flarione.ru → Saving money

The golden rule of ethics why it is golden. "golden rule of ethics"

To the question why the main rule of morality is called golden, asked by the author Dasha Korotkova the best answer is There is a moral assessment of human activity from the point of view of its compliance with the rules of behavior accepted in society. A person’s actions can be moral (worthy, noble, correct) and immoral. The criteria by which such a division occurs are called moral standards. Morality is diverse, it can be understood as the experience of worldly wisdom, as the fulfillment of divine covenants, as an instrument for maintaining order in society, as honesty in human relationships, as the highest meaning of human life, as the inner voice of conscience, and even as outdated requirements that prevent a person from being himself yourself.
The basis of morality is conscience (a moral feeling that allows a person to determine his actions and actions from the point of view of good and evil) and duty (moral command, readiness to act in accordance with his own idea of correct behavior).
Most peoples of the world now have some common traits of moral behavior: unselfishness, courage, truthfulness, modesty, humanism, wisdom, etc. Qualities that cause censure among many peoples (vices) are stupidity, selfishness, vanity, flattery, etc.
The main categories of morality are ideas about good and evil. These are the most general concepts that allow us to evaluate the actions and actions of people. Goodness is the main value of a person, his moral shrine. Good is opposed to evil.
Each of us has a choice of the path of virtue or vice, but we are not free from responsibility for the chosen path.
Generally accepted ethical requirements and guidelines for moral actions constitute a universal human moral consciousness. It is they who express the requirements of the moral ideal as the highest moral goal (“ golden rule"morality). From ancient times to the present day, the “golden rule” of morality has constantly changed, but it has always preserved the ideas of freedom and equality of people, the self-worth and dignity of each individual. IN general view This rule can be expressed as follows: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
The peculiarity of morality is that it is based on values - the preferences of people based on their goals and ideals. At the center of moral values is the idea of good (the ultimate form of good, the state of a person’s complete agreement with reality and himself). From here come: kindness, generosity, compassion, care for one's neighbor, generosity, honesty, calmness, hope, etc. All these values can be called virtues. They are opposed by vices - hatred, envy, pride, immoderation, selfishness, greed, etc.

Reply from 22 answers[guru]

Hello! Here is a selection of topics with answers to your question: why is the main rule of morality called golden?

Reply from Osokor[newbie]
Ay, Ay, ay DashKaa*))

Reply from Alexey Kolesnikov[newbie]
The main rule of morality: do not do to people what you do not want for yourself.
They call it golden, because if a person remembers it more often and puts himself in the place of the one he wants to offend, then perhaps he will not offend another, because he would not want to be offended)

Reply from chevron[newbie]
There is a moral assessment of human activity from the point of view of its compliance with the rules of behavior accepted in society. A person’s actions can be moral (worthy, noble, correct) and immoral. The criteria by which such a division occurs are called moral standards. Morality is diverse, it can be understood as the experience of worldly wisdom, as the fulfillment of divine covenants, as an instrument for maintaining order in society, as honesty in human relationships, as the highest meaning of human life, as the inner voice of conscience, and even as outdated requirements that prevent a person from being himself yourself.
The basis of morality is conscience (a moral feeling that allows a person to determine his actions and actions from the point of view of good and evil) and duty (moral command, readiness to act in accordance with one’s own idea of correct behavior).
Most peoples of the world now have some common traits of moral behavior: unselfishness, courage, truthfulness, modesty, humanism, wisdom, etc. Qualities that cause censure among many peoples (vices) are stupidity, selfishness, vanity, flattery, etc.
The main categories of morality are ideas about good and evil. This is the most general concepts, which allow you to evaluate the actions and actions of people. Goodness is the main value of a person, his moral shrine. Good is opposed to evil.
Each of us has a choice of the path of virtue or vice, but we are not free from responsibility for the chosen path.
Generally accepted ethical requirements and guidelines for moral actions constitute what is universal in moral consciousness. It is they who express the requirements of the moral ideal as the highest moral goal (the “golden rule” of morality). From ancient times to the present day, the “golden rule” of morality has constantly changed, but it has always preserved the ideas of freedom and equality of people, the self-worth and dignity of each individual. In general, this rule can be expressed as follows: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”
The peculiarity of morality is that it is based on values - the preferences of people based on their goals and ideals. At the center of moral values is the idea of good (the ultimate form of good, the state of a person’s complete agreement with reality and himself). From here come: kindness, generosity, compassion, care for one's neighbor, generosity, honesty, calmness, hope, etc. All these values can be called virtues. They are opposed by vices - hatred, envy, pride, immoderation, selfishness, greed, etc.

