Jewish and Christian traditions (basically, don't do to people what you don't want done to you). Egern.
Okay, on further thought, I realize that the formulation that you have in the Talmud is basically identical to what is in Tobit 4:15, so never mind! Egern.
DHC Comments:
1. This double negative version of the Rule in Tolbit: "And what you hate, do not do to anyone", is not the expression that Jesus used, but it is the form that Hillel adapted. 2. The Book of Tobit was written in Babylon, possibly about 450 BCE. It was during this period that the Jews were in exile in Persia, and even after the exile was abolished many remained there to establish in Babylon the great schools of talmudic study. So even without it being cannonical to the Jews it seems likely that Hillel was aware of the Book of Tolbit, because he first lived there.
[edit] Wiccan Rede
I remove the Wiccan line:
Wicca: The Wiccan Rede
- "An it harm none, do what you will."
While this is pretty close to my own ethics as a libertarian, this isn't the golden rule at all. --Lee Daniel Crocker
After I removed this, and explained why, it was put back without explanation. This is not appropriate behavior. I'm quite willing to be convinced I'm wrong, but you do have to make the argument. Do not put this line back without engaging in argument here. --LDC
Apologies: I didn't read the /Talk first, so didn't see your comment -- The Anome
No problem, and in all fairness I didn't really make my case very clear either, so I'll make it clearer here: the Golden rule, in both it's positive and negative forms, says that you should judge your actions toward others by how you would prefer to be treated; i.e., that your own judgement of what is right and wrong in other's actions with respect to you is also right and wrong for you with respect to others. The Rede says no such thing: the Rede says that those actions which are harmful to others (no standard specified--so perhaps it could be what they consider harmful, not you) you should avoid, and otherwise you should do what makes you happy, regardless of whether that's what you want others to do. So, for example, if you enjoy singing, but you hate to hear others sing, by the golden rule you should not sing to others, because you wouldn't want others to sing to you. But by the Rede, if you knew someone who wanted to hear you sing (and was therefore not harmed by it), sing away--it makes you happy, and it doesn't harm anyone. Frankly, I consider it a vastly superior ethic to the golden rule, so I am upset that it is lumped together with its inferior cousin. --LDC
As a practicing witch, I would have to agree that while our faith does not permit the harming of others, the Wiccan Rede is completely inappropriate for this section, a Golden Gule is clearly a core message wherin you must; "treat others as you wish to be treated" whereas the message conveyed in the Reed is "nothing is wrong unless someone is harmed by your in/direct actions". Lee Daniel Crocker is correct, and I echo his sentiments about less enlightened Practitioners incorporating the rede here. --Tearz 00:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Dates
Is there any chance of adding dates to this article? IE, who thought of it first? -Martin
- thanks! Martin
[edit] Primary sources
This looks a lot like bits of http://www.fragrant.demon.co.uk/golden.html ... Hmm. Karada 22:57 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
And indeed lists similar to this appear to be all over the Interweb. Where are the primary sources? Who's checking? Karada 23:18 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
[edit] Mencius
This is strange:
- 300 BCE "One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality. All other activities are due to selfish desire." - Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113.8 (Mencius Vii.A.4?), Hinduism.
What is Mencius doing here ? (I'll remove if no comments)
- No comments: I move this to talk page : [[4th century BC|300 BCE]] "One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality. All other activities are due to selfish desire." - Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113.8 (Mencius Vii.A.4?), [[Hinduism]]. gbog 03:30, 24 Dec 2003 (UTC)
-
- Actually, looking over this version of the Mahabharata, I can find the above quotation, but not the one that's actually in the article as it now stands ("5:1517" doesn't make any sense to me, but Anusasana Parva 113.8 is perfectly clear). grant 04:27, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Karma
I don't understand Jaknouse's additions:
- A common modern variant of this rule is the phrase What goes around comes around. This is very similar to the Wiccan or Neopagan rule of threefold return: what one does is returned to one threefold.
I don't see the relation, the golden rule does not speak of rewards or punishment.
Sorry about this intrusion, but Karma is a fundamental principle of Hindu theology and ethics, arising much before the advent of Buddhism.
Primarily attribute to Hindu, no? - Jeandré, 2004-04-19t13:59z
- I will admit that there is a slight difference here, it is between theoretical reciprocity and actual reciprocity. But both are intended to make the same ethical statement, one of ethics' most fundamental statements: that the way that you treat others is equivalent in value to the way that they treat you. jaknouse 16:10, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Dates
Two things:
- 500 BCE is the first year of the 5th century BCE, not part of the 6th century BCE (there is no year 0, so the first century BCE was the hundred years from 100 BCE – 1 BCE).
- All dates with BCE/BC should be linked, even if they're redundant. I'm adding functionality to the date formatting display preferences so that users can choose whether to see BCE or BC. This needs dates to be linked, in order to work (just as all Month_Day dates should be linked to allow custom formatting).
