The Golden Rule (Blog)
 

Use this thread to discuss the following entry from Erin Pavlina's blog:

The Golden Rule

And there would be no borders, no governments, no passports, no police. I always imagine such a world. What a wonderful and harmonious world it would be!

I believe I don't need to return any "favours" of that kind, just like I don't expect to get a gift back from the same person I am kind towards. The universe balances everything. Those who do bad things to others live in their own personal hell every day. Those who help other live in their own personal heaven every day.

The golden rule does not say "Do unto others as others do unto you".
It may look like I'm just switching it around but the sentence isn't commutative

I've also often thought about what the world would be like if everyone followed the Golden Rule.

If you think about it, most (if not all) of our many laws all boil down to trying to ensure that people behave fairly, considerately, respectfully and lovingly towards each other. If everyone was nice to each other, we wouldn't need laws and lawyers to enforce them ;)

We're in the process of buying a house, and just had to wade through pages and pages of legalese related to the title deeds for the new house and what was allowed and not allowed. At the end of it, I said to our solicitor, "so, essentially what I've just spent hours reading all boils down to be a good neighbour" :)

I think the Golden Rule is generally a good one. But sometimes, not everyone thinks the way I think and would like to be treated the way I would like to be treated. People are different and have different preferences.

Let's take this another step further shall we? What about in regards to evil? There are those out there that will actively harm us, or our children, or our loved ones. If we do not destroy them they will continue to do harm until we or our loved ones are dead.

So if we are to apply the Golden Rule, would that mean that if we kill Hitler, we in think we should be killed? What about what happened in Rawanda (genocide, killing, raping, of innocent people, women, elderly, children, etc) ? If we do not simply destroy the people going on the rampage killing, how do we stop them? I doubt treating them with civility and applying the Golden Rule would work.

I guess that view is based on the assumption that evil exists, and the only way to stop it is to destroy it. Some may not believe that assumption and I do respect it.

I think it's wonderful to imagine a world in which people treat each other with kindness and dignity. A world where no bombs, wars, borders, fear, exist. But the problem is, this is not our world now. How do we apply the Golden Rule in this existing world, with out it causing the downfall of our selves and those we love?

Nice article. I do think the world would probably be better if everyone lived by the Golden Rule.

A variation on the Golden Rule I've heard is "treat others as they would like to be treated", because sometimes people don't want to be treated the same way you do.

I think that might be a slight improvement on the Golden Rule, because, for instance, someone who has convinced themselves they're happy about being coerced to pay taxes could use the Golden Rule to justify coercing others.

It's not a perfect improvement, though, because a person could make very unfair, unreasonable demands about how they would like to be treated, so the "treat others as they would like to be treated" rule can't always be applied.

SriniG wrote:

Hopefully. I would especially like it if there were no taxes. Taxes seem to me like they go against the Golden Rule.

The IRS can tell you to pay your taxes or they're going to fine you and/or throw you in jail, but the same actions would be criminal extortion if you tried doing that back to the IRS, or to anyone else.

I think the IRS's version of the Golden Rule must be: "If we do unto you, it's legal, but if you do unto us, it's criminal". :)

I definitely like the Golden Rule a lot more than "do as we say, not as we do".

Well, what I would do is, imprison such people someplace nice and cozy where they hopefully can't get out, but it will be so comfortable they won't even want to. The object being not to take vengeance, but simply to prevent them from hurting anyone else.

It's also quite possible for innocent people to end up in jail, so if every prisoner is treated well, then, no innocent person will ever get mistreated.

I guess the way this fits in with the Golden Rule is, if I ever had the misfortune of ending up in jail, I would want to be treated very well, and be very comfortable, especially if I was innocent.

Also, even guilty criminals can have innocent family members, etc., who love them and don't want to see them suffer, so, I think it's good to be merciful at least for the sake of the innocent.

I considered the rule of "Do unto others as they would like done unto them" but in so doing you may violate your own honor and ethics and moral code. After considerable thought I decided that the original golden rule is better.

As for what to do with evil people...
First of all, if we raised our children with love in their hearts instead of a "take whatever you can get" mentality then people wouldn't commit these acts of murder, rape, etc and then we wouldn't even have to ask the question of what to do with those who commit atrocious crimes because none would be committed.

The solution to evil is simply love. Love everyone, treat everyone with kindness, love and respect and expect to be treated the same way.

How do we begin? With ourselves. A kind word to a stranger. An act of love passed forward to another. I know it sounds simple but if everyone did it we'd be all set.

The Golden Rule: Every religion has it.. ;)


http://kishcom.com/the_golden_rule.jpg

I agree, that's another reason why that variation on the Golden Rule isn't perfect.