Subject. "The Golden Rule of Ethics."

Basic

concepts

Methodology, types

works

Methods and forms of control, reflection

The golden rule of ethics. Non-judgment.

Conversation, commented reading, oral history on the topic, creative tasks, participation in educational dialogue, work with illustrative material.

Name the “golden rule of ethics”.

Why is it “golden”?

Formulate your own rules.

Teacher: Hello!

Today in the lesson you will get acquainted with the great spiritual heritage that, for many centuries, one generation of our compatriots passed on to another. You will learn about the moral ideals and moral standards of our ancestors.
Now the teams will have to test their knowledge of the subject, pass tests at 4 stations as quickly and without errors. Having completed the task at each station, the team receives a fragment of the password. By piecing together the password, the team has the opportunity to learn the main rule of Christian ethics.

Captains receive “Route Sheets”! ()

At my command, we begin our route. Once! Two! Three!

II. Practical work at the stations

Station 1 "Morality".

Test (Choosing the correct answer)

1: Choose the person’s action that can be called moral:

A) Don’t pay attention to other people’s troubles and sorrows.

B) Help people who need it.

C) Help people, hoping to receive a reward.

2. If one of your friends is gossiping, then you need to:

A) Condemn those who condemn;

B) Tell the guys that judging others is not good, move the conversation to another topic;

C) Take part in the discussion of other people's shortcomings.

3. Finish the sentence. For people to love us, we must...

A) Flatter them;

B) Demand love;

C) Love them.

4. Finish the sentence. Kind person can be called if:

A) He does good things to become popular;

B) He does good in order to receive a reward in return;

C) He does good according to the dictates of his heart.

5. Who points out to a person his bad thoughts and actions?

A) Policeman.

B) Comrades.

B) Conscience.

6. Finish the sentence. A moral person helps...

A) Those who helped him;

B) For those who can pay for the assistance provided:

C) To those who need help, even if they do you harm.

Well done! Mark in the Route Sheet. Handing over a password fragment

Conclusion. We learned that a moral person can:

A) help people who need it, even if they do you harm;

B) don't judge

B) love.

We have found out what we mean by the concept of morality or ethics.

Station 2 Christian Ethics

And now we have to answer the question:

What is Christian ethics? What is its difference from secular ethics?

-How to protect yourself from judging others?

Solve the crossword puzzle and you will find out what Jesus Christ commanded his disciples to have so that they could be distinguished from other people.

1. That which must be denounced and hated. (Evil)

2. Those who are responsible for the evil committed on earth. (People)

3. What the Lord told the man to take out of his own eye in order to see how to take out the speck from his brother’s eye. (Log)

4. Distinguishing between the assessment of an action and the assessment of the person himself. (Non-judgment)

5. Someone who needs to be loved in any circumstances. (Human)

6. What you should not do to avoid being judged. (Judge)

Love. Record your conclusion on the route sheet. Handing over a password fragment.

What is special about Christian love? This booklet will help you answer this question. Unfold it. Let's read the first letter to the Corinthians of the Holy Apostle Paul, chapter 13

Love is patient, merciful, love does not envy, love is not arrogant, is not proud, is not rude, does not seek its own, is not irritated, does not think evil, does not rejoice in unrighteousness, but rejoices with the truth; covers all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things.

Station 3 Parable.(Movie)

The elder led the disciples out into the cold and silently stood in front of them.
Five minutes passed, ten... The elder continued to remain silent.
The disciples shivered, shifted from foot to foot, and looked at the elder.
He remained silent. They turned blue from the cold, shivered, and finally, when their patience reached its limit, the elder spoke.
He said, “You are cold. It is because you are standing apart.
Get closer to give each other your warmth.
This is the essence of Christian love.”

Discussion: What is the basis of Christian love?

A) kindness

B ) love for neighbor

B) compassion

Record your conclusion on the route sheet. Handing over a password fragment.

And it’s in vain to ask for a lot,
I really only need one thing.
I ask God for love
Without caring about the needs of others.

Vera Sergeevna Kushnir

Conclusion: the main content of Christian teaching is expressed by the words of the law:

"Love your neighbor as yourself"

Name the “golden rule of ethics”. Why is it “golden”?

How to protect yourself from judging others? Formulate your own rules.

Station 4 Cognition

Record your conclusion on the route sheet. Handing over a password fragment

III. Summing up

1Put the password together by explaining what it means (The Golden Rule of Christian Ethics)
Mark in the Route Sheet. Group leaders read the golden rule of morality.
“So in everything you want people to do to you, do so to them” (Matthew 7:12)

Well done!