--Wclark 00:53, 2004 Jul 13 (UTC)
[edit] Which golden rule?
1) Do to others as you want others to do to you.
2) Do NOT do to others those acts which you do not wish others to do to you.
So which one is the golden rule?
- See the paragraph about the silver rule. — Jeandré, 2004-12-12t08:59z
-
- They both are. #2 is the negative form.64.169.7.34 08:57, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Do to others as you would have them do to you" seems perfectly fair, but assumes that everyone wants what you want and therefore may be considered selfish.... Lee M 02:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
actually, according to the article, #1 is, b/c #2 only tells you what not to do- it prevents wrongdoing but doesnt encourage altruism. #1 does both.
[edit] NPOV
I've had to pull this article up on the NPOV issue. The "exceptions" section is quite ridiculous, bracketing together Satanism, White Supremacy movements and Islam. The intention of the author is quite clearly to slur Islam rather than to investigate the Ethic of Reciprocity. Granted, a weak attempt has been made to justify the claims made, but the general tone as well as the unbelievable direct attempts at comparison between racists and Muslims, inflammatory and selective use of the word "nigger" in the comparison between Muslims and white supremacists can not but lead to the conclusion that the author is trying to convince the reader of his or her prejudices against Islam. This is to say nothing of the fact that the majority of the claims are irrelevant to the article, incorrect and are not backed up with fact. I suggest rethinking the layout of this article entirely so that it is at once relevant and secondly not a tirade of anti-Islamic sentiment, making outlandish and offensive comparisons between the religion of Islam and the beliefs of white supremacists.
- I agree --nirvana2013 20:38, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Exception is an important section of Ethic of Reciprocity(Golden Rule). As Islam is the religion with more than a bilion of followers and it doesn't based on Golden Rule, it's worth to mention in this section.
- Islam is one of the Abrahamic religions. The core principles of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are the same. They all follow on from Abraham's original teachings of love, compassion for others and nonviolence. I agree given the example of our political leaders and various religious zealots around the globe at the moment, it is quite difficult to draw that conclusion. --nirvana2013 12:00, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
I agree there is a NPOV problem here. The key issue on the Islamic discussion is on the interpretation of "brother"--does it mean only Muslims, or all people? While this is no doubt an interesting debate, it is about how Muslims interpret this particular hadith. Clearly it is open to a universal interpretation (I have seen translations which simply say "brother", not "[Muslim] brother", so I suspect that the [Muslim] is someone's later interpretation.
And if we're going to discuss interpretations, you should add passages from other religions' texts, and what their followers have said and done, which show that they often did not follow the golden rule, to be fair. Indeed, the bits on the creativity movement, and even the more explicit statements from the Satanic bible, hardly belong here either. If the point is simply that these groups reject the GR in practice, well so do lots of other religions and groups, from Christians to Marxists. In any nation or race there will be people who advocate more or less preferential treatment to members of the in-group. Listing and documenting all this would just be a waste of time.
I recommend scrapping the "exceptions" section altogether. Showing that it is found in multiple religions/cultures is interesting, but more information about the rule itself is more likely what people coming here will want to know.ScottForschler 23:07, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
I too recomend scrapping the "exceptions" section. Judaism too could be interpreted as only demanding that one loves his/her "countrymen", and some more Orthodox leaning groups probably would say that this in fact is the law that applies (though as a Jew, I have to disagree with their interpretation of the rule). This section is pretty explicitly designed to defame Islam, especially in light of the Hadith, which the author of the "exceptions" section ignores.
[edit] Clean up
Removed NPOV tag, following deletion of "Exceptions" section (see above). Added clean up tag, as the article looks like it needs it. Does the title need to be moved to "The Golden Rule" with the "Ethic of reciprocity" a redirect? The Golden Rule is the more common phrase. --nirvana2013 21:40, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Golden Rule - Lev 19:18
- "....but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the Lord. JPS.
- "....but thou shalt love thy neighbour's well-being as t'were thine own: I am G-D." Hirsch.
- Following the Golden Rule is in your own self-interest; it is not altruism; it is biological neccessity.
That is hard to believe. If so, then why in the world are people so self-absorbed by nature??
People do a lot of stupid things by nature. One reason it is in your own best interest to treat others as yourself is because they will usually treat you back the same way.
- The lung must love the heart's well-being and vice versa.
[edit] The Law of Organic Interdependance
- Scripture and Spinoza declare that G-D is ONE to establish that EVERYTHING is bound into one grand ORGANIC Interdependence; from this intuition, by deduction, "in working clothes", logically flows the Golden Rule "love your neighbor..." and enlightened self-interest. The Golden Rule says that you are your brother's keeper in the sense that your heart is your lung's keeper, and your lung is your heart's keeper—the interdependence of the parts for the life of the total organism.
