Talk:Golden Rule/Archive 3

criticisms?
Are there any widely accepted faults with this idea? I would like to know not only because most large articles have at least a small section of these, and because I really would just like to know. So far my internet quests have yielded no fruit. 68.228.80.106 (talk) 09:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, there are a large number of criticisms of the Golden Rule. I've started a new section on it, and have provided two links, that should serve as a basis for starting to flesh it out. K. Sargent (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The introduction currently includes what seems a murky statement that: "While similar those forms are not strictly the same as they differ in what to do with what you would like to be done to you but the other party would not like to be done upon it. Negative form does directly not contain that while positive form can exclude it indirectly with that you would like from others to check if you really like it, what is an example of using the golden rule in a context which makes it self-correcting, as argued in the criticisms section."


 * I've changed it to what I hope is a clearer explication: "These forms are not not strictly the same, though they seem to resonate. The difference is the adverb 'not'. This difference means that a term is missing to resolve the parent statements. To demonstrate, there are two options: 1). "Do not do to others what you would like done to you"; and, 2). "Do to others what you would not like done to you." More on the dissonance between these derived statements may be found in the criticisms section of this article." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.107.159 (talk) 02:55, 30 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It would be interesting to see a deeper explication- maybe in the criticisms section?


 * The criticisms section with regards to MG Singer is completely incomprehensible. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.210.195.43 (talk) 14:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

=
===  "The most serious among these is its application. How does one know how others want to be treated?    The obvious way is to ask them, {but this cannot be done if one assumes they have not reached a   particular and relevant understanding.}"

The part in braces is incomprehensible. But more seriously: how can this be considered to be a "most serious criticism"? The characteristic of both the positive and negative forms as given in the introduction is that they do _not_ require that one know _anything_ about what others want; they are a maxim that says "reflect on your own desires/fears in order to infer what is the right way to treat others." Why _anyone_ would think that this is a useful rule for moral behaviour is quite beyond me. So how about a section entitled something like "Reasons why this is thought to be A Good Thing"? (BTW, it is not possible that the criticism refers only to Popper's "improvement," because, although Russell could conceivably have responded to Popper, could both Kant and Nietzsche have done so? One ought perhaps to look up their respective dates.)

There is a much stronger criticism, it seems to _me,_ and that is that they are _prima facie_ impossible to apply in general. For example, someone may say "I wish to be treated like a king, and for other people to be subservient to me." The Golden Rule is no use to such a person. As such it is a good example of Kant's _categorical imperative,_ it certainly seems to be a better example than one I have heard given by a university lecturer (of a course called "professional ethics") who claimed that "lie when convenient" is a moral imperative that Kant would deny on the grounds that "if that were universally applied then it would be impossible to lie." I fail to understand why this would be the case, and I asked the lecturer but he didn't seem to be able to say why he thought this was true, so I _still_ don't understand that example. But this example is really much better: of course it applies to both the positive and the negative forms, the latter counter-example being: "I dislike being treated as inferior or equal to others, so I should not treat others as inferior or equal to me". Such a person is outside the scope of this rule; or apparently doomed to a lifetime of treating all others as their superiors, like the story in Carroll's _Sylvie and Bruno Concluded_ (p 173) of a country where everyone was a king and there was just one subject.

"Mein Herr looked uneasy. “I am not in the Moon, my child,” he said  evasively. “To return to what I was saying. I think that method of government  ought to answer well. You see, the Kings would be sure to make Laws   contradicting each other: so the Subject could never be punished, because, whatever  he did, he’d be obeying some Law.”

“And, whatever he did, he’d be disobeying some Law!” cried Bruno. “So he’d always be punished!”

Lady Muriel was passing at the moment, and caught the last word. “No- body’s going to be punished here!” she said, taking Bruno in her arms. “This is Liberty-Hall! Would you lend me the children for a minute?”

But, ahem!, back to the topic "The Global Ethic." were we have:

"The "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic"[34] from the Parliament of the World’s Religions[35][36] (1993) proclaimed the Golden Rule ("We must treat others as we wish others to treat us") as the common principle for many religions.[37] The Initial Declaration was signed by 143 respected leaders from all of the world's major faiths, including Baha'i Faith, Brahmanism, Brahma Kumaris, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Indigenous, Interfaith, Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American, Neo-Pagan, Sikhism, Taoism, Theosophist, Unitarian Universalist and Zoroastrian.[37][38]

Note that this is an imperative: "we _must_." This is astonishing, because these faiths are not all _prima facie_ compatible one with another. At least three of them seem to _me_ to require that they be considered superior to other faiths. On what basis did these "respected leaders" of all of the world's major faiths declare this? Who are they? Why are these people respected leaders? Is this a binding agreement? Can we make them account for their scriptures? I think we should be told!

So, given how _irrational_ this "rule" _appears_ to be,--- at least to those such as I who are largely ignorant of moral philosophy, and find it all rather confusing and difficult to understand,---it would be _very_ good if someone were to go through the article tagging sentences with tags like [contradicts ....] and [because?] or [why?] One sees plenty of [citation needed] or [who?] but why so seldom do people flag _logical_ absurdities like these?

Another commentator mentioned that the examples from Islam did not "fit the pattern" and they were deleted (and then apparently restored?). But there is more to thought than _pattern matching._ (This is not original research, it is 2,300 year-old Aristotelian philosophy which, according to WikipediA, influenced at least _two_ of the mutually incompatible faiths in the above list.)

