What is today known as the “golden rule”, is found in similar form in at least 37 often non-connected cultures. Thus, the laws of God are clearly written on the conscience of humanity, as the Bible claims and as Jefferson echoed in the Declaration of Independence.
According to Jesus, “Therefore, whatever you want people to do to you, do also to them, for this is the law and the prophets”. The added, “for this is the law and the prophets” in the society of Jesus, meant similar to as if today someone said, “this is the foundation of human rights and the sum and purpose of all reason, wisdom, philosophy, science, education, morality and ethics.” Is this really the best idea for achieving human rights in the modern age?
Upon closer examination, most of the so-called “golden rules” found in other societies, including the one attributed to the Jewish teacher Hillel, are considerably different than that taught by Jesus. A similar one to Jesus is found in a saying attributed to Mencius. But unlike Mencius and all of the other known sages of history, only Jesus gives this positive, pro-active version the all-important status of being the foundation for all that matters towards positive human enlightenment and achievement.
So-called “golden rules” found in most societies instruct us not to harm others as we do not wish them to harm us. But Jesus teaches us to reach out and help other people, even if they do not first help us. Consider how much less effective it is to tell a child not to harm someone, than teaching the same child to pro-actively treat others as they like to be treated. For example, is a homeless widow better off if someone just doesn’t harm her or, if someone provides her food and shelter? Isn’t it far more effective to teach us to help each other than just saying we should do no harm?
Some modern intellectuals claim we should instead, treat other people as “they” wish to be treated. This supposed “improvement” contains at least two significant flaws: 1) It is rather difficult to know how another person wants us to treat them unless we first befriend them as we wish to be treated. 2) If we treat others as they wish to be treated without any measurement against our own well-being, we will soon be extremely tired, penniless and destitute.
Today, the term “empathy” is favored by many, apparently because it is less religious sounding than the idea of loving our neighbor as ourself. Although it is a good idea to empathize with others, is this idea really an improvement over teaching us to pro-actively love our neighbor as ourselves?
Is the Jesus version of the golden rule the best idea? Does anybody else have a better idea for curing what ails a race called “human”? Do we want less than the best for our children? You decide.