- If declaring "G-D is ONE", does not trigger the concept of the "Organic Interdependence of Parts" then "G-D is ONE" is just words without meaning.
[edit] The Law of Organisms
- The Law of Organisms for individuals (and for nations) they grow (rise) when the critical mass of the parts are organically interdependent, they die (fall) when the critical mass of the parts are not organically interdependent.
Yesselman 23:22, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Merge
I dont get why this isn't merged with the artice Golden Rule. If these two articles were to be merged, more data could be put in, as it would cover more content.
-WordWhiz 23:27, 11 Feb. 2006 (UTC) (currently not logged in)
[edit] Merge (Discussion from Golden Rule Page)
Shouldn't this be merged into "ethics of repriocity" or whatever it's called? They're the same subject, really. -Alex, 12.220.157.93 00:49, 11 February 2006 (UTC).
- Yes, I was thinking the same thing myself. It's hard to imagine how they could be separate articles, especially in their current state. Scott Ritchie 08:55, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Principle
The current edit of "principle" and "criticism" miss the main point of the golden rule, that is emphasy and mutual respect. O.K. it's a bit of original research but hey, golden rule is reference to general cultural heritage so no one doctrine or philosophy can claim monopoly to it. Plus, it miss reference to the classical liberal idea of no harm principle. FWBOarticle
Finish doing draft. I believe this version is superior to the previous one in term of coherence if not in Engrish. Plus, this edit explain why Golden "rule" had to be merged under "Ethic" of reciprocity. The point is that there is no "rule" in Golden rule. FWBOarticle
[edit] Proposal to split "History" section
I think "History" section should be split into "Religion" and "Philosoph". Moreover, I believe we can expand the article significantly if we create "Ethics of reciprocity and Law" or "Ethics of reciprocity and Diplomacy" and "Ethics of reciprocity and Human right". Don't know, but we could add "Golden rules and Business" as well but I'm not so sure if we have enough content. I think this help to trim the "principle" section because large portion of the content can be transfered to each section to avoid duplication. FWBOarticle
[edit] Cleanup
I've tried to clean up the English in this but I confess I'm rather confused by some of this - especially the section on Hitler's comment. I really don't follow what is being said there about the connection between the golden and "silver" rules; my attempt to improve the English may have just made it even more confused. I also think there needs to be a clearer exploration of the commonalies and differences between the negative and positive versions of the rule and of the relation of concepts of reciprocity to ideas about one expects to be treated by others. Paul B 18:41, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
- O.K., hitler may have been a bad example. In some primitive tribe, in case of famine (I think Inuit but I could be wrong), old, to unburden his community, simply leave the tribe and die. So silver rule could mean that if the rule is impose as law, it imply utilitarian/majoritarian totalitarianism. I just wanted to use hitler to point out morally negative consequence. Inuit example is a positive example because it is an act of self sacrifice for the good of others.. FWBOarticle
[edit] Golden Rule and the Categorical Imperative of Immanuel Kant
I suggest that Kant's Categorical Imperative, a logical ethical formulation, be mentioned/included in line with this Golden Rule. You may notice that Categorical Imperative comes close with this moral rule and people, by and large, seem to admit that it's an "improved version" of the Golden Rule. I'm also wondering why there is no mention of Confucius about the Goldern Rule? I do remember my teacher telling me it was Confucius who first formulate this idea. (Condorhero)
- I believe, Categorical Imperative is Deontological argument while Golden rule is more in line with virtue argument. Clear exposition of deontological argument (along the line of S&M paradox) probably make this distinction clear. Anyway, consequential, deontological and virtue arguments are standard set of philosophial argument so feel free to expand it. Confucius probably belong to section dedicated to "Ancient thinkers" or something like that. FWBOarticle
[edit] Cynical Golden Rule
There is a cynical Golden Rule that goes "He who has the gold, gets to make the rules."
I am wondering where (if anywhere) this should go! It deserves mention somewhere (not necessarily in this article). Any ideas? Bill Jefferys 00:39, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "neighbor"
Clarified use of term "neighbor" in Jewish scripture ("kinsman") and in Jesus' teaching (not just kinsman). Jonathan Tweet 03:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] references on ethic of reciprocity and golden rules
dear sir: there are 4 main books on the golden rule and reciprocity, and apparently much lifting of some other authors works:
1) H Gensler-philosophy outlook 2) J Wattles-history and religious outlook 3) H Terry-scientitifc outlook 4) and, Rost-religious 5) many "junk" articles... 6) outright plagiarism with referneces!!!
so, some of your people have been cheating and breaking the ethical rule themselves-you could not have looked up some of the references because you cannot get them in english very easily if at all! and the many little "addons" just do not get it totally right, and still others have misrepresented others work. clean it up! and make your site responsible to ethics itself!
drt terry
[edit] Hinduism
We need something from the ancient books: Vedas and Upanishadas, as the Mahabharata (or the Geeta) cannot be considered to contain the essence of the religion.
