Golden Rule: Treat others the way you would want to be treated.
- “Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” - Confucius.
- “Expect from others what you did to them.” - Seneca.
- “Treat others as you treat yourself.” - Hinduism.
- “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” - Buddha.
- “Do to others what you want them to do to you.” - Jesus.
- “Love your brother as you love yourself.” - Muhammad.
- “Love your neighbor as yourself” – Judaism.
- “He is kind to the kind; he is also kind to the unkind.” - Taoism.
- “An ye harm none do as ye will.” - Wicca.
- Aggression: The initiation of the use or threat of physical violence against another.
What is the better rule to follow: the non-aggression principle or the golden rule? Are they even different than one another? This is the question I have been thinking about during the past couple months.
While my opinion is always fluid, it seems as if the golden rule is a better life "rule" or philosophy. Why make it complicated? Why define so many words? Why cause further conflict by trying to define the words? Even if one defines the words, what is the point? Who punishes the violation? You? Me? Society?
It seems the only person answerable to oneself is oneself. It's really that simple. You define the words, the language, the philosophy to be used. So, you should similarly define the philosophy as what you would want done unto you. Would you, as a child, want to be spanked? Would you, as a individual crossing a road, want to be saved if a car was driving directly towards you?
The history of the golden rule suggests it is something beyond the NAP, which is a relatively new concept. If so, is the golden rule more "natural" than the NAP? Should we follow this natural instinct? Or is it just emotion? (and thus we should instead use this thing called "reason"?).
The golden rule, at least to me at this point in my life, seems to be the answer to my philosophical problems. It's this simple: when I take action against another, I ask myself, would I be ok with this if I was "another"? If yes, proceed. If no, do not pass go, do not collect $200.
What do you think?