Golden Rule

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
QVOD TIBI HOC ALTERI - "What [you] [wish] for [do] to the other". Inscription on the Braunschweiger Gewandhaus

The golden rule ( Latin regula aurea; English golden rule ) describes an old and widespread principle of practical ethics , which is based on the reciprocity of human action , in conventional formulation:

"Treat others as you would like them to treat you."

The negative, preconventional version is known as a rhyming proverb :

"What you don't want someone to do to you, don't do it to anyone else."

Anglican Christians coined the term golden rule since 1615, initially for the examples of rules handed down in the Bible ( Tob 4,15  EU ; Mt 7,12  EU ; Lk 6,31  EU ), the Torah commandment of charity ( Lev 19,18  EU ) to be interpreted as generally applicable and transparent behavior. The Christian theology saw it since Origen the epitome of a generally insightful natural law , was known by the will of God to all people from time immemorial.

Similar, negatively or positively formulated memoirs or doctrines have been around since the 7th century BC. Passed down in religious and philosophical texts from China , India , Persia , ancient Egypt and Greece . Some of these texts were created at the same time and are not traced back to a common source. Like the continuing principle of retribution ( ius talionis ) and the principle of exchange ( do ut des ) , they are related to reciprocity in social behavior and apply to everyone, i.e. they presuppose an awareness of individuality and genre in societies that are no longer predominantly tribalistically organized. Since non-European analogies became known in Europe, the term Golden Rule was also referred to. Since then he has called an assumed minimum ethical consensus of different cultures and worldviews and an “inestimable usefulness” as an ethical guide.

The rule demands a change of perspective and makes putting oneself into the position of those affected the criterion for moral action. This is definitely a step towards ethical personal responsibility with the power to correct yourself: Abusive, literal applications of the rule can in turn be questioned with it for moral consistency. Since it does not name any substantive norm for right or wrong behavior, it has been interpreted differently historically: for example as an appeal to selfish prudence to consider the advantages and disadvantages of expected reactions to one's own actions, or as a demand for fairness , interests and wishes To consider others as equal to one's own, or as respect for the human dignity of others, which implies generally applicable standards for ethical action. In modern philosophy it was often rejected as an ethically unsuitable maxim or supplemented and specified in various ways.

Lore

Confucianism

Confucius (551–479 BC), according to his analects written down around AD 200, answered a student when asked what moral behavior was (A. 12,2):

“Meet people with the same courtesy with which you receive an expensive guest. Treat them with the same respect with which the great sacrifice is made. What you don't want yourself, don't do it to others either. Then there will be no anger against you - neither in the state nor in your family. "

In response to the further question about a guideline for action for the whole of life, he said (A. 15:24):

“That is 'mutual consideration' (shu). What one shouldn't do to me, I don't want to do to other people either. "

Shu , also translated as empathy or altruism , has the rank of the highest virtue for individual lifelong character formation. This is not limited to certain situations and knows no exceptions, so that these were not discussed in Confucianism .

Elsewhere (A. 4,15) a student explains Chung (awareness, duty, loyalty) and Shu as the connecting link in all the teachings of Confucius. For him, these could not simply be fulfilled according to the standard of the other's assumed self-interest, but also included the critical examination of one's own wishes prior to the action. Thus A. 5:12 reports the following dialogue:

"Zi-gong said: 'What one shouldn't do to me, I don't want to do that to other people either.' But Confucius said: 'You are not yet able to act like that!' "

The almost unattainable height of the ideal of virtue is expressed in the text attributed to Confucius, The Doctrine of the Middle (3rd century). There he applies the rule to family and social relationships. Of four ways of the morally noble person, he himself did not even fulfill one:

“What you expect of your son, practice in the service of the father; what you expect of your subordinates, practice in the service of the prince; what you expect of the younger brother, practice on the older brother; what you expect from your friend, then treat them first. "

According to Confucius, the mere fulfillment of a given hierarchy of virtue duties does not yet achieve moral goodness. Rather, everything depends on the supreme virtue of that person - translated as humanity. These cannot be fulfilled in rituals, but demand individual spontaneity and creativity. Accordingly, in A. 12.2, the rule is related to respect for foreign cultures, generosity and hospitality, so it serves to learn and exercise humanity in one's own family as well as abroad. In A. 6,28 the desire to develop one's own character is linked to promoting the character of others and it is concluded:

"The ability to judge others by what is close to ourselves can be called the means of creating humanity."

Hinduism

The Mahabharata , a basic script of Hinduism and Brahmanism (originated from 400 BC to 400 AD), contains as a central principle:

“You should never do to someone else what you consider hurtful to yourself. This, at its core, is the rule of all righteousness ( Dharma ). "

The Indologist and Sinologist Konrad Meisig quotes other positive and negative versions of the rules of the Mahabharata : “The deed that a person does not wish to be done to him by others, he does not commit to others, since he recognizes it as disliked by himself . "(12, 251, 19)" Whatever one wishes for oneself, one should also take it to heart with the other! "(12, 251, 21)" May the knower treat all beings like himself. "(12, 268, 10, reading from) “Do not give the other what you hate yourself!” (13, 114, 8ab) This principle was called in Sanskrit atmaupamya , translated as “taking yourself as a parable”. The inclusion of all living beings characterizes the Hindu as opposed to the Confucian rule tradition.

Jainism

In Sutrakritanga , a canonical signature of Jainism , the Mahavira handed down teachings (.. Arose 600-300 BC), according to the tenth reading about mindfulness :

“If you have fulfilled the law and overcome carelessness [indifference], then you should live on permitted food and treat all living things as you would like to be treated yourself. One should not expose oneself to guilt through the desire for life ... "

Buddhism

In the Dhammapada , a collection of sayings by Siddhartha Gautama, who has become Buddha , from the fifth century BC The 12th chapter is about the self. It follows from self-love (157) that the wise man, in order not to harm himself , must first walk the path to enlightenment before teaching others (158). Only those who tame their own self can tame others; the former is difficult (159). Western researchers saw this teaching, which is central to Buddhism, as a version of the rule as early as the 19th century.

Buddhist scriptures, such as the Udana from the 6th century BC, often advise not to hurt others out of an insightful self-awareness . In the Samyutta Nikaya from the Palikanon , Buddha teaches, based on the wish of every person not to die, to seek happiness for himself and to abhor suffering:

“What is an unpleasant and unpleasant thing for me is also an unpleasant and unpleasant thing for the other. What is a disagreeable and unpleasant thing for me, how could I charge it to someone else? "

From this he deduces the seven wholesome courses of action, in the first place: to abstain from killing living things and to praise others for refraining from killing. This is the right way of life in works, about which everyone can be completely clear. This is not an instruction here, but an insight gained from self-observation and thus the basis of all ethical rules (the Silas ).

Ancient oriental wisdom

The around 700 BC The collection of sayings of the Achiqar , which originated in the 3rd century BC and took up older sayings from other sources, was widespread in the ancient Orient as part of a wisdom tale about an Assyrian court official . Achiqar's advice to his son can be found in the post-Christian translation of an early, lost Syrian version into Armenian , including:

“Son, what seems bad to you, do not do to your fellow man.
Whatever you want people to do to you, you do it all. "

Proverbs from the Achiqar tale may also have influenced those between the fourth century and 30 BC. The doctrine of Chascheschonqi , which originated in BC and states:

" 12.6  Do not harm anyone, in order not to cause that another does it to you."

This statement, repeated almost verbatim in columns 15.23, is in the context of the Maat principle , which was linked to an act of conduct .

Zoroastrianism

The Middle Persian script Shâyast lâ-shâyast ("Reasonable and Inappropriate", originated in AD 650–690) lists the right and wrong deeds of man. She names the main religious goals among others:

“… One thing is therefore not to do anything to others that is not good for oneself;
the second is to fully understand what is good and what is not ... "

The writing Dâdistân-î Dinik (around 880 AD) contains the reply from a high priest to a catalog of questions put to him by the sages of Zoroastrianism . In the final chapter, the recipients discuss his answers: The path of good given by the creator god Ahura Mazda is endangered by all sorts of thoughts and distractions given by Ahriman , his evil opponent. Just as the demon cannot hurt the Creator but only himself, so bad thoughts could only hurt one himself. From this it is concluded

"... that this nature [of man] is only good if it does not do to others whatever is not good for its own self."

Greco-Roman antiquity

In Homer's Odyssey (written down to 720 v. Chr.), The nymph leaves the Fifth singing Kalypso to Odysseus after seven years of holding free and promises him there, just help him as they would advise themselves in position. You have a heart full of compassion . Since she only discovered this at the command of the god Zeus and as an attempt to redress her own injustice, it is an exception here.

According to the histories of Herodotus (around 450 BC), King Meandros of Samos promised immediately before the Persian invasion of his island: "I, however, do not want to do what I reproach my neighbor myself if possible." Therefore, he renounces his royal office and grant his subjects equal rights. However, this was unsuccessful because no one followed his maxim. It is controversial whether the resolution to act as one requires of others, without reference to their expected or desired behavior, is an early form of the rule.

Other early examples of Greek rules are only passed down in post-Christian histories, so their authenticity is disputed. Pittakos (around 651-570 BC) is said to have said: “What you are unwilling to do with your neighbor, do not do it yourself.” According to Diogenes Laertios, Thales (around 624-546 BC) is said to have answered the question of how one could live most nobly and justly, answered: "By not doing what we criticize in others."

An analogy to the rule can be found in Plato's Nomoi (approx. 427–338 BC) on the subject of property :

“Nobody should try to tamper with my property or move the slightest bit of it without having somehow obtained my consent. I must use the same principle to deal with the property of others if I am of sound mind. "

Isocrates (436–338 BC), representative of the sophistics in Athens , formulated the rule for the first time. In his speech by Nicocles to the Cypriots , the fictional ruler appeals to his people to behave towards others “as you expect me to do” and towards them “as you think subjects should behave towards you ". He continues:

“Do not do to other people what you would be indignant about if you had to experience it yourself. Whatever you condemn with words, never put it into practice. "

Then he warns his listeners that they will fare as they are toward the ruler. Anyone who does not obey the rule towards him must therefore expect retribution .

