ANSWERS: 30
  • And those who don't practice this, religious or not...What should happen to them?
  • Well, there'd be alot less hypocrisy, which would be a good thing. :)
  • Yes! Religion shouldn't matter when following this rule. Actually, and I get the feeling I'll get criticized for saying this, but I think this rule should come above religion.
  • Priceless yes but due to human arrogance almost impossible!
  • this is the best piece of advice ever...
  • I think it is applicable to anyone of any religion. It is an ideal that we should continue to strive for. ** "Be the change you want to see in the world."--Gandhi
  • I think living by this principle would make the world a better place, from foriegn policy to standing in line to doing business.
  • Yes indeedy. It is the golden rule and has been around, in some form or another, for as long as there have been humans...
  • Sure! This is a basic statement of ethics present in one form or another throughout history and the world. In this form it is the Golden Rule, as formulated by the Jesus of the Bible. Phrased as a philosophical idea, Kant's categorical imperative; politically, it's the social contract. Humanism, basically a code of morality, is rooted in this idea. Some other forms of this rule stretching back to ancient times: "Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” Udana-Varga, 5:18 (African) “Wish not for others what ye wish not for yourselves” Kitab-I-Aqdas (African) “In five ways should a clansman minister to his friends and familiars, by treating them as he treats himself.” Sigalovada Sutta v.31 (Buddhist) “Do not do to others what you would not like yourself. Then there will be no resentment against you, either in the family or in the state.” Analects 12:2 (Confucian) "One word which sums up the basis for all good conduct…loving kindness. Do not do unto others what you would not want done to yourself.” Analects of Confucius 15:23 "We should behave to friends as we would wish friends to behave to us.” Aristotle (Ancient Greek philosophy) "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you.” Socrates (Ancient Greek philosophy) "One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality. All other activities are due to selfish desire." Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva 113.8 (Hinduism) “Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others that which you wish for yourself.” The Prophet Mohammed Hadith (Islam) “A Man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated.” Agamas Sutrakritanga 1.11.33 (Jainism)(These guys were REALLY serious about this rule) “All things are our relatives; what we do to everything, we do to ourselves. All is really one.” Black Elk (Native American) “The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form.” (Shinto) So yeah, it's a good rule to live by. It must be an effective and meaningful one for it to have been independently concluded in so many places and times, by both religious and non-religious thinkers. I try to live by it myself.
  • There is a better rule, “Love one another”. In the “Do unto others...” rule expectancy is on the performance, and the expectation is, or should be, to have an understanding of what is expected. This “rule” places one in a “receiving/needing” end, hence a disappointment and dissatisfaction if expectation not met. The rule is synthetic; to extend that it has a limited capability to flex, but it only so far before it rips. It’s symmetrical in “classes” and “cultures”, difficult or unable to crossover in order to perform its mandate. Example, sure – why not… If I am an uneducated nomadic Gypsy crossing the country on foot through the borders like they do not exists, end up in your neighbourhood wearing this banner “Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you,” and erect a Camp in your yard or back lane. I am quite prepared to treat you as per my banner, but… There is nothing in my substance that I can offer to you. my need becomes your threat. Most people would call the Cops and get me removed from their site, there are few (very few), that would probably come shake my hand and find out what my needs are. Think about it… But the one that would come out and embrace me would operate under a higher rule, called Love. This rule can be made operational by all who possess it, it does not reside in ones intellect, it resides in ones heart, and it receives its strength through giving. To unaware or cowardly, it may look like best way like a fool, to spend one’s substance and go broke. But in it lies the mystery that God has put in place. The better rule, “it’s more blessed to give, then to receive” (Act 20:35)
  • No. I would not want to run into a masochist who follows that rule, or someone who is suicidal. I believe "Do what thou whilst, harm none" is a bit better. Not perfect, but better.
  • It goes beyond religion. It would solve very single problem on the planet but it's not possible for men to live up to it without their selfish needs and desires rising above it.
  • It is explicitly cited as the core of ethics governing human relationships in three major religions and is implicit in many others. It is applicable to all - and it works.
  • Anyone can and should live by this "rule". However, we are assuming that we all wanted to be treated the same way. An evangelical Christian would constantly tell you about their faith because they view it as a gift to be told about Jesus and being saved (after all someone took the time to explain it to them), however, an atheist would probably find this offensive. So what seems like a positive to one person can be seen as a negative to another person. Still a good rule in theory.
  • I don't know, I kind of think "Do unto others as they do unto you" is more sound. If I were to treat everyone the sane - from those who treat me with respect to those who discriminate and bully - then what worth would my treatment of the people who deserve it be?
  • ah but what most dont see is that you dont need religion to have morals its jsut common sence you shouldent go around raping and killing people
  • You wax sentimental. I think this is overrated as a central moral principle. Do no harm is way better.
  • This is along the same vein as "Love thy neighbor as you love thyself." You are making an ASSUMPTION that one loves his or herself. What if someone wished to die, or felt that they deserved some kind of harm? What then? I think both those rules are ridiculous.
  • Yes, I would say that
  • I think this is an excellent rule to follow...in theory anyway, however very few people, especially in teenage years when social life is, let's face it, pretty tough, actually follow this rule so is very hard to implement.
  • Actually, no, I disagree with that stance. I think it's much more logical to "do unto others as they do unto you". Obviously I'm not talking about violence (which would greater fall into the "eye for an eye" category of religious beliefs), but it makes a lot more sense to me to treat people as they treat you, because if you "love your enemies" then what worth is your "love" for the people who actually deserve it? That's not to say you should hate anyone - just not give the time of day to people who use or mistreat you.
  • This is a very wise rule. One that all should live by. Many may say they will only do unto others, after they have done unto them. The problem to this is. If everyone waited for someone else to do something. Nothing would ever be done. I try to do unto others first & not to expect a return back from them, even tho there most likely will be. For in the end the ONE who wrote this in the beginning will reward me for my good deeds done in this life. Just my point of view tho......M.C.S.
  • It's a good rule to live by. And it certainly did not originate with Jesus - it's a piece of common sense that has been around in one form or another for as long as people could write (and probably before that).
  • Yes I would. I don't believe in god, but I do think the bible has some true things in it.
  • If definitely think this saying or the concept precedes ALL religious people or well at least it should...I think it also precedes humans anyways. Though it's possible religious and non-religious people CAN have a good grasp of this and/or live by it....a whole lot of religious and non-religious don't.
  • Yes. It's not exlusive to any one culture, religion. etc. It predates Jesus, actually.
  • What is morality without a Biblical basis? Morality and what is "good" changes from culture to culture and religion to religion. Without the Bible, or another basis of faith, morals are flexible and constantly changing.
  • Sure. Unless you are suicidal or something. Why is it that people who profess it the most do it the least?
  • yes...!!

Copyright 2020, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy