I intrepret the Golden Rule to be a negative prohibition on action and not a positive commandment. One 'loves' their autonomy and ability to choose. Thus one should 'love' their neighbor by not infringing on their ability to be autonomous and choose. One should not violate the
Non-Aggression Axiom which is the use of fraud, force or the threat of force against an innocent. On this hang all the law and the prophets.
Well, I agree that the Golden Rule includes not acting badly towards others, I think it goes beyond this. Actually, there are many versions of the idea, most are negative, as you suggest.
Bahá'í Faith:
"Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." "Blessed is he who preferreth his brother before himself." Baha'u'llah
Brahmanism: "This is the sum of Dharma [duty]: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you". Mahabharata, 5:1517 "
Buddhism:
"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful." Udana-Varga 5:18
Confucianism:
"Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you" Analects 15:23
there are others ...
But, the golden rule as in the Bible is a positive:
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matthew 7:12
I agree that not initiating force on your neighbor would be included here, but I do think it goes beyond this, to say that it is moral to take proactive, positive action towards your neighbor. Staying out of his beeswax is not enough.
For example, two examples of violating the Non-Aggression Axiom are stealing and murder. Stealing violates choice in the past because that is the fruit of one's labor and murder violates one's ability to choose in the future. View this to understand
self-ownership. The violation of the
Non-Aggression Axiom is immoral and unjustified.
I agree with this, these things would definitely be violations of the golden rule.
Your second question is about charity and is taught in commandments like 'let him have thy cloke also'. Charity is a higher law. However, if one does not extend charity it does not make them immoral or unjustified.
I actually disagree. I think that if one chooses never to help another person, while this should be legal and would be within one's civil rights, it is also immoral.
Although I should not be legally required to do so, I believe I have a moral obligation to help those who need it.
Additionally, forcing someone to perform charity against their will is a violation of the
Non-Aggression Axiom. Misguided charity can so easily bear the weed of tyranny.
I definitely agree with this.
After all, God is omniscient and omnipotent and could provide for all the starving but does not and is not immoral or unjust for behaving such.
This is a pretty deep issue. My own belief is that it is our responsibility to help -- in a way, that we should do our best to be the means by which God helps people. I don't have all the answers. If God snapped his fingers and ensured that everything was perfect, there really wouldn't be any room for significant human action, with consequences. Say, anytime I tried to harm someone God made it impossible -- the stick I was going to hit someone with turns to Styrofoam, I can never get the nasty thing I was going to say out of my throat, and when I neglect my kids they magically become well clothed and fed. Human action in this case would be pretty meaningless -- I wouldn't really be able to intend harm if I knew it would never happen.
Likewise, if everything were already perfect, it would be impossible to show love to someone by helping them out, by giving up something for someone who needs it more, or by saying something encouraging, since none of these things could actually improve the person's situation in any way.
So, there have to be some real consequences -- we have to live in a real world where decisions matter if we're going to be real people capable of real good, real charity, or real love.
I don't have it all figured out though, and there's always a question of degrees. Couldn't things be better without being perfect, and still leave us room for choice? If the world were better but not perfect, would we actually appreciate it, or would we react to it the same way we react to ours, by decrying the worst evil and asking how God allows it?
I don't know all the answers to these things.