I _love_ WikipediA, but it desperately needs a formal basis for its claims: it is not enough simply to check the veracity of the premisses: the conclusion follows from the _validity of the inferences_ made from those premisses, and so the form of the _logical_ argument is equally important: particularly since the validity of the logical argument is _independent_ of the veracity of the premisses. So if one or more premisses were proved _false,_ then the argument would still be valid, but it may turn out to be an argument _ad impossibile_ for a contradictory conclusion. So, given the validity of the arguments, one need only negate the conclusions if and when the premisses are proved false. This is potentially _automatable:_ one need only define a formal language for expressing inferences and tagging the sentences appropriately. Then a robot could actually search across multiple pages looking for contradictions. And since anachronisms are essentially logical contradictions in the total ordering of events, it would detect those too, Then WikipediA would become a _source_ of information: simply by _connecting_ the _reasons why_ people claim to know what they know, we would discover that in fact we _potentially_ know more than we thought we did. Wouldn't that be interesting? Anyone who wishes to look further into this should see Lewis Carroll's "Symbolic Logic" which gives a highly automatable formulation of Aristotelian logic, which uses three rules of inference and can mechanically deduce some quite un-obvious conclusions given certain data. For example, from

(1) "I greatly value everything that John gives me;   (2)  Nothing but this bone will satisfy my dog;    (3)  I take particular care of everything that I greatly         value;    (4)  This bone was a present from John;    (5)  The things, of which I take particular care, are         things I do _not_ give to my dog".

Carroll deduces the _universal_ proposition: "My dog is not satisfied with _anything_ I give him." (Pg 093 in the Project Gutenberg edition.)

And finally, to add a little much-needed relevance: in the discussion about reciprocity, there seems to be some confusion because it is not clear what is meant by the term _reciprocal._ Sometimes it seems to be the sense of like for like, and at other times that of opposites: we have "Love those who hate you" and "Hit those who hit you" These are not both reciprocal, are they? There is a third sense of reciprocity, one which appears in Lewis Carroll's "Eight or nine wise words about letter writing" in the preface to "Feeding the Mind" This has, I believe, its origin in Euclidean geometry where there is a notion of _reciprocal proportionality_ which is "antipascoe" in Greek, meaning "anti-suffering," and sharing the same root as the word _passion_ which is the common root of words like _Pasque_ and relates to the Easter holiday in Christian calendars. The idea is that the reciprocation is inversely proportional to that to which it is a response. The illustration Carroll gives is (page xi):

"Rule 5. If your friend makes a severe remark, either leave it un-noticed, or make your reply   less severe; and if he makes a friendly remark, tending towards making up a little difference     that has arisen between you, make your reply distinctly _more_ friendly.

If, in picking a quarrel, each party declined to go more than three-eighths of the way, and if   in making friends, each was ready to go _five eighths_ of the way---why, there would be more reconciliations than quarrels! Which is like the Irishman's remonstrance to his gad-about daughter: "Shure, you're _always_ goin' out! You go out three times for _wanst_ that you come in!"

Note that 3/8ths and 5/8ths are fractions based on Fibonacci numbers 2,3,5,8,... and correspond to the first approximation of the proportion Euclid calls "extreme and mean," which is sometimes called the _Golden Section._ (see Elements, Book VI, Defn 2.) Then Walter Terence Stace's comments quoted in "Responses to Criticisms" can be seen in a geometric light: iterating the Fibonacci construction gives better and better approximations to the extreme and mean proportion, but _never_ reaches it. Like a reflection between a pair of parallel mirrors which is never complete.

Now is it not possible that this might shed some light on the logical difficulties with the two forms of the Golden Rule? What if the original Christian text (in ancient Greek) had some clues to the sense of the reciprocation? None of this would be "original research" if done by a WikipediA editor, because it refers to documents that are publicly available and supposedly hundreds or thousands of years old, So _I_ see no reason why WikipediA could not mention this connection, and any others that may appear during the course of researching this topic. We have the original texts, so there is no need to seek an authoritative academic reference for any of it. Indeed, I think this is a good example of logical inference being a source of information: it may turn out that in fact the source of this information is WikipediA itself. It would then be an example of the fifth axiom of Euclid's Elements: "And the whole is greater than the part." The knowledge of humanity _combined_ is more than that of any one part of it, being any individual or any culture, That's why I think WikipediA with _logic_ would be a wonderful thing indeed,

I am sure I have transgressed some of the Rules for talking, but, ... well, it's only a lady _preaching,_ you know.

Love Alice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.129.108.219 (talk) 08:24, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

Golden rule is not the tit-for-tat rule
Reading the first paragraph of the article could give the impression that the Golden Rule is the same as the tit-for-tat rule. And I think the article out to be names the Golden Rule rather than its current obscure and technical name. 89.242.93.56 (talk) 13:09, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that without a source saying they are the same that should be out. Also agree on name but new to article and have to research why that was done. CarolMooreDC (talk) 01:28, 5 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I also found this article to be extremely muddled and confused, and I think and feel that Ethic of Reciprocity probably shouldn't have brought me here, if the "reciprocity" in that term means the same thing that it does in most other sociological usages (which is to say, a game-theory defined tendency in social animals of responding in kind (or in expectation). Reading this article, the Golden Rule seems to mean almost the opposite - a mindful determination to simply treat others kindly no matter what their behavior may be, and probably against your own social conditioning, as a spiritual discipline. For this reason, the redirect should probably be improved, unless I'm understanding the term incorrectly (which is possible - I've only encountered it this one time).71.217.5.29 (talk) 15:08, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Agreed. I also thought the inclusion of this, for example - "The Code of Hammurabi, (1780 BC),[12] dealt with the reciprocity of the Lex talionis, in ways, such by limiting retribution, as they did concepts of retribution (literally "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth")." - didn't make sense. 'Eye for an eye' isn't the Golden Rule. Call me cynical, but I wonder if the objective of some contributors isn't to try and distract from the indication that the Old Testament is actually the first case (thus, potential originator) known of 'the Golden Rule'. Thus this extra stuff getting chucked in (with a pre-Moses date, too! :P). 'It's just *one* of the religions that believes in this rule we all like.' Yeah. 1000+ years later, maybe.

SuperMudz (talk) 14:28, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Quran sayings
I must admit I can only see the silver rule in what the Quran says. The sayings attributed to Mohammed are more like what the article is about. What should be done about the Quran sayings? I'm for just removing anything that isn't very close to the topic. Dmcq (talk) 11:59, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

In fact better just remove anything which doesn't have a citation which says a link to the golden rule or an equivalent. Editors just sticking in sayings which they think are like the golden rule is WP:Original research Dmcq (talk) 12:03, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * A link would be a secondary text which mentions the sayings in connection with the golden rule or the ethics of reciprocity. Dmcq (talk) 12:13, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The sayings from the Quran now in have citations to Wattles who explicitly dealt with the golden rule. Dmcq (talk) 12:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * The saying from Quran also have citations in German Wikipedia. Seraj (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The silver rule is ane of the 2 parts of the golden rule. Please look at the first paragraph of the golden rule article: The Golden Rule or ethic of reciprocity is a maxim,ethical code, or morality that essentially states either of the following:


 * 1) One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (positive form)
 * 2) One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative/prohibitive form, also called the Silver Rule)Seraj (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)


 * By the way, in many other religions, the phrases are about silver rule :    That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.     —Talmud, Shabbat 31a, the "Great Principle"     AND ALSO       Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.     —Udanavarga 5:18        AND MANY MORE Seraj (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Hadith section is not qoutes of something I think it's like golden rule. it's explicitly the literal rule! Additionally, the German Wiki has some citations for this section too.Seraj (talk) 08:41, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

The Silver Rule definitely fits Islam. There is little good about that religion, calling anything from it as "Golden" is LOLworthy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.222.205.242 (talk) 08:47, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

That thou mayest use English correctly
Why is only the quotes of Jesus and the Bible using archaic language, when the other sources do not?

And why does the Chirstianity section start by quoting Simon Blackburn? It's not polite, nor accurate to start a description with detractions. As "Simon was one of 55 public figures to sign [...] their opposition to Pope Benedict XVI's state visit to the UK." I'd suggest his opinion is not entirely balanced 183.179.53.171 (talk) 17:02, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Just read the Archaic language section saying the same thing, and the response being positive to modern speech -- so I'll make the corrections now 183.179.53.171 (talk) 17:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Lede material moved
I took some detailed material from the Torah from the lede and moved it to the section on Judaism. Since the lede is only to summarize the article, it seems best to leave its coverage general and not include facts from specific traditions there to adhere to WP:WORLDVIEW. Airborne84 (talk) 14:06, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Epictetus
I cannot find the quote of Epictetus or anithing similar in Enchiridion. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Enchiridion — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.0.126.107 (talk) 06:09, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Name of article vs. content
I'm not entirely sure why the article was moved back, since the only move request denies the move, but whatever. If you're going to have it be "the Golden rule," you need to first discuss the history of the term. It was first applied to Christianity and Matthew 7:12. It was only later that scholars noted the similar philosophies in other religions and ethical teachings.

Christianity may not be the only religion or ethical system that teaches this rule, but the term did originally refer to the Christian version. Not discussing this and pushing Christianity down to where it fits in chronological order (and making it seem like they are wrong to think the term referred to a Christian ethic) is misleading at best.

This is actually currently an article I tell people not to read when wanting to understand the term. It's already led one guy to think "Do unto others..." is actually from Confucius. — trlkly 17:43, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It would help if you would provide some reliable sources to support the statements. Otherwise, there are other forums on the World Wide Web which are more appropriate than here for this discussion. Thanks for your interest. Airborne84 (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Egypt (Eloquent Peasant parable): needs more research
I'd like to see more clarification or research on the Egypt section. The Wikipedia page for The Eloquent Peasant makes no reference to the Golden Rule. Other full-texts of that parable are ambiguous. This article relies on a citation in The Culture of Ancient Egypt by John A. Wilson (1956 U Chicago Pr), which in turn relies on a 1927 English translation by Aylward M. Blackman (The Literature of the Ancient Egyptians, E.P. Dutton & Co.) of a 1923 book by Adolf Erman (Die Literatur des Aegypter). But when I look in other translations of Erman's book (and the Eloquent/Educated/Complaining Peasant story) for the passage that Wilson quotes, I see less clear support for the 'golden rule' interpretation. E.g., http://www.gutenberg.org/files/15932/15932-h/15932-h.htm#Pg_169 (by E. A. Wallis Budge, full-text). "This peasant said, '[When] the ... [?] cometh to his place of yesterday the command cometh: 'Do a [good] deed in order that one may do a [good] deed [to thee],' that is to say, 'Give thanks unto everyone for what he doeth.' This is to drive back the bolt before it is shot, and to give a command to the man who is already overburdened with orders. Would that a moment of destruction might come, wherein thy vines should be laid low, and thy geese diminished, and thy waterfowl be made few in number! [Thus] it cometh that the man who ought to see clearly hath become blind, and he who ought to hear distinctly hath become deaf, and he who ought to be a just guide hath become one who leadeth into error...." I wonder how much has been "read into" this parable, whether intentionally or culturally-unconsciously. Is the lesson of the parable that doing-unto-others is an 'overburden'? This is just a good-faith, scholarly question. (I think it would be cool if the answer unambiguously reflects the 'golden-rule' interpretation; but worth correcting if it does not or is ambiguous.) In any case, this section could be clarified. Benefac (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Doing good formed part of Maat which was required not just for passing judgment at death but in order to gain divine favour on earth. A person could expect ill luck should they fail to observe these precepts. I don't have an up to date translation in front of me at present but Budge's translation seem reasonable in conveying the meaning i.e in order to avoid the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune (the bolt from the blue, the hard taskmaster etc) it was in the persons interest to repay kindness with kindness and not the opposite. Yt95 (talk) 12:37, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the translation used in Miriam Lichtheim "Ancient Egytpian Religion, v1, p. 174, and it reads "Do to the doer to make him do" and ML describes this as the "do ut des" principle. The following lines read "It is thanking a man for what he does, parrying a blow before it strikes, Giving a commission to one who is skillful" This can be read as "do a good turn to somebody in order that they will do a good turn to you", e.g defending your neighbor and buying, say, goods or services from somebody who will reciprocate. Budge's translation can also be read in the same way and his "overburdened with orders" means, according to ML's version, buy from a quality popular source so that they buy from you. FWIW, and for talk page purposes only, I think that the meaning you allude to above captures the other side of the coin, i.e do bad and expect the same in return. This takes in the traditional curse and blessing invocations that crosses over even into the next life as well e.g blessing mediated through the dead for favors rendered to them: A person who destroys a memorial stone is threatened with retribution whilst the person who remembers the deceased is blessed; the fraudster will one day reap what they have sowed whilst the just will get their reward.  Yt95 (talk) 17:28, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Judaism
I am going to re-write the Judaism section of this article because, frankly, it doesn't represent Judaism at all. Given the sectarian nature of Judaism, there are many streams which harbor divergent views - and not a single one of those views is represented in this article. Moreover, the article points to Christian King James Version excerpts which are not representative of a Judaica POV. In this Judaism section with be snippets from Akkadian tablets moving up into contemporary conceptions of "the Golden Rule". Jaim Harlow 01:04, 19 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You can't add pronouncements in Wikipedia's voice like the claim that the rule has been ignored or misrepresented etc etc. We don't get to say that "the core of Rabbinic Judaism which has been forfeited, by many sects of Judaism, in favor of 'theological' positions outside Judaism." You can express the view of a notable commentator who has said that. Some of your additions simply misunderstand the topic. The sentence "Rabbinic Judaism does not possess a singular 'Golden Rule' in the way that others conceive or illustrate" is irrelevant. The Golden Rule is just a name for this particular moral precept. It has nothing to do with the general notion that there is a single important "rule" to follow. No religion has a single golden rule, but many have a form of the Golden Rule. Hence much of the rest of what you write is simply irrelevant to the article, for example "According to Maimonides, in “Mishneh Torah”, Sefer Hamada, Hilkhot Yesodei Hatorah 8:2, the ultimate grounds for belief in God are legal, not theological or metaphysical...". That may well be true, but has nothing whatever to do with the topic of this article, which is the ethic of reciprocity commonly named "the Golden Rule". Having said that, I agree that the current version is lacking in many ways, but yours needs to be discussed. Paul B (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * As a Jew, working in tandem with Rabbis, I am fully qualified to point out what is a "core Rabbinic Judaism". The page was twisted and distorted to reflect a Christian View of what Christians think Judaism's "Golden Rule" looks like...but in fact it is a boldly incorrect portrayal...Mendacious is a word that comes to mind.  I provide references to Rabbinic Canonical texts and you want to pretend that the Christian slants is appropriate.  That simply doesn't pass the sniff test.  Jaim Harlow 19:11, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Um... Jaim, you seem not to know how Wikipedia works. You can't enter information based on your personal knowledge.  To add something on Wikipedia, you need to cite a reliable source.  And you can't give your spin on the source, either.  That's called original research, and while it may be of value in certain contexts, it's not permitted on Wikipedia.  You've been here since at least 2009, so you should be aware of all this.


 * In addition, you can't use idiosyncratic transliterations such as miswa. It doesn't matter whether that transliteration is closer to the original Hebrew; you have to use Wikipedia's style guide.  You can wince and use mitzvah like the rest of us.  The pain will pass.


 * If you feel that the Judaism section of this article is wrong and that you have reliable sources to support a different version, I suggest you write it up in your sandbox and bring it here to the talk page and seek consensus. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 22:44, 30 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I posted the sources within the article - they are Jewish Sources. Miswa is a pronunciation of Mitzva, misva, Witzwa...just becuase your eyes are not trained for it doesn't mean it's wrong - here is a link:  http://books.google.com/books?id=vL-GoivPdtkC&pg=PA37&lpg=PA37&dq=miswa+halakha&source=bl&ots=OGkT0Dy4vP&sig=SfxyktpTiwasxZyzeo8VLAjNcW4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=N0grVJWrGIj9oQSYnoGQDg&ved=0CCgQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=miswa%20halakha&f=false


 * I do not need to seek consensus from non-Jews for Jewish content. I am posting Jewish content written by Rabbis and observant Jews.  The old Content was written by Christians who were imposing their personal views of Jews and Judaism upon the topic.  They weren't even wrong - they were lying.


 * I have reported this incessanty attempt to censor Jews from creating their own content to Wiki. I grow weary of your attempts to distort the Jewish view of this topic.  For your information, I've edited countless Wiki Pages, Created many Wiki Pages and have collaborated with many christians on other pages....but never have I witnessed such an intransigent attempt to distort and mislead readers.  Jaim Harlow 00:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)#


 * Your preposterous narcissism is not evidence of anything other than a rather inflated sense of your own importance. Please read Wikipedia's policies. Yes, you do need to seek consensus from non-Jews for Jewish content, if the "non-Jews" happen to challenge it. People of all and no religions have an equal right to edit any and all content. You have no reason to claim that the previous content was "written by Christians". Your assertions that editors have lied are without basis and violate WP:AGF. Who exactly have you "reported" this to? Paul B (talk) 00:31, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Everyone could calm down. Yes, citations to established authorities are needed to support positions; see WP:Reliable sources for details. A solid claim can normally find such support, do the research and bring this back. HGilbert (talk) 01:16, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The Citations are embedded in the text (Tora, Mishnah, Mishnah Torah - Canonical texts of Rabbinic Judaism) - in what form do you prefer to seem them shown in the article - inline or at the bottom of the article under "References". Jaim Harlow 01:50, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Those are citations to primary sources which you link to the Golden Rule by your own WP:OR. They are, for the most part, unrelated to it. As I have already pointed out, the Maimonides quotation has no discernible connection to the Golden Rule at all. Most of your text was pure uncited assertion. If you think there are errors in the current text, point them out and explain what they are. Paul B (talk) 07:21, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

| I've reported him for edit warring. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lisa (talk • contribs) 03:16, 1 October 2014‎


 * I have requested input from members of WikiProject Judaism. Paul B (talk) 09:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I saw Paul B's note on WT:JUDAISM. I remember seeing this section a few months ago and thinking to myself, that the contents of the Judaism section leave much to be desired. I would say that there is a lot of redundancy in the 2 subsections, and some things that IMHO could easily be removed altogether. Perhaps somebody could draw up a proposal, that could be discussed here? Debresser (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the comments. Do you have any views on Jaim Harlow's belief that "it is a boldly incorrect portrayal" representing a "mendacious" Christian POV on Judaism? The use of the KJV (a translation made by Christians) seems also to be an issue for Jaimis. I don't know if that's simply because it is 'Christian' or whether he thinks there is a problem with the translation. Certainly the repetition of the same passage should be deleted. If there are alternative readings of the Hebrew— ones that affect the meaning—this could be addressed, if they are suitably sourced. Paul B (talk) 19:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm working on a different version. But it will be one without personal additions.