Isocrates affirmed individual pursuit of profit as legitimate for an ideal society and advocated a balance of interests: mutual consideration would bring benefits to all. This shows the life experience: virtue brings about social prestige, this brings wealth to the virtuous. The rule here was part of a pragmatic ethic of success in the ancient polis .

By Aristotle (384-322. Chr.) Have been handed down no rule formulated examples. Nonetheless, his ethics of virtuous relationships and friendship were rule-based. When asked about the right behavior towards friends, he is said to have answered: "The way we would like to be treated by them." Friendship includes similar desires and values, so that one accepts what others do if one does it oneself, and avoid what you reject in others. For him, the rule was applicable because of shared values ​​and a consensus about it.

The rule is absent in the older Stoa . The Roman stoic Seneca (4 BC - 65 AD) advised in his work De Ira to put oneself in the place of the one who is angry and summed up: “At the moment, excessive self-assessment makes us angry, and what we want to do, we don't want to suffer. ”In order to do good to others, one should give in the way that one would like to receive: willingly, quickly and without hesitation. He therefore recommended that the rule should be followed intuitively in situations that left no time for rational reflection. He did not discuss Roman slavery and advocated neither its abolition nor the release of your own slaves, but only advised: "Please treat a subordinate as you would like a superior to treat you!" Instead of doing this based on your own reputation, The stoic and released slave Epictetus (50–125) concluded with rather non-binding advice :

“What you avoid to suffer, don't try to let others suffer.
You avoid enslavement: make sure that others are not your slaves. "

In Hellenism , Greek and Roman authors cited since the 4th century BC. Negative and positive versions of the rule as an example of natural, self-evident ethics: for example Demosthenes , Xenophon , Libanios , Cassius Dio , Ovid and Sextus Empiricus . But the rule did not become the supreme guiding principle in Greco-Roman philosophy and did not override the widespread retribution, which demanded to compensate for actions deemed good and useful or bad and harmful with the appropriate reaction. In 1962, Albrecht Dihle therefore assumed that ancient rule examples emerged from this thinking.

Judaism

The latest 250 BC The Torah , which was completed in the 4th century BC, does not contain the rule, but rather concrete commandments on good behavior towards others, including the commandments to love one's neighbor (Lev 19:18) and to love others. They are justified with YHWH's liberation acts as a federal partner of the Israelites and their analogous earlier situation ( Lev 19.34  EU ):

“The stranger who stays with you should be regarded as a native to you and you should love him as yourself; for you yourself were strangers in Egypt. I am the Lord, your God."

As a result, biblical prophets asserted God's law against the powerful. So Natan convicts King David with a parable of his crimes against his subordinates, so that David applies his moral judgment about the murderer and adulterer described to himself and accepts God's punishment as just ( 2 Sam 12: 1-7  EU ).

Ancient Judaism adopted cues related to the rule from around 200 BC. From ancient oriental wisdom and Hellenistic popular philosophy, in order to interpret God's Torah in an understandable way for non-Jews. Jewish ketubim summarized everyday experiences in memorable proverbs that promise a fulfilled life for the righteous who are loyal to the Torah.

The scripture Jesus Sirach (190–175 BC) connects the negative rule with love for one's neighbor ( Sir 31.15  EU ): "Take care of a neighbor as for yourself and think of everything that you also dislike." She demands interpersonal forgiveness , which God will answer in the same way, and criticizes unreconciled prayer as hypocrisy ( Sir 28.3f  EU ). In the apocryphal Testimonium Naphtali (200–100 BC) the rule appears in the double commandment of love for God and neighbor (1,6): “Him [YHWH] should fear his creatures, and no one should do to his neighbor what he does not want that it should be done to him! ”The Targum Jerushalmi I used the rule directly for the interpretation of“ like yourself ”in the commandment to love one's neighbor:“ You should love your neighbor; because what you dislike, you shouldn't do to him. "

In the legendary letter to Aristeas (127–118 BC) wise men advise the king to act according to God's meekness towards attackers as well, not to be overpowered by evil but to participate in good. In the book of Tobit (4.14ff), an exemplary, just living Jew advises his son to show his good upbringing in all his behavior: “What you hate yourself does not have to be done by anyone else either!” He should immediately pay day laborers Refrain from excessive alcohol consumption, give the excess to those in need. This linked profane motives such as the daily moderation with Torah commandments and the expectation of heavenly reward for earthly doing justice.

For Philo of Alexandria (approx. 15 BC - 40 AD), the negative rule “What someone hates to suffer, he should not do himself”, according to fragments of his Greek Hypothetica, was one of the unwritten but generally known laws. Hillel (around 30 BC - 10 AD) also assumed that it was known to non-Jews when, according to tractate Shabbat 31a in the Talmud, he replied to a proselyte's question about the main commandment that fulfills all other commandments:

“What you hate, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah, everything else is exposition. Go learn! "

According to the Talmud, Rabbi Akiba also answered a student's request with the same word for the first sentence to teach the entire Torah in one day. Even with Moses 40 days and nights on Mount Sinai would not have been enough. According to Hillel's imperative, the rule should not replace the Torah commandments, but rather guide them to obey them. Accordingly, it does not otherwise appear in his commandment comments.

Further rabbinical texts from the first century applied the rule with if-then provisions ( casuistry ) to offenses prohibited by the Decalogue, such as theft, murder, slander and adultery. Others deduced from this predictive rules of prudence, for example (yKet 31a): “Do that you will be trusted, so that you will be trusted; bury to be buried; accompany so that they may accompany you. ”Overall, however, the commandment to love one's neighbor has priority over the rule.

Early Christianity

In the New Testament the positive rule form appears twice as the literal speech of Jesus :

Lk 6,31  EU : “What you expect from others, also do it to them.”
Mt 7,12  EU : “So whatever you expect from others, do it for them too!”

Both positions are assigned to the logia source . The first follows the commandment to love one's enemy , which applies especially to those who hate one. It is differentiated from mutual love for friends and requires renouncing something in return. The thanks that those who love their enemies can expect is the hope of their transformation by God and of God's mercy in the final judgment ( Lk 6,32-38  EU ).

The second place is in the final chapter of the Sermon on the Mount and follows Jesus' command “Do not judge, that you may not be judged” (Mt 7.1) and his teaching on prayer ( Mt 7.7-11  EU ). This promises God's gracious grace to those who ask without prejudice , which applies precisely to those who do evil. The rule here is therefore the gift of God's grace, which instead of condemning others enables the active initiative of reconciliation (Mt 5:24). Accordingly, it does not require reactive, reciprocal action, but rather: "Everything, without exception, what the love and the commandments of Jesus demand, one should do to other people". The courteous love of neighbor should already overcome enmity communicatively, since Jesus promised the persecuted to overcome all enmity in the near kingdom of God (Mt 5: 10ff). That is why his successors can also expect from enemies that this overcoming corresponds to their needs: "Only love can see the distress of others, including that of the enemy, as one's own."

The editorially added sentence “This is the law and the prophets” links the rule with Mt 5:17, thus identifying it as the fulfillment, not the abolition of the biblically revealed, prophetically interpreted Torah. As with Hillel, she summarizes God's will, but as Jesus finally interpreted it in the Sermon on the Mount. Accordingly, the following verses promise those who follow them in the image of the fertile tree a lasting positive effect on others and in the image of house building their own future.

Many Christian exegetes saw the NT rule examples earlier as a deliberate surpassing of the mostly negative rule forms in Judaism, which only forbade harming one's neighbor, but did not demand love for him. As a result, some Jewish authors accused the New Testament form of rules of high but practically impracticable idealism. Today's exegetes put this dispute into perspective, since Jewish examples of rules also presuppose the commandment of neighborly love and early Christian writings also know negative examples of rules and interpret them in the same way as positive ones.

According to the apostles' decree (Acts 15:20, 29), newly baptized Gentiles should turn away from idolatry , fornication and murder. Western versions of the text added the positive rule form that they should live by instead. By taking up this well-known motif of popular ethics, the early Christian mission made the one-sided love of enemies more understandable as a hoped-for disenfranchisement even by persecutors of Christians.

In early Christian literature, following Mt 7:12, the rule was widespread as an ethical maxim. In the Didache she follows the double commandment of love:

“First, you should love God who created you, and second, your neighbor as yourself; but whatever you want it not to happen to you, you don't do that to anyone else. "

Here it excludes actions that contradict the love of God and neighbor, and therefore cannot be interpreted for Christians as a cleverly calculated search for advantages - act towards others in the way you promise to benefit yourself from them (do ut des) . This tradition was followed by Justin (dial. 93,2), Photius , Clemens of Alexandria (III, 12), the pseudo-Clementines (Hom. 7,4; 11,4), the Didaskalia apostolorum (1,7), and Tertullian (Marc. 14,16).

Islam

There is no literal version of the rule in the Koran . Individual Suren , however, sometimes seen as analogies to about Sura 24 , 22 (you should pardon and. Do not you love it even that God may forgive you?) Or Surah 83 , 1-6, with the reference to God's judgment against Warns of fraud when measuring and admonishing equal measure when giving and taking.

For the Islamic commentators az-Zamachschari († 1144), Fachr ad-Din ar-Razi († 1209) and Ibn Kathīr († 1373) the rule was implied here as God's law for all people, which required to pay as one wants to be paid and to be just as one wants to get justice. Because, according to ar-Razi, Allah himself created the balance of the world so that no one could shift the measurements ( sura 55 , 7ff., 57.25). The Sunni Islamic scholar Abdullah Yusuf Ali (1872–1953) emphasized that giving what is owed is a duty that applies regardless of the expected or desired reaction of others.

Literal rule forms can be found in some of the hadith collections of Al-Buchari , Muslim ibn al-Hajaj and others from which the book of forty hadiths by An-Nawawis was compiled in the 13th century. There Hadith 13 reads:

"None of you is a believer as long as you do not wish for your brother what you wish for yourself."

According to the accompanying commentary, the term “brother” includes both Muslims and unbelievers. Muslims wish to remain faithful to Islam and unbelievers to enter into it: this is what their prayer for the guidance of non-Muslims corresponds to. Only then is their faith perfect. Desires include the will to do good and useful for others. What is meant is religious love that combats envy in oneself and in others. Because envy contradicts Allah’s predestination. This demanded, contrary to the natural will to pray for the enemy .

The Catholic Koran translator Adel Theodor Khoury names three further hadiths with echoes of the rule, collected by Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj and at-Tirmidhī , including one from Abū Huraira , which he said was one of five basic rules of Islam received from Muhammad :

"Wish people what you want for yourself and you will become a Muslim."

In Nahj al-Balāgha , a collection of texts ascribed to ʿAlī ibn Abī Tālib from probably the 11th century, the 31st letter advises Ali's son to judge his behavior towards others according to whether he would like to be treated as such. He should want for her what he wants for himself and spare her from what he would not do to himself either.

Baha'i religion

In the Kitab-i-Aqdas , the holiest book of the Baha'i religion, there is the rule: “Do not wish for anything else that you do not wish for yourself.” The religious founder Baha'ullah also has the following statement: “And if you seek justice see, then choose for your neighbor what you choose for yourself. "

discussion

Christian theology

For Augustine of Hippo , the Creator wrote the rule as a conscience in everyone's heart, to warn us immediately before harming others and to remind us of our creation as social beings. In it God concentrated his will as a practical guideline for everyday action. As a common proverb, it appeals to self-love, which combines love for God and neighbor, and makes these commandments plausible to natural people ( De ordine II, 25). In Mt 7:12 only the good will is meant, not every will. “Will” only mean in Scripture that which corresponds to God's will, since it always calls evil will “desire” ( De civitate Dei XIV, 8). - Augustine understood the rule anchored in conscience as the epitome of divine law, therefore also related it to the relationship to God and assumed a naturally recognizable idea of ​​the good to distinguish between good and bad will.

The Decretum Gratiani (around 1140) equated the rule with the natural law contained in the revealed law (Torah) and gospel . It commands everyone to do what is desirable for others and forbids them to do what is undesirable for them. Introduced as a commandment, the rule implicitly referred to biblical commandments as a content-related criterion for their application.

Petrus Abelardus specified the positive rule form: It only demands good doing towards one's neighbor, not bad ones that one is willing to accept from him. So it presupposes the knowledge of the commandment to love. Petrus Lombardus added the negative form: One should only not add to the other what is unjust (iniuste) . According to Duns Scotus , both forms presuppose the "correct judgment of reason" about what one might wish for. Scholasticism thus declared the rule to be insufficient for fair action, since it did not contain the standard for it.

For Martin Luther , the well-known rule meant that every person could understand the commandment to love one's neighbor, so that no one could apologize to God with ignorance of his will ( Roman Lecture , 1515/16). It addresses the sinner by making its own ego and its desires the yardstick for behavior towards others. Only Jesus Christ discovered the reason and aim of the rule: We should serve our neighbor entirely and put his wellbeing before our own, i.e. not seek a balance of interests with him. To love him as we do ourselves does not mean to love him next to us, but as a person for his own sake: even if he is worthless. Because we still loved ourselves even when we were nothing to others. In this way, he said, the rule laid out by Christ should lead to the realization that basically nobody can obey and obey it without giving up his self-love ( usus elenchticus legis ) . Only this clears the way to pure faith ( sola fide ) in the fact that Jesus alone realized love for God and neighbor, so that only his grace ( sola gratia ) frees us for it. In the little sermon on usury (1519) Luther said:

“Wherever you look for an advantage in your neighbor, whom you do not want to leave him with you, love is out and of course the law is torn. (WA, 6, 8, 15) "

Philosophy of enlightenment

In view of the Thirty Years' War and its consequences, the educated people of the Enlightenment sought new ethical foundations for social coexistence that were independent of religion and denomination .

Thomas Hobbes described the rule in his main work Leviathan (1651) as the “sum of the laws of nature” which enabled the transition from the anarchic “ war of all against all ” to a legal system governed by the monopoly of force . Because from the initially unlimited striving for self-preservation, even the meanest people should understand that they would always have to live in fear of death if everyone allowed themselves everything against others. You just have to swap places with those affected by your own actions to see whether they are in your own interest. From this the insight grows that no one else should do what he sees as harmful to himself. From there, one could grant others the same freedoms and rights that one would be satisfied with if everyone respected them.

The early enlightener Samuel von Pufendorf submitted a criticism in 1672: Taken literally, the rule was not generally applicable and could not establish a law . After all, a judge would have to acquit a robbery instead of sentencing him to the death penalty ; A beggar then only needs to be given as much as he wants, not how much he needs to live. Even if one does not take into account the random wishes of others, but their actual needs and rights, the rule could not justify the principle of equality , according to which all people are by nature equal, but presuppose this and is inferred from it.

“Anyone who needs the help of others to get ahead is obliged to make sacrifices on their part so that the needs of others can be satisfied. Therefore those are best made for community life who are ready to allow everyone else what they allow themselves. "

Following this criticism, Christian Thomasius declared the negative and positive rule form in 1688 only applicable among equals, not between masters and servants. His Supplement What you want others to do for yourself, do that to yourself , however, hardly met with approval.

In 1690 John Locke also criticized the use of the rule to establish natural law. Someone who had never heard of it but could understand it would ask for a reason to follow it. That obliges whoever proposes them to explain their truth and reason. This depends on an external prerequisite from which it can be derived rationally. Moral ideas are not innate, since they are then neither questionable nor justifiable.

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, on the other hand, generally saw in 1765 a practical, “instinctively” recognizable truth, which nonetheless required rational reflection and explanation. They seem to assume a just will as universally valid, without specifying the standard for it. However, its true meaning is that by swapping roles with those affected by one's own actions one can achieve an even and impartial judgment. The rule can therefore also be applied without prior consensus on the norm of justice, since the common basis of action can be found by putting others in the shoes of others. It is only when they are applied that it becomes clear whether the intended acts or omissions are legitimate.

Voltaire understood Rule 1705 as a balance between passion and reason. Anthony Ashley Cooper (1711) and George Berkeley (1731) subordinated the rule to the concept of the common good : not short-sighted self-interest, but the good of all people is the intended action-regulating factor. There must be a basic social consensus on this ( common sense ) . In doing so, they emphasized the need for a binding generalization (universalization) of ethical criteria. Accordingly, the lawyer Gottfried Achenwall combined the rule of 1758 with the principle of generalization.

In 1755, Jean-Jacques Rousseau saw the appeal to a reasonable balance of interests not yet sufficient justification for morality and human rights . He countered the principle of rationality emphasized by Hobbes with the natural and therefore predominant feeling of compassion that existed in every human being before reason . "In place of that lofty maxim of righteousness revealed by reason : 'Do to others as you want others to do to you,' compassion instills this other maxim of natural goodness, which is much less perfect, but perhaps more useful than the previous one: 'Take care of your well-being with the least possible harm to others' . In a word: it is more in this natural feeling than in subtle arguments that one has to look for the cause of the reluctance that every person, regardless of the maxims of education, would feel against doing evil. ” Johann Gottfried Herder, on the other hand, praised the rule 1784 as the “rule of justice and truth”. It is said to be "the guideline for the great law of equity and equilibrium of man [... which is also] written in the bosom of the monster". In doing so, he reproduces the formula both positively and negatively: “What you want others not to do to you, don't do them to them either; what they should do to you, you do to them too. "

Samuel Clarke described the rule as a principle of reason serving the universal common good. In general, everyone should strive for the welfare and happiness of all people in accordance with the eternal will of God: This public good can only be determined more precisely, now and in the future, by disregarding every private or personal advantage or disadvantage, wages or punishment. Under this premise, the rule can be applied in practice: It then exposes real inequality among people as absurd and rejects them. Because every conceivable relationship that someone has and exercises with another, the other has and exercises with him if he is brought into exactly the same situation. From this it follows:

"Whatever I judge as the sensible or unreasonable act of another for myself, I declare it as sensible or unreasonable with the same judgment that I should do for him in the same case."

Without foreign corruption, all people would recognize and practice universal equality for all. Their measure is simple and evident, especially among equals; but also in asymmetrical relationships between masters and subjects, the consistently applied rule could enable impartial decisions by taking into account not only all the circumstances of the action, but also all the differences between the persons affected. Accordingly, a judge does not have to consider what he would want for himself out of the same fear or self-love as the criminal, but what he would expect for himself in his situation as a reasonable, generally good and therefore impartial judgment.

Immanuel Kant developed his Categorical Imperative in 1785 . Its first formulation, like the rule, appeals to the autonomous freedom of decision of the individual:

"Act in such a way that the maxim of your will can also apply at any time as the principle of general legislation."

With this, Kant replaced the test of whether one would wish for one's intended action as a person affected by the examination of whether one could reasonably imagine one's own will as a law for everyone. He therefore demanded that random circumstances and individual interests be disregarded in moral decisions and that these rational, generally applicable laws should be classified. Kant's second formulation explicitly excluded the abuse of other people as a means for selfish ends:

"Act in such a way that you use humanity both in your person and in the person of everyone else at the same time as an end, never just as a means."

In a footnote to this, Kant emphasized that this imperative was not an intellectual variant of the “trivial” rule that he cited in negative Latin form. The principle of reciprocity could "not be a general law, because it does not contain the basis of duties to ourselves, not of duties of love towards others [...], finally not of owed duties to one another [...]". For example, one could evade reciprocation of charity by rejecting the benefits of others, or a criminal could use it to argue against his judges. Kant's criticism led to the rule in the ethical discourse in Europe receding.

After the declaration of human and civil rights of 1789, the French National Assembly passed a first, amended constitution of the French Republic on September 3, 1791, and a second on June 24, 1793 . Article 6 of these reads:

“Freedom is the authority that grants everyone everything that does not harm the rights of the other; It has its basis in nature, its guideline in justice, its protection in the law, its moral limit in the principle: Do not do anything to anyone that you do not want to have done to yourself. "

However, this version did not come into force.

19th century

Contrary to Kant's distancing, Arthur Schopenhauer identified his first categorical imperative in 1841 with the negative rule. Together with the positive form, this only describes the "mode of action unanimously required by all moral systems":

"Don't hurt anyone, rather help everyone as far as you can."

With that, Kant tacitly lets egoism decide what it wants to recognize as the supreme law.

