Prime Axiom - the golden Rule/Rede

written with Nate and Tobe.

Moral positions are usually coercive because they usually contain an implicit threat of punishment, sanction or ostracisation.

Publicly, when someone says "Don't do x, x is bad." they mean "Don't do x - or else!". Even if direct punishment isn't the threat, guilt, or some other social sanction is the threat. Furthermore, if someone says "I think x is wrong." what they often mean is "I think x is wrong, so should you. If you don't, you are wrong too (and thus liable to punishment/sanction/etc)." Few people qualify such statements with "I think x is wrong *for me*." Therefore, morality seem to be a coercive measure...

I have nothing against a personal ethical system however. Working out what is right/wrong for yourself is laudable. But its when you start telling others what they *should* be doing (with the implicit "or else!") you have a coercive situation. To that degree I try to be amoral, but ethical.

The basic problem between me and you is how I treat you . How to treat others (as a basis of social and legal organisation) is the basic problem of all politics.

I want to emphasise that I think all people are universally in agreement as to how to treat each other. To illustrate, I’ve copied this piece of text from a website I once found on the subject. It seems that all major world religions and humanistic philosophies agree:

Bahá'í World Faith: "Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not."

"Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah

"And if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself." Epistle to the Son of the Wolf

Brahmanism: "This is the sum of duty: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517

Buddhism: "a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?" Samyutta NIkaya v. 353

"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18

Christianity: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." Matthew 7:12

"...and don't do what you hate...", Gospel of Thomas 6

Confucianism: "Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23 "Tse-kung asked,'Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life?' Confucius replied, 'It is the word 'shu' -- reciprocity. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire.'" Doctrine of the Mean 13.3

Hinduism: "One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself" Mencius Vii.A.4

"This is the sum of duty: do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you." Mahabharata 5:1517

Humanism: "Humanists acknowledge human interdependence, the need for mutual respect and the kinship of all humanity."

"Humanists affirm that individual and social problems can only be resolved by means of human reason, intelligent effort, critical thinking joined with compassion and a spirit of empathy for all living beings."

Islam: "Not one of you is a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself" Fourth Hadith of an-Nawawi 13

Jainism: "Therefore, neither does he [, a sage,] cause violence to others nor does he make others do so." Acarangasutra 5.101-2.

"In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self." Lord Mahavira, 24th Tirthankara

"A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. "Sutrakritanga 1.11.33

Judaism: "...thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.", Leviticus 19:18

"What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man. This is the law: all the rest is commentary." Talmud, Shabbat 31a

Native American Spirituality: "Respect for all life is the foundation." The Great Law of Peace

Roman Pagan Religion: "The law imprinted on the hearts of all men is to love the members of society as themselves."

Socrates: "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." (Greece; 5th century BCE)

Seneca: "Treat your inferiors as you would be treated by your superiors," Epistle 47:11 (Rome; 1st century CE)

Shinto: "The heart of the person before you is a mirror. See there your own form"

Sikhism: "Compassion-mercy and religion are the support of the entire world". Japji Sahib "Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone." Guru Arjan Devji 259 "No one is my enemy, none a stranger and everyone is my friend." Guru Arjan Dev : AG 1299

Sufism: "The basis of Sufism is consideration of the hearts and feelings of others. If you haven't the will to gladden someone's heart, then at least beware lest you hurt someone's heart, for on our path, no sin exists but this." Dr. Javad Nurbakhsh, Master of the Nimatullahi Sufi Order.

Taoism: "Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien.

"I am good to the man who is good to me, likewise, I am also good to the bad man." Tao Te Ching

Unitarian: "We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent of all existence of which we are a part." Unitarian principles.

Wicca: "A'in it harm no one, do what thou wilt" (i.e. do what every you want to, as long as it harms nobody, including yourself). The Wiccan Rede

Yoruba: (Nigeria): "One going to take a pointed stick to pinch a baby bird should first try it on himself to feel how it hurts."

Zoroastrianism: "That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself". Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5 "Whatever is disagreeable to yourself do not do unto others." Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29

"Every religion emphasizes human improvement, love, respect for others, sharing other people's suffering. On these lines every religion had more or less the same viewpoint and the same goal." The Dalai Lama

The similarities are evident.

What these philosophies share is usually known as "The Golden Rule". This is usually formulated as "Treat others as you would wish to be treated". It is a synthesis of what seems to lie at the core of all religious beliefs. Herein is our answer to the problem of you and me, though this Rule appears to have some ambiguity...

The Pagan take on the Rule is a little different though:

The Rede: "An' it harm none, do what ye will".

