Talk:Golden Rule/Archive 4

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links 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/20150925125920/http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/information/REL499_2011/Eloquent%20Peasant.pdf to http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/information/REL499_2011/Eloquent%20Peasant.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150925125920/http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/information/REL499_2011/Eloquent%20Peasant.pdf to http://www.usc.edu/dept/LAS/wsrp/information/REL499_2011/Eloquent%20Peasant.pdf

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) 19:18, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Ethic of reciprocity
Per reliable sources "The Golden Rule" dates from the 17th Century and refers to the Christian "ethic of reciprocity." An ethic of reciprocity appears in most religions. Thus, most of the material in this article should be moved to Ethic of reciprocity. – Sir Lionel, EG(talk) 04:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

The essence of the Golden Rule being that of an altruist sucks that one does say a favor for ones neighbor simply for the sake I'm helping or bringing Harmony or simply doing a good deed. This seems to contradict the ethic of reciprocity simply because the motivation of a good deed in order to receive in return 41 self such as will work for food necessarily has a selfish motive that being to get food for oneself Patsox33 (talk) 04:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it's not an "ethic of reciprocity" in Christianity! Do the good when you meet the evil, is not reciprocity!! Reciprocity means I will do this good for you and you will do the same, or you did that evil for me, and I will do the same. That's a real nonsense from people who have no knowledge about Christian theology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E35:8A8D:FE80:747F:788B:7728:AA20 (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

I agree. A basic Google search of "Golden Rule" quickly shows Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31. It seems the main point of this article is to obscure the fact that the Golden Rule is a Christian precept. The article goes out of it way to "show" the Golden Rule is not uniquely Christian. That is done by reformulating the Golden Rule into either the law of reciprocity or silver rule, and then forcing it upon weak translations. Wikipedia does itself a disservice by twisting articles about Christianity. And what is with Simon Blackburn's unsubstantiated claim? How is it relevant or factually supported? Does he speak for all religions?Ecs9 (talk) 04:11, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

Propose deletion of reference to 'Silver rule'
I think this information should be deleted. Its citations consist of two blogs (although one seems to suggest it is a newspaper, 'Christian Courier', most if not all its articles are written by one person). There is also a reference to a satanic cult which does not mention the term. However, none of these citations whether reliable or not, explain such a specific rule, but attach the label to already existing beliefs principles (chiefly egoism). If no-one objects within a few days, I propose to delete the section. TonyClarke (talk) 19:27, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Tag on lede
I added the tag on the lede paragraph. I think this article is especially hard to keep a well-referenced, NPOV, and comprehensive lede that adequately summarizes the article because of strong feelings about this topic—with examples above.

To fix the lede, it should be rewritten to summarize the main points of the article. It should provide a broad summary of religious treatment, which no longer appears, but did in the past (for example in the last paragraph of this previous version in 2015). I don't know why it was removed from the main article as it was reliably sourced and provided broad coverage across religions and philosophical traditions—exactly what is missing now.

The paragraph that outlines psychological, sociological, and economic aspects has undue weight and should be summarized very concisely according to their relative emphasis. For example, the article's scientific paragraph is a single sentence long, and the sociological and economic aspects do not appear in the article other than the lede. These latter two aspects should be included in the article and then summarized in the lede. The religious aspect, which appears prominently in the article, many dozens of paragraphs, has only a single short sentence to summarize. Religious coverage versus these other three areas should be covered in the lede in summary fashion commensurate to their weight in the article.

Criticism of the Golden Rule also has fairly significant coverage in the article, but is not covered in the lede. This should be addressed.

Finally, no one religion should be covered prominently in the lede unless the preponderance of reliable sources—including those outside of that religion or tradition—identify it as meriting prominent coverage. I don't believe that is the case. Thus, Christianity certainly merits mention in the lede along with many other religions in summary fashion, but should not receive coverage beyond its weight in those reliable sources, IMO anyway. I recognize that Christianity is the largest religion in the world today, but this article covers the topic through history and it's not evident why current numbers provide rationale for greater coverage (although perhaps there is discussion to be had on this). Thus, I recommend that the lede paragraph on Christianity be replaced with the one I linked to in the 2015 diff that summarizes coverage across all religions, adding Christianity in the mix, if it's not there already.

