The golden principle is occasionally referred to by many as the golden rule. Although it is still the same thing, there is some slight variation between a rule and a principle. A rule dictates what is to be done while principles provide the coverage on which certain rules, actions, and systems are to be observed and scrutinized. It is on such a basis that this paper observes the various aspects of this very important principle in morality and its influence on the various systems and ecologies in the lives of humanity as well as other living and nonliving things. Everything in the universe is subject to this principle as it operates on all spheres of life but at very different levels. For example, the aspect under which it works in lower organisms is very different from that of the higher organisms due to the ecological and biological differences. The higher organisms have more developed minds, biological and emotional systems that determine their way of life. they possess a more organized way of association as you go higher in the hierarchy of biological development and advancement. The most organized form is found in the man who is a very active social being with well-kept dignity attained through his power to reason. This reasoning influence gives man the authenticity to follow hence accept or refute such a principle.
This principle revolves around the relationship between man and fellow man as well as the animals around him. More emphasis is on the relationship with fellow man. It is a widely accepted principle in most religions as well as the aspects of moral philosophy. It forms the basis of human rights as we shall later discuss in this paper. As a widely accepted concept, it has been translated into very many forms and therefore given several definitions but they all sum up to the same thing. The principle stands out to give a code that almost all human beings ascribe to whether written in their laws of the land, their religion, and faith, or in their governance systems and institutions. The bottom line that fully gives the true and complete meaning of this principle is “Treat others with love and worth as you would love to be treated”. This presents several issues to be put into consideration.
The first issue is the issue of treating others. this implies the action you take upon the fellow person. They may be motivated by one: your selfish desires where you only act right in order to gain some particular personal interests. This does not then define the rule of morality and such a person is perceived to be a “selfish devil”. This means that in any case if the benefit which one is receiving is taken away, the person would not consider doing what is morally right but would drift to some immoral actions without care of what will happen to the other person. This is therefore referred to as the outer shell moral order. The opposite is where you treat people and other creatures out of love for them without considerations of what gains you will get. This you do just because you believe, know, and are sure it is the right thing to do. This is not brought by an outer feeling or any external influences but rather an internal feeling of empathy compassion and care. Such a person who handles morality with such a concern as the view is said to have genuine morality. genuine morality is a true show of the golden principle as it encompasses not only doing unto others as you would love to be done to you but goes way into risking one’s own life to save a fellow person as well as in greater heights of giving. it was once said that it is better to give than to receive and this is clearly evident in the essence of the golden rule. It carries selflessness and a big aspect of service to fellow humanity. If everybody in the world followed such an aspect of giving then the world would truly be a better place.
The second issue portrayed in the attributes of the golden rule is a clear-cut aspect of love. Love has several definitions and understandings depending on who it comes from and to whom it is directed. In the aspect of morality love is a very key issue. Most philosophers would like to maintain the philosophy without this aspect but render the rule inadequate and incomplete. Without the aspect of love, the rule would be “Treat others as you would like to be treated”. This presents a very great controversy in terms of what one would like the treatment administered to him would be like. When the issue of love is omitted one would not care to be harshly treated as some people hate themselves and life to the extent of committing suicide. Others view some ways of life so badly that if it was to happen to them they would not mind being mistreated or killed. All this is not truly a slight thing although it is what some want. Those who find pleasure in pain, touches, and drugs will inflict the same to others in the name that this is what they would want to be done to them. It, therefore, shows out that the aspect of love is vital.
In self-love, one would not advocate for such a bad thing like touches to be done to him and so in the same aspect of love, he would not agree to do any harm to another human despite the fact that there are aspects of hate that this person discredits in the fellow lives of others.
This, therefore, attributes to a great moral and dignified way of handling fellow persons. Several forms of love dictate different measures like the parental love given to children may watch them cry for hazardous equipment or tool.
This love seeks to protect though it does not seem to fulfill the immediate need of the child it saves the child from danger. If in this case, we were to say that we treat others as we would love them to treat us it, therefore, shows that since as kids we would not like to be denied something interesting to us (even as adults) therefore we would expose these children to the danger by letting them have the hazardous item.
In the third aspect that focuses on the worth of us as individuals as well as the worth of others, other people are to be treated with dignity and respect. They need to be shown some value because we are all valuable and life is such a valuable aspect that its removal deserves condemnation in all strongest possible terms. Each person regardless of status carries himself with some certain degree of value or dignity. It, therefore, calls for one to value others as you would expect them to value you in accordance with the golden rule. This rule thus, therefore, doesn’t advocate for slavery or human mistreatment in the name of the benefit of another person. Everyone is considered to have the potential for equal worth and dignity given the time, resources, and opportunities as the other more dignified persons (Pfaff, Donald W. p 200). This, therefore, results in freedom on the part of every person freedom that does not infringe on the other person’s life.
The forth aspect in the golden rule is the aspect of reciprocation. This in simple terms defines giving back to others. You are to give back to the other persons as much as you would expect them to give to you. The product of such an incident or condition is harmony, peace, unity and understanding.
The overall explanation for the Golden principle is therefore a moral way of ensuring that every person treats or handles the fellow human persons as they would appreciate to be handled were they in the same situation. A key focus should also be made on the feelings of the person being handled.
