Category Archives: Golden Rule

A friend recently shared a Facebook post listing 13 children's picture books which promote kindness. (The link is titled Community Post: 13 Children's Books That Encourage Kindness Toward Others.) It's often said that a well-written children's book can distill a life's truth in a way that makes it easy for children to understand. Some books created for children hit a chord in the hearts of many adults as well.

When reading through the kindness titles, two additional picture books immediately spring to mind, both dealing with The Golden Rule. I've been heard to lament "What is so hard about the Golden Rule," and then, of course, ultimately too often fall short of it myself.

The first book is called "The Golden Rule," by Ilene Cooper and Gabi Swiatkowska. In it a grandfather has a gentle discussion with his grandson about the Golden Rule and what it means. He gives examples of situations in a child's life to which the boy can relate; yet, brings the tenet to bear on a global scale. A favorite passage in this book is when the wise grandfather says of the maxim, "I said it was simple; I didn't say it would always be easy." Informational material at the end of the book lists the equivalent of the Golden Rule in many religions. The illustrations are full of symbols from various cultures, re-iterating that the Golden Rule is a universal one. Would that we could live it every single day.

The second book is "Do Unto Otters: A Book About Manners" by Laurie Keller. This book has a lighter touch, with the same ultimate message of "doing unto otters as you would have otters do unto you."

The Otters have moved in next door to Rabbit. Because otters are different than rabbits, Rabbit doesn't know what to expect of his new neighbors, and becomes fearful of the Otters. Sound familiar? The wise owl of the neighborhood encourages Rabbit to get to know his new neighbors, and Rabbit eventually sees that the Otters have the same basic interests and needs that all animals do, even though some details might be different. In this case, it is favorite foods (Rabbit likes carrots, while the Otters like fish). Throughout, there is punny dialogue and activity jumping all over the pages. Hey video game creators, how about one based on this book? Fun and frenetic activity without violence. How many acts of kindness can be scored?

Rather than showing a passive sort of kindness, many of the books on the list mentioned above, as well as the two Golden Rule books, show that it often takes courage to be kind and stand up for others as well as ourselves and what we believe. These books show that kindness and consideration can gain much more in our every day interactions than bullying and harsh words. We can all learn and re-learn from truths as written for children.

Chris Oyer is a retired District 61 library resource specialist.

See the article here:

Prairie Talk: Picture books teach us all - Herald & Review

The concept of The Golden Ruletreat others as you would like to be treatedappears in many religions. So what makes Jesus version of the saying so exceptional?

Its uniqueness lies in a single word, therefore, that signals the generosity of our heavenly Father. Here is what Jesus said: If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask Him! Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them (Matt. 7:11-12 italics added).

All of us fall short of what we know to be true: We do not love others the way God loves us. Jesus lived out that admirable ethic with perfect love by living and dying for all our sins.

We have a loving, giving Father who set aside His own self-interest to reveal the full measure of His love through His Son Jesus. Gods generosity is the dynamic by which we treat others as we would like to be treated. We love and give to others because He first loved us (1 John 4:19).

Our heavenly Father asks us to live up to His commands, but He also gives us His power and love to carry it out. We need only to ask Him for it.

Heavenly Father, I know that I lack Your patience and mercy and love. Please show Your perfect love through me in some small way today. In Your Son Jesus name I pray.

We have committed The Golden Rule to memory; now let us commit it to life. E. Markham

In the reading today, we see how our Lord emphasized the importance of persistence in prayer. The actual Greek grammar might be better translated as Seek and keep on seeking. Knock and keep on knocking. Ask and keep on asking. Sometimes sincere believers may believe that a sign of faith is to ask God once for a request and never repeat it. But the teachings of the New Testament do not support such a concept. In the parable of the judge and the widow who repeatedly asked him to hear her case, the idea of persistence is central (Luke 18:1-8). As is the case with Job, King David, and other biblical characters, faith is often expressed through repeated prayers and pleading.