John Stuart Mill saw the rule together with charity in 1863 as the perfect ideal of utilitarianism , since a mutually attuned behavior could most likely achieve the greatest possible happiness for as many as possible. Following him, Henry Sidgwick understood the rule as an intuitive, practically widely recognized and self-evident expression for the principle of consistency in moral judgments:

"Whatever action someone judges right for himself, he implicitly judges it as right for all the same people in the same circumstances."

However, the rule is formulated imprecisely, since one could wish for the cooperation of others "in sin " and be prepared to reciprocate it. Because of the possible different circumstances and natures of those involved, it is also not enough to only do to others what is believed to be the right thing to do to us. Therefore, strictly speaking, the negative rule form must be formulated as follows:

“It cannot be right for A to treat B in a way in which it would be wrong for B to treat A, only on the basis that they are different individuals without any distinction between the circumstances of the two being reasonable reason for different treatment can be given. "

This rich not out as the guiding principle for interpersonal moral judgments, but impose one who the other about his treatment complain would if they would meet him to justify the burden of proof on this difference with the situation, regardless of the people.

Friedrich Nietzsche orientated himself on an aristocratic, amoral , anti-Galitarian model. Therefore, in 1887, he rejected reciprocity as "unpleasant" and "great meanness". The rule nullifies the most personal value of an act and reduces it to payments for proven achievements. Precisely the individual act cannot and should not be done by anyone else. In a deeper sense, you never give back, but do something unique: That is the cause of the “aristocratic separation from the crowd” who believe in equality and reciprocity. The rule, wrongly held to be wisdom, is easy to refute. Calculus forbids actions with harmful consequences for the sake of the ulterior motive that an action will always be rewarded:

"What if someone, with the ' principle ' in hand, said: 'Such acts are what one has to do so that others do not get ahead of us - so that we make others unable to do them to us?' - On the other hand: let us think of a Corsican whose honor the vendetta commands. He also does not want rifle bullet in the body: but the prospect of such, the likelihood of a ball holding him not from to satisfy his honor ... And we are not at all decent acts just deliberately indifferent to what it is for us? Avoiding an action that would have harmful consequences for us - that would be a prohibition on decent actions in general. "

20th century

George Bernard Shaw ironically criticized the rule in 1903:

“Don't treat others how you would like them to treat you. Their taste could not be the same. "

The golden rule is that there are no golden rules.

Ernst Haeckel considered the "2500 year old" rule Do to everyone else what you want him to do to you in 1904 as the "basic ethical law" of his monism .

Max Scheler described the rule in 1913 as an expression of the universal principle of solidarity and an "eternal component" and "basic article of a cosmos of finite moral persons". Reciprocity is an essential part of being human, because being a person only develops in the I-Thou relationship and determines and determines all morally relevant behavior.

Leonard Nelson understood Kant's Categorical Imperative in 1917, following Jakob Friedrich Fries, as a law that required mutual equal treatment of free and equal. This includes a "right to your interests being taken into account", from which he derived his "weighing law":

"Never act in such a way that you could not also consent to your behavior if the interests of those affected by it were also your own."

It is not enough to put yourself in the people's shoes and then decide on their inclinations:

“... we have to put ourselves one after the other in one and the other situation, starting from the idea that our interests collide in one case or another, so that we have to choose between them and can only satisfy one having to forego the satisfaction of the other. "

Edward Wales Hirst saw in 1934 an advantage of the positive rule form over the categorical imperative: This is only valid “unipersonally” in relation to the individual to the universal moral law. Although this precludes the abuse of others as a means for one's own purposes, it may, however, allow them to be harmed if it is beneficial to general morality. On the other hand, the “interpersonal” rule demands that you turn to your neighbor, respect him and also take care of his well-being.

Karl Popper declared in the 1930s in the context of his philosophy of science that there was no absolute criterion for moral correctness. The rule is “a good yardstick” and is one of the most important discoveries made by mankind, but could possibly be improved in their learning process, for example “by treating others as they want to be treated wherever possible ”. This formulation is popular as the “platinum rule” in guides for manager courses or workplace behavior.

Hans Reiner understood the rule of 1948 as the "basic moral formula of humanity" inextricably linked to being human. He distinguished three interpretations: As a rule of empathy, they demanded to put oneself in the other person's position. As a rule of autonomy, it demands that one's own actions or wishes be assessed autonomously in the same situation. As a reciprocity or referential rule, it obliges us to base this judgment on our own intended behavior, i.e. to align it with what we want and expect from others, not what we want for ourselves and what others actually do. This implies an ethical norm, the respect for the human dignity of the other, from which mutual recognition and consideration follow. With this, Reiner emphasized to Albrecht Dihle the fundamental difference between the rule and the principle of retaliation.

Erich Fromm saw the popularity of the rule in 1956 as being due to its misinterpretation: It is mostly understood as fairness in the sense of the capitalist exchange law “I give you as much as you give me”. After that, one respects the rights of others without feeling responsible for them and feeling one with them, and renouncing fraud in the exchange of consumer goods, but also in feelings in personal relationships. Originally, however, the rule means willingness to take responsibility for others out of charity. Recognizing this difference to fairness is essential for the art of loving.

In 1961, Marcus George Singer investigated in which cases the generalization required by Kant's imperative morally excludes an action: What would happen if everyone / nobody did it? That question, he explained in 1985, also includes the question required by the rule: What if someone did the same to you / me? This argument is based on the principle:

"What is right [or wrong] for one must also be right [or wrong] for everyone else with similar individual requirements and under similar circumstances."

That is why the relevant factors for comparing people and situations should be asked which justify the particular action. Therefore, in 1963 he distinguished between a particular rule - “do what you would (in this particular case) expect others to be in their place” - from a general rule interpretation - “do others how you would like to be treated in their place (according to the same principle)”. He rejected the particular interpretation because it assumed uniform characters and failed because of the extreme tendencies of others. The correctly understood rule therefore requires a distinction between current wishes and long-term interests of the other and only the latter to be adequately taken into account. - This interpretation, however, was criticized: This distinction, too, is subordinate to other interests that are identical to their own; disregarding the individual case, one might not be able to recognize them at all; so the rule loses its concrete applicability.

Richard Mervyn Hare first analyzed the linguistic logic of moral judgments in his theory of moral argument presented in 1963. The sentence “A should [not] do X” contains a generalization (“everyone / nobody in A's situation should do X”) and a rule (“do X in A's situation [not]!”). So, in a purely logical way, one can only make such a judgment if one is willing to judge oneself accordingly. This can be used to test the durability of moral judgments: If I was in A's situation, would I judge the same way that I should [not] do X? Hare specified the role reversal: The actor does not have to imagine how he would act with his own characteristics, wishes and dislikes, but with those of the other in his place. Third parties would therefore not have to ask in the subjunctive - "What would you say / feel / think if you were in his place?" - but:

"What do you say about this hypothetical case in which you are in the position of the victim?"

John Rawls introduced a modern egalitarian contract theory with his Theory of Justice in 1971 . In a thought experiment, he related the requirement of the rule to put into the interests of those affected by one's own actions to a hypothetical initial situation that is the same for everyone (original position): In this, everyone's own future social position and that of all others would be completely unknown ( veil of ignorance ), while the possible rules and laws of the social order are fully known. Then, according to Rawls, everyone would choose those principles of justice that can strike an ideal balance between individual and common interests.

Amitai Etzioni , an important exponent of communitarianism , related the Golden Rule to the social order for which the individual is responsible, and put it: “Respect and uphold the moral order of society to the same extent as you want society to have your autonomy respect and preserve. "

Hans-Ulrich Hoche agreed with Hare in 1978: The rule should not assume that others have their own wishes in the same position, but should take their wishes, interests and needs into account. He therefore suggested the formulation:

"Treat everyone as you would like to be treated in their place."

Hare's question form puts the actor in front of the actual situation of the other and enables his concrete decision, with which he determines himself for this case. Questions formulated in the subjunctive indicated that the application of the rules was irrelevant for the individual case in question. Two of Kant's objections - his judge and misanthropist example - were based on such a misinterpretation. The correctly applied rule justifies the "owed duties" and the "love duties" against each other. Hoche therefore proposed a generalized standard version in 1992:

"If I want nobody to act like this and that in a situation, then I am morally obliged not to act so and so in a situation of this and that kind."

This formulation is only a "deontic reconstruction" of the oldest examples of Western rules handed down by Thales and Pittakos. Her advantage is that she “only judges one behavior in itself, regardless of who it takes place, and whether it is perhaps a behavior of the other person only with and to oneself.” In this way she also relies on her duties towards herself apply and can thus invalidate Kant's third objection.

Hans Kelsen saw the rule as well as the principle of the suum cuique and the principle of talion as an empty formula of justice . It is synonymous with the principle of not causing pain to others, but pleasure. However, such a principle would abolish every legal order and every system of morality, because then criminals, for example, would not be punished because nobody would like to be punished. The rule can only make sense within a more objective order: that one should behave towards others as they should behave towards me according to this order. This would lead to the categorical imperative. Like the rule, the categorical imperative is also dependent on an existing legal or moral order and can only confirm it, not define it in more detail. Ultimately, the rule only states that one should stick to the existing order.

Areas of application

pacifism

For the Czech lay theologian Petr Chelčický (around 1440), the rule of Mt 7:12 as God's commandment forbade war and exposed all allegedly just campaigns by Christian rulers as injustice:

“For God's command is: What you want people to do to you, you also do to them. And since everyone wants everyone else to do him good, he should also do good to everyone. But by going to war, he does evil to those from whom he always wants good, and what he does not want at home, he does to others at the behest of his masters. "

He saw complete renunciation of power and violence as the only credible way of life for Christians. This was also represented by some Christian minorities, which today are collectively referred to as peace churches : among them the Waldensians , later also the Mennonites , Hutterites and Quakers . The latter also influenced some abolitionists in the USA such as Adin Ballou (1803–1890) and William Lloyd Garrison (1805–1879). Leo Tolstoy referred to these historical models in his main work The Kingdom of Heaven in you (1893). In it he founded his "theory of Christian non-resistance" (non- violence ) with Jesus' Sermon on the Mount and love of enemies.

Religious dialogue

The first " World Parliament of Religions " founded in Chicago in 1893 based its unification program on the rule. The predominantly Christian initiators recognized their pre- and extra-Christian dissemination, but emphasized that Jesus had fully fulfilled them through his life and thus made the sibling of all people possible. Universal solidarity is a necessary consequence of an individual belief in the Creator. This general liberal theism or deism established for them a common social engagement of the belief systems. They wanted to use economic and cultural globalization to raise prosperity and morality worldwide.