Of course, the Rede is very similar to the Golden Rule, but it strikes me that is has some critical differences.

Of the variations above, there seem to be three different core admonishments:

  • 1) treat others how you want to be treated by them.
  • 2) Don't do something to hurt someone else if it would hurt you if done to you.
  • 3) Do no harm. (otherwise, do whatever you want)

I find the Rede somewhat purer that the GR because it is not saddled with the problem of cultural heterogeneity - ie, not everyone wants to be treated the same. On the other hand, the Rede suffers from the difficult task of needing to define harm, whereas the Golden Rule puts forth clear criteria.

In summary then:

  • The Rede does not preclude harm,
  • while
  • The Rule does not insure equality.

To solve these problems, I would suggest that both versions - the Rede and the Golden Rule - ought to be employed so as to qualify each other. Obviously, they are only ethical bases, they are springboards into further ethical considerations. They won't give any answers or policies to complex ethical/political/social/religious dilemmas, but they will offer the direction in which one is to investigate, and suggest the outcome. (Though it is the specifics of complex ethical/political/social dilemmas that result in all problems and the confusion of our basic universal feelings. More on this below.).

As the Rede/Rule prescribe consent (do no harm to others) & equality (do unto others..), these concepts provide the seed of an ethical structure. Related concepts are involved - freedom, respect and perhaps honesty. As I said initially, honesty isn’t necessarily always best. Neither is equality for that matter...

If these rules are born in mind during ethical consideration, they should shape the final outcome to be one where a person's integrity as a free agent is not just tolerated, but perhaps even supported... Is this a matter of allowing people do as they please (within the Rules confines)? Or helping them do as they please? For example, if one has the resources that ensures the safety of an activity people are engaging in (e.g. drug-testing kits, contraception, abortion-surgery etc.), but those very people do not have access to (or quality versions of) these resources, would it be right to just leave them to it, or would that break both rules (do unto others.. & do not harm others)? Is one then obliged to help? (even if one disagrees with the activity?)

Do these rules constitute just rights, or duties too? It seems that the Rede constitutes a right & a duty (the right is not to be harmed, the duty is to do no harm to others) & the Rule a right & duty too (do unto others..). Another example to make this clear: you see a drowning person. To leave them would break the Rule (unless you didn't want people to rescue you) & probably the Rede - though your inaction is not so much causing harm, but allowing it. These rules don't just say "don't punch someone" but they also say "do help someone if they are being punched". But what of the danger to oneself? What is the drowning person is committing suicide, or the punchers are in a boxing ring? Would interfering constitute breaking consent? Obviously if a person is being punched against their wishes, their is no consenting activity taking place in which one would interfere.

After these considerations (& it is obvious the wider context must always be considered in any deliberation, one which is necessarily obscured because one is subject to degrees of ignorance), it seems that the two rules could be summed up by one: "love others" (or at least "be kind & considerate").

Loving others means that one will not inflict harm, will protect from harm and will treat others as they wish.

So it seems that we all have identical moral urges: To revere honesty, fairness, equality, etc...

  • Because we are different people who’s bodies occupy different space, we will see the world and interpret our environments slightly different because of that slight shift in perspective dictated by mere spatial occupancy.
  • Because we come from different families and communities, where our environments are relatively consistent, our perspectives will be "trained" by familiarity and repeated exposure, and will thus differ more so than they would because of simple spatial occupancy..
  • Because we come from different cultures our frameworks of exposure will be even more diverse than it would because of spatial occupancy or local geography.
  • None of these differences in how we see the world change the fact that we have the same moral urges.

Consider the following two opposing moral view-points:

  • 1. One ought to kill mass-murderers
  • 2. One ought not kill mass-murderers.

You can’t get much more opposed that this. But upon breaking the respective formulae that led to these divergent attitudes on capital-punishment, we will find that they evolved from identical moral foundation. First, a possible pro-death penalty formula (there are numerous others I’m sure).

Descriptive Understanding: Mass-murderers kill indiscriminately. Normative Understanding: One ought to kill those who have killed indiscriminately. Synthesized Normative Understanding: One ought to kill mass-murderers.

How did we come to this NU that "one ought to kill those who kill indiscriminately"?

  • DU: The best way protect society from indiscriminate killers is to kill them.
  • NU: One ought to protect society.
  • SNU: One ought to kill those who have killed indiscriminately.

Why the normative notion that "one ought to protect society"?

  • DU: Society is made up of innocent people.
  • NU: One ought to protect people who are innocent.
  • SNU: One ought to protect society.