 * As for Jaim, he's a bit eccentric, as you can see from his [|Quora] page. For example, answering the question "What is the Jewish soul?", he stated that "The concept of 'soul' is a pagan artifice introduced to Rabbanic Judaism in Byzantium."  Nothing he says should be taken as a mainstream Jewish position without substantial sourcing, and vetting that sourcing through other Jewish editors here, and if possible, through the Judaism portal.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the present version is a Christian version, but there are things I would have preferred to rephrase a little. Debresser (talk) 21:06, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Proposed revision
I have put a proposed revision of the Judaism section on a subpage of my talk page. It is substantially shorter than either the current version or the version suggested by Jaim. The vast majority of the current version is homiletical interpretations by Gunther Plaut, a Reform rabbi, whose views are his own. This is true as well for all of the suggested biblical antecedents. Were I to write a book about all of the statements of Hillel the Elder, I would demonstrate how this statement derives from Hillel's philosophical position, which is in turn, predicated on large numbers of biblical texts. I may do so at some point, but that's original research on my part, and is no more valid here than the current version or Jaim's alternative one. The Golden Rule, as such, simply does not exist anywhere in Judaism, unless you expand the definition of "Golden Rule" to include Hillel's rule.

All the other material about not holding grudges or taking revenge, and about loving your neighbor... well, it's good stuff, and I could make a link between those things and what Hillel said homiletically as well. But that's not really what Wikipedia is about, is it? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 21:04, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Lisa, I do not understand. How can you say we don't have a Golden Rule, if the words "Love your neighbor as yourself" are from the Torah? Debresser (talk) 21:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)


 * What about "love" equates to "do"? - Lisa (talk - contribs) 00:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That general commandment to love translates in a lot of things that we have to do. See for example the book Ahavat Chesed by the Chofetz Chaim. I am not sure I understand you correctly. Debresser (talk) 17:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That verse isn't about doing or not doing what you want them to do or not do. You have to really wedge this in if you want to find commonality with the Golden Rule, and that's what I mean by homiletics.  The verse is about you.  It has nothing to do with actions or behavior or speech or thought of the other person.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 17:57, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I see now what you mean. I think it is best to add in the proposed text that the principle does exist, based on the verse in the Torah "Love your neighbor as yourself", and that this was formulated by the Talmudic sage Hillel in its negative form etc. Debresser (talk) 19:33, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * But that doesn't appear to follow. As I said, that verse doesn't have any reciprocity in it, and the Golden Rule in all its variations does boil down to you doing or saying or thinking or not doing what another person would do or say or think or not do.  I don't actually see any connection at all between the verse and the Golden Rule.  Perhaps if you were to explain what linkage you see that I'm apparently missing?  Nor do I see any source in rabbinic literature that links that verse and Hillel's statement.  Unless you consider Gunther Plaut to be rabbinic literature.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 20:55, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Well, as you said yourself earlier, what you think is not really the issue, since it's a question of what the sources say. That's not to deny that you have a good point, of course, and it might be worth looking to see if other commentators have made this point. But the connection between the passage and the GR has often been made, for example J.S. Mill: "In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself, constitute the complete perfection of utilitarian morality." He blurs together the two concepts as if one naturally follows from the other, or is implied by it. The Christianity section here traces the concept back to Tobit, which, of course is "Jewish", but obviously not a canonical text. Paul B (talk) 21:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Maybe, but we're talking about the Jewish position; not the Christian one. Mill isn't a reliable source for Jewish views on the subject. :)  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 01:48, 3 October 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course I know that. My point was that Tobit, though it referred to in the Christian section, is not a Christian work. The issue is whether the the link made by Mill dates back to pre-Jesus Jewish culture; the famous Hillel quotation strongly implies that it does. Partly, this is a question of what we mean by "Judaism". There are ideas that have emerged and been widely accepted within Jewish culture at various times, but which may not necessarily to be codified as part of Judaism as such. Paul B (talk) 11:00, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

I hear what you're saying, Paul, but still, you'd need Jewish sources to establish a link between "Love your fellow as yourself" and the Golden Rule. And I don't believe there are any. Judaism's version of the Golden Rule begins and ends with Hillel's statement. I don't believe there are other Jewish sources which support the idea that one's interaction with others should be based on how they would interact with you, which is the substance of the Golden Rule. - Lisa (talk - contribs) 15:31, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Lisa, I have a few more problems with your proposal:
 * 1) I'd say "and the rest is explanation", without "the".
 * 2) "Some have termed this the Silver Rule, while others have simply seen it as Judaism's rendition of the Golden Rule." is redundant to the article itself. It is not the purpose of the Judaism section to explain this.
 * 3) The last sentence needs a source.
 * 4) I'd like to repeat that in my opinion it should says specifically that Judaism does subscribe to the Golden rule, based on or as implied in the verse in the Torah "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Lev. 19:18), and then the sentence could continue by saying that and that this principle was formulated by the Talmudic sage Hillel the Elder in its negative form in the Babylonian Talmud etc. Debresser (talk) 23:23, 5 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I like "and the rest is the explanation" for two reasons. The simplest one is that it's the correct translation.  It doesn't say "v'idach perush"; it says "v'idach perusha", with a definite article.  The other is that common translations such as "the rest is commentary" and "the rest is explanation" give the impression in English of secondariness.  A nuance which does not exist in the original Aramaic.


 * I have no problem taking out the line about the Silver Rule. I thought it was pertinent information, but if it bothers you, fine.


 * I'll look for a source, but if you want to take that line out, fine. That said, the burden of proof is on anyone wishing to tie some or other biblical verse to the Golden Rule, and you know as well as I that "Love your neighbor as your self" is not the same as the Golden Rule, and that Hillel didn't merely "reformulate" that verse in the negative.