D.Z Give examples of mercy and compassion from your life and the lives of your loved ones.

"So, in everything like people acted like this

do likewise to them" want to be with you

At the heart of a person’s relationships with other people, with society as a whole, lies the golden rule of behavior: “don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you” (negative formulation) and “do unto others as you would like them to do to you.” you" (positive wording). Anyone who violates the golden rule of behavior cannot count on being treated kindly. IN best case scenario he will not be noticed; at worst, they will treat him on the principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”

The golden rule has been known to people since time immemorial. It is mentioned in one of the oldest written monuments - the ancient Babylonian legend about Akihara. For Confucius (VI-V centuries BC) it is the basis of behavior. In the ancient Indian “Mahabharata” (5th century BC) it appears as the norm of norms.
The Golden Rule is attributed to two of the seven Greek sages - Pittacus and Thales. It can be found in Homer's Odyssey, in Herodotus's History, and in the Bible. In the latter it is mentioned at least three times: in the book of Tobit (4.15), in the Gospel of Luke (6.31) and in the Gospel of Matthew (7.12). The so-called biblical commandments - do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, etc. - nothing more than private and truncated expressions of the golden rule. The same can be said about the commandment “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Leviticus 19:18. Gospel of Matthew 22:39).
In modern times, T. Hobbes, D. Locke, H. Tommasius, I. G. Herder wrote about the golden rule...
In Kant, the golden rule appears under the name of the categorical imperative. On the one hand, he elevated it (albeit in a transformed form) to the significance of the main principle of human behavior, on the other hand, he humiliated it, calling its generally accepted formulations trivial and limited. The categorical imperative is the golden rule transformed in the spirit of rigorism and deontology (ethics of duty): “act so that the maxim of your action can become a universal law.” By reformulating the rule in the form of a categorical imperative, Kant largely deprived it of what makes it golden, namely, the individual component, thereby violating the measure, i.e. tipping the scales in favor of the supra-individual, the general, the universal. (The name itself is truly terrifying: an imperative, and even a categorical one! An imperative is a command, a demand, an obligation, an order, a law! Only iron necessity and not a drop of chance. Only one must and not a drop of will.)
Kant's superficial understanding of the golden rule is manifested, in particular, in the fact that he did not see in it the basis of duty, arguing that it supposedly does not formulate duties in relation to others. Doesn't the golden rule indicate, for example, debt to parents? Doesn't it say that if you want your children to treat you appropriately, then you yourself must treat your parents in the same appropriate manner? Or: if you want your parents to treat you well, then you yourself must treat them well. Etc. This understanding of the golden rule by Kant is due to his focus on the supra-individual. In his categorical imperative, the basis of duty is universal law. With this, Kant puts society above the individual. The golden rule points to a specific person as the basis of debt. And this is fair, because there is no stronger foundation than a person for himself. Duty involves knowing yourself and others. Who does a person know better: himself or others? Of course, myself. Duty implies respect and care. Who does a person respect more and care about more: himself or others? Of course about myself. It's natural. The basis of debt is not in some transcendental heights, but in a specific living person with all his advantages and disadvantages. Kant himself, in solidarity with the biblical commandment to love one’s neighbor as oneself, emphasized that a person who does not love himself cannot love another, because such a person can pharisaically justify his hatred of another by his self-denial.
In Russian philosophy, V.S. Solovyov wrote about the problems associated with the golden rule. Following Schopenhauer, he convincingly showed the importance of emotions and the psyche as the individual-intimate basis of the golden rule. If people are guided by this rule unconsciously, then this is largely due to feelings of conscience and compassion. Conscience is primarily responsible for the implementation of the negative component of the golden rule. Compassion is positive. Conscience says: do not do to others what you do not wish for yourself, i.e. do no harm. Compassion commands us to help those who are suffering, to treat them as you would like them to treat you in a similar situation.
The intimate psychological “mechanisms” that implement the golden rule indicate that it is by no means some abstract soulless norm, that it is deeply individualized, psychological, has not only an “antenna” in the form of tradition, a generally accepted rule of behavior, but is also “grounded” ”, is rooted in the very depths of human nature.
V.S. Soloviev, however, was too carried away by the passive side of the golden rule. The latter is based not only on feelings of pity and compassion, but also on feelings of love, pleasure and simply curiosity, interest (from one person to another). In addition, he called the golden rule the principle of altruism and this, it seems, is not entirely true. The word “altruism” comes from alter, another, and in the principle it denotes, the emphasis is naturally placed on the other, others. Altruism is self-sacrifice, selflessness. In the golden rule, the emphasis is on the ego, on the given person. After all, the golden rule “dances” from him, like from a stove. The latter “does not turn away” from the self towards the other, but “tries” to harmonize the positions of the self and the other, to find a common denominator, a common measure between them. The golden rule is a measure, a norm, because it establishes a certain balance of interests.
Golden rule - main principle human hostel

IN positive form the rule says:
do unto others as you would have them do unto you.
In negative:
Don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you.
The Golden Rule gives a holistic and concentrated idea of morality and captures the main thing in it: treating others as oneself. It establishes, fixes, determines the measure of humanity in a person, morally equalizes people and likens them to each other.
Moral equalization is a quantitative procedure, moral assimilation is a qualitative procedure. Together we have a measuring process: the golden rule invites a person to measure his actions with the actions of others, to measure the actions of others with his own standard and, conversely, to measure his actions with someone else’s standard; in a word, it suggests finding the general measure of one’s own and others’ actions and acting in accordance with this general measure.
In its negative form, the golden rule sets a minimum low bar for a person’s moral attitude towards other people, prohibits doing evil, in other words, sets a minimum of moral requirements for human behavior.
In its positive form, it sets the highest possible standard for a person’s moral attitude towards other people, encourages goodness, good deeds, in other words, determines the maximum moral requirements for human behavior.
Thus, the Golden Rule covers the entire range of moral actions and serves as the basis for distinguishing and defining the moral categories of good and evil.
It performs the same function in relation to the category of debt. Let's look at this rule from the perspective of how it compares one's own and other people's actions. In the foundation of this commensurate, i.e. initially lies the following. People, society gave me life, made me a human being (fed, clothed, put on shoes, raised, educated, etc.), i.e. they treated me more or less well, the way I would like others to treat me. Accordingly, I act or must act with them (parents, people, society), in a particular case, I must repay them in kind, i.e. By my behavior, I should not worsen or reduce the quality and quantity of life (given to me and others), moreover, as far as possible, I should take care of improving and increasing the quality and quantity of life (mine and others, society as a whole). This is the general understanding of duty. It is naturally divided into particular types depending on who we mean by “others.” If the “others” are parents, then this is a duty to parents. If “others” are a people, a nation, then this is a duty to the Motherland; if “others” are all humanity, then this is a duty to humanity.
The fulfillment of a duty by specific people is of the same importance for the health of society as the satisfaction of a need is for the health of an individual.
If morality regulates people’s relationships, ensures the health of society within the framework of the optimal norm and immediate deviations from it (consciousness of duty and fulfillment of it), then law regulates people’s relationships, ensures the health of society in a broader sense - prevention, prevention or treatment of pathological deviations from normal health, called delinquencies and/or crimes. What diseases are for the life and health of an individual, so are delinquency and crime for the life and health of society. When there are a lot of offenses and crimes in a society, then it is a sick society in the legal sense. There is even less to say about the health of society in a moral sense.
The golden rule establishes a connection-correspondence between the life-health of an individual and the life-health of society. It asserts that the life and health of society are based on the life and health of people, that morality is not valuable in itself, but has a root in the life and health of a particular person, and is, so to speak, a natural continuation of this life and health. Moral health, on the one hand, is part of the health of society or a collection of people (team, family...), on the other hand, it is an integral part of a person’s individual health. The right is also not valuable in itself. It is a natural extension of morality. In essence, like morality, it is based on the golden rule. Hobbes wrote about this (see above, p. 366 - “Liberalism”). The old political-legal rule says approximately the same thing: “Everyone is obliged to obey only the law to which he himself has given his consent.” This rule may be somewhat categorical, but it is essentially true, since it is based on the golden rule. In the deepest sense, law is, I repeat, mutual admission and mutual restriction of freedom. From the mutual assumption of freedom flow various human rights. No less diverse human responsibilities follow from the mutual restriction of freedom.
The golden rule also has the property that it is self-sufficient, circular, and has a basis in itself. It, in particular, connects “I want” and “need”, the randomness of “I want” and the necessity of “need”. This connection ultimately results in what I call freedom. The golden rule is the formula for freedom. Combining in the golden rule, “I want” and “I must” mutually allow and limit each other, set a measure, moderate each other.
By combining “want” and “need”, the golden rule also removes the dilemma of the ethics of happiness and the ethics of duty. It requires from a person only what he himself wants in relation to himself. It’s not for nothing that the rule is called golden.
Its peculiar negative cast is the “rule”, which is expressed in the well-known words “an eye for an eye; tooth for tooth”, “vengeance is mine and I will repay”, in proverbs like “what comes around comes around”, etc. The meaning of the “rule” is that if they did something bad to you, then you have the right or must repay in the same coin. This “rule” is superficially similar to the golden rule, but in essence it is its antipode. It works when the golden rule does not work (is broken). How destructive is it for human relations, can be seen in the example of revenge (if you did bad to me, then I will do bad to you). Blood feud was especially destructive, sometimes leading to the destruction of entire clans.
They may ask: if the golden rule is so good, then why do people break it, why do they do evil, do not fulfill their duty? The situation here is approximately the same as in the case of health and illness. The latter do not devalue health at all. On the contrary, a sick person strives to become healthy again. So it is with the golden rule. Breaking a rule does not invalidate it. In the overall balance of human actions, actions based on it certainly outweigh actions that violate it. Otherwise, we would be dealing with a sick, dying society.
-------
The golden rule is far from being as elementary and obvious as it might seem at first glance. In order for it to operate, at least two conditions must be met:

