In the literature of Golden Rule thinking there are two principle points of departure. The first simply assumes an agreement between the author and his readers on what the rule actually is.
We all just know, don’t we?
The second approach implicitly acknowledges that the subject is more complicated than that and tackles the problem of specific definition.
Assuming away the problem is not appropriate. It really isn’t that easy.
Those who take the second approach usually present a Golden Rule “statement” that attempts to co-ordinate or consolidate three ideas:
a) the idea reflected in the “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” statement,
b) the idea reflected in the “that which is hateful to you, do not do to another” statement, and
c) the idea reflected in the “do unto others as you would have them do unto you” statement.
Some try to capture all three ideas in a single consolidated statement. Some try to capture the “do” and “don’t do” statements in one alternate and propose that both are implied in the “love your neighbor” statement.
These approaches, in my view, all miss a critical first distinction.
The term Golden Rule is a label for an idea. The map, as they say, is not the territory.
Unless we separate the label from the idea itself, all subsequent steps in an analysis will be affected by that omission. And in this specific case, the subsequent analysis will necessarily be biased by the label chosen.
What we name something affects how we think about it. Names carry imbedded information. They transmit value judgments.
The term Golden Rule, as a label, communicates a bias that can act as a bar to further investigation.
While forms of the idea are found in the religious, philosophical and ethical traditions of virtually all the peoples of the world, the label itself was first used by 17th century Anglican clergymen.
The label is essentially a Christian one and, unfortunately, it acts as a kind of preemptive defense against questioning.
To label something as “golden” is already to say that it is of substantial value that is beyond challenge. That tends to limit the scope of analysis. It seems almost presumptuous to question, much less to challenge, an idea that is already labeled “golden”.
While scholars of religion, philosophers and ethicists understand that none of the three statements referenced above is complete or sufficient as an all-encompassing behavioral guide, there is a tendency to associate the golden rule idea with the specific words attributed to Jesus. That is certainly understandable given the history of the label.
But the specific association with Jesus can create an even more difficult bias problem.
Questioning an idea with a centuries-old association with the “golden” label presents a difficult challenge. If that questioning is seen, in some way, as devaluing words attributed to Jesus, that difficulty is obviously magnified.
The only reasonable answer, it seems to me, requires:
1. Removing the label from the idea; allowing the idea(s) to be compared and discussed without the inherent bias of the label, and
2. Separating, as best we can, the idea(s) from any personalities; allowing the idea(s) to be discussed on their own merits. The intention is not to take anything away from any tradition or personality but rather to avoid the appearance of judging the messenger as well as the message.
The fact that philosophers, religious scholars and ethicists who have studied the golden rule idea(s) have all found it necessary, in one way or another, to modify the statement(s) shows that the issue is not as straightforward as it might seem.
The fact that those scholars take several different approaches to the solution, even though most are from the same root religious tradition, shows that differing approaches do not reflect any disrespect of or argument with that tradition or its founder.
©Charles R. Lightner