The rest is here:

The Golden Rule | Our Daily Bread - odb.org

Youve read one of your four complimentary articles for this month.

You can read four articles free per month. To have complete access to the thousands of philosophy articles on this site, please SUBSCRIBE!

Stephen Anderson analyses as he would be analysed.

Pluralism is the most serious problem facing liberal democracies today. We can no longer ignore the fact that cultures around the world are not simply different from one another, but profoundly so; and the most urgent area in which this realization faces us is in the realm of morality. Western democratic systems depend on there being at least a minimal consensus concerning national values, especially in regard to such things as justice, equality and human rights. But global communication, economics and the migration of populations have placed new strains on Western democracies. Suddenly we find we must adjust to peoples whose suppositions about the ultimate values and goals of life are very different from ours. A clear lesson from events such as 9/11 is that disregarding these differences is not an option. Collisions between worldviews and value systems can be cataclysmic. Somehow we must learn to manage this new situation.

For a long time, liberal democratic optimism in the West has been shored up by suppositions about other cultures and their differences from us. The cornerpiece of this optimism has been the assumption that whatever differences exist they cannot be too great. A core of basic humanity surely must tie all of the worlds moral systems together and if only we could locate this core we might be able to forge agreements and alliances among groups that otherwise appear profoundly opposed. We could perhaps then shelve our cultural or ideological differences and get on with the more pleasant and productive business of celebrating our core agreement. One cannot fail to see how this hope is repeated in order buoy optimism about the Middle East peace process, for example.

It seems clear there is some similarity in the various intuitions about moral responsibility that people have had in various times and places around the world. But what could the elusive universal core of the many diverse moralities be? For over a century now, the chief candidate has been the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule, whether articulated as Treat others as you would wish to be treated, or Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, or in any of the other several ways in which it has been stated, is by far the most oft-cited formulation of universal morality. Policy makers declare it. The media repeats it. School textbooks promote it. Many ordinary folks simply believe it. It is generally believed that not only does it appear in all major cultures and religions, but that it can be detected in some submerged form even in moralities that seem only dubiously compatible with it.

A few brief examples will have to suffice: there are simply too many I could list. For example, in A Short Essay on the Golden Rule, ethicist Harry Gensler writes,

The golden rule is endorsed by all the great world religions; Jesus, Hillel, and Confucius used it to summarize their ethical teachings. And for many centuries the idea has been influential among people of very diverse cultures These facts suggest that the golden rule may be an important moral truth.

In fact, Gensler argues that an awareness of the Golden Rule is the most important practical resource for the performance of ethical thinking. Likewise, theologian Wolfhart Pannenberg in When Everything is Permitted (First Things 80), calls this kind of rule of mutuality a basic concept of the natural law. Multiculturalism advocates also proudly cite the Golden Rule as the lynchpin of universal morality: the Scarboro Interfaith Mission presents what it perceives to be Golden Rule variations in twenty-one religious traditions from around the world (see later for some of them). It is also advocated by experts in moral education. For instance, in Moral Education: Theory and Application (eds Berkowitz & Oser, 1985), Thomas Lickona writes,

in a pluralistic society, respect for persons is common moral ground. It is something that all people, regardless of what else they believe, can agree on. Indeed, the best-known expression of the principle of respect the Golden Rule can be found in religions and traditions all over the world.

We can detect the Golden Rule in various forms even in ethical reflection of the most scholarly kind. For instance, it is not hard to see that it re-emerges as essential components of things such as John Rawls veil of ignorance and Jrgen Habermas U principle. Golden Rule Universalism is also commonly disseminated in the press. For instance, we find Heather MacDonald of the Manhattan Institute for Policy Studies announcing in USA Todayfor Oct 23rd, 2006, The Golden Rule and innate human empathy provide ample guidance for moral behavior. She goes on to argue that from these two things essential moral principles are available to people of all faiths or no faith at all.

Thus Golden Rule Universalism is a recurrent theme. Clearly there are large numbers of intelligent people operating under the assumption that something like the Golden Rule provides the essential core of a universal morality. It is hard, then, to fault the ordinary person for believing likewise.

That many people from a variety of situations seem intuitively to have discovered the values articulated by the Golden Rule would seem to imply that the Rule is not the exclusive possession of one culture or of a group of cultures, but taps into a universal moral recognition. At the very least, the Golden Rule seems to address the very widespread tendency to think that morality means equity: that everyone should be treating everyone else in the same way. Perhaps even if we agree upon nothing else, we can be said to agree upon this rule. This might well prove to be our moral salvation in an increasingly complex and conflicted world.

But is it plausible to argue that the Golden Rule or some close variation of it articulates the hidden core of human morality at all times and in all places? In order to answer that, we must look more closely at the Golden Rule itself, especially at the variations it appears in in our major religious and philosophical traditions.

It becomes obvious immediately that no matter how widespread we want the Golden Rule to be, there are some ethical systems that we have to admit do not have it. In fact, there are a few traditions that actually disdain the Rule. In philosophy, the Nietzschean tradition holds that the virtues implicit in the Golden Rule are antithetical to the true virtues of self-assertion and the will-to-power. Among religions, there are a good many that prefer to emphasize the importance of self, cult, clan or tribe rather than of general others; and a good many other religions for whom large populations are simply excluded from goodwill, being labeled as outsiders, heretics or infidels.

Humanist George Bernard Shaw also had no affection for the Rule. He famously (and paradoxically) quipped, The Golden Rule is that there is no golden rule. Shaw believed that to assert any universal moral principle was to deprive the individual of the chance to form his or her own morality.

Therefore, there are some views of morality that simply exclude the Golden Rule. But perhaps it would be unfair to say that this fact alone militates against our belief in the universality of the Golden Rule. Perhaps we can say that although there are marginal traditions that reject the Golden Rule, the bigger and more important traditions embrace it.

So lets consider some articulations of the Golden Rule as it appears in the various major religious traditions, and see how well we can get this last idea to work. Firstly, of course, there is the best-known account of the Golden Rule in the West. Here Jesus says, Do unto others what you would have them do unto you. Below is a list of some other articulations of this idea:

1) Buddhism: Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful. (Udana-Varga 5:18)

2) Confucianism: Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to you. (Analects 15:23)

3) Hinduism: This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you. (Mahabharata 5:1517)

4) Humanism: Dont do things you wouldnt want to have done to you. (The British Humanist Society)

5) Islam: None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself. (#13 of Imam Al-Nawawis Forty Hadiths.)

6) Jainism: A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated. (Sutrakritanga 1.11.33)

7) Judaism: you shall love your neighbor as yourself. (Leviticus 19:18)

8) Zoroastrianism: That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself. (Dadistan-i-dinik 94:5)

(Quotations selected from the Scarboro Missions list.)

This provides us with a good sample of at least some of the major equivalents of the Golden Rule. Since the wording of each is somewhat different, we can begin by saying that probably the outstanding feature is that they all seem to suggest that there is some kind of relationship between how we ought to treat others and what we would wish for ourselves. Superficially, this might lead us to think these injunctions all amount to the same thing. But look again. Reading carefully, we will note that some of these statements appear in a positive form (Do) and some appear in a negative form (Do not do). Jesus version, plus numbers 5, 6 and 7, might be called positive, whereas all the rest are in the negative form.

Does it make a difference? Some people argue that the two types of versions are functionally the same thing. But they are not. Consider, for instance, that your children are fighting and you say to them, Leave each other alone! This would be the negative commandment. On the other hand, Be nice to your sibling! would be the positive commandment. Anyone who has had children (or siblings) will quickly recognize that it is easier to enforce commands in the negative (ie not to do things) than it is to enforce commands in the positive (ie to do something).

This difference is substantial, and we can see how it works out in practice. If we have only a negative duty, an obligation to avoid harming people, that can be construed as imposing minimal obligations. We simply are not allowed to do anything actively harmful anything additional is left to our discretion. In fact, the negative version may be fulfilled (if we wish to construe it that way) simply by ignoring our neighbor, for as long as we are not directly implicated in his harm, we have not transgressed the negative version of Golden Rule ethics.

This negative version of the Golden Rule is particularly minimal if we happen to be among those millions of people in the world who believe that a persons lot in life, even his suffering, is caused by fate or karma: to not do harm might then mean that we have a duty to leave him alone. Perhaps we might think it is in his ultimate best interest to suffer, and thereby to achieve his penance, enlightenment, or moksha. To be sure, we might not see things this way, and we might decide to help the sufferer. But and here is the key point under the negative version of the Golden Rule we would have no obligation to help him.

The positive version of the Golden Rule has somewhat different implications. Under it, we would be obliged to help a sufferer, on the assumption that if we ourselves were suffering we would want to be helped. Actually, ultimately the positive version imposes a burden on us to bring others up to whatever standard of well-being we would wish for ourselves. Of the three positive versions we have listed, 6 and 7 make this most clear, but 5 could also imply it.

Inevitably, this points to a supplementary problem. If it is our duty to love our neighbor (version 7) or our brother (version 5), then we might well ask, Who is my neighbor? or Who is my brother? Does it only include people of our own kind who live close to us and with whom we have natural sympathies? Or does it include people who live in distant lands, and whose suffering thus seems remote and unreal? Does it include men and women; children; people of a different tribe or language? Does it include those who deny our cultural or religious traditions? Does it include criminals, the unborn or the physically challenged? Thus one problem with even the positive version of the Golden Rule is that it is escapable depending upon who one identifies as the entitled recipient of the goodwill.

This problem arose when the Christian version was first articulated. A young scholar of the Jewish religious Law approached Jesus and asked him what he would have to do if he was to inherit eternal life. Jesus replied, quoting, among other things, the Judaic Golden Rule. But the passage says that the law student, wishing to justify himself, asked And who is my neighbor? to which Jesus told the famous Good Samaritan parable in reply (see Luke10:29). The problem highlighted by the young scholar is that people can still find an escape-clause from the positive version of the Golden Rule by choosing not to see someone as a neighbor.

Any rule, golden or otherwise, that demands no more than ignoring ones neighbor (ie, the negative version) has a doubtful claim to reflect the essential core of human morality. It would be only marginally better if it were improved to the point that it mandated goodwill only to a select membership, not to the human race at large (ie a limited positive version). Yet perhaps we still have a way to save the Golden Rule. Let us suppose that, as suggested earlier, we eliminated all those peripheral moral systems that reject the Golden Rule outright; and furthermore, that we add the claim (though it seems rather snobbish to say it) that traditions that have only the negative form of the Golden Rule are possessed of only part of the essential core of morality. But perhaps that is fair, and they are capable of taking the next step, and converting to a positive view of the Golden Rule. If, then, we could get all major religious and philosophical traditions to admit the validity of the positive Golden Rule, could we at last say we had discovered a secure core for a universal morality?

That might initially sound plausible. Perhaps we can get people to see that we owe our neighbor whatever we would wish for ourselves. Some Golden Rule advocates call this reciprocity. Reciprocity means equal give and return. It views morality as a balanced equation, in which a person who receives the benefit of a moral action has a responsibility to respond in kind. Such moral treatment of others requires things like being fair, equitable or even-handed. It means Im-okay-if-youre-okay, or you-scratch-my-back-and-Ill-scratch-yours. Reciprocal responsibility between citizens sounds like a pretty good way to run a society, especially a liberal democracy, at first.

However, there are good reasons to suspect reciprocity will not work on its own. Many aspects of society cannot work on simply an equitable give-and-take basis: something higher and much more morally demanding is involved in maintaining a society. Societies require the principle of sacrifice.

This will come as no surprise to anyone who has been married, or who has had children. Marriages simply do not function unless the partners are prepared to make sacrifices without expectation of return, and children certainly cannot be expected to repay the sacrifices parents find it necessary to make in raising them. Those who have been in a serving profession a teacher, a cleric, a doctor, a charity worker, a counselor, or even a politician (sometimes) know that their profession could not continue without what they contribute to the public welfare without expectation of reciprocity. A society cannot survive without the things people do while not demanding that society should equitably repay them. But if reciprocity is not enough to ground a society, we can hardly argue that it represents the essential core of human morality.

No principle of equity would be sufficient to make people see the value of sacrifice. Rather, they need a reason to accept inequity. They must be content to render, for the good of others, things that cannot be returned. The very height of this behavior is the one who, like a soldier in a good cause, lays down his life in order that others may live freely. Such we regard nearly as moral saints.

There is even a level of morality above the level of simple sacrifice. Sacrifice for an acknowledged cause may have some attractions. Yet what about those who make sacrifices for those whom they do not know, or even for those who are, on some level, their enemies? Perhaps we would have to call the principle behind such sacrifices the Platinum Rule, for it seems so far above even the positive articulation of the Golden Rule that most of us find it hard to imagine. Yet its found in our moral traditions; for instance as, You have heard that it was said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I tell you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you (Matthew 5:43-45.)

I think anyone who views the case objectively must admit that this principle of sacrifice represents a higher moral value than the laissez-faire attitude of the Golden Rule in its negative form, and a higher moral value than the reciprocity principle of its positive form as well. The chief criticism that can be raised against the Platinum Rule is that it requires more than most of us are able to deliver. However, that may say less about the Platinum Rule than about human nature.

Nevertheless, the Platinum Rule has influenced at least one modern political project, the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission. This aspires to transcend the reciprocal idea of justice, and to orient a solution to the higher values of mercy and forgiveness. Given that injustice and inequality have been so rife in modern history, it may never be possible to restore justice to our world through any principle of reciprocity. In such conditions, the higher principles of the Platinum Rule may offer the only hope, as it did in South Africa.

Several things become apparent even from this brief survey of the Golden Rule:

It is not actually universal.

It has two forms, negative and positive.

The two forms create very different results.

Both forms fall short of requiring the sacrifices society needs.

Neither form represents the highest moral standards.

At this point perhaps I may be accused of having a spoilsport disposition, for casting doubt upon a rule of life so widely celebrated, thus chipping away at a source of common moral optimism. I can only reply that it should be a source of wonder that a belief so open to criticism should be so widely celebrated, adding that optimism is no virtue if glibly invested. If, as I have suggested, we stand in need of a core universal morality upon which we can base liberal democratic social projects, then we would be ill-advised to embrace a counterfeit; for counterfeits notoriously prove unreliable at the crucial moment. Thus the Golden Rule, in either its positive or negative articulations, cannot be the gold standard of moral behavior: it cannot support the things liberal democratic nations need in the 21st Century like consensus on policy, general standards of justice, and a warrant for human rights. First, it is not universal; but even if it is generally reflected in all major cultures, the Golden Rule can still hardly be the core of all morality. It offers little resistance to weak, inconsistent or morally-questionable applications, and it fails to reflect our highest moral standards. Thus we should be concerned about the enthusiasm with which some people tend to embrace something like the Golden Rule as a cure-all for the modern problems of value pluralism; and we should wonder what that tendency tells us about our unwillingness to squarely face the fact that cultures have disharmonious moral styles. It is true that if we could find a universal rule of morality something like the Golden Rule it would help us resolve a great many serious moral and political problems. But the fact remains that the Golden Rule is very clearly not the core of morality, and yet it has been embraced as such nonetheless.

Moreover, whatever advantages to democratic politics may come from Golden Rule universalism, it also has an insidious side. Its subtext is the denial of the unique moral contributions of diverse societies in the name of creating superficial harmony. We may well doubt that people who indwell particular cultural/religious traditions and who have long labored under the impression that they have unique moral positions to contribute to humanity would be happy to hear that