A). A person himself must be normal, healthy, or, if he is unhealthy and abnormal in some way, then he must take this unhealthyness and abnormality into account when determining his attitude towards another person (other people). The attitude towards another (others) is a continuation of the attitude towards oneself. If a smoker, alcoholic, drug addict ruins himself, ruins his health, then he is contraindicated to act in accordance with the golden rule (not in general, of course, but in a certain respect: smoking, drinking alcohol, taking drugs). Moreover, if for alcoholics and drug addicts such a contraindication is absolutely, of course, then for a smoker it is possible to adjust his behavior towards others. A smoker may be aware of the harm of smoking and, in accordance with this consciousness, minimize the harm he causes to others (for example, try not to smoke in the presence of others - although in a densely populated city this is almost impossible).
B). A person must be able to mentally put himself in the place of others and thus correct his behavior. This is not an easy procedure. Very often, people harm others not out of malicious intent, but because of their thoughtlessness, in particular, because of the inability to mentally put themselves in the place of others in a specific situation. For example, a smoker, knowing that smoking is harmful, still smokes, not sparing not only himself, but also the people around him. Why is this happening? Because for a smoker, the pleasure of smoking outweighs the awareness of the harm from this smoking. Smoking in the presence of non-smokers, he does not think (or drives away the thought) that non-smokers do not at all experience pleasure from his smoking, but, on the contrary, suffer. The smoker did not put himself in the place of others (non-smokers). Otherwise, instead of pleasure, he would experience only suffering. They may say that this situation with a smoker speaks not more about his thoughtlessness, but about his callousness, lack of conscience, his unwillingness to put himself in the place of another. Of course, all these non-thoughtful moments may be present. But that’s what a head on your shoulders is for, to think through to the end the consequences of your callousness and lack of conscience. If the smoker had fully thought it through, i.e. If he had thought through his behavior to the end, he would have seen that the pleasure he received from smoking cannot be compared in any way with the harm that he no longer causes to his health, but to himself as an individual, as a person. Let's say he smokes in the presence of his non-smoking lover, betrothed. By this he shows his disdain for her, despite all his love, his desire to marry her. Usually a girl-woman feels such neglect well and sooner or later denies him her favor. The same situation arises if a smoker allows himself to smoke in the presence of a friend, relative, the right person etc. Much less obvious is the harm that a smoker causes to himself in cases where he smokes in a public place, in the presence of strangers. (How often the author of these lines, a non-smoker himself, cursed at the fact that the person ahead of him on the street smokes a cigarette and does not understand that by his smoking he forces those walking behind him to passively smoke). In such cases, the smoker, as a rule, does not receive direct rebuff, i.e. a direct boomerang does not work here. Nevertheless, the boomerang is evident here too. When a person neglects the interests of people he does not know and shows disrespect for them, then he has no right to expect them to treat him with respect. The rudeness of a smoking person is usually combined with the rudeness of a foul-mouthed, foul-smelling, spitting person, etc., etc. One rudeness condones another. A vicious circle of rudeness arises. As a result, the amount of evil, the amount of mutual embitterment of people increases. In this atmosphere of disrespect for each other, our smoker may well find himself a victim of voluntary or involuntary rudeness on the part of strangers. Here we get an indirect boomerang. Conclusion: if a smoking person thought carefully about the consequences of his behavior, i.e. Every time he put himself in the place of other non-smoking people, he would certainly give up smoking. Smoking people living in a modern city one way or another violate the golden rule. And this means that they act immorally, dishonestly. It is no coincidence that the campaign to quit smoking is intensifying throughout the civilized world. The golden rule cannot be broken for a long time. People feel this and try to solve the problem.

As you can see, despite all the external softness, the golden rule of behavior is very, very harsh in essence. In some important issues of human society, its requirements remain unrealized, which indicates that it has significant potential, in particular, it points to the need to improve interpersonal relations, morality, and law.

THE GOLDEN RULE OF MORALITY– “(Don’t) act towards others as you (wouldn’t) want them to act towards you.” This moral requirement appeared under different names: a short saying, a principle, a commandment, a basic principle, a saying, a prescription, etc. The term “golden rule” has been attached to it since the end of the 18th century.

The first mention of the “golden rule of morality” refers to the so-called. “Axial time” - the middle of the 1st millennium BC. It is found in the Mahabharata (Mokshadharma, book 12, chapter 260), in the sayings of the Buddha (Dhammapada, chapter X, 129; chapter XII, 159), in Homer (Odyssey, V, 188–189) and Herodotus (History, book III, 142; VII, 136). Confucius, to a student’s question about whether one can be guided throughout one’s life by one word, answered: “This word is reciprocity. Don’t do to others what you don’t want for yourself” (“Lun Yu.” 15, 23). In the Bible, the “golden rule” is mentioned in the Old Testament book of Tobit (Tob. 4:15) and twice in the Gospels when presenting the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 3:31; Matt. 7:12). The Gospel formulation is considered the most complete and adequate: “So, in everything you want people to do to you, do so to them; for this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12). The “golden rule” is not recorded in the Koran, but it appears in the Sunnah as one of the sayings of Muhammad. The “golden rule of morality” has firmly entered into culture and mass consciousness, settled in the form of proverbs, obvious requirements of worldly wisdom (German: “Was du nicht willst, dass man dir tu, das flieg auch keinem anderen zu”; Russian: “What in another If you don’t love it, don’t do it yourself”).

In ancient philosophical texts, the “golden rule” is rarely found and always as a requirement of everyday morality, but not as a theoretically sanctioned principle. It is attributed to two of seven wise men - Pittacus and Thales. When asked how to live the best and righteous life, Thales answered: “If we ourselves do not do what we reproach others for” (Fragments of early Greek philosophers, part I. M., 1989, p. 103). Seneca refers to the “golden rule” (“Letters to Lucilius”, 94, 43).

Christian medieval ethics considers the “golden rule of morality” in the context of the Sermon on the Mount. For Augustine, the “golden rule” is the principle of natural morality, which should be guided in relations between people (“On Order,” II, 8) and the violation (inversion) of which deforms human behavior (“Confessions,” I, 19); at the same time, he considers it as a concrete expression of the law of love, understood as love for God: “The law of love is that a person should wish for his neighbor the same good that he wishes for himself, and not wish for him the evil that he does not wish for himself.” "(On True Religion, 46). The “Golden Rule of Morality” is included in T. Hobbes’s social-contractual concept, acting as a criterion to determine whether an action does not contradict natural laws (“On the Citizen,” section I, chapter III, 26). D. Locke sees in the “golden rule” “an unshakable moral rule and the basis of all social virtue” (“Essays on Human Understanding.” Book I, Chapter 3, § 4). Leibniz believes that the “golden rule” is not a self-evident measure of morality: “If it depended on us, then we would want unnecessary things from others; does that mean we have to do extra things to others too?” (“New experiments on human understanding by the author of the system of pre-established harmony.” Book I, Chapter II, § 4). In his opinion, this rule only describes the disposition for making a fair judgment (to take the point of view of another).

X. Thomasy uses the material of the “golden rule of morality” to differentiate the spheres of law, politics and morality. He identifies three forms of the “golden rule”, calling them respectively the principles of right (justum), decency (decorum) and respect (honestum). The principle of law is that a person should not do to anyone else what he does not want someone else to do to him. The principle of decency involves doing to another what he would like the other to do to him. The principle of respect requires a person to act as he would like others to act. The first two principles are generalized in natural law and politics (Thomasius calls them external laws), the last - in ethics. According to Kant, the “golden rule of morality” cannot be a universal law, because it does not contain the foundations of duty, and the criminal, based on it, “would begin to argue against his punishing judges” (“Foundation for the metaphysics of morality.” Works, vol. 4(1), p. 271). Kant attached fundamental importance to the distinction categorical imperative and the "golden rule". Some critics of Kant, on the contrary, saw in the categorical imperative only another expression of the “golden rule” (see. Schopenhauer A. On the basis of morality. § 7). References to the “golden rule” as a criterion of moral assessment and a concentrated expression of humanistic morality are also found in Marxist texts - in K. Marx (Debates on freedom of the press... - Marks K.,Engels F. Soch., vol. 1, p. 3), A. Bebel (Woman and Socialism. M., 1959, p. 516). P. Kropotkin saw in it an expression of the general natural law of mutual assistance (Modern science and anarchy. M., 1990, pp. 338–41). L.N. Tolstoy considered the “golden rule” as an ethical invariant inherent in all religions, most consistently formulated in the teachings of Christ and expressing the universal essence of morality (“What is religion and what is its essence?”).

