Jewish version of Golden Rule superior to Christian version!

[galtgulch]

http://www.theobjectivestandard.com/issues...s-replies.aspLL

[galtgulch]

I fear the link does not take one to the letter to the editor as I thought it would so I have copied the entire letter as well as the reply by the author of the original article which appeared in www.theobjectivestandard.com

To the Editor:

Incidental to Robert Mayhew’s article “The Rise and Fall of Ancient Greek Justice,” Hillel, a famous rabbi who lived in the 1st century BC, reputedly was asked if he could summarize Hebrew law (i.e., the Torah) while standing on one foot. His alleged reply was, “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.”

Although the validity of Hillel’s response may be subject to debate (an instance of the Christian version of the “Golden Rule” can also be found in the Torah), Hillel’s version with the “not” included has some interesting implications.

This “negative” version of the rule comes close to implying a primitive or crude version of what the concept of individual rights later clarified; it is intended to summarize a mandate to “live and let live,” admonishing primarily against the initiation of negative behavior toward others rather than imposing obligatory positive action toward them. It does not literally and conclusively say this, but I think that is clearly its connotation, especially when considered in the context of the Old Testament’s “eye for an eye” concept of justice.

What I find interesting is that the presence of the “not” eliminates the concept of altruism from morality. The “Do unto others . . .” version demands altruistic action as a requisite for virtue, with the failure to so act branding a person as immoral or evil. Hillel’s “negative” version, however, ascribes no moral significance to taking such action; it simply admonishes against the initiation of (presumably) harmful actions toward others. Failure to be altruistic is not deemed a moral shortcoming; indeed, the very idea of altruism is absent from this version of the “Golden Rule,” which by implication relegates altruistic acts to a moral status of irrelevant or, at least, inessential.

I wonder if this rough idea of moral law, abbreviated by Hillel, bears some responsibility for the relative material success of those brought up in the Judaic culture as compared to other religious cultures, since it does not impose a burden of moral guilt for simply minding one’s own business.

Morry Markovitz

New York, New York

Robert Mayhew replies:

I appreciate Mr. Markovitz taking the time to comment on my article. Let me preface my reply by pointing out that I know nothing about Rabbi Hillel, and very little about ancient Hebrew thought. But that having been said, I must disagree with Mr. Markovitz’s positive characterization of the (logically) negative version of the Golden Rule: “Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you.”

What I said in my article about the Golden Rule applies to this version as well:

[T]his rule has no content outside of any context. . . . In the context of a rational morality, the Golden Rule is fine, if taken as an endorsement of integrity—to mean, for instance, that whatever code of ethics that I think is correct for me I must regard as correct for others. But in the Christian context, the Golden Rule turns out to mean something very different—for example, that I should love others unconditionally just as I should want them to love me unconditionally—and that is not an endorsement of a rational conception of justice.

I assume Jesus and his disciples—and Christians generally—would endorse the notion that you should not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you: Do not murder them, do not steal from them, do not judge them, do not ignore their suffering, do not refrain from sacrificing for them, and so on. So I disagree with the claim that “the presence of the ‘not’ eliminates the concept of altruism from morality.” Similarly, and as I make clear in the above passage quoted from my article, I reject the view that “The ‘Do unto others . . .’ version demands altruistic action as an absolute. . . .” (Whether Hillel’s actual version admonished people to act altruistically I do not know.)

Now the discovery and application of the concept of individual rights (by John Locke and the founding fathers) and the full identification of the nature of rights and their proper philosophical foundation (by Ayn Rand) are monumental achievements. The concept of rights is light-years beyond simply enjoining people not to do unto others what they would not have done unto them—even if we interpret this positively as “a mandate to ‘live and let live’” or to mind one’s own business. (For more on the proper conception of rights, see Ayn Rand, “Man’s Rights,” and Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, ch. 10.)

If religious Jews (generally or during some period in their history) interpreted and practiced this maxim in a way that was better than what Jesus intended in the Sermon on the Mount, that must have something to do with other features of Judaism or Jewish culture more broadly, and not with any philosophical advantages to the negative statement of the Golden Rule.

Robert Mayhew

Seton Hall University

South Orange, New Jersey

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Galt,

I fixed your link and moved this to here from the Tech Support section.

Michael

[Steve Gagne]

This is funny. There are those who claim that the "reasonable" thing to do is to challenge Christianity its uniqueness, on the basis of the "Golden Rule" existing in most world religions.

