The good Samaritan stopping to help an injured stranger
It’s fascinating how many people don’t think much about morality. Morality is not trending. In popular media the word “morality” has overtones of being repressive, stuffy, outdated, smelling of religious authority, standing in need of sexual liberation. But when we get seriously mistreated, we are not only hurt and maybe angry but also indignant. We may protest, “He did not treat me like a human being.” Or when we do something seriously wrong, we know it. We can try to run away from the fact, but the fact goes with us, goes with us unconsciously, perhaps, and in the soul. Sooner or later, we need somehow to deal with it. Or where we face a major ethical decision where right and wrong are really at stake. How we use our awesome gift of free-will matters profoundly.
If human begins are all equal as we stand before God, if our basic wants and needs are shared, if we all face moral and spiritual choices, there should be a rule of living that expresses our common humanity.
It just so happens that the most widespread moral principle in the world is some version or other of the golden rule: Do to others as you want others to do to you. At first sight, just looking at the page or hearing it stated, we may find golden rule obvious and flat. Some people confuse it with an empirical generalization about social or cosmic reciprocity: the way you treat others is how you will be treated in return (or treat others well so that you will be well treated in return). But if we decide to work with the moral golden rule, we find life in it as new meanings and values emerge.
The freshly emerging golden rule practice may be interpreted as having different levels of meaning. The first level is the golden rule of sympathy. Act with consideration for others’ feelings as you would have others be considerate of your feelings. The world-wide practice of the golden rule at this level would be enough to transform the world; selfishness, thoughtlessness, and cruelty would be left in the dust.
However, despite its helpful sensitivity, the golden rule of sympathy is too low a standard for some situations. Sometimes we need to disappoint others’ feelings. Suppose a mother has a child who needs a shot at the doctor’s office, even though the child always cries pitifully at the approach of the needle. In this case, short-term sympathy is long term foolishness. Instead, mothers engage reason and think of the child’s long-term well-being. Sympathy is also limited since its response to immediate needs and sensational media images may lead to unwise actions; and sympathy may fail to embrace those we do not see.
What role does the golden rule play in your life? How have you developed sympathy with others?
Photo credit: http://www.google.com/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=images&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&docid=v3TH6g-DRXQzaM&tbnid=0BEVVnX-TqL_GM:&ved=0CAcQjRw&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.artbible.info%2Fart%2Flarge%2F486.html&ei=Qts1VPCHJcGHyATXjoLwDA&bvm=bv.76943099,d.aWw&psig=AFQjCNFGZCv4RXD3ytEPGdF6ADRhWT_KCA&ust=1412902078303248
The golden rule with its several levels of values and meanings is paramount in my life. As far as I can remember sympathy has always been apart of my life since I became self conscious. I became acutely aware of this value when I was about seven or eight years old. I was spending the summer on my grandfather’s farm, and there was an occasion where one of my uncles was going to make some stew, and he had acquired a baby goat which he intended to put in the stew. When I heard those words, I was horrified at the thought of putting this pretty innocent animal in a stew. I put my arms around his neck, and would not let go. They waited until I had gone to sleep that night and then they killed the goat. When I awoke the next morning I was very sad.
It seemed that all normal minded individuals develop this moral quality. And it appears that when we respond to it, it grows in quality and quantity is extended to ever widening circles; conversely if we ignore this quality, it seems that our ability to show sympathy decreases both in quality and quantity.
It is apparent to me that society needs some kind of standard that will unite us together since we all have the same basic needs and we are all interdependent though some may not realize this great truth. I hope that it does not take cultural disaster and the destruction of our civilization before we realize that we are all in this together, and all that this realization implies.
Dr. Perry
Thank you for drawing out quantity and quality and other aspects of this topic. Like you, I am concerned enough about the planet to say sometimes that I hope that we avoid planetary disaster. Unlike the times when I was growing up, many people don’t know what the phrase “golden rule” refers to. And if you tell them, they are unable to interpret it; they may say, “What goes around comes around”–which is something like the law of karma, a principle about how society or the universe treats you, not about how you ought to treat others. Fortunately, there are many paths to morality that do not involve this golden rule way of expressing what morally active living is all about.
Love your clear writing, simple and direct language, in spelling out this universal principle.. seems to me there is one higher level of truth seeking about this “do unto others…” principle. That is that our human instincts might be tainted one way or another in seeking for reciprocity of treatment… we could be selfish in our intentions or manipulative at an unconscious level and that would come back to us. So in reflection and for some insurance, I would suggest the following.
“Do unto others” as you would imagine a higher more loving, truthful, kinder, sympathetic, merciful, peace-filled, fairer, more tolerant being would treat the other person. Then if it comes back at you, you can rest assured your intentions were Godlike.
Patrick, thank you for this excellent statement, which adds to, and improves upon, my following posts on the higher levels of meaning of the golden rule.