In his essay. “The Golden Rule- One or Many. Gold or Glitter? ” Jeffrey Wattles discusses the many clove pinks of the cosmopolitan regulation. “Do to others as you want others to make to you” . and its influence on the manner we live. This widespread advice from the Gods found in about every faith is under examination ; “Is the regulation aureate? In other words. is it worthy to be cherished as a regulation of life or even as the regulation of life? ” ( Inquiry. P # 237. paragraph 10 )
As Wattles examines it farther. he comes to the decision that while the Golden Rule is good guideline. it is no regulation to populate by. He grounds that while the Golden Rule’s wisdom might be helpful. to populate entirely by it is folly. as the reply to
...life can non be formulated in a mere regulation. aureate or non. Rather. to see this regulation found in so many civilizations as a jumping off point and elaborate or simplify as the specific state of affairs requires. I was intrigued by his mentality on such a fundamental regulation that I have ne'er thought twice approximately. While good advice. I would hold to hold that as a regulation or as the regulation. it doesn’t keep up.
I think that a regulation is ever fallible when it comes to moralss and you’re better off on your single sense of right and incorrect. “Some authors have put the regulation on a base. giving the feeling that the regulation is sufficient for moralss in the sense that no 1 could of all time travel incorrect by adhering to it or
in the sense that all responsibilities may be inferred from it. ” ( Inquiry. P # 237. paragraph 12 )
Wattles goes on to postulate that while you may desire something for yourself. that does non intend person else would hold. So in making unto other as you would hold them make unto you. there is room for mistake. “The aureate regulation may besides look to connote that what we want for ourselves is good for ourselves and that what is good for ourselves is good for others. ” ( Inquiry. P # 238. paragraph 16 ) Not merely could what we want for ourselves non be good. but presuming that other wants the same is unwise and slightly egoistic.
In concluded his scrutiny of the aureate regulation Wattles offers us several ways to see the regulation. “Abandon the regulation. redevelop it. or retain is as normally worded. while taking advantage of expostulations to clear up its proper reading. I take the 3rd way” ( Inquiry. P # 240. paragraph 24 ) And I would hold to hold with him.
- Values of Life essays
- Ethical dilemma essays
- Normative Ethics essays
- Virtue Ethics essays
- Belief essays
- Deontology essays
- Moral essays
- Virtue essays
- Work Ethic essays
- Puritans essays
- Afterlife essays
- Buddhism essays
- Christianity essays
- Deism essays
- Faith essays
- God essays
- Hinduism essays
- Islam essays
- Jews essays
- Judaism essays
- Monotheism essays
- New Testament essays
- Ritual essays
- Sin essays
- Soul essays
- Theology essays
- Confession essays
- Devil essays
- Miracle essays
- Monk essays
- Revelation essays
- Atheism essays
- Immortality essays
- Jainism essays
- Sinners essays
- Bible essays
- Old Testament essays
- Salvation essays
- Temple essays
- Taoism essays
- Pilgrimage essays
- Freedom Of Religion essays
- Existence of God essays
- Christian Worldview essays
- Cosmological Argument essays
- Gautama Buddha essays
- Karma essays
- Buddha essays
- Baptism essays
- Holy Spirit essays