I understand the concern about the Christian idea of the Golden Rule not being included within the definition of the ethic of reciprocity, but (1) I'm not sure that is what the preponderance of Christian sources say, as there's only a single source making that distinction, and (2) the first paragraph already identifies that the Golden Rule is only "considered a law of reciprocity in some religions" (emphasis mine). I wouldn't think we'd list in the lede all the religions which claim this distinction, although since Christianity is the largest religion in the world it would be possible to say something like the Golden rule "can be considered a law of reciprocity in some religions, whereas others, such as Christianity, [insert a few others] do not". --Airborne84 (talk) 02:04, 12 July 2018 (UTC)
 * No feedback, so I attempted to improve the lede. IMO, it better summarizes the article. I didn't really know how to handle the passages that attempted to differentiate Christianity broadly from the ethic of reciprocity as the stated quotation to draw a distinction seemed to quite clearly reflect the idea of reciprocity. I recommend a source with more clarity be used, perhaps with some discussion here. --Airborne84 (talk) 02:15, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

"Responses to criticism" section
This section of the article should not exist. Its ideas should appear in the article itself, in relevant sections. By putting it after the criticism section, it appears to be "refuting" criticism, which spins the article toward a particular point of view (WP:NPOV), and starts to drift toward being an essay (WP:NOTESSAY). --Airborne84 (talk) 02:20, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Dilemma: Is it possible to include large controversy in the small lead section?
Using the Wikipedia guideline Manual of Style/Lead section I feel the need to edit the last paragraph in the lead section to make a more neutral point of view. Presenting only the criticisms without also mentioning the responses to those criticisms appears to be not in keeping with Wikipedia guidelines on neutral point of view. This is especially true given the prominence of the lead section: Often the lead section is the only section that visitors will read. So to end that section with only criticisms, and not the responses to those criticism, would give this type of visitor the impression that the Golden Rule has been largely discounted.

The Manual of Style/Lead section does say "the lead....should....summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." (Notice that it uses the word "controversies" and not "criticism.") But at the same time, the Manual of Style/Lead section stipulates that the lead section should be only a "summary", and cannot be too long. This makes it difficult to include both the criticisms and the responses to those criticisms in the lead section. I will do my best to try to solve this dilemma, but am definitely open to suggestions. Two heads are better than one. --Boyd Reimer (talk) 12:56, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps not a dilemma after all? I don't see any signs of this rule being significantly controversial, it is after all practically ubiquitous among belief systems. The criticisms, and their responses, can be left to later in the article, as is. Not many articles include criticism and counter criticism in the lead, and difficult as you say to do this while maintaining brevity. Just my thoughts. TonyClarke (talk) 16:28, 6 October 2018 (UTC)

Epicurus quote does not seem like an example of the Golden Rule
has added the following quote by Epicurus, as an example of the of the Golden Rule:
 * "It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living pleasantly." where "justly" refers to preventing "one person from harming or being harmed by another".

I fail to see how this is an example of the Golden Rule. I agree with what has written at Talk:Epicurus, regarding the same quote as being related to the Golden Rule:
 * "Also, you keep trying to add a statement claiming that this is an expression of the "Golden Rule," but it really is not, because the Golden Rule is an injunction to treat others the way you would want to be treated (i.e. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."). This quote from Epicurus, however, is not a command at all, but rather a justification for the reason why he believed people should be good to others, which is the inherent joy of doing good and the personal guilt that arises from doing wrong. In this quote, Epicurus is saying that a person should live "sensibly and nobly and justly" because doing so will make that person happy; whereas not doing so will only lead to poor decisions with unpleasant consequences and feelings of guilt and shame over ignoble or unjust actions. He is basically saying that, if for no other reasons at all, we should be good to others because doing so will make us feel good about ourselves. It is not a "rule" in any real sense, but rather an explanation of the selfish justification for why people should be good to others."