IN modern literature the most complete substantive description of the “golden rule of morality” (which echoes the interpretation of Thomasius) was proposed by G. Rainer, who identified three of its forms. The rule of empathy (Einfühlungsregel): “(don’t) do to others what you (don’t) wish for yourself.” Here the egoistic will of the individual becomes the scale of behavior, and in this form the rule cannot be elevated to a universal moral principle - its negative formulation excludes punishment, since it is unpleasant for a person; the affirmative form cannot be a universal scale of behavior, because egoistic desires are often immeasurable. Rule of autonomy (Autonomieregel): “(do not) do yourself what you find (not) commendable in another”; the basis for decision-making in this case is an impartial judgment about the behavior of others. The rule of reciprocity, combining the first two and coinciding with the gospel formulation (Gegenseitigkeitsregel): “as you want people to act towards you, do the same towards them.” Here the basis for decision making is own desire individual, coinciding with his own impartial judgment about the behavior of others. Rainer justifiably believes that the rule of reciprocity is the most complete and adequate formula of the “golden rule”.

The “Golden Rule of Morality” is both genetically and essentially a denial talion . In the process of diverse internal differentiation and expansion of social relations, the talion was transformed in two directions: the damage subject to revenge began to be calculated taking into account the subjective aspect (unintentional actions, damage caused by livestock, etc. were gradually taken out of its brackets) and replaced by material reward, ransom . The changes that led to the need for a transition from the collective responsibility of the clan to the individual responsibility of individuals and the removal of that sharp division between “us” and “strangers”, which could only be balanced by mutual recognition of the right of force, were embodied in the “golden rule of morality”. As A. Dile believes, the intermediate link in the process of transition from talion to the “golden rule” was the rule: “good for good, insult for insult.” The “Golden Rule” differs from the talion in that it: 1) affirms the actor himself as the subject of behavior and obliges him to be guided by his own ideas about good and bad (“what don’t you like in another ...”, “in everything like wanted..."); 2) connects “us” and “strangers”, which now become simply different and embrace all people; 3) represents an ideally (mentally) given regulation of behavior, and not a custom.

The “Golden Rule of Morality” is a formula for a person’s attitude towards himself through his attitude towards others. It is essential that these types of relationships have different modalities: the attitude towards oneself is real, covers actions (“you too should do this”, “don’t do that yourself”), the attitude towards others is ideal, covers the area of wishes (“as you want”, “what don’t you like in someone else”) It is assumed that a person must and wants to be guided by norms that have the dignity of universality (they do not destroy his connections with others, but open up the prospect of cooperation with them). The Golden Rule offers a way to establish this. A norm can be considered universal (and in this sense moral) if the subject of an action is ready to recognize (sanction, desire) it, and if others apply it to him. To do this, he needs to mentally put himself in the place of another (others), i.e. those who will experience the effect of the norm, and put the other (others) in their own place. The arguments of Leibniz (desires can be limitless) and Kant (a criminal would not want to be convicted) do not take into account this mental exchange of dispositions, as a result of which the subject proceeds not from his situationally given egoistic desires in relation to another, but from those presumed desires with which he would be guided if he were in the place of the other, and the other one was in his place. The Golden Rule can be interpreted as a thought experiment to identify the moral quality of relationships between individuals (the mutual acceptability of these relationships for both parties). It connects the arbitrariness of moral requirements with their universal validity and in this sense expresses the specificity of morality as such.

The specificity of the “golden rule” as a purely moral phenomenon is reflected in its linguistic expression. The wording of the talion is exclusively in the imperative mood - its imperativeness is categorical and in this respect “a life for a life” is no different from “thou shalt not kill.” The “Golden Rule of Morality” complements the imperative mood with the subjunctive (“as you wish” in the meaning “as you would like”). Through the imperative mood, the formula of the “golden rule” sets the subject’s attitude towards himself, and through the subjunctive mood, his attitude towards others. Thus, morality turns out to be universally valid as an ideal project, in desires, and arbitrary as a real choice, in actions.

Literature:

1. Guseinov A.A. The golden rule of morality. M., 1988, p. 91–131;

2. Dihl A. Die goldene Regel. Eine Einführung in die Geschichte der antiken und frühchristlichen Vulgärethik. Gott., 1962;

3. Reiner H. Die "Goldene Regel" Die Bedeutung einer sittlichen Grundformel der Menschheit. – “Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung”, 1948, Bd. 3, H 1.

The basis of a person’s relationships with other people, with society as a whole, is the golden rule of behavior: “ don't do to others what you wouldn't want them to do to you " (negative wording) and " treat others as you would like them to treat you "(positive wording). Anyone who violates the golden rule of behavior cannot count on being treated kindly. At best, he will not be noticed; at worst, they will treat him on the principle of “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”

The Golden Rule is attributed to two of the seven Greek sages - Pittacus and Thales. It can be found in Homer's Odyssey, in Herodotus's History, and in the Bible. In the latter it is mentioned at least three times: in the book of Tobit (4.15), in the Gospel of Luke (6.31) and in the Gospel of Matthew (7.12). The so-called biblical commandments - do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, etc. - are nothing more than partial and truncated expressions of the golden rule. The same can be said about the commandment “thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself” (Leviticus 19:18. Gospel of Matthew 22:39).

In modern times, T. Hobbes, D. Locke, H. Tommasius, I.G. wrote about the golden rule. Herder...

U Kant the golden rule appears under the name categoricalimperative. On the one hand, he elevated it (albeit in a transformed form) to the significance of the main principle of human behavior, on the other hand, he humiliated it, calling its generally accepted formulations trivial and limited. The categorical imperative is the golden rule transformed in the spirit of rigorism and deontology (ethics of duty): “act so that the maxim of your action can become a universal law.” By reformulating the rule as a categorical imperative, Kant largely stripped it of what makes it golden, namely, the individual component, thereby violating the measure, i.e., tipping the scales in favor supra-individual,- general, universal. (The name itself is truly terrifying: an imperative, and even a categorical one! An imperative is a command, a demand, an obligation, an order, a law! Only iron necessity and not a drop of chance. Only one must and not a drop of will.)

The superficiality of Kant's understanding of the golden rule is manifested, in particular, in the fact that he did not see in it base duty, arguing that it allegedly does not formulate duties towards others. Doesn't the golden rule indicate, for example, debt to parents? Doesn't it say that if you want your children to treat you appropriately, then you yourself must treat your parents in the same appropriate way? Or: if you want your parents to treat you well, then you yourself must treat them well. Etc. This understanding of the golden rule by Kant is due to his focus on the supra-individual. In his categorical imperative, the basis of duty is universal law. With this, Kant puts society above the individual. The golden rule points to a specific person as the basis of debt. And that's fair because No foundations stronger than man himself for myself . Duty involves knowing yourself and others. Who does a person know better: himself or others? Of course, myself. Duty implies respect and care. Who does a person respect more and care about more: himself or others? Of course about myself. It's natural. The basis of debt is not in some transcendental heights, but in a specific living person with all his advantages and disadvantages. Kant himself, in solidarity with the biblical commandment to love his neighbor as himself, emphasized that a person who does not love himself cannot love another, since such a person can pharisaically justify his hatred of another by his self-denial.

In Russian philosophy, he wrote about the problems associated with the golden rule V.S. Soloviev. Following Schopenhauer, he convincingly showed the importance of emotions and the psyche as the individual-intimate basis of the golden rule. If people are guided by this rule unconsciously, then this is largely due to feelings of conscience and compassion. Conscience is primarily responsible for implementing the negative component of the golden rule. Compassion - positive. Conscience says: do not do to others what you do not wish for yourself, that is, do not do evil. Compassion commands us to help those who are suffering, to treat them as you would like them to treat you in a similar situation.

The intimate psychological “mechanisms” that implement the golden rule indicate that it is by no means some abstract soulless norm, that it is deeply individualized, psychological, and has not only “ antenna" as a tradition generally accepted rules of conduct, but also “ grounded", is rooted in the very depths of human nature.

V.S. Soloviev, however, was too carried away by the passive side of the golden rule. The latter is based not only on feelings of pity and compassion, but also on feelings of love, pleasure and simply curiosity, interest (from one person to another). In addition, he called the golden rule the principle altruism and this does not seem to be entirely true. The word "altruism" comes from alter, another and in the principle he denotes the emphasis is naturally placed on friend,others. Altruism is self-sacrifice, selflessness. In the golden rule, the emphasis is on the ego, on the given person. After all, the golden rule “dances” from him, like from a stove. The latter “does not turn away” from I to the side another , but “trying” to coordinate positions I And another , find the common denominator, the common measure between them. The golden rule is a measure, a norm, because it establishes a certain balance of interests.