Tags
“Do to others as you would have them do to you.” Many people live their lives by the Golden Rule; but, is it a good one to follow? Let’s take a closer look.
First off, despite what is intended, not everyone wants to be treated the same way. One has peace loving individuals who keep this rule easily. On the other extreme, one has maltreated psychotics, who also follow this rule by seeking victim-hood by afflicting violence on others. One could actually say that violence driven people break the Golden Rule by committing acts of charity.
Most people would love to have a million dollars handed to them. If one offered such and was refused by the other, then if one liked to receive large sums of cash from others, he must be willing, according to the Golden Rule, force the acceptance of funds by another. This is, of course, absurd as it violates the will of the potential receiver. If one is in incredible agony and refuses pain relief or to have his life terminated; then one must act according to the other’s will. To act otherwise and follow the Golden Rule, one would be infringing on the other’s right to life and would equate to murder. Because the Golden Rule can be followed by committing either good or evil, it can not be considered moral acceptable.
The other problem with the Golden Rule is that it is a rule. Rules externally compel one to act a certain way through force, threat, or punishment. It is partly enforced by negative social consequences; however, it mainly is enforced by the threat of eternal punishment of unimaginable agony for even the most minor of infractions. Is fear of breaking any rules or commands the best way to produce a moral people?
Often equated, but unequal to rules, are principles which are an internal drive to do what is right and good. Some principles would be honesty, truth, love, and justice. One might suggest fairness, love, forgiveness, or mercy as a replacement for the Golden Rule. Don’t get me wrong, these things are great principles, but they don’t quite cover the concepts involved.
The principle that I would suggest would be that of non-aggression. The principle of non-aggression asserts that all aggression is inherently illegitimate, and that aggression is the initiation or threat of violence against a person or a person’s legitimately owned property. Even actions which are beneficial or neutral are considered violent if they are against the individual’s free will and right of self-determination.
The Non-Aggression Principle picks up the pieces left behind by the contradictions of the Golden Rule. It logically follows from the recognition of self to the recognition of others and from the value of self to the value of others. Isn’t it time for us, and our children, to stop living by the rules given to us, and begin to live lives that are principally driven?
Compelling thoughts! I agree with much of what you say. What are your thoughts on Jesus’ words regarding “turning the other cheek” etc. from Matthew 5?
In the days of my belief, I went through the phase believing that all violence is wrong, the complete turning of the cheek. That is, however, a recipe for self extinction, either as an individual or a group. I even quit tai kwon do because of it. Now I believe a man has the right to defending himself against aggression of any form. Each has the choice to act or not. Personally, I prefer letting much offense slide, as it makes little sense to object to everything. One thing this world needs is less twitchy, trigger finger people. Does that make sense ?
It makes sense. Of course its sometimes difficult to ascertain the difference between self defense and and agression. Take the stupid Iraq war for example. Regarding your comment, “That is, however, a recipe for self extinction,” how do you interpret the actions of Ghandi and their result? By the way, I quite Tae Kwon Do back in the day too 😉
Having refreshed my knowledge of Ghandi’s actions, I would say that although he stated many times about how evil violence is, he wasn’t the best advocate for non-violence. To explain, when he started a hunger strike, he knew that although fasting is about the most non-aggressive action there is, he had the threat of violence (by peoples’ uprising) behind it. He also encouraged Indians to volunteer for one war.
That being said, he did have every right to make those threats of violence as it was his nation that had been invaded by an imperious nation. He had every right to call his entire nation to arms and shed India of the Briton in the style of Thomas Paine or Patrick Henry.
As for the war in Iraq, I believe most realize that the raison d’etre for the war is not the proclaimed one. Among other things, Iraq was about to start dealing in something other than the Petro-Dollar. What a horrible threat! The inevitability of the dollar collapse may be temporarily postponed, but it is steamrolling down the pike. The likely coming war with Iran is more stalling of the falling.
Stupidity, while it does seem to breed faster than intelligence, can not overcome the bulwarks of an industrious and principled people. It can’t prevail no matter what momentum it has at the start. I would have to say that there the only just war is one where the invading armies are being fought off.
I hate it when people cry, “Terrorist, Terrorist!”, especially when it is globally obvious that the United States is the aggressor. This nation doesn’t need to be the world’s nanny or hall monitor.
Pingback: Little moments of astonishment ………… | MindMindful
Pingback: Initiated Force: Liberals’ Tool of Control – John Malcolm