 * In fact, to make it clear, though I thought I had previously, I would like to put it as a straight-out question: Do you agree that the essence of the Golden Rule is that that one's interaction with others should be based on how they would interact with you or how they would feel? Yes or no, please.  Because I think it's patently obvious that it is.  And a second question: Do you think that "Love your neighbor as yourself" is in any way dependent on what the "neighbor" would do or feel?  Yes or no, please, because I think it's patently obvious that it is not.  And that being the case, I don't see why the section should even mention that verse.


 * I hope you don't think I'm being uncivil by asking this as bluntly as I did. I stated this above at least twice, and rather than address it, even to say that you disagree, you've simply ignored it and repeated your desire to include the verse.  I don't understand why.  - Lisa (talk - contribs) 02:09, 6 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I'll have to think what to reply to you. Just one quick note. I didn't say that Hillel "reformulated" the Golden rule, but that he formulated a Jewish ethical principle in a way that is nowadays called the Golden (or Silver) rule. Debresser (talk) 11:30, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Delete reference to 'unqualified altruism'?
In the Christianity Section the article says:

'The "Golden Rule" has been attributed to Jesus of Nazareth, though he himself uses it to summarize the Old Testament: "Do to others what you want them to do to you. This is the meaning of the law of Moses and the teaching of the prophets"[48] (Matthew 7:12 NCV. However, when seen in the context of his other teachings, it is clear that 'others' is understood to be universal, including enemies and the rule is not one of reciprocity but of unqualified altruism and love in the imitation of the divine. See also Luke 6:31)'.

I'd like to delete the sentence which begins 'however'. It seems to be an assertion/personal opinion, it's illogical and it's unreferenced.

First, the fact that Jesus applied the rule universally doesn't mean it loses its reciprocity to become 'unqualified altruism'. If an army treats its prisoners-of-war humanely (which would be an example of 'loving one's enemies'), that action may well be reciprocated by the opposing army.

And the versions of the Golden Rule from other religions/philosophies can also be taken universally - even if they don't spell it out as Jesus did.

Secondly, if we look at the context of Matthew 7:12, we see that it's all about getting a reward. Verses 7-11 read: "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; the one who seeks finds; and to the one who knocks, the door will be opened. Which of you, if your son asks for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a snake? If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!"

So, 7:12 is an instruction for obtaining 'good gifts' from God. That doesn't qualify as 'unqualified altruism' - quite the opposite.

Third, Luke 6:31 seems to be altruistic, but once again the context says otherwise; Jesus goes on to say (verse 35): "But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High,". Doing something for a reward isn't 'unqualified altruism'.

Any comments or objections? Gnu Ordure (talk) 20:52, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Split
I think the article should be split. The "Golden Rule" doesn't refer to all ethics of reciprocity, only some of them, prob. the Judaic and the Christian rules. The main article should be ethics of reciprocity, the Judaic and Christian specifics (and more?) in The Golden Rule. Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 11:24, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Because: the Golden Rule as read in the New Testament is not just any ethic of reciprocity.
 * Many of the examples in the current article are very restricted, c:a "don't do things that you would blame others for" and similar restrictions on how to apply,
 * the golden rule occurs in a textual context of loving your neighbor, and in loving God beyond all, and similar.
 * Rursus dixit. ( m bork3 !) 11:36, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I see no reference in this article to the "Do unto others then spit" rule... is this because it's too close to how men actually treat each other when there are no rules around to stop them doing it? In whichever case, or whatever, or for whatever reason, it should deserve a mention nonetheless. Spit The Dog 01:56, 6 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.163.192.85 (talk)

Does Islam really believe in Golden Rule (after considering abrogatation of versers in Quran)?
I just want to say that muslim can't be frend with a person who is a disbeliever. You should do corresponding corrections. www.alifta.com/Fatawa/FatawaChapters.aspx?View=Page&BookID=7&PageID=4468&back=true. Why are you giving false information in this highly important case? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.251.141.210 (talk) 21:56, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

--The golden rule is not in The Holy Quran. The verses here in this article are not the golden rule. I suggest to people to buy a good copy of the Quran. M.M. Pickthalls English translation is recommended by many Muslims such as myself. Then read these verses in their context. To lie about what is said and not said in a book is silly. Because people can simply read the book. We Muslims understand that the golden rule does not work. You can not be nice to someone if he has plans to kill you off. You can not simply say I will be nice to him and he will then change. One thing is to be good to others or people who are like you and share your faith. It is not the same as believing in the golden rule. The golden rule does not take into account if it is a enemy or not, murderer, rapist, etc. This article was not edited by a learned Muslim. I suggest someone edits this article to state that the Quran does not contain the golden rule and then what the definition of good and bad are in The Holy Quran. The golden rule is a foreign phrase and has nothing to do with Islam and I view this article as blasphemy!!! Mehemmet — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.239.216.16 (talk) 00:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Is it not true that Islam does not believe in Golden Rule as it looks at the world as "us & them", "believers & non-believers" and instructs believers to slay non-believers and says it is the sure way of reaching paradise? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.222.28 (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it is among the most tolerant of religions in the world
History shows it is highly tolerant. It is only the extremists who have given itthis reputation. But there are extremists for all religions, just look at the history of Christianity, the Inquisitions, etc. Please don't spread such incoherent gossip among our pages. And what does abrogatation mean? TonyClarke (talk) 18:25, 16 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is a controversial issue whether there is Golden Rule in islam or not. The main quote is from The Farewell Sermon. If read in context, it clearly is from a paragraph where Muhammad says how to treat other Muslims. The same applies to most other quotes. At least a section dealing with this controversy should be added. --82.181.82.81 (talk) 21:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe a sentence could be added - preferably from WP:RS and not from Muhammad. But then others also could look for evidence other people's golden rules only applied to those of their own religion. In fact, if two examples are found, that should be in the lead. Which certainly tarnishes the golden rule. CarolMooreDC (talk) 17:40, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Golden rule and "what goes around comes around" in Islam

"What goes around comes around" is not the Golden Rule.