===================================================

Baha'i­:" "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah, Tablets of Baha'u'llah, 71

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

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

Confucianism: "Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you." Analects 15:23

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

Islam: "No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself." - Sunnah

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

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

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

Sikhism: "Don't create enmity with anyone as God is within everyone." - Guru Arjan Devji 259, Guru Granth Sahib

Zoroastrianism: "That nature only is good when it shall not do unto another whatever is not good for its own self." Dadistan-i-Dinik, 94:5

Is Christianity as unique as Christians think it is?

===================================================

If you believe in the so-called "Golden Rule" then on the surface one would tend to agree with the "broad path" interpretation presented.

I don't.

There is no such thing as "The Golden Rule" as has been presented in Christianity in the last 1900 years. It is a farce, used to afflict the conscience of immature believers with a rule of behaviour that cannot be obeyed, and by needless guilt help maintain the hierarchy, hegemony, and MONEY of the established church(es).

The usual quotation used is Matthew 7:12-14:

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets. Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it." (KJV)

"So whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets. Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many, For the gate is narrow and the way is hard, that leads to life, and those who find it are few." (RSV)

"Do for others what you want them to do for you. This is the teaching of the laws of Moses in a nutshell. Heaven can be entered only through the narrow gate! The highway to hell is broad, and its gate is wide enough for all the multitudes who choose its easy way. But the Gateway to Life is small, and the road is narrow, and only a few ever find it." (LVB)

The thing is, in the received greek text for Mt 7:12, we encounter this:

-- Transliterated, Unaccented text

Matthew 7:12 "Panta oun hosa ean thelete hina poiosin huminhoi anthropoi, houtos kai humeis poieite autois. Houtosgar estin ho nomos kai hoi profetai."

"houtos kai humeis poiete autois" -- "to (an)other/s also you are working the same (thing)." This is written in the simple declarative, NOT written in the imperative -- it is NOT a command. It is a simple statement of fact and it is the Lord's Judgment on mankind:

That which you would have others do unto you, YOU ARE **ALREADY** DOING UNTO THEM LIKEWISE.

This is not some namby-pamby aquarian new-age pronouncement of peace-&-love, this is the Lord Jesus Christ, who whipped the money changers & chased them from the temple, who reviled the religious leaders as "hypocrites" and "vipers", who announced His return as the King of Kings and Lord of Lords, leading a huge army of Judgment, announcing:

JUDGMENT DAY IS HERE! NOW!!!

ANYONE WHO DESERVES VENGEANCE FOR HIS ACTS, BY THOSE ACTS GIVES PERMISSION TO THE AVENGER TO WREAK PUNISHMENT, FROM NOW ON!

Can't you see how subversive this was (and is)? He gave moral sanction to every oppressed person (within earshot) to topple his oppressor, by force if necessary. He told the cripples, lepers, eunuchs, and blind that they were forgiven and healed, and told them to go into the Temple where they were not allowed to go. By this so-called "Golden Rule", He said to the Zealots that if they were oppressed by Romans, then those Romans had better expect an uprising where they would be made to pay for their sins. You thought the high priests were afraid of the rebellion caused by Jesus, that the Romans would respond badly? YOU BET YOUR SWEET PATOOTIE THEY WERE! AS IN >>>TERRIFIED<<<. THEY ALREADY KNEW FULL WELL WHAT JUDGMENT WAS DUE THEM.

And so do I. And so do you. Which is why so many people hide behind struggles with theology and philosophy, rather than simply turning to Him in repentance and being received by Him through His Reconciliation on the Cross:

Isaiah 6

1-4. IN THE year that King Uzziah died I saw the Lord sitting upon a throne, high and lifted up; and his train filled the temple. Above him stood the seraphim; each had six wings: with two he covered his face, and with two he covered his feet, and with two he flew. And one called to another and said: "Holy, holy, holy is the Lord of hosts; the whole earth is full of his glory." And the foundations of the thresholds shook at the voice of him who called, and the house was filled with smoke.

5-7. And I said: "Woe is me! For I am lost; for I am a man of unclean lips, and I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; for my eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts!" Then flew one of the seraphim to me, having in his hand a burning coal which he had taken with tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth, and said: "Behold, this has touched your lips; your guilt is taken away, and your sin is forgiven."

8-10. And I heard the voice of the Lord saying, "Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?" Then I said, "Here am I! Send me." And he said, "Go, and say to this people: 'Hear and hear, but do not understand; see and see, but do not perceive.' Make the heart of this people fat, and their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their hearts, and turn to Me and be healed."

(Coming soon: An objectivist validation of the Ten Commandments.)