The Golden principle of morality is given the superiority aspect due to the fact that it handles the people and individuals at different capacities and different aspects of their living. It considers the majority would agree to be compared to one single individual with a different idea. The idea that this principle is appreciated by most of the people reduces the conflict that is likely to arise due to it. For example it is almost unanimously accepted by most religions, governments, races and cultures that murder is bad and so is stealing. Its universal acceptance as a rule or principle makes it supreme as compared to philosophies like the utilitarianism philosophy by John Stuart mill which outlines that anything or event that result to aggregate happiness is morally right(M.G. Singer. p 270). This is not so in the golden rule due to the fact that not all aspects that bring happiness are truly right in the contest of observing dignity for others as well as providing the same shear happiness to the victim. For example it may bring shear happiness for a person to steal and end up in great wealth but this is not so for the person from whose goods are being stolen.
The issue of conflicting interest is also to be observed if any principle or philosophy is to be justified as supreme. In most cases what may be an individual’s interest may actually not be the true issues and hardships in life with more regard than life itself. A person who values his job so much to the extent of harming his body due to loss of such a job portrays a great conflict in interest. As universally accepted, there is nothing to be given more value and interest than life itself. In this case the interest of this person is his work while the true interest is life. The golden rule therefore advocates for the observance of true interest hence giving it another aspect of superiority.
Another thing that gives the rule a superior touch is the consideration of reasoning and understanding power. This is the power that differentiates the human beings from animals. In animals they do what occurs to be OK to them and to their interest. Very little consideration is given to the focus of the outcome or results of the actions. But in man a pause is given to think on what actions to be taken. They deliberate on what is the truth. They seek to learn and know the details of anything before they embark on to the aspect. This makes them accept and fully believe in this acceptance. This can be easily seen from their language which is not only communicative but assertive, descriptive and rationale (M.G. Singerp 270).
A principle that keeps all the above into consideration can therefore be considered supreme as compared to those that don’t.
The client is outlined on aspects of morality as one whose interest are to be put into great consideration. The interest should be true and not conflicting in order to have a qualification into the golden principle of morality. When put into a weigh scale the clients to be given first priority are those on a higher carder of life compared to those in lower ones. An example of a pet animal and some lower vertebrate lizard can explain this. The life of the pet as well as its interest should be given more focus as compared to the non emotional, non realized interests of the lower vertebrates.
parasites may not know the harm they cause to the host and killing them to improve the health of the host is one accepted thing in the client observation of the golden rule. The ranking of persons and organisms in the codes of true acceptable interests thus increases the superiority of this rule. Crucial conditions of consciousness and interest in the relevant senses (Jouni Reinikainen p. 156).
Apart from the clients the rules also considers the moral agents. These are the persons who are to administer treatments to their fellow persons. Such agents are given specific characteristics that they may fulfill in order to qualify to be true moral agents in accordance to the principle. The first characteristic that the principle puts into focus is the empathy situation of the agent. The agent is expected to be able to have a feeling/sense of what he would encounter were he to be put in the shoes of the client with such a feeling then the inward emotions would result to the actions that the moral agent would take.
This therefore defines both the internal and external forms of empathy. The two forms are connected to each other as the inner empathy prompts out to the external empathy (This is not a must). Although some people like the so called selfish devils may portray the outward empathy without any inner feelings or the ones with inner feelings may lack the ability to express their empathy externally such cases are very few. The agent is also expected to be reasonable and understanding in order to qualify to be the moral agent under this rule. Reasoning incorporates the formation of arguments to determine the truth about a matter or a conclusion. This therefore prevents one from getting into a situation or an idea. The power of reasoning aids one to treat fellow persons with more decency and humanity. This is a good basis for the treatment of others hence boosts up the power in the rule. One is expected to be understanding and rational.
It is under this rule that a moral agent is also expected to look into the true collective interest of the persons hence ensure that no unfair deals are done and whatever action is taken is acceptable to nearly all the persons involved.
The last analysis given to show that the golden rule is superior to any other rules in morality is the attribute that it takes into consideration the inter-relationships of persons. The relationships are considered to be morally right if they keep up the values of the individuals involved. In valuing the clients there are two aspects into it one is the value of a client as a means to an end and the second is valuing a client as an end on itself.
The first aspect is seen as immoral and selfish where you value an individual for certain gains out of self love there is cultivation of abilities that improve each other’s understandings hence their values and a view of them not as a way to get something but rather an end to ones ideas and actions.
If every person observed the golden rule to true love, selflessness and true interests, then no one would hurt another person crating great harmony in the world. The issues presented in this rule can also not give out any doubt as the key aspects of treating others right, self love, love for others as well as treating oneself right are all morally right.
The evaluation of value and dignity in the consideration of what true interest are to be given to the first priorities then taking all lives to equal are all moral rights. This leaves no cast of doubt on the moral aspect of the golden rule with no objection of any of its attribute hence can be regarded as the supreme principle. The fact that it is the main guiding aspect in most humanity forming the basis of human rights as well as the key relationship foundations for most religions like; Christians, Islam, Buddhist, Hindu, Judaism, Baha’i and Taoism gives it superiority in the aspects of faith henc3e it can be accepted as a supreme principle (Immanuel Kan. p 68).
Works cited
- Immanuel Kan. Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, Cambridge University Press: London. (1997) p. 68
- M.G. Singer. The Ideal of a Rational Morality. Cambridge University Press. London. (1999) p. 270
- Jouni Reinikainen The Golden Rule and the Requirement of Universalizability Journal of Value Inquiry. 39(2): 155-168, 2005. (p 155-168)
- Pfaff, Donald W. The Neuroscience of Fair Play: Why We (Usually) Follow the Golden Rule. Dana Press, The Dana Foundation: New York. p 200
- UrbanDharma.org Web.