Capt_Drakes

Hindu - This is the sum of duty; do naught unto others which if done to thee would cause thee pain.


Zoroastrian - That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.


Taoist - Regard your neighbour's gain as your own gain, and your neighbour's loss as your own loss.


Buddhist - Hurt not others in ways that you would find hurtful.


Confucian - Do not unto others what you would not have them do unto you.


Jain - In happiness and suffering, in joy and grief, we should regard all creatures as we regard our own self.


Jewish - Whatever thou hatest thyself, that do not to another.


Christian - All things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them.


Islamic - No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.


Sikh - As thou deemest thyself, so deem others.

Division By Zero

I can't stand the way some Christians think the Golden Rule is some brilliant philosophical concept, unheard of before Christianity and impossible for humans to conceive of on their own. How ridiculous.

xorbie

The Golden Rule is nice and all, but I think the only philosophies that actually eombody it are the eastern ones, such as Taoism, Buddhism and Hinduism... many of the other ones just have it there as a general guideline, but have nothing other than heaven or hell to justify it.

Worldtraveller

Taoism & Buddhism mostly, Hinduism not even close! The rigid caste system of Hinduism leads to some rather apalling treatment.

But it's true that none of the big three really do!

Lane

dk

Ironically all the great religions teach the Golden Rule, a rule notably absent from Malthus (scarcity economics) Darwin (survival of the fittest), Galvin (eugenics), Bethany (utilitarianism), Freud (ego) and Dawkin (selfish gene). Go figure.

Rusting Car Bumper

Sources material would help...

DC

Alonzo Fyfe

Of these, Malthus, Darwin, Freud, and Dawkins did not propose ethical theories. They presented scientific theories, in the context of which "do unto others" would be as relevant as it would be in a theory of star formation.

I am unfamiliar with Galvin, and could not find a clear reference in a Google search, and feel no need to consider the views of such an obscure individual.

Bentam's moral theory includes "Each to count for one, and none to count for more than one."

Mageth

Well, I can't speak for some of these, but neither Darwin's nor Dawkins' books are intended as ethical guides for humans. I doubt Freud's works should be taken that way either.

And I seem to remember quite a bit about altruism in Dawkins' work.

Further, many outside of religions teach or recommend variations of the Golden Rule. One that comes to mind is Joseph Campbell. So your selection of four examples isn't exactly representative of all non-religious literature, is it? Heck, I and others "teach" the Golden Rule (or a modification thereof) here on this board.

Further, I don't recall that non-religious ethics is based upon any one or a combination of the writings of the four you listed.

Incidentally, the Golden Rule is a cornerstone of Humanitarianism.

Alonzo Fyfe

Dawkins described altruism as a biologically useful trait (that selfishness at the gene level translates into altruism at the organism level), but he does not prescribe altruism. He does not prescribe anything because he was offering a scientific theory, not a moral theory.

Mageth

I agree totally, Alonzo. That's why I said his work is not intended as an ethical guide. Didn't mean to indicate otherwise.