Christian representatives of this world parliament founded a "Golden Rule Brotherhood" on March 26, 1901 in New York with the aim of uniting all religions under the "Fatherhood of God" for humanity in solidarity. Members were celebrities from education, business and politics, including several former US presidents; Supporters were among others Mark Twain and Alfred Dreyfus . They wanted to introduce an annual "Golden Rule Day" in churches, synagogues and schools, advocated animal welfare and regular donations to the needy at the local level, but did not get beyond the founding meeting.

The rule-inspired religious dialogue has intensified since the end of the Cold War around 1990. The second world parliament of religions included the rule in 1993 in its "Declaration on the Global Ethic " and formulated it as a long-known, but not yet realized, self-commitment of every individual: "We must treat others as we want to be treated by others."

Government policy

Severus Alexander , Roman emperor from 222 to 235, knew the negative rule form of Jews or Christians and, according to the Historia Augusta , had it affixed to his palace and public buildings as a Latin inscription: "Quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris!" made it a principle of its domestic policy and urged its officials to obey it in private and public conflicts. Under him the practice of religion was tolerated by Jews and Christians.

Since about 1880, the rule became popular among middle and upper classes in the United States . US Secretary of State John Hay (1838–1905) declared it to be a means of diplomacy with reference to Isocrates and, alongside the Monroe Doctrine , his motto for life.

US President John F. Kennedy was referring to 1963 in a speech to the nation on the occasion of race riots in Alabama on the rule to segregation and discrimination of African Americans in the United States by strengthening their civil rights to overcome:

"The core of the question is whether all Americans get equal rights and opportunities, whether we treat our fellow citizens the way we want to be treated."

White Americans should ask themselves whether they would be satisfied if they were excluded from certain restaurants and schools because of their skin color, that is, prevented from full self-determination.

US President Barack Obama declared the rule at the traditional National Prayer Breakfast on February 5, 2009 as an impetus for sustained joint peace efforts by all US citizens, regardless of their faith. At the end of his speech to the Islamic world in Cairo on June 4, 2009, he emphasized that the rule, as the root of civilization, is the basis of every religion, but does not belong to any and therefore calls for national, religious and cultural boundaries to be overcome. In his speech to receive the Nobel Peace Prize on December 10, 2009, he declared holy wars - killing in the name of God - incompatible with the rule and referred to warfare compatible with the theory of just war , which takes account of and combats its own fallibility.

Economy

As opposed to social Darwinism , representatives of social gospel like Charles Fletcher Dole wanted to make the rule for a business ethic fruitful since 1896 in order to alleviate excesses of capitalism and to increase the gross national product .

Entrepreneurs such as Samuel Milton Jones , Arthur Nash and JC Penney made the rule the basis of their corporate philosophy after the First World War and at times achieved enormous economic successes with generous wage increases, price cuts, extensive participation and teamwork . Arthur Nash described his experience of applying the rules in an often reprinted book in 1923.

Group initiatives

Some Christian scout groups for young people have integrated the rule into their scout promise, according to the Royal Rangers .

Clubs from humanists like the British Humanist Association welcomed the rule as a rational, practical and universal basis of human social behavior, ask the no religious faith.

The InterAction Council proposed on September 1, 1997, a Declaration of Human Duties and Responsibilities before, Article 4, the principle of universal responsibility due to the negative Rules Writing:

“All people, endowed with reason and conscience, must, in a spirit of solidarity, take responsibility for each and everyone, families and communities, races, nations and religions: what you do not want to be done to you, do not do it to anyone else. "

The British religious scholar Karen Armstrong initiated a "Charter of Compassion " after receiving the TED Prize in 2008 . It is also intended to address non-religious people and could be formulated by everyone on the Internet until February 2009 . A “Council of Consciousness” made up of high-ranking religious leaders and thinkers bundled the proposals and issued the charter in November 2009. It starts like this:

"The principle of compassion underlies all religions, ethical and spiritual traditions and calls us to always treat everyone else as we wish to be treated ourselves."

psychology

Jean Piaget (1932) and Erik Erikson (1964) described the learning of behavior in the sense of the rule as part of developmental psychology in children.

In order to empirically test Piaget's development theory of moral judgment, Lawrence Kohlberg observed the development of moral judgment formation from childhood to adulthood in a long-term study and deduced from this his stage theory of moral development , which he published in 1981. According to this, children and adolescents confronted with a moral dilemma, some of them as ten-year-olds, begin to change roles, which the rule requires, but only one-sidedly and selectively. Only a few adults - around five percent of all US citizens of legal age - performed a multilateral role reversal: They imagined the role of each participant in a situation in order to take their needs and expectations into account from their perspective, and waived claims they made lack of awareness of other points of view.

Medical ethics

Richard M. Hare used the 1975 rule to assess possible exceptional cases of euthanasia . Using the example of a tanker truck that overturned after an accident and burned immediately, the driver of which was trapped underneath and asked helpers to kill him so as not to burn alive, he explained to a Christian audience: who put himself in the driver's shoes and asked what he was doing would wish in his place could not possibly argue that euthanasia is always immoral and forbidden. The imaginary role reversal should make the necessary charity applicable. Such cases can only be judged on the basis of the duty of love, not on the basis of church dogmas and mere habituation to simple rules. The exception to grant the driver the wish to kill is in no way a precedent for creeping under the ban on euthanasia. Acute unbearable pain, no other means of rescue and the express, unequivocal and conscious wish of the person concerned to die are necessary conditions for such exceptions.

With regard to abortion , too , Hare argued with the rule that one should treat others as one is happy to have been treated. If we are happy that no one has interrupted our mothers' pregnancies, then we are required not to limit pregnancies that would allow others to be just as happy. In doing so, Hare tried to avoid the direct, unimaginable role reversal of an adult with a fetus .

Hare has been accused of utilitarian thinking, which seems to allow abortion of the unborn, for example in the case of overpopulation , which endangers the happiness of the living. The philosopher Vittorio Hösle criticized: The attempt to construct the legal idea from “symmetrical relationships between representatives of selfish interests” is unsuitable for protecting the right to life of weaker living beings. The rule does not exclude child murder , for example .

literature

overview

Historical

  • Albrecht Dihle : The Golden Rule. An introduction to the history of ancient and early Christian vulgar ethics. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1962 ( Study books on Classical Studies 7, ZDB -ID 503258-1 ). ( Digitized , BSB Munich)
  • Russell Freedman: Confucius. The Golden Rule. Scholastic, New York NY 2002, ISBN 0-439-13957-0 (English).
  • Joachim Hruschka : The golden rule in the Enlightenment - the story of an idea. In: Yearbook for Law and Ethics. 12, 2004, ISSN  0944-4610 , pp. 157-172.
  • Adel Theodor Khoury : The golden rule in religious and cultural studies view. In: Alfred Bellebaum , Heribert Precipitation (Ed.): What you don't want someone to do to you ... The golden rule - a path to happiness? UVK - Universitäts-Verlag Konstanz, Konstanz 1999, ISBN 3-87940-689-8 , pp. 25-42.
  • Jacob Neusner , Bruce D. Chilton (Eds.): The Golden Rule. The Ethics of Reciprocity in World Religions. Continuum, London et al. 2008, ISBN 978-1-84706-296-3 .
  • Antti Raunio: Sum of Christian Life. The “golden rule” as the law of love in Martin Luther's theology from 1510–1527. Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 2009, ISBN 978-3-525-10056-1 ( publications of the Institute for European History Mainz 160 Department for Occidental Religious History ), (also: Helsinki, Univ., Diss., 1993).
  • Johannes Straub : The Golden Rule. In: Johannes Straub: Regeneratio Imperii. Essays on Rome's empire and empire in the mirror of pagan and Christian journalism. Volume 1. Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1972, ISBN 3-534-05327-3 .

Philosophical

  • Josef Bordat : The Golden Rule as an Ethos of Global Solidarity. A Philosophical Inquiry. In: Dariusz Dobrzański (Ed.): The Idea of ​​Solidarity. Philosophical and Social Contexts. The Council for Research in Values ​​and Philosophy, Washington DC 2011, pp. 97-103.
  • Walter Brinkmann: The Golden Rule and the Categorical Imperative. Rationality and practical necessity. In: Volker Gerhardt et al. (Ed.): Kant and the Berlin Enlightenment. Files of the IX. International Kant Congress. Volume 3: Sections VI - X. de Gruyter, Berlin et al. 2001, ISBN 3-11-016979-7 , pp. 13-20.
  • Harry J. Gensler: The Golden Rule. In: Harry J. Gensler: Formal Ethics. Routledge Chapman & Hall, London a. a. 1996, ISBN 0-415-13066-2 .
  • Alan Gewirth : The Golden Rule Rationalized. In: Alan Gewirth: Human Rights. Essays on Justification and Applications. (1978) Chicago 1998, pp. 128-142.
  • James A. Gould: The Not-So-Golden Rule. In: Southern Journal of Philosophy. 1, 1963, ISSN  0258-0136 , pp. 10-14.
  • Jacob Neusner, Bruce Chilton (Ed.): The Golden Rule. Analytical Perspectives. University Press of America, Lanham MD 2009, ISBN 978-0-7618-4101-2 (Studies in Religion and the Social Order) .
  • Hans Reiner: The golden rule. The meaning of a basic moral formula of humanity. (1948) In: Hans Reiner: The foundations of morality. 2nd revised and greatly expanded edition. Hain, Meisenheim 1974 ( monographs on philosophical research. 5, ZDB -ID 503781-5 ).
  • HTD Rost: The Golden Rule. A Universal Ethic. George Ronald, Oxford 1986, ISBN 0-85398-226-0 (English).
  • Marcus George Singer: The Golden Rule. In: Philosophy. 38, 1963, ISSN  0031-8191 , pp. 293-314.
  • Marcus George Singer: The Golden Rule. In: Paul Edwards (Ed.): Encyclopedia of Philosophy . Volume 3. Macmillan, New York 1967, pp. 365-367.
  • Marcus George Singer: The ideal of a rational morality. Philosophical compositions. Clarendon Press, Oxford 2002, ISBN 0-19-825021-5 , chapter 12.
  • Jeffrey Wattles: Levels of Meaning in the Golden Rule . In: The Journal of Religious Ethics. 15, 1, 1987, ISSN  0384-9694 , pp. 106-129.
  • Jeffrey Wattles: The Golden Rule. Oxford University Press, New York et al. 1996, ISBN 0-19-511036-6 .