[edit] Antonym to the Golden Rule
If you want to link to concepts that are antagonistic or opposite to the Golden Rule, then Preemptive attack certainly fits the bill. It is more closely related to revenge (ahead of time....;-). It is more in line with the joke "do unto others before they do unto you," which is exactly what a preemtive attack does. It is not synomous, but antonymic, to the Golden Rule, and thus doesn't belong there, unless you want to label it as such. Hmmmm....maybe that's not a bad idea. -- Fyslee 21:46, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Islam
GunnarRene added a bunch of material about the Quran contradicting the Golden Rule. If we want that material on this page, then we should add a bunch of material from the Bible that also contradicts the Godlen Rule. Plus do the same with other religions. Or we should remove the material that GunnarRene added. Jonathan Tweet 01:04, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Political Influences
This article only mentions the implications of the rule on "Eastern" politics/philosophy. I believe that this section shoudl be expanded, as it is also the basis of Western politics as well. The golden rule is a part of the Judeo-Christian views, and Western philosophy and politics is heavily based on Judeo-Christian thought. The United States are especially dependent upon this rule, because it is the foundation of most of the Bill of Rights. This needs to be included, but I don't believe I am the proper person to edit this section. I would prefer someone who knows a little more than me.-Hairchrm 03:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
DHC adds: There are strong political/economic implications by the Golden Rule and by the Double Negative version of it that Hillel used.
To express love (in the original Rule by Moses and Jesus) in the economic sense is to perform charitable acts, particularly by giving alms to the poor. The practice of welcoming poor people to eat at the house of a wealthy largesee was the expression of the Rule mentioned in parts of the Bible, especially in the pre-Jesus parts of the New Testament. This kind of behavour introduces the idea of social responsibility, it being expressed by the equal distribution of worldly goods, which has both socialist and communist (Marxist) trends. Thus it is possible to identify the original version of the Golden Rule with Socialism. However, since this kind of behavour is non-conditional on what the receipent gives (or has previously given) to the community, it also has psychological aspects. It is seen as the expression of a Mother-Love for her child, for which there are no pre-conditions. This behavour is expressed in many places in the subsequent Christian kind of love and the symbols of the established church. This behavour may have roots from the prior heathen religious practices from which the early Christians were converted, but could not completely abandon.
To oppose doing harm (in the double negative version of the Rule by Tobit and Hillel) is to restrain ones behavour and avoid creating unnecessary waste, polution, disturbance etc. Whilst there are no specific acts involved, there are many places where our current economic and macroeconomic behavour is criticised by this version of the rule. For example, the deliberate holding of land and other natural resources out of use including subsidising their non-use. This is harmful to the economy and the population because of the effect on all of the land-values and on the rent which is taken from the land that is in use. Thus the cost of produces goods (that require the use of the 3 factors of production, land, labor and capital, according to Adam Smith), is artifically raised and consequently harm is done in the reduced amout of trade that results. This is due to both the lack of earnings by a partly unemployed population and by the increased costs and prices (due to the high ground-rents returned for their production). It causes a reduced demand on the goods that are available for sale.
The implication of the double negative version of the Rule is not Socialism in any sense of the word, but it is akin to Liberalism (i.e. it is not in support of any group of people having a common political alliegence, but this policy is favourable in general and applicable to everyone living in then country). As such it agrees with the ideals stated in the General Charter of the United Nations, in paragraphs 1 and 25 (which see), both dealing with the provision of individual freedom. A country which has laws to restrict and regulate the use of land and to permit its speculation is clearly harming itself by the above arguement. This neglect of the double negative version of the Rule is also a denial of this part of the U.N. Charter. Unfortunately this situation applies to most of the civilized world.
In the religion/psychological sense the version is closer to Judism where the kind of love expressed is the more mature Father-Love, which is conditional on previous good behavour, and which is thretening if and when the people behave badly. Example of this are strewn throughtout the Old Testament, leading to the loss of two Temples and the (temporary) exile of the Jewish people from their promised heratige, namely the Land of Cannan. It is therefore suggested that the current failure to follow the double negative version of this Rule in macroeconomic matters will result in collective punishment for the civilisations involved. In fact we are beginning to see this effect being expressed by the global warming due to increased CO2 emissions, after the selfish expenditure of carbon-based fuels on personal trivalites.
[edit] Deleted phrase
I deleted "[The rule's] universality suggests an innate human altruism" because I find it POV. One may well argue that as thinking beings, humans have found the rule quite helpful in promoting their own welfare, personally and as a group, and thus its universality. To call it innate requires more evidence. Xiner 01:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
