|↓||Skip to table of contents||↓|
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Golden Rule article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
|Golden Rule has been listed as a level-3 vital article in Philosophy. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as C-Class.|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 31 August 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
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
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).
One should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated (cautionary form, also known as the Silver Rule).
" 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 22.214.171.124 (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2011 (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"."
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.)
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.126.96.36.199 (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)
- 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. @Wsnyder40: 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)