Christian theological

  • Alan Kirk, "Love Your Enemies," the Golden Rule, and Ancient Reciprocity (Luke 6: 27-35). In: Journal of Biblical Literature. 122, 4, 2003, ISSN  0021-9231 , pp. 667-686 excerpt online .
  • Paul Ricœur : The Golden Rule. In: New Testament Studies. 36, 1990, ISSN  0028-6885 , pp. 392-397.
  • Enno Rudolph : eschatological imperative or rule of wisdom? The Golden Rule in the context of the Gospel of Matthew and in the conflict of interpretations. In: Enno Rudolph: Theology, this side of dogma. Studies in systematic theology. Mohr / Siebeck, Tübingen 1994, ISBN 3-16-146244-0 , pp. 80-95 ( limited preview in the Google book search).
  • John Topel: The Tarnished Golden Rule (Luke 6:31): The Inescapable Radicalness of Christian Ethics. In: Theological Studies. 59, 1998, ISSN  0040-5639 , pp. 475-485 ( excerpt online ).
  • Werner Wolbert : The golden rule and the ius talionis. In: Trier Theological Journal. 95, 1986, ISSN  0041-2945 , pp. 169-181.
  • Hans Küng : Global Ethic Project. Piper, Munich 1992 (Chapter V, from p. 80)

