This formulation of a Golden Rule is generally associated with Kong Fuzi (a.k.a. “Confucius”), though I certainly don’t know know who first produced it.
In his testimony at the Scopes Trial, Bryant argued with Darrow, who presumed the two Golden Rules, imagining that the negative “Do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you!” was simply the same as the positive “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!” As a matter of assertoric logic, a literal interpretation of the one is equivalent to a literal interpretation of the other; but plainly they carry somewhat different intentions.
From the Golden Rule, one gets what Kant called “der kategorischer Imperativ”, which is a formal meta-principle that underlying all rules of conduct should be universal principles, rather than principles shaped to advance or to thwart the interests of particular persons.
John Rawls made a hash of seeking such principles, contorting in weird ways to arrive at conformance to what were, in his day, the beliefs of the mainstream of the American political left.
Those who are more fundamentally attracted to consistent application of that meta-principle will instead be propelled either to embrace libertarianism or its pure opposite.
1 reply on “Isocrates”
This formulation of a Golden Rule is generally associated with Kong Fuzi (a.k.a. “Confucius”), though I certainly don’t know know who first produced it.
In his testimony at the Scopes Trial, Bryant argued with Darrow, who presumed the two Golden Rules, imagining that the negative “Do not unto others as you would not have them do unto you!” was simply the same as the positive “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you!” As a matter of assertoric logic, a literal interpretation of the one is equivalent to a literal interpretation of the other; but plainly they carry somewhat different intentions.
From the Golden Rule, one gets what Kant called “der kategorischer Imperativ”, which is a formal meta-principle that underlying all rules of conduct should be universal principles, rather than principles shaped to advance or to thwart the interests of particular persons.
John Rawls made a hash of seeking such principles, contorting in weird ways to arrive at conformance to what were, in his day, the beliefs of the mainstream of the American political left.
Those who are more fundamentally attracted to consistent application of that meta-principle will instead be propelled either to embrace libertarianism or its pure opposite.