I intend to remove the quote unless a reliable source is provided connecting this quote with the Golden Rule. Paul August &#9742; 16:40, 10 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Being happy about doing the right thing does not exclude a consideration of reciprocity, key to a Golden Rule, as in preventing "being harmed by another" and in the 2nd clause of the primary statement, the benefit of better behavior from those living pleasantly. I'd hoped that it'd be so obvious as not to have to contest it. Kolyvansky (talk) 06:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it is hardly obvious, and I don't think any scholars consider Epicurus's quote as being an example of the Golden Rule. Since this seems to be your own observation, and you apparently have no reliable source to support you, I'm removing the quote. You can restore the quote if you can find a reliable source which supports your interpretation. Paul August &#9742; 10:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think you guys are applying a higher standard to this than the other Golden Rule quotes for Ancient Greece. None of the refs cited specifically identify those other quotes (to an online, English speaking readership) as Golden Rules or as reciprocal. It is left to the reader simply to see that in the quote. BTW, "Epicurus suggests a view of justice as reciprocity in his Kuriai Doxai (or 'Key Doctrines')." wrote Allen Buchanan, "Justice as Reciprocity versus Subject-Centered Justice", Philosophy & Public Affairs, Vol. 19, No. 3 (Summer, 1990), pp. 227-252. Kolyvansky (talk) 19:05, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Reciprocity is not enough. It is not surprising that Epicurus's idea of justice has something to do with reciprocity, as most theories of justice do. But that is no where near saying that the given quote is equivalent to the Golden Rule. An eye for an eyes has to do with reciprocity but it is in fact antithetical to the Golden Rule. Paul August &#9742; 18:46, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * There is not the faintest hint of reciprocal punishment in anything I've posted here, if anything, quite the opposite. Kolyvansky (talk) 19:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I didn't say there was. I do not see the kind of reciprocity needed in Epicurus's quote, i.e. that you should only do to others what you would want them to do to you, for it to be saying the same thing as the Golden Rule. Unless you can provide a reliable source which says this, then this is simply your opinion, please see WP:OR. Paul August &#9742; 20:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not Original Research simply to see that if Epicurus's reciprocal justice is not punishment then it is reward. It must be one of those to operate. In fact he tells us what that reward is, a pleasant life, for all of us if justice is reciprocal, which is how he conceived it to be, all documented. Kolyvansky (talk) 21:52, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not obvious to me, nor to, that the quote has anything to do at all with the Golden Rule. In fact we are both convinced that it does not. You think it does, but you can not supply a source which agrees with you. In such a situation the thing to do is to remove the quote until a confirming source can be found. Even if Katolophyromai and I are somehow completely wrong and the Epicurus quote is an example of the Golden Rule, at least you must admit that the Epicurus quote is not a good example if it is not obviously so, in which case again it should be removed. Paul August &#9742; 15:04, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * What complicates this discussion is that Epicurus' statement is doubly reciprocal, in a general sense, first in preventing harm to ourselves and others, and secondly between doing so and living a pleasant life. If a Golden Rule is an injunction to behave a certain way with anticipated reward of similar behavior back, Epicurus is saying, in effect, "If you want to live a pleasant life..." The rest connects reciprocal justice and pleasant life. The condition on front goes without saying. Kolyvansky (talk) 15:32, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't see the Golden Rule as necessarily involving any "anticipated reward", just that it is good to treat others as you would want to be treated&mdash;whether or not it effects how others will treat you. But in any case since you agree that it is at best complicated, I think we should remove it. Paul August &#9742; 16:44, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I agree that an anticipated reward, beyond simply doing the right thing, is not necessary for a Golden Rule to operate. What makes this one so interesting is its relative complexity, connecting pleasant life and reciprocal justice. Why not throw it open to a philosophy editors' group to adjudicate? Kolyvansky (talk) 17:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Invite whomever you'd like to this discussion. But how about removing the quote until support can be found? Paul August &#9742; 18:40, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I think I've shown enough support for Epicurus' two statements to constitute a Golden Rule: One should prevent harm to anyone, oneself included, and doing so both requires and results in a pleasant life, for oneself and others by reciprocity. I'd say leave it with the disputed tag directing people here. Removing it would remove the tag, too. Kolyvansky (talk) 04:56, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The only support you've shown is your own arguments for why you think it is equivalent to the Golden rule. As far as we can tell no one else supports this view. I'm removing it until otherwise. Paul August &#9742; 13:47, 15 December 2018 (UTC)
 * "It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and well and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly without living pleasantly." where "justly" refers to preventing "one person from harming or being harmed by another" and "pleasant life is produced not by (carnal pleasures), but by sober reasoning." So, we should have a concern for the conditions of others' inner lives, so that we may all live more wisely and justly, i.e., attend to the conditions of others' lives that they may have the pleasant life you'd want them to seek for you. ...seek the inner life for others, you'd want them to seek for you. To reason soberly, see that others can. Kolyvansky (talk) 15:08, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Again I am unconvinced by your argument. Whta is needed here is not more of your arguments, but rather a reliable source which makes such an argument. Paul August &#9742; 14:34, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

The Golden Rule does not seem to be mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi
The Golden Rule does not seem to be mentioned in Code of Hammurabi - contrary to the current first paragraph of this article.