193.50.159.2 (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Original research?
I've noticed a few edits by an anonymous IP editor, introducing commentary and exposition that might constitute original research. The fact that a scriptural quote is included doesn't abrogate the onus on that editor to cite what else is said, if the verse itself (a primary source) doesn't say it. If you include an interpretation of a verse, especially one that includes claims such as "[it] elevates [Old Testament concepts] to a higher standard of meaning", one needs to include secondary sourcing which supports this. I'll be reverting the edits of that one IP editor, as it didn't seem to introduce much of anything except extolling the 'superiority' of Christ's moral teaching. Just a reminder to said editor: always remember to discuss your edits on the talk page if you're introducing material that relies solely on a scriptural text, or another primary source.

If you're introducing material with citations from secondary sources, the edit summaries are sufficient. Most of the edits in the last few months, thankfully, have largely been of this nature. Quinto Simmaco (talk) 08:53, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Moral objectivism
In edit I added link brackets to "Moral objectivism". As I found out later that day on my talkpage, that is a disambiguation page, and can mean either moral realism or moral universalism. The statements has two sources, numbers 3 and 4 in the article, to which I have no access. Can somebody who is either knowledgeable in the field or has access to these sources fix the ambiguity, please? Debresser (talk) 11:11, 23 August 2015 (UTC)

Sikh
I was wondering if you guys thought the sikh quotes count? I don't think some of them are quite the golden rule. Also, should the Eloquent Peasant quote be included? I say no because it's often used incorrectly to mean the golden rule, which it doesn't if you know the meaning and context. --Monochrome _ Monitor  20:28, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

dop
sererrreterte — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.126.241 (talk) 15:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Simplified lead
The lead was quite unwieldy and had a great deal of very specific information in it which should appear, if at all, in the body. I have trimmed it to what seem to me to be essentials, but others may like to have a look. Please also see if any of the removed material would be useful in the body. HGilbert (talk) 12:07, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Golden Rule. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.bahainyc.org/presentations/goldenrule/golden-rule10.html
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.ams.ubc.ca/Clubs/humanist/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 09:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Silver rule merge damage
Silver rule redirects here, now, presumably as a result of a merge. Yet the word "silver" does not appear here. Worse, the intro says:

"The maxim may appear as either a positive or negative ... One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form)"

Note that that is a circular link to this page.

The silver rule and its various forms (including that of Hillel the Elder which in the Talmud asserts that the silver rule is at the heart of the study of Torah) is seems to me to be more important than this sort of half-hearted merge suggests. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miskaton (talk • contribs) 15:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Is the article misnamed?
The Golden Rule "Do unto others what you would have them do to you." is not a reciprocal equation. It is a imperative commandment. It should be distinguished from ideas like "Don't hit others because it will give them reason to hit you." The Golden Rule is rather, "Don't hit others, even if they hit you." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.139.190.35 (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree. The Golden Rule does not require a pattern of reciprocity, an act of reciprocation for previous actions done to you, or an expectation of reciprocity.  The only sense in which it is "reciprocal" is that you should turn your hope or desire about what others should do to you, back to them.  To call this the ethic of reciprocity is misleading.  "Golden Rule (morality)" would seem more accurate.--ScottForschler (talk) 00:04, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


 * This article used to be called "Golden Rule". The name change was made without discussion. IMO, it should be reversed. Paul B (talk) 10:36, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I concur, with ethic of reciprocity redirecting to a more correct article. --151.201.149.209 (talk) 13:58, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the merging of the two articles may be meant to confuse the origins of the Golden Rule. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TCoffee45 (talk • contribs) 23:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd support the move if for no other than the reason that the Golden Rule is the most common title . Given that "Golden Rule" has become a disambiguation page, we would have to rename it something like "Golden Rule (ethics)". That said, I am happy with the status quo, because it allows us to cover more ground than simply the Golden Rule. There is more to reciprocity than the Golden Rule. --Adoniscik(t, c) 01:52, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

This article is more about 'the Golden Rule' than the ethic or reciprocity and 'The Golden Rule' is a more commonly used term.86.141.242.76 (talk) 13:33, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

The current title of the article, "Ethic of Reciprocity," is explained in the first two sentences of the article. Given that explanation, it is very different than what is commonly accepted as "the golden rule." Thus, the name of the article, in my humble opinion, should not be changed, i.e. it is not misnamed.Nan43 (talk) 02:31, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not explained very well; the first sentence is not grammatical (the quote doesn't quite fit the introductory material), and the second merely describes general duties of justice. It's fine to have an article on general duties of justice, but the rest of the article (98% of it or so) talks about, not general duties of justice, but about the *golden rule*.  Which is much more specific.  We need an article on the golden rule of ethics, and this article is essentially it.  If someone wants to move the first two sentences out of it and make a new article on the topic they promise to discuss but which the rest of this article does not deliver on, that's fine of course...--ScottForschler (talk) 20:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Support move Apart from the good reasons given above, I find that the phrase Golden Rule is far more common in the scholarly context of ethics than the current title - thousands of sources rather than hundreds. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

We've been discussing this for sometime. I'm not familiar with the voting or renaming procedures here; can anyone more experienced set this up?--ScottForschler (talk) 22:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Requested move
No move Parsecboy (talk) 00:05, 2 February 2009 (UTC) I have requested a move for this article. The current title is unknown and awkward. If "Golden Rule" does not include everything in this article, it can be made into a subsection. Ikip (talk) 11:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly Oppose. You can see from the Golden Rule page which is a disambiguation page that Golden Rule is an ambiguous term and used differently in many different fields. It should be left as is, as a disambiguation page with this article as the top meaning. -- Q Chris (talk) 11:22, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oppose. There are many golden rules. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:41, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Support This seems like a clear case of a primary topic. The dab page currently at Golden Rule should be moved to Golden Rule (disambiguation) to allow this article to be at Golden Rule.  All the other uses are obscure.  --Born2cycle (talk) 08:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Strongly Opposed. The term "Ethic of Reciprocity" is unassociated with any particular religion, and refers to a principle that exist in some manner of wording in almost all known religions, and further, many philosophies. The term "Golden Rule" is typically in use by some flavor of Christianity. I find the proposal to be biased. Aksis (talk) 09:13, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Christianity section
I think the Christianity section is a bit too long. And too many verses referenced that say "Love your neighbor" with no mention of reciprocity. I propose only the most relevant verses be included (esp. duplicates from different scrolls) Happinessiseasy (talk) 21:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