Yes, I think I agree. I think probably "evil" people are made into monsters by being mistreated, etc., and aren't just born "evil".

Definitely. And kindness is contagious, I think. One good act can inspire countless others.

Dan.Linehan wrote:

Cool. :) In my skeptical days I used to dislike religion, but I could never begrudge it the Golden Rule and the fact that religion does try to encourage people to be nice to each other.

Thanks for the great post Erin. Well put. The Golden Rule is a beautiful thing to me -- it is so simple and true. Even most new age tenants are centered around it. Like attracts like, think win / win, live with gratitude, etc. They all go back to the golden rule.

Exactly right. There is no other effective response to crime anyway.

Personally, if I were hurting someone, first I would want to be stopped, then counseled.

I agree with this. But in this current world, it makes it all the more challenging. And it makes staying on that path even more challenging when others are not adhering to the Golden Rule. And it's even more challenging to convince our children to stay on that path, when it seems that other children are "winning" by not following that rule.

Kinda hard to do if they want to destroy you. What to do then? If you let them destroy you, it's hard to be the change, cuz you won't be anymore.

(not directed to Erin) And as for the places of containment, would this be rewarding bad behavior? Ever work with those less fortunate? It takes thick skin and a tremendous sense of commitment to help those who refuse to be helped. And if they refuse to be helped, should we take care of them forever? If so, why would anyone work, ever?

That's the thing, not everyone does it. I know, if there are enough of us, we will reach a critical mass at some point to make a difference, but it's very challenging to stay on the path, when others around us are not, and they seem to get ahead.

All I'm saying is, it's not easy to live by this Golden Rule. And we are often tempted off of it when we see others not following this rule and still getting ahead. And sometimes, the Golden Rule doesn't really apply when it comes to true evil, sometimes, you just have to destroy it. Though it still makes me sad to have to think in terms of that. I'm just saying, keeping the faith is very challenging.

No, because ideally, everyone would have a comfortable life, not only those in prison.

Those in prison would lose something compared to others - the freedom to go wherever they pleased, and to not be monitored 24 hours a day so they don't escape.

I guess I probably haven't, but, I guess it depends on the definition of less fortunate.

What's the alternative?

I think in a society where everyone is provided the minimum of what they need to survive (food, shelter, health care, etc.), people would still want to work, because they'd still have to earn money to buy extra things that aren't necessary to survival, like books, cars, computers, education, and so forth.

I admit, I don't know how realistic or possible it is for everyone to be provided for free the minimum of what they need to survive - but, I like the idea, and hope someday society is like that, since I think it's much better than people being left to starve to death, be homeless, or die of easily (but expensively) treated health problems, just because for one reason or another they aren't capable of making enough money to live a good life.

This probably should be in a political thread, but it's interesting to see the conversation directed this way. This is what communism's (or socialism's) goals were, a noble endeavor, for sure. The problem is implementing this in the world we have now has never worked. Ever.

And the issue with this is, no one seems to agree on what "minimum of what they need to survive" entails. And also, what about the rest of the world who consciously choose not to do this? Do we force them at the point of a gun (gov control, taxation, imprisonment)? If so, does that not make us what we did not want to become?

Anyway, this is quickly becoming what I am not wanting to discuss - which is implementation on the physical world. So I digress.

But on a philosophical level, back to the possibility of this utopia:

Is a wonderful happy utopia really what we want? Without strife, struggles, we would never be pushed to improve or progress. Would it be better that we progress on our own, without failure? We are all different and motivated differently.

People who are the best successes in life have become that way because they hit rock bottom, because they failed miserably and rose above it. And went on to do tremendous good in the world.

I'm not justifying murder, or war, or any of that. I'm just not too sure that this utopia is possible, or even the outcome we should desire. You know what the road to hell is paved with, right? There is a leg of truth in that.

To further illustrate my point: ever seen the Yin Yang symbol?
Yin and yang - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
dark and light - good and evil, in balance.

Also, in the movie the Matrix, the line where Morpheus is saying something like, the first crop (of harvested people) the matrix was a utopia, and they lost all sorts of crops. Then the matrix became what it is (which is the world today) and it worked. No more massive crop losses. Do you believe that? That if everyone is in this utopia the point of life, our physical experience, would be over?

Also, in Star Wars (can you tell I'm a geek?), they always want to bring Balance to the Force. They never want to have everyone happy in some sort of utopia. There's always this emphasis on balance.

I believe the Golden Rule is just a guideline to help the light - since the current physical world seems tipped towards the dark. To bring balance.

If we contain evil, instead of destroy it, would we get more new evil created? What if the act of destroying the evil is really bringing the balance - since new evil will be created in its place and that's just the way of the universe? If we somehow manage to create a utopia, would that not do away with this balance and destroy us all in the end?