I can find no source for this claim online.

The published book - The Universal Golden Rule - By Henry Epps - cites the Code's reference to Eye for an Eye as equivalent to the Golden Rule, when it fact it is the opposite of the Golden Rule. This may be the source of the error.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thenicox60 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 8 November 2018 (UTC)


 * User: Sam Roberts -- I am also confused by this. I was using wikipedia as background when discussing the *difference* between the Golden Rule and an "eye for an eye" as-in the Code of Hammurabi, so was pretty confused to see it suggested as identical. Expecially after reading the Hammurabi article top-to-bottom. They are not the same!24.122.219.253 (talk) 18:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)


 * I've added a "citation needed" template to the article. Paul August &#9742; 11:49, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Time to edit the premise that this is associated with any religion besides Christianity.
The idea that "The Golden Rule" is actually "the ethic of reciprocity" that has been identified in many religions is a misleading statement. The T E R M "Golden Rule" is associated EXCLUSIVELY with the teaching of Jesus Christ. It is a T E R M that was coined by Christianity to identify the words of Christ "do unto others as you would have them do unto yourselves." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:6C44:7800:B82:9032:4485:564C:9EA9 (talk) 15:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
 * While the term "Golden Rule" seems to have arisen in Christian theological contexts, presumably in reference to Christ's statement, your statement that the term is associated exclusively with Christianity is contradicted by numerous sources given in the article. Paul August &#9742; 16:35, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Poor English
"However, this all changed when Muhammad came on the scene:" Was Arabian peninsula a club? This is incredibly low quality English. Friendlyworkout (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Golden Rule in the Qur'an
I have not been able to find the Golden Rule mention in the article. Qur'an 83:1-6 "Pay, Oh Children of Adam, as you would love to be paid, and be just as you would love to have justice!". The Version I found only says "Woe to the defrauders. Those who, when they take a measure from people, they take in full. But when they measure or weigh to others, they cheat. Do these not know that they will be resurrected? For a Great Day? The Day when mankind will stand before the Lord of the Worlds?" which sounds nothing like the Golden Rule.

Could somebody give a reference. Until then I would recommend to remove the claim. Hunig Brocc (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I have now tried to remove the claim but it has been reverted. If the Qur'an does have the Golden Rule why not just reference directly? Hunig Brocc (talk) 18:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * The removed paragraph needs to be reworked. Homerin, p. 102, does not say that
 * "Pay, Oh Children of Adam, as you would love to be paid, and be just as you would love to have justice!"
 * is from the Qur'an, but says rather that it is from the Tafsir (see his notes 10 and 9). He is using that quote as an example of an explicit statement of the Golden Rule, in Islamic tradition, which although there is apparently no explicit statement of in the Qur'an, according to "Fakir al-Din al-Razi and several other Qur'anic commentators" is implied by Q 83:1-6. As your misunderstanding shows, the article needs to make this more clear. Paul August &#9742; 19:41, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Paul August: Thank you for supporting my case. But I do have a question:
 * ONE dude comes along, writes a book and makes a claim, that this surah is in the "spirit" of the Golden Rule. Is that really enough to put it on Wikepedia? I mean just read the surah. Is it not a far stretch to being calling it an example of the Golden Rule? Are we now just taking this guy's word for it?


 * The great thing about the Golden Rule is that it works perfectly without a deity. But in the case of this surah, a deity is the judge and not one's own prefered way of how one wants to be treated. It is more of a don't steal or don't lie commandment then a Golden Rule.


 * What really surprises me, that there are not thousands of references out there that can substantiate the claim that surah 83:1-6 is the Golden Rule. I could not find a single one other then references to this specific book! Is really worth mentioning this on Wikipedia? Hunig Brocc (talk) 22:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)


 * It's not "one dude", it's "Fakir al-Din al-Razi and several other Qur'anic commentators". Paul August &#9742; 23:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

External links treated like internal links?
I completely understand why the notation attached to the quote from "Matthew 7:12" is linked to that chapter and verse on Wikipedia. Obviously using those kinds of internal links is one of the ways that Wikipedia is a dynamic source.

But a little further up the page from there, "Leviticus 19:34" is linked in a similar fashion, but to an external website. Shouldn't that just be a normal citation instead of a direct link like that? It seems out of place and misleading to have a direct text link there instead of a citation link. CleverTitania (talk) 08:10, 24 October 2020 (UTC)