Do you mean "in [the realm of] nature, the observance of the GR is everywhere"?Obvious Leo wrote:The observance of the Golden Rule is ubiquitous in nature...
If so, umm...where? Between dingos and babies? Between two male lions fighting for dominance of the pride? Where is the GR "ubiquitous in nature," as you say?
Evolutionary "nature"? It's in "the natural world," sponsoring Evolution? Nope. Not if you believe in survival of the fittest as the driver of Evolution. There's no smack of the GR in that. And the old allegation that altruism is adaptive is false for two very obvious reasons: firstly, it's only adaptive for the species, but kills the individual. But the individual, not the species, is the only possible moral agent, since only the individual can make a moral choice. "Species," considered as a whole, have no moral will.and perfectly compatible with evolutionary theory.
Secondly, the behaviours that (rather anthropomorphically) get called "altruism" in nature are not typical. They're not the general rule in nature, but exceptions to the general rule. For the most part, animals in nature just compete with and kill each other. And there's no moral content in their choices to do so: foxes aren't "evil" for eating mice, and mice aren't "good" for being eaten. Each only does what it does. They don't ask moral questions like, "Is my eating this mouse a proper expression of the GR?" If they did, they'd starve.
Or do you mean simply to say, not that the GR is "in nature," but that it's "universal in [its] nature"? That is, that it is compulsory or believed by everyone -- that its "nature" is that it obliges everyone? But if you do, that's empirically untrue. Already we've named many communities that deny it, including some of the people in this strand. They don't seem to feel obliged at all; and it would be your task to prove to them they should.