Now lets do a possible genealogy for the anti-death penalty position (there are other genealogies to be sure):

  • DU: Mass-murderers are psychologically damaged human beings.
  • NU: One ought not kill people who are psychologically damaged.
  • SNU: One ought not kill mass-murderers.

  • DU: People who are psychologically damaged are frightened and ignorant.
  • NU: One ought not kill people who are frightened and ignorant.
  • SNU: One ought not kill people who are psychologically damaged.

  • DU: People who are frightened and ignorant are innocent.
  • NU: One ought to protect people who are innocent.
  • SNU: One ought not kill people who are frightened and ignorant.

Both moral trajectories start from the same point - a moral urge to protect the innocent - and both arguments claim to do so. Perhaps it is what you learned in school, or what your parents taught you, or what your church taught you, but whatever it is, it never alters the fundamental moral direction.

What causes these identical moral urges to manifest in diametrically opposing behaviours lies in how the individual beheld the facts during the evolution of their normative architecture. You can see how one small instance of misconception/misinformation early in ones normative development can have exponential affects that send one’s normative evolution veering off, even while the primary moral urge remains constant.

The moral urge remains consistent, to uphold the virtues of honesty, duty, fairness, equality, etc; these are our morality. Every normative statement uttered throughout culture and history has been formulated to protect these elemental virtues, no matter how bizarre and indirect the prescription might be.

Thus, everyone understands identical moral direction, even though experience shows us diverse, and sometime conflicting paths.

Clearly, these considerations illustrate that humanity has a clear and basic moral imperative. This imperative is seen my the religious as somehow God-given. Atheists attribute the imperative to evolutionary reasons. Here’s how:

People have always cared for each other. Those that did not act of basically good motivations have not survived. Here’s why:

In evolutionary terms, a survival strategy which calls for greedy, malicious and individualistic behaviours will spell doom for high order mammals such as humans. Greedy, malicious and individualistic humans would kill each other, or be killed off (as they probably have throughout evolutionary history) and as Darwin stated, "Those communities which included the greatest number of the most sympathetic members would flourish best, and rear the greatest number of offspring." Infighting and fighting between pre-human groups would be the end of them. In our early history, small hunter-gatherer groups had to care about each other, or else the survival of the group would be in jeopardy. Those humans that didn’t care are now dead, the losers in the system. Care and co-operation have become evolutionary habits and were hardwired into the brain; these habits ensure our survival. Not to care, is not to survive.

Other higher order mammals that exhibit this altruistic creed include most apes and some canines, probably more species that live in communities as well. Dominance displays between animals do not normally end in death for either party. Neither does social dominance guarantee reproductive success. In most species of anthropoid (apes and monkeys) that have social structures larger than a single family unit the females with mate equally with dominant and non-dominant males - sometimes against the dominant male's wishes.

As for individual animals, an altruistic tendency would not help their gene line directly survive but it would greatly enhance group survival. The importance of this must be realized in an evolutionary context. Altruism would greatly benifit a *species* not an individual. And as it is only species that evolve and survive, altruism would be selected for, despite individual abberations.

Greedy, malicious and individualistic behaviours are almost always perverted expressions of basic and benign instincts. Like the people who assassinate abortion doctors, they do not betray their moral sensibilities. They think they are doing good.

The greedy, malicious and individualistic behaviours may actually be expressions of the primal limbic instincts for self-preservation, in which case there will be no fundamental change in human nature as care and co-operation are already imprinted in deeper brain structures. We have but to find the social source of frustration which is eliciting these negative drives.

One of the reasons why individuals no longer act out their instinctive altruism is that we no longer have evolutionary constraints acting on us in the same way as we would in the wild. The subversion (repression some would say) of nature has allowed us to move our culture to a point where we actively encourage traits that are detrimental, in the long run, to all humans.

Many of our current world-views do not correct this flaw.

"As man advances in civilisation, and small tribes are united into larger communities, the simplest reason would tell each individual that he ought to extend his social instincts and sympathies to all the members of the same nation, though personally unknown to him. This point being once reached, there is only an artificial barrier to prevent his sympathies extending to the men of all nations and races." -- Darwin The Decent of Man

With this taken into account, it is evident that much "wrongdoing" is not malice and most "wrongdoers" are not evil. They act out of a mistaken understanding of a given situation. Their basic moral urge is confused.

Religions and humanistic philosophies are thus a reflection of basic brain structures which have evolved over a long period of time; a time in which, only the humans that looked out for each other survived.

Now, the big however!

We share these basic feelings. But because there is confusion (and probably no-way out of the confusion), we don’t (can’t) have access to a definite moral compass. so we hold different values. Many of our values are incommensurable.

My Writings:

Other:

Links: