is the most logical model of human behavior. I've always found it fascinating that you find some variation of the Golden Rule in virtually every religion and creed known to man. Here are just a few:

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

Christianity: "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31

Confucianism: "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

Islam: "None of you believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths."

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

Wicca: "An it harm no one, do what thou wilt"

Native American Spirituality: "Do not wrong or hate your neighbor. For it is not he who you wrong, but yourself." Pima proverb.

And for the non-religious among us, such as myself, the same theme can be found in the words of the great philosophers, such as Socrates: "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you."

And there are countless other examples here (and a very insightful essay on reciprocity as well): http://www.religioustolerance.org/reciproc...


As I said, I'm not religious...I walk a hazy line between agnosticism and atheism. I base my beliefs on a rational survey of the world around me. But I cannot help noticing the recurrance of this theme, in religions and cultures throughout the world, separated by time and distance that renders the historical spread of this idea through human means impossible. How could this concept of reciprocity as a moral foundation spring up separately in the minds of so many? I believe that if we look hard enough, there is a clear logic, even a biologically adaptive advantage to such a line of thinking. This is at odds with conventional wisdom that putting the needs of others ahead of our own, while perhaps a morally superior behavior, puts us at a distinct disadvantage, in terms of securing resources necessary for our own survival; but bear with me.

Imagine being part of a hypothetical world where everyone follows the Golden Rule--including you. This means that you put the well-being of every other human being ahead of your own--but it also means that every other human being on Earth puts your welfare ahead of their own. In effect, you never have to worry about yourself, because everyone else is doing that for you. Instead, you can worry about how best to contribute to their welfare. The result of this kind of conscientious existence is an equitable, sustainable, just world. This system works much better than the dog-eat-dog, each-of-us-for-ourselves world we inhabit now. That's why I believe the human capacity for reciprocity is an evolutionary adaptation, albeit one that hasn't totally taken root yet (I could go into a long, crazy, scientifically unsound biological theory of mine, but this is already gonna be too long to interest anyone, so I'll refrain).

Of course the reality is that we do inhabit a dog-eat-dog world, and everyone isn't going to follow the Golden Rule, rendering the above example invalid (at least for the forseeable future). But the possibilities the Golden Rule opens up still make it the most rational, sensible model of human behavior. So we each have a choice:

1. Live according to the illogical dictates of this world, ensuring our own survival, but upholding a cruel and often deadly status quo; or

2. Live according to the logical Golden Rule, imperiling our own ability to survive, but acting as what I call a "place-holder" for a better world.

The trouble with the first choice is that, in exchange for material security, you become culpable in the savage injustices of this world--e.g. war, starvation, and wage slavery. Thus, if it should be your misfortune to experience any of those injustices firsthand, you have no right to complain. That, among other reasons, is why I believe the second to be the superior choice.