The Not-So-Golden RuleThe attitude of Christians towards the Rule is ambiguous. On the one hand, they tout the Golden Rule as a Christian institution. On the other hand, they pride themselves in pointing out how the Golden Rule, or more generally the so-called "principle of reciprocity", is a universal religious principle. But for one thing, Christians themselves do not hold to the Golden Rule, insofar as they consider their salvation more important than any "reciprocity". If they need to take over society to ensure people's salvation, then so be it. "Jesus" did not believe in reciprocity either, and clearly treated people in ways that he would consider offensive (such as calling people of other races "dogs", insulting his mother, attacking temple vendors, and so on). But more importantly, both positions cannot be true at the same time. If the Golden Rule has existed for thousands of years, then it cannot be a particularly Christian trait, and there are no bragging rights to be had about it. And indeed it has existed for a long time. Some of the instances cited as Golden Rules, however, are far wiser and rational than the Christian one. Take the following : Jainism: "Therefore, neither does he [a sage] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." Acarangasutra 5.101-2. These are superior principles, because they acknowledge context ("violence", "harm", "interdependence") and respect the values of the individual within that context. Fundamentally, all morality comes from individual experience and values, and applies to individual action. To deny this is a denial of morality itself. For failing to align itself with this simple fact, the Golden Rule must be thrown to the trash heap of history.
The copyright of the article The Not-So-Golden Rule in Atheism is owned by Francois Tremblay. Permission to republish The Not-So-Golden Rule in print or online must be granted by the author in writing.
Go To Page: 1 2 Articles in this Topic Discussions in this Topic |