Dear Friends,
It seems to me, if someone wanted to come up with a rationally derived morality, outside any religious context, the best foundation they could come up with is the Golden Rule, Do Unto Others as you would have others do unto you. This is an objective standard that can be understood subjectively. Don’t do to someone else something you wouldn’t want them to do to you. From this position all other questions of right and wrong can be understood and answered. While the idea is easy to understand, implementation is tricky, because if we treat others as we would have them treat us, then we must hold ourselves to a higher standard than we hold others to. Now that is hard. Yes, the Golden Rule is the ideal measure for any rational morality devoid of religion… except it is the basis of Christianity.
To do unto others, doesn’t require thought, compassion or empathy. One need not be able to put oneself into the shoes of another, just know what you don’t want done to yourself. If you don’t like being punched in the back of the head as you walk down the street, don’t play the knockout game, if you don’t like being backstabbed, don’t backstab others, if you don’t like being stolen from, refrain from stealing, if you don’t like your significant other running around, don’t run around on them, if you don’t like being lied to, stop lying, if you don’t like your stuff being broken, don’t vandalize, if you don’t like being disrespected, don’t disrespect others, etc… but the Golden Rule is not only negative, it shows us how to treat others as well. If you like being helped, help others, etc… to do unto others is obvious to anyone.
This way the person who seeks morality, outside religion, can build a rational morality that is actually moral and rational, unlike most “rational moralities.” Previous rational moralities, like Marxism and Nazism, are based on envy, hate, disgust and arrogance. They envy and hate those richer than them, and find those with less, or the other, disgusting and loathsome. The subjective morality of the psychopath. It serves a purpose, and that purpose is not to serve mankind, but the man. For the progressive, socialist, Nazi, Marxist, etc… morality is self serving, the Golden Rule is not. Take natural Rights, progressives deny them to others, but demand them for themselves. Even as progressives shout down, slander and violently silence others… they would be deeply offended should they be silenced.
To follow the Golden Rule requires us to hold ourselves to a higher standard than they hold others. This follows because, if we only do to other people that which we would want done to us, and others do not, then by definition, we are holding ourselves to a higher standard. Taking the road less traveled so to speak. One problem with this, is that narcissists will hold “themselves” to such a high standard, they will expect it from everyone else. When in reality, if they had any self awareness, they would realize they are holding others to a standard they themselves would chafe at. To actually follow the Golden Rule one must actually see others as flawed human beings. Some will never succeed, others might with help and some are just outstanding.
The Golden Rule is never comparative though. If we compare ourselves with others we are not following the Golden Rule. Comparing ourselves to others must by definition, be outside of context, because we cannot know what another person has gone through. Moreover, it leads us to be arrogant, angry and envious. Those who follow the golden Rule lead by example. Since no one wants to be put upon, to do unto others is not to put upon others. The tyrant may get compliance, but has shattered the window to open it… then wonders why in winter it can no longer be closed. As a standard of morality, there is none greater than the Golden Rule, but it has one drawback to the atheist, it is Christian and Confucian doctrine. Which, in an illogical nihilistic way, negates it. Too bad God thought of it first…
Sincerely,
John Pepin
