The Golden Rule: Not So Golden Anymore

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 1204
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

The Golden Rule: Not So Golden Anymore

Post by Philosophy Now »

Stephen Anderson analyses as he would be analysed.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/74/The_ ... en_Anymore
spike
Posts: 850
Joined: Thu Oct 22, 2009 3:29 pm

Re: The Golden Rule: Not So Golden Anymore

Post by spike »

DEAR EDITOR: In his article in Issue 74, Stephen Anderson writes, “Pluralism is the most serious problem facing liberal democracies today”. On the contrary, I think pluralism is one of the big things liberal democracy has going for it.

What makes liberal democracy attractive and the only expanding form of governance in the world is that it encourages and celebrates pluralism. Pluralism does make liberal democracy more complex, but that complexity has made it more durable and resilient, as shown by 9/11, from which it recovered and has continued to expand. Moreover, the competing interests of pluralism have served to make liberal democracy more sophisticated and agile. In comparison, liberal democracy’s chief rival, communism, collapsed because it lacked the energizing push and pull of pluralism that could have helped rejuvenate and keep it relevant and legitimate. Even liberal democracy’s name resonates pluralism, in that it is fashioned out of two contradictory theories of governance (forming a kind of governance DNA): liberal, referring to free market competition; and democracy, based on cooperation and equality.

So ironically, pluralism has helped bolster the Golden Rule, not hinder it as Anderson seems to suggest. As history can attest, the Golden Rule has not always been that solid a rule. It is an essential good start; but on its own it is generally toothless, as with another good start, ‘all men are created equal’.What gave that declaration meaning was that it was backed up by a constitution.

Generally, the Golden Rule has had tacit acceptance for like-minded people of common ethnicity. But for the Golden Rule to be meaningfully binding it’s had to speak of universal mutual respect and empathy – that is, it condones pluralism. What gives the Golden Rule even more credence is the political commitment to expand human rights and eradicate tribalism. Furthermore, that commitment has helped put people throughout the world on an equal footing, despite their opposing interests.Without such a commitment and the added pressures of pluralism, on the whole the Golden Rule would have remained an ideal.

Contrary to what Anderson seems to imply, the Golden Rule did stand the test on 9/11, as that attack did not spark a clash of civilizations as many believed it might. That it didn’t, I think is due to the depth of pluralism that had accumulated between nations and peoples, which grew out of the increasing interdependence of the world and agencies like the UN and WTO which cultivated pluralism and internationalism to maintain world peace.
richmmp
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2021 11:58 am

Re: The Golden Rule: Not So Golden Anymore

Post by richmmp »

This article gave me a new perspective on The Golden Rule, which, as author Stephen Andersen indicates, is not as universal as we all assume or hope it would be. I liked the way Andersen made a distinction between the "negative" and "positive" manners in which versions of the rule are articulated across its many incarnations. A different observation of mine is that Christianity, Buddhism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Humanism, and Jainism all articulate their maxim in non-discriminatory manners, using the words "other" and "another" and "all creatures." (Humanism uses no qualifying word whatsoever.) The two exceptions to this universality are Judaism and Islam. Judaism specifies the treatment toward "your neighbor," while Islam specifies it toward one's "brother." Both can be interpreted as restrictive, depending on how one chooses to define "neighbor" and "brother" -- literally or figuratively. Strictly literal definitions reduce the scope of the treatment drastically. One's literal "neighbors" wouldn't reach beyond a small community... literally, one's "neighborhood." This would appear to indicate that a person's obligation need not spread any wider. Meanwhile, a literal analysis of Islam's decree shrinks matters even more. One's "brother" is going to encompass only a handful of people, and it would exclude women (sisters) altogether. Prying further, Islam makes things even narrower when examining the "doer" when it begins with "None of you 'truly' believes until..." It seems to me that the phrase is now aiming to speak only to Muslims, not all of humanity. And not even all Muslims... just those who truly believe in the faith. This opens up another can of worms, for it starts burrowing into who is a true believer and who is not. And who determines that? It starts to get very vague. Taken literally, therefore, it would seem Islam's articulation of The Golden Rule slaps restrictions onto both ends of the decree -- who is obligated to obey it, and who is worthy of receiving its benevolent treatment. In the final analysis, then, to whom does Islam's decree apply? Not many, it seems.
Post Reply