Practically

Web links

Commons : Golden Rule  - collection of pictures, videos and audio files

Bibliographies

Bible exegesis

Justifications and philosophical presentations

Applications

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ Maximilian Forschner a. a .: Lexicon of Ethics. 7th edition. Beck, Munich 2008, ISBN 978-3-406-56810-7 , p. 118.
  2. ↑ Georg Büchmann: Winged Words , 32nd edition, Haude & Spener, Berlin 1972, p. 54f .; similar at KFW Wander: Deutsches Sprich emphasis-Lexikon , article "Wollen (Verb)" at Zeno.org . Probably derived from the biblical passages linked above; already appears in the Middle High German Book of the Rügen (anonymous, probably 13th century) in the form: swaz du niht wil daz dir geschiht / des entuo dem other niht ( Theodor von Karajan : book of the rügen . In: Journal for German antiquity and German literature 2 (1842), p. 53, digitized at DigiZeitschriften). The revised version of the Luther Bible from 2017 adopts the proverbial form for the translation of Tobit 4.15 (according to another counting 4.16). In the Luther Bible of 1545 the passage says: What you want someone to do to you / that to someone else too .
  3. ↑ Thomas Jackson : First Sermon upon Matthew 7.12 (1615; Works Volume 3, p. 612); Benjamin Camfield: The Comprehensive Rule of Righteousness (1671); George Boraston: The Royal Law, or the Golden Rule of Justice and Charity (1683); John Goodman: The Golden Rule, or, the Royal Law of Equity explained (1688; front page as facsimile in the Google Book Search); on this Olivier du Roy: The Golden Rule as the Law of Nature. In: Jacob Neusner, Bruce Chilton (ed.): The Golden Rule - The Ethics of Reprocity in World Religions . London / New York 2008, p. 94.
  4. ^ Leonidas Johannes Philippidis: The 'Golden Rule', examined from a religious perspective. Dissertation, Leipzig 1929.
  5. ↑ Oxford English Dictionary, Compact Edition, Vol. I, Oxford University Press, Oxford 1971, p. 280.
  6. ↑ Wilfried Härle: Golden Rule. In: Religion Past and Present. Volume 3, Mohr / Siebeck, 4th edition. Tübingen 2000, ISBN 3-16-146943-7 , Sp. 1078.
  7. ↑ Jeffrey Wattles: The Golden Rule. 1996, p. 6.
  8. ↑ Bruno Schüller: The justification of moral judgments. Types of ethical reasoning in moral theology. Patmos Verlag, 3rd edition. Düsseldorf 1993, ISBN 3-491-77551-5 , pp. 85-91.
  9. ^ A b c Ralf Moritz (translator): Confucius: Talks (Lun-Yu). Reclam, Ditzingen near Stuttgart 1998, ISBN 3-15-009656-1 (1st edition 1982).
  10. ↑ Jeffrey Wattles: The Golden Rule. New York / Oxford 1996, p. 17 and note 3, p. 194.
  11. ↑ Jeffrey Wattles: The Golden Rule. P. 18.
  12. ↑ Jeffrey Wattles: The Golden Rule. P. 19.
  13. ↑ Mahabharata 13,113,8 sa 
  14. ↑ Konrad Meisig: The early Buddhism in Chinese sources. In: Konrad Meisig (ed.): Chinese religion and philosophy: Confucianism - Mohism - Daoism - Buddhism: Basics and insights. Otto Harrassowitz, 2006, ISBN 3-447-05203-1 , p. 12.
  15. ^ Hermann Jacobi (translator, 1895): Jaina Sutras, Part II (Sacred Books of the East 45). Kindle Edition; 10th lesson, verse 3 .
  16. ↑ Jack Maguire (Ed.) Friedrich Max Müller (Translator): Dhammapada: Annotated and Explained. Jewish Lights Publications, 2002, ISBN 1-893361-42-X .
  17. ↑ z. B. Henry Steel Olcott: The Golden Rules of Buddhism. (published 1887) The Theosophical Publishing House, Adyar / Wheaton / London 1967.
  18. ↑ Udana , Chapter 5 (Sonathera), Section 1 ; Translated into German by Kurt Schmidt: Sprüche und Lieder. Buddhist reference library. 1954. (Reprint: Verlag Beyerlein-Steinschulte, 1999, ISBN 3-931095-17-7 )
  19. ↑ Ilse-Lore Gunsser (translator): Speeches of the Buddha. From the Pâli Canon. Reclam-Verlag, Stuttgart 1987, ISBN 3-15-006245-4 , p. 40f .; P.55.7: The People of Veludvāra - Veludvāreyya Sutta.
  20. ↑ John Hick: Religion. The human answers to the question of life and death. Diederichs Verlag, Munich 1996, ISBN 3-424-01311-0 , p. 337.
  21. ↑ Ingo Kottsieper: The story and sayings of the wise Achiqar. In: Otto Kaiser, Günter Burkhard: TUAT . Volume 3, Delivery 2: Wisdom Texts II. Verlagshaus Gerd Mohn, Gütersloh 1991, ISBN 3-579-00073-X , p. 322f.
  22. ↑ Armenian Achiqar A II, 88 and B 53; Merten Rabenau: Studies on the book of Tobit. 1st edition. Walter de Gruyter, 1994, ISBN 3-11-014125-6 , p. 56, footnote 177.
  23. ↑ Miriam Lichtheim : Late Egyptian Wisdom Literature in the International Context: A Study of Demotic Instructions. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen 1983, ISBN 3-525-53674-7 , p. 33ff.
  24. ↑ Heinz Josef Thissen: The teaching of the Anchscheschonqi. In: Otto Kaiser, Günter Burkhard: TUAT Volume 3, Delivery 2: Wisdom Texts II. Gütersloh 1991, pp. 262 and 265.
  25. ↑ Shayast-la-Shayast , Chapter 13, Passus 29 , in: Friedrich Max Müller (Ed.): EW West (Translator): Pahlavi Texts Part I: The Sacred Books of the East Part Five , Kessinger Publishing, LLC, 2004, ISBN 1-4326-2385-0 , p. 363.
  26. ↑ Dadistan-I dinik , Chapter 94, Passus 5 , in: Friedrich Max Müller (Ed.): EW West (translator): The Sacred Books of the East, Volume 18: Pahlavi Texts, Part II. (1882) Adamant Media Corporation , New edition 2000, ISBN 1-4021-5608-1 , p. 271.
  27. ↑ Homer: Odyssey in the Gutenberg-DE project
  28. ↑ Herodotus: Histories. Third book, 143 (3). Quoted from: Kai Brodersen (ed.): Christine Ley-Hutton (translator): Herodot. Histories. Third book. Stuttgart: Philipp Reclam jun., 2007, ISBN 978-3-15-018223-9 .
  29. ↑ Christoph Eucken: Isokrates: His positions in dealing with contemporary philosophers. 1st edition. James Bennett Pty, 1983, ISBN 3-11-008646-8 , p. 202 ( limited preview in Google Book Search)
  30. ↑ Hermann Diels, Walther Kranz (ed.): The fragments of the pre-Socratic. 13th edition. Weidmann, Berlin 1984, ISBN 3-296-12203-6 (10 e, A4).
  31. ↑ Diogenes Laertios: Life and teaching of the philosophers. Book 1, Thales, 36 (Greek); quoted here from: Fritz Jürß (Ed. & Translator): Diogenes Laertios. Life and teaching of the philosophers. Philipp Reclam jun., Stuttgart 1998/2004, ISBN 3-15-009669-3 , p. 52.
  32. ↑ Laws XI 913a, Klaus Schöpsdau: Plato, Laws IV-VII: Translation and Commentary. (= Plato, works. Translation and commentary. Commissioned by the Commission for Classical Philology of the Academy of Sciences and Literature in Mainz, edited by E. Heitsch and CW Müller, Dept. IX 2, second volume, Göttingen 2003).
  33. ↑ Isocrates: Speech of Nicocles to the Cypriots. 3.49.62. Quoted from: Kai Brodersen (ed.): Christine Ley-Hutton (translator): Isokrates. Complete Works. Volume I: Speeches I-VIII . Anton Hiersemann, Stuttgart 1993, ISBN 3-7772-9307-5 , pp. 40 and 43
  34. ↑ Isocrates: Speech of Nicocles to the Cypriots. 3.61. Quoted from: Kai Brodersen (ed.): Christine Ley-Hutton (translator): Isokrates. Complete Works. Volume I. Speeches I-VIII. P. 42.
  35. ^ Andreas Graeser: History of Philosophy. Volume 2: The Philosophy of Antiquity: Sophistics and Socratics. Plato and Aristotle. 2nd Edition. CH Beck, 1993, ISBN 3-406-36983-9 , p. 81.
  36. ↑ Ruben Apressyan (22nd World Congress of Philosophy 2008): Whether there is the Golden Rule in Aristotle's Ethics?
  37. ↑ Diogenes Laertios: Life and teaching of the philosophers. Book 5, Aristotle, 21 (Greek); quoted here from: Fritz Jürß (Ed.): Diogenes Laertios. Life and teaching of the philosophers. Philipp Reclam jun., Stuttgart 1998/2004, ISBN 3-15-009669-3 , p. 226.
  38. ↑ Jeffrey Wattles: The Golden Rule. 1996, p. 37ff.
  39. ↑ Seneca minor: De Ira Book III, XII, 2.3 (Latin); Seneca: Writings on Ethics. The little dialogues. Latin-German, edited and translated by Gerhard Fink . Artemis and Winkler, Düsseldorf 2008, ISBN 978-3-538-03509-6 , p. 248f.
  40. ↑ Seneca: Epistulae morales ad Lucilium. Latin-German, edited and translated by Gerhard Fink. (Book I, Letter 47, Paragraph 11) Artemis and Winkler, Düsseldorf 2007, ISBN 978-3-538-03501-0 , pp. 244f.
  41. ↑ Epictetus, January 0236 & redirect = true fragment 42 (English); after Jeffrey Wattles: The Golden Rule. P. 40.
  42. ↑ Heinz-Horst Schrey: Rule, golden I: Antiquity to Enlightenment. In: Joachim Ritter, Karlfried founder (Hrsg.): Historical dictionary of philosophy. Volume 8, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1992, p. 451 and notes 8-12, p. 455.
  43. ↑ Albrecht Dihle: The Golden Rule. 1962; summarized in: Art. Golden Rule. In: Real Lexicon for Antiquity and Christianity . Volume 11, Anton Hiersemann Verlag , Stuttgart 1981, ISBN 3-7772-8142-5 , Sp. 930ff.
  44. ^ Hans-Peter Mathys: Golden rule I. Judaism. In: Theological Real Encyclopedia . (TRE) Volume 13, Berlin 1984, pp. 570f.
  45. ↑ Jeffrey Wattles: The Golden Rule. 1996, p. 45f.
  46. ^ Hans-Peter Mathys: Golden rule I. Judaism. TRE Vol. 13 (1984), p. 571.
  47. ↑ Andreas Nissen: God and the neighbor in ancient Judaism. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen 1974, ISBN 3-16-135122-3 , pp. 390ff. ( limited preview in Google Book search)
  48. ↑ Gerd Theißen: Studies on the sociology of early Christianity. Mohr / Siebeck, 3rd expanded edition. Tübingen 1989, pp. 166-169.
  49. ↑ Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew. Evangelical-Catholic Commentary on the New Testament (EKK) I / 1, Benziger. 5th edition. Neukirchener Verlag, 2002, p. 392.
  50. ↑ Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew. EKK I / 1, 2002, p. 266.
  51. ↑ Peter Fiedler: The Gospel of Matthew. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2006, pp. 188ff.
  52. ↑ z. B. Joachim Jeremias: New Testament Theology, Part One: The Annunciation of Jesus. Gütersloh 1971; Gütersloher Verlagshaus, 4th edition. 1994, ISBN 3-579-04400-1 , pp. 204f.
  53. ↑ z. B. Achad Ha'am : Al Shetei Seifim (1910) In: Achad Ha'am: At the crossroads. Volume 4, Berlin 1921; see. Tzvi Howard Adelman, Jerusalem: Jewish Ethics: Are They Ethical? Are They Jewish? Part The Golden Rule in Rabbinic Judaism and Christianity ( Memento from August 29, 2012 in the Internet Archive )
  54. ↑ Hans-Peter Mathys: Golden rule I. TRE Vol. 13 (1984), p. 572.
  55. ↑ Roman Heiligenthal: Golden Rule II. TRE Vol. 13 (1984), p. 574.
  56. ↑ Ulrich Luz: The Gospel according to Matthew. EKK I / 1, 2002, p. 510.
  57. ^ Paul Ricoeur: The Golden Rule. In: New Testament Studies. 36/1990, p. 396f.
  58. ↑ Roman Heiligenthal: Golden rule II. TRE Vol. 13 (1984), p. 573.
  59. ^ Adel Theodor Khoury: The Golden Rule in a religious and cultural studies view. In: Alfred Bellebaum, Heribert Precipitation (Ed.): What you don't want someone to do to you ... The golden rule - a path to happiness? Konstanz 1999, p. 35.
  60. ↑ Rudi Paret : The Koran. 10th edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2007, p. 424: Woe to the fraudsters who, if they let people measure (something), demand full measure, but if they measure (of their own accord) (something) or weigh (they) damage (or: falsify (measure or weight); w. make defective)! Do not these (people) expect that they (one day) will be raised to a mighty day [...] .
  61. ↑ Th. Emil Homerin: The Golden Rule in Islam. In: Jacob Neusner, Bruce Chilton: The Golden Rule. Ethics of Reprocity in World Religions. London / New York 2008, p. 102 and footnotes 9, 10
  62. ^ Abdullah Yusuf Ali: The Meaning of the Glorious Qur'án. Dar al-Kitab al-Masri 1862, vol. 2, p. 1703; quoted by HTD Rost: The Golden Rule: A Universal Ethic. George Ronald, Oxford 1986, p. 101.
  63. ↑ Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi: The Book of Forty Hadith, Kitab al-Arba'in. With the commentary of Ibn Daqiq al-'Id (1228–1302). Translated from Arabic and edited by Marco Schöller. Verlag Der Weltreligionen, Suhrkamp / Insel Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2007, ISBN 978-3-458-70006-7 , p. 108.
  64. ^ Adel Theodor Khoury: The Golden Rule in a religious and cultural studies view. In: Alfred Bellebaum, Heribert Precipitation (Ed.): What you don't want someone to do to you ... The golden rule - a path to happiness? Konstanz 1999, p. 35.
  65. ^ Heinz Halm : Die Schia , Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt 1988, p. 65.
