Many scholars and, I suspect, many teachers and clergy have adopted an unfortunate means of distinguishing between the two statements that we can describe as “do” versus “don’t do”.
The “do” statement is typically given in such terms as:
“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
The “don’t do” statement is typically given in such terms as:
“That which is hateful to you, do not do to another.”
Most who write on the golden rule subject point out that “it”, meaning the golden rule in some form, can be found in almost all cultures, religions and philosophical systems throughout the ages and around the world.
To be more accurate, the “don’t do” statement is found in some form in almost all traditions. The “do” form of the statement is found in some traditions but it is not nearly as ubiquitous as the “do not” statement.
Early proponents of the golden rule as a label attached it to the “do” form of the statement. As discussed in a prior post, that label is value-laden. Over time another value-laden distinction has been adopted.
The “do” form of the statement has been termed the “positive form” of the golden rule. The “do not” form of the statement has been termed the “negative form” of the rule.
That distinction has been influential enough to draw attention and comment by those seeking a non-prejudicial discussion of the subject. Harry Gensler devoted significant space in his book “Ethics and the Golden Rule” to the negative vs positive issue and clearly understood the implications of those labels.
He saw that the negative label had the potential to suggest that traditions closely associated with the “don’t do” statement had a “negative morality”, which is clearly prejudicial. While he rejected that label and its implications, as have others, the negative versus positive distinction is still to be found in writings and, presumably, to be heard in preaching and teaching.
The relative value associated by some with the “don’t do” statement is communicated clearly in it’s being commonly termed “the Silver Rule”. That label clearly communicates a lesser value when compared to “the Golden Rule”. And it subtly diminishes the position of the “don’t do” traditions when compared with the “do” traditions.
If we are to approach this subject without preconception we must put value-laden and prejudicial language and labels aside and find other ways to talk about the issue.
I have argued elsewhere that there is a clear distinction between “doing” and “not doing”; a point on which others disagree. But, disagreements aside, if we think about the injunction to avoid or refrain from certain behavior towards others, the term that seems appropriate to me as a descriptor is not “negative”.
The “don’t do” statement directs us to exercise behavioral restraint.
The Ethic of Restraint seems to me to be an accurate, non-judgmental and useful term to describe the various forms of “don’t do” statements that we find across time, cultures, religions and philosophies.
As a part of a system of ethics it suggests the element of the Hippocratic Oath that admonishes medical doctors to “first do no harm”. It is not all we expect of a doctor but without that the Oath loses its first principle.
Without the Ethic of Restraint, the “do” statement can (and has) become dangerous.
©Charles R. Lightner