The Golden Rule of Christianity and the Leviticus is not supposed to included reciprocity. The idea of the Golden Rule is that there is no need for reciprocity. Some have that very confused. TCoffee45 TCoffee45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:34, 16 May 2016 (UTC)


 * All the quoted passages do seem relevant to me, however. Perhaps part of the first paragraph can be cut out, however, with a briefer note that some OT passages on the GR can be found under the Judaism section further down?--ScottForschler (talk) 16:30, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

"Recognize that your neighbor feels as you do, and keep in mind your own dislikes." —Sirach 31:15

31:15 in my Bible says nothing like this.StephenWarren000 (talk) 22:40, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

Also needs to point out the "The Golden Rule" of Christianity is quite different than the "Golden Rule" of the others. As quoted from the article: "   One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself (directive form).[1]    One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (cautionary form, also known as the Silver Rule).[1] " Neither of these is The Golden Rule of Jesus. But, many true Christ-like people labor with no reward for people they do not know. The article is basically a humanistic philosophy and ignores the heavenly aspect which makes The Golden Rule not a Tit-for-tat nash equilibrium but a call for a person to be more than an animal.

Babylon Section Deletions?
I think the mention of Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism should be removed from the Babylon section of the article as they are not relevant to the topic of the subject heading. I added some corrected information about the notion of "non-harm" in these traditions, which was very quickly deleted. I can provide sources for my claims, but think that if citation is the issue, then the person (or people) who made the comment about them in the first place should also require citation to be able to make claims about what "non-harm" means in these traditions. It is well known and documented by scholars of these traditions that "non-harm" does not imply that violence (even murder) is out of the question. This is a very important addendum to any claim about what it means to "not harm any living being" (which is also untrue...for Buddhists it is typically all "sentient beings" and not all of what we consider "living beings" are considered to be "sentient" in Buddhist terminology). I think the easiest solution here would be to just delete any reference to Buddhism, Hinduism, and Jainism from the Babylon section as it is essentially irrelevant anyway. But, if it is left, it is very important that it be qualified so as not to give a false impression of the traditions it is meant to be describing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.74.78.41 (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Some of these sections are probably present to confuse the origins of the Golden Rule in the Old Testament. TCoffee45 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:36, 16 May 2016 (UTC)

A questionable judgment call, to say the least
The article states, "In the view of Greg M. Epstein, a Humanist chaplain at Harvard University, " 'do unto others' ... is a concept that essentially no religion misses entirely. But not a single one of these versions of the golden rule requires a God".[67]"

This, at very least for Christianity and the Gospel tradition, depends where you cut off the quote. If we quote a whole nugget and do not separate "Love your neighbor as yourself" from its most immediate context, for one example we get (Matt 22:35-40):

Then one of them, which was a lawyer, asked him a question, tempting him, and saying, “Master, which is the great commandment in the law?” Jesus said unto him, “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind. This is the first and great commandment. And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.”

In the New Testament as a whole, there are repeated passages that place "Love your neighbor as yourself" as a corollary to the more basic command to love God with our whole being, the two taken together being presented as a recapitulation of the entire Jewish Bible (Matt 22:35-40, Mark 12:28-34, and the setup to the deliberately ludicrous hyperbole in Luke 10:25-37). There is also another formula of the Golden Rule in the Sermon on the Mount ("Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets," Matt 7:39), two passages in which that command is added to a neighbor-oriented shorthand quotation of the Ten Commandments (Matthew 19:16-24, Romans 13:8-10), along with "just" the Golden Rule standing by itself apparently without need to explicitly quote the other (Gal 5:18, Jas 2:8-13).

Where I began and ended the quotations from the epistles is easily contestable, but where I began and ended the Gospel quotations is much less arbitrary; there are natural breaking points in passages from the Gospel points, and this quotation and article is the first time I've read someone assert, in essence, that there is no natural connection between "Love your neighbor as yourself" and "You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and all your soul, and all of your mind." At least in Orthodoxy, there is a natural dogmatic connection to the imago dei / image of God, which is about as foundational as doctrines come. (You cannot hurt your neighbor without insulting God.)

C.J.S. Hayward — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.15.80.74 (talk) 15:06, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Serious misreading of Luke 10:25f
The Samaritan is the neighbor because he goes out of his way to do a kindly deed to the man abandoned by the side of the road. The article appears to get that backward.67.242.64.41 (talk) 21:27, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
 * My neighbour is also a neighbour unto me. It is a fixed logical relationship, just like the letter A comes before the letter B, and therefore the letter B comes after A. Under no circumstances can a person who is my neighbour, be a person who I am not a neighbour to. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC)

Ubuntu - African religion
Shouldn't this article also mention African Ubuntu philosophy?

Consider as relevant: "Whatever happens to the individual happens to the whole group, and whatever happens to the whole group happens to the individual. The individual can only say: 'I am, because we are and since we are, therefore I am.' Nature brings the child into the world, but society creates the child into a social being, a corporate person." (J. Mbiti regarding African principle of Ubuntu)

engaged citizen 14:47, 25 July 2016 (UTC)July 25, 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wsnyder40 (talk • contribs)
 * I agree that Ubuntu deserves a mention as a related principle, though it seems to have a more community-oriented viewpoint than one of person-to-person relationships. Can you find a good source comparing the two principles? We could then say "this and this person/academic compared the principle with Ubuntu, [short definition of Ubuntu]", and it's more likely to stay in the article that way. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 23:02, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
 * I have added an internal link to Ubuntu (philosophy) to this article's See Also section. --BurritoBazooka (talk) 19:50, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Duplication
Many quotes are duplicated, appearing both in the ancient and in the religious section. (Example: Chinese religions) Should these not be merged? Cl ea n Co py talk 12:37, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Hadith as reliable sources
@Swingoswingo: Why are these not reliable sources? As the original texts are being quoted, is it not sufficient to simply cite books publishing these texts? Cl ea n Co py talk 00:26, 17 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Golden Rule. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071221095204/http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/H/Harris/detachmentHarris.html to http://www.enabling.org/ia/vipassana/Archive/H/Harris/detachmentHarris.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:08, 2 August 2017 (UTC)