  66. ↑ Nahjul balagha: sermons, letters and sayings of Hazrath Ali , Khorasan Islamic Center 1960; various reprints including: Nahjul Balagha: Peak of Eloquence Sermons, Letters, and Sayings of Imam Ali Ibn Abu Talib , Tahrike Tarsile Quran, 2009; German translation by Fatima Özoğuz: Nahdsch-ul-Balagha - path of eloquence. m-haditec Volume 2, Bremen 2009, ISBN 978-3-939416-30-2 , pp. 205ff.
  67. ↑ Baha'u'llah: Letter to the Son of the Wolf , 1:55, (10/18). Both quotes from Martin Bauschke: The golden rule: amazement - understanding - action. EB-Verlag, 2010, ISBN 3-86893-030-2 , p. 60, fn. 113 and 114
  68. ↑ Confessiones I, 18.29; Ennerationes in Psalmos 57: 1f .; Sermo IX, 14. In: Corpus Christianorum Volume 41. Eberhard Schockenhoff: The controversial conscience. A theological foundation , Mainz 1990, pp. 70–77.
  69. ^ Heinz-Horst Schrey: Golden Rule III. TRE Vol. 13 (1984), pp. 575f.
  70. ^ Heinz-Horst Schrey: Golden Rule III. TRE Vol. 13 (1984), p. 576.
  71. ^ Heinz-Horst Schrey: Golden Rule III. TRE Vol. 13 (1984), pp. 576f.
  72. ↑ after Jan Rohls: History of Ethics. Mohr / Siebeck, 2nd edition. Tübingen 1999, p. 332.
  73. ^ Samuel Pufendorf: The community obligations of natural law. In: German legal thinking. Edited by Erik Wolf. Book 4. Selected Pieces from De Officio Hominis et Civis. [1673], Klostermann, 2nd edition. Frankfurt 1948, p. 21.
  74. ↑ John Locke: An Essay Concerning Human Understanding. (1690); after Jeffrey Wattles: The Golden Rule. 1996, p. 81.
  75. ↑ Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz: New Essays on Human Understanding. (1765) First Book, Chapter 2, Part 2; after Jeffrey Wattles: The Golden Rule. 1996, p. 81f.
  76. ↑ Heinz-Horst Schrey: Rule, golden I. Historical Dictionary of Philosophy, p. 454f.
  77. ↑ Jean-Jacques Rousseau: Discours sur l'origine et les fondements de l'inégalité parmi les hommes ( Treatise on the origin and foundations of inequality among people ) [1755], critical edition ed. by H. Meier, Schöningh, Paderborn 1984, 151
  78. ^ Johann Gottfried Herder: Ideas for the philosophy of the history of mankind. I 4, VI, No. 5; quoted from Golden Rule III. TRE vol. 13 (1984), p. 578. = Johann Gottfried Herder works in ten volumes, volume 6, Deutscher Klassiker Verlag, Frankfurt 1989, 159
  79. ↑ Jeffrey Wattles: The Golden Rule. 1996, p. 82f.
  80. ↑ Immanuel Kant: Foundation for the Metaphysics of Morals. Academy edition Kant Werke IV, p. 421.
  81. ↑ Günther Patzig: Collected writings, foundations of ethics, volume 1.
    Wallstein Verlag, 1994, ISBN 3-89244-049-2 , p. 78 ( limited preview in Google book search).
  82. ↑ Immanuel Kant: Foundation for the Metaphysics of Morals. Academy edition Kant Werke IV, p. 429.
  83. ↑ Immanuel Kant: Foundation for the Metaphysics of Morals. Academy edition Kant Werke IV, p. 430 footnote.
  84. ↑ Guido Brune: Human rights and human rights ethos. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2006, ISBN 3-17-019036-9 , p. 38.
  85. ↑ Heinz-Horst Schrey: Rule, golden I. In: Historical dictionary of philosophy. P. 458.
  86. ↑ Arthur Schopenhauer: About the foundation of morality. § 7 (1841; 1860); according to Heinz-Horst Schrey: Golden rule III. TRE Vol. 13 (1984), p. 578.
  87. ↑ John Stuart Mill: Utilitarianism. (1863), Volume X, p. 218 ( online English text ); Manuel García Pazos: The moral philosophy of John Stuart Mills: Utilitarianism. Tectum Verlag, 2001, ISBN 3-8288-8264-1 , pp. 36 and 113.
  88. ↑ Jeffrey Wattles: The Golden Rule. 1996, p. 124.
  89. ↑ Winfried Schröder: elegant. In: Historical Dictionary of Philosophy . Volume 11, Basel / Darmstadt, 2001, p. 119.
  90. ↑ Diary entry of November 24, 1887, NL Nov. 1887-March 1888, 11 [127] (370), KSA Volume 13, pp. 60f, eKGWB .
  91. ^ Friedrich Nietzsche: Fragments from the estate. September-October 1888, 22 [1] = W 88 8b, KSA Volume 13, p. 583 (the original is blocked in italics) / eKGWB / Hanser Verlag, Volume 3, pp. 838–839.
  92. ↑ George Bernard Shaw: Maxims for Revolutionists. In: Man and Superman; a Comedy and a Philosophy. (1903). Constable and Company, Standard Edition, London a. a. 1931/1947, p. 211 (reprinted 2009: BiblioBazaar, ISBN 1-116-42539-4 )
  93. ↑ Ernst Haeckel: The Monistenbund. Theses on the organization of monism. In: Ernst Haeckel: Commonly understood works. (1924), Volume 5, pp. 498f.
  94. ↑ Max Scheler: The formalism in ethics and the material ethics of values: New attempt to lay the foundations of an ethical personalism. (1913), Adamant Media Corporation, 2004, ISBN 0-543-68719-8 , pp. 537f.
  95. ^ Leonard Nelson: Critique of the practical reason (1917), In: Collected writings in nine volumes. Volume IV, Hamburg 1972, p. 133.
  96. ^ Leonard Nelson: Critique of Practical Reason (1917), Gesammelte Schriften IV, 1972, p. 177.
  97. ^ Edward Wales Hirst: The categorical imperative and the golden rule. In: Philosophy 9/1934, pp. 328-335 ( The Categorical Imperative and the Golden Rule excerpt online).
  98. ↑ Karl Popper: Collected Works 2: The two basic problems of epistemology. Mohr / Siebeck, ISBN 3-16-148505-X , p. 480f .; see Helmut Zenz: “Truth” and “Conscience” in the “Open Society” - A relationship determination with Karl Popper ( memento of the original from February 5, 2013 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was automatically inserted and not yet checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / www.helmut-zenz.de
  99. ↑ Tony Alessandra, Michael J. O'Connor: The Platinum Rule. Campus textbook, 1997, ISBN 3-593-35791-7 . Maria Buehler: Working without conflict with the platinum rule. Modern Industry, 2002, ISBN 3-478-81263-1 .
  100. ↑ Hans Reiner: The golden rule. In: duty and inclination. The foundations of morality, discussed and redefined with special reference to Kant and Schiller. (1951) Westkulturverlag, 2nd edition. Meisenheim 1974, p. 83.
  101. ↑ Hans Reiner: The golden rule and natural law. Studia Leibniziana IX / 2, 1977, pp. 231-254.
  102. ↑ Erich Fromm: The art of loving. (1956), pp. 129f. In: Erich Fromm, Complete Edition Volume 9, (Socialist Humanism and Humanist Ethics.) Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, Stuttgart 1981, ISBN 3-421-01959-2 , p. 516f (PDF)
  103. ↑ Marcus George Singer: Generalization in Ethics (1961), German: Verallgemeinerung in der Ethik. On the logic of moral reasoning. Suhrkamp Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 1975, p. 35.
  104. ↑ Marcus George Singer: The Golden Rule. In: Philosophy. 38/1963, pp. 296-300.
  105. ↑ Hans Ulrich Hoche: The golden rule. New aspects of an old moral principle. In: Journal for Philosophical Research. 32/1978, pp. 355-375.
  106. ^ Richard Mervyn Hare: Freedom and Reason. (1963), Oxford University Press, 1972, ISBN 0-19-500261-X , p. 107 (overall: parts 6-9).
  107. ↑ John Rawls: A theory of justice (1971; German: 1975), Suhrkamp, ​​new edition, Frankfurt am Main 2009, ISBN 978-3-518-27871-0 (especially chapter 3).
  108. ↑ Amitai Etzioni: The discovery of the community. Claims, responsibilities and the program of communitarianism. Schäffer-Poeschel, Stuttgart 1995, p. 19.
  109. ↑ Hans-Ulrich Hoche: The golden rule. New aspects of an old moral principle. In: Journal for Philosophical Research. 32/1978, p. 358.
  110. ↑ Hans Ulrich Hoche: The golden rule. 1978, p. 362ff.
  111. ↑ Hans-Ulrich Hoche: Rule, golden II. In: Historical dictionary of philosophy. P. 461.
  112. ↑ Adolf Lutz: The golden rule. In: Journal for Philosophical Research. 18/1964, p. 471.
  113. ↑ executed in Hans Ulrich Hoche: Elements of an anatomy of obligation. Pragmatic and logical foundation of a theory of moral argumentation. Alber Verlag, Freiburg 1992.
  114. ↑ Hans Kelsen: What is justice? 1953. (Reclam, 2000, ISBN 3-15-018076-7 , pp. 38-42)
  115. ↑ Peter Chelčický: The Network of Faith (approx. 1440), part 1, chapter 55, p. 112f; According to Hans-Ulrich Wöhler: The legitimation and delegitimation of violence in the first half of the 15th century. In: Günther Mensching: Violence and its legitimation in the Middle Ages. Königshausen & Neumann, 2003, ISBN 3-8260-2618-7 , p. 296 ( limited preview in the Google book search).
  116. ↑ Adin Ballou, Tolstoy, and Gandhi. Paper presented at the conference Non-Violence in the Contemporary World: Society, Politics and Religion. Elon University, 23./24. April 2002.
  117. ^ Leo Tolstoy: The Kingdom of God is within you. (Project Gutenberg, English).
  118. ↑ Jeffrey Wattles: The Golden Rule. 1996, pp. 90-95.
  119. ^ "Declaration on the Global Ethic" of the Parliament of the World Religions, Chicago 1993 (PDF p. 3).
  120. ↑ Historia Augusta to Alexander Severus, 51.8; quoted from Biblioteca Augustana = Ernst Hohl (ed.): Scriptores Historiae Augustae. 2 volumes , Teubner, Leipzig 1965.
  121. ↑ Samuel Krauss:  Alexander Severus. In: Isidore Singer (Ed.): Jewish Encyclopedia . Funk and Wagnalls, New York 1901–1906 ..
  122. ^ John F. Kennedy: Radio and Television Report to the American People on Civil Rights (June 11, 1963) ( Memento December 19, 2012 in the Internet Archive ).
  123. ^ New York Times: President Obama's Remarks at National Prayer Breakfast February 5, 2009 .
  124. ↑ Süddeutsche Zeitung, June 4, 2009: Obama in Cairo - the speech in full ( Memento of June 8, 2009 in the Internet Archive ).
  125. ↑ uswahl2008.de (Friday, December 11, 2009): Obama's Nobel Prize speech in German ( Memento of the original from March 4, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. . @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / uswahl2008.de
  126. ↑ Peter J. Frederick: Knights of the Golden Rule: The Intellectual As Christian Social Reformer in the 1890s. University Press of Kentucky 1976, ISBN 0-8131-1345-8 .
  127. ↑ Jeffrey Wattles: The Golden Rule. 1996, pp. 95-103. ( Memento from February 1, 2012 in the Internet Archive ).
  128. ^ Arthur Nash: The Golden Rule in Business (1923); New edition 2005, Cosimo Incorporated, ISBN 1-59605-634-7 ( limited preview in Google book search, English); to Harold Marshall, Massachusetts: Arthur Nash: The Golden Rule in business .
  129. ↑ royal-rangers.de: Golden Rule and Promise ( Memento from December 26, 2011 in the Internet Archive )
  130. ↑ British Humanist Association: A humanist perspective on ... the 'Golden Rule' (PDF file; 138 KiB).
  131. ↑ Interaction Council, 1997: Universal Declaration of Human Duties .
  132. ↑ TED Prize for Karen Armstrong: Wishes big enough to change the world ( Memento from February 3, 2013 in the Internet Archive )
  133. ^ The Charter for Compassion (November 2009) ( Memento of October 16, 2014 in the Internet Archive ).
  134. ^ Jean Piaget: Le jugement moral chez l'enfant. Paris 1932; German: Jean Piaget: The moral judgment in the child. Klett-Cotta, 2nd edition. 1983, ISBN 3-608-93034-5 , pp. 366f.
  135. ↑ Erik H. Erikson: The Golden Rule in the Light of Recent Insights. In: Insight and Responsibility. The role of the ethical in psychoanalysis. (1964) Fischer-TB.-Verlag, Frankfurt am Main 2003, ISBN 3-436-01413-3 , pp. 192-215.
  136. ↑ Lawrence Kohlberg: The Psychology of Moral Development. Frankfurt am Main 1996, ISBN 3-518-28832-6 , especially p. 409ff.
  137. ^ Richard M. Hare: Euthanasia: A Christian View (1975). In: Essays on Religion and Education. Oxford University Press, Oxford 1998, ISBN 0-19-824996-9 .
  138. ^ Richard M. Hare: Abortion and the Golden Rule. (PDF file; 583 kB) In: Philosophy and Public Affairs. 4/3 (1975), pp. 201-222. German translation in: Anton Leist (Hrsg.): To life and death. Moral problems associated with abortion, artificial insemination, euthanasia, and suicide. Suhrkamp, ​​Frankfurt 1990, pp. 132-156.
  139. ↑ Jeffrey Wattles: The Golden Rule. 1996, footnote 14 on p. 182.
  140. ^ Vittorio Hösle: Philosophy of the ecological crisis: Moscow lectures. Beck, Munich 1994, ISBN 3-406-38368-8 , p. 75.
  141. ^ Sabine Müller: Program for a new philosophy of science. Königshausen & Neumann, 2004, ISBN 3-8260-2750-7 , p. 160 and fn. 369
This version was added to the list of articles worth reading on January 10, 2010 .