I dunno, just some musings. I'd love to know everyone else's opinion. I'm not here to agitate, I love these discussions!

I actually find it ridiculously easy to follow the golden rule no matter what anyone else in the world is doing. If someone wants to destroy me badly enough, he will, and I will die and that's okay, but I will never sacrifice my own morals by waging war upon someone that *might* kill me someday.

If we can get every generation that follows us to act the golden rule then in 5 generations we will know peace. I realize there are people today who will never follow the golden rule. Lives may be lost because of this. The body continues to live even when cells are lost or even entire organs. But to think that we should continue on the way we have been and not move to a more loving society right now is to say, "Well my body already has a disease, I'll just keep piling junk food down into it since I would enjoy that and the body is going to die anyway."

At some point, which is my polite way of saying NOW, we have to stop justifying immoral acts becuase "he started it" or "he's doing it too!"

It really is so simple. Be kind, be loving, be good and the world becomes a kind, loving, good place to be.

Dan, I frickin love that religion poster thingie. Know where I can get that in a print?

My view is that we can evolve and progress without external pushing too. The desire to improve and invent new things would come from within, not from outside necessities.

Scarboro Missions has a whole school curriculum centered around it actually. You can order a poster from the left nav.

Scarboro Missions: Golden Rule Curriculum for Schools

I don't want to start discussing the Iraq war and pre-emptive strikes. I was not even thinking of Iraq at all.

I was talking about someone actively attacking you, or some one else and you are around. Something like this:
http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_9606469?nclick_check=1
In summary, a dad was beating his 2 yr old son to death, people were standing by, no one could stop him. They called 911, they tried to stop him, but were pushed back. A cop finally showed up, shot the man dead to stop him from beating his son. The poor kid was dead before the cops showed up.

The Golden Rule is a great general guideline I think. But I don't think it applies in all situations all the time. And like I said before, what if other people don't react like me.

For example. Let's say my husband cheats on me one time, never does it again, and my best friend finds out. If she applies the Golden Rule, she tells me about it because, if the same thing happens to her, she would want to someone to tell her. But if it were me, I would not want to know and just be happy being married and never finding out. So, does she tell me or not? Since we both are individuals and have different preferences.

This is what I mean. Sorry if I have offended.

I just wanted to really discuss on whether the Golden Rule applies to every situation or not. A good general rule to have, yes. I just don't think it applies to everything.

Yeah, that guy thought his son was possessed by demons. :(

Question here is, if you were the two year old, what would you want? The golden rule would necessitate ending the attack.


If someone specifically requests to be left in the dark, and no harm is being done, I don't see a reason to deny them that. It's being respectful to their request.

I'm not offended. And actually I didn't think you were talking about the Iraq war, I just brought that in for my own reasons :)

If I saw a man beating up his child I would do everything in my power to stop him. I wouldn't just call the police. I would try to find a way to physically stop him.

Regarding your best friend and the cheating situation...
1. If everyone were following the golden rule your husband probably wouldn't be cheating unless both he and the woman he's cheating with are totally okay with someone cheating on them.
2. Yeah, your friend has to tell you to honor her own morals. Or maybe she tells your husband to tell you or she will. It's not her fault you wouldn't want to know. She's honoring her own morals by telling you the truth. Hey, at least someone is being honest with you. :)
3. If you wouldn't want to know your husband is cheating on you then perhaps you are tacitly giving him permission to cheat eh? ;) But seriously, it's not your friend's fault, the blame resides with your husband for putting the situation in motion. Don't blame the messenger.

Loosely paraphrasing from memory something I read awhile ago:

Justice is treating others how they treat you.

Goodness is treating others how you yourself would wish to be treated.

Generosity is treating others better than they treat you.

Ditto.

Perhaps. I sure do wish more governments would apply the Golden Rule, though.

Anyhow, though, if I've wandered too far off-topic, I hope a moderator will please yell at me. :)

Well, communism and socialism aren't exactly what I had in mind. I loathe taxes, and those systems are way too tax-happy and otherwise obnoxious for my liking. Maybe something different than anything that has been tried before would work better. No, I don't have a clear idea yet of exactly what form it should take. :)

Well, whatever will prevent physical death, I guess, and also hopefully assure that the person isn't held back by ill health, hunger, etc. on their quest to get ahead in life and improve themselves.

But, I would like it if people were given a bit more than just the essentials (nutritious food and drinks, and a place to live which will keep you from dying or being made too uncomfortable to get anything useful done by heat, cold, or whatever else the outdoors can throw at you). I think also giving people free electricity, hot running water, internet access, free education, and a free public transportation system would be good.

It wouldn't have to involve force. If someone doesn't want their free stuff, they don't have to accept it. :)

Also, I would want all of this to happen without forcing anyone to pay taxes, and also without forcing, for instance, utility companies, housing providers, food manufacturers, educators, etc. to just give their stuff and services away to the needy, or force them to adjust their prices.

It's a tricky problem, but I think it all might be possible somehow if the currency system is revamped so that the government doesn't have to steal from its citizens in order to have funding - instead, the government could just create more money to spend, and resort to various ways to control monetary inflation such as taking any money paid to the government (like for postal service, etc.) out of circulation.

I know there are many ways this could go horribly wrong, but maybe someone could experiment on a small scale first before testing such a system on an entire nation. :)

Of course not. :) Overall, I'm against coercion except when it's a matter of stopping certain people from physically hurting others.

Yes, it would.

OK, just ignore the above if you don't feel like discussing it. :) The below too, for that matter. I know I'm quite the windbag at times. :)

It's what I want, and I would be surprised if the majority of people would strongly disagree.

I agree with what Playlife said. Quote of Playlife's post: "My view is that we can evolve and progress without external pushing too. The desire to improve and invent new things would come from within, not from outside necessities."

Besides that, I would add that outside necessities usually just depress me and make me even less apt to be creative. They're a challenge I just don't want and which I don't see any reason why they should even exist.

Well, I'm guessing in a utopian system, people who just "mooch" and would never accomplish anything would probably still widely be regarded as failures - maybe even more so, since they would have fewer valid excuses not to get something significant done, excuses like lack of time and energy due to having to slave at a job because they're afraid of losing their home, health care, etc.

People could reject the free goodies and keep the motivation of homelessness, poverty, and starvation if they wanted. :)

I don't know about that. I always wonder how much more starving artists and/or geniuses like Edgar Allan Poe, Vincent Van Gogh, Nikola Tesla, etc. might have achieved if they hadn't ever had to even think about how to make money, but could devote all of their time and energy to their art, or science, or whatever else they felt like working on.

Yes, I agree, sometimes well-meaning people can really make a mess of things, especially if they try to force their twisted ideas of morality on others too much, like people who are against something as harmless as, for instance, homosexuality.

Yep, I like that symbol. :)

Nope, I think the world might end up more like Star Trek. :)

If you ever watch that, no one has to worry about things like poverty or homelessness anymore, but they have plenty of other, more interesting things to worry about, like getting assimilated by the Borg. What fun... ;)

I should mention, I've never watched The Matrix yet, so, I probably am not fully understanding your analogy. Without understanding what it is, though, "harvested people" doesn't sound too nice to me.

Maybe they just never said so. :)

I do like balance, in an abstract sense, but when it comes to actual good and evil, no question, I prefer 100% good. And if I were forced to decide between what we have now and a Star Trek-like utopia, I'd choose the latter probably without hesitation.

Who knows, maybe everything really boils down in a cosmic sense to fantasy writer Michael Moorcock's idea of Law vs. Chaos, with the Balance in between them, where both too much Law or too much Chaos lead to inhospitable conditions for life. :) Law and Chaos - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Same here. :)

Loved this post, Erin.

That's what Karl Marx thought too.

I have been in relationships with male people who treated me like crap...but they were treating me the same way they treat themselves in rapport with others. Are they implementing the Golden Rule? I used to tell myself that they are treating me the crappy way they want to be treated. I was treating them better I think, and they seemed to prefer to give their attention and respect to those who were treating them like crap instead of to me.

What is that then? They don't even apply the Golden Rule in how they treat themselves? Or they do apply it, but they want to be treated like crap and if you don't treat them like crap, they overlook you? What if a person treats you like crap, or does any one of those atrocities listed earlier in this thread, because he actually wants to be treated like crap too? Is that possible?

Having a poor self image can result in expecting / subconsciously wanting others to treat you poorly.

A few people have discussed the issue here regarding what one does when under attack, when someone else is actively looking to harm you. I thought it would be pertinent to give you these quotes from an amazing woman called Peace Pilgrim who walked across the US from 1953 to 1981. She believed that evil is never overcome by more evil, only by love and she put her belief into action a few times.

The following quotes are from her book, which is available as a free pdf from the website dedicated to her work (www.peacepilgrim.com):

Excellent quotes Mags, thank you.

This is a beautiful page too.

Steps Toward Inner Peace by Peace Pilgrim

wow. totally food for thought.

I am not sure I'd be able to take a pummeling until the offender stopped out of surprise of me not fighting back. But inspirational, to be sure.

Not too sure we can all become like the peace pilgrim. Nor want to be. I think we all play different roles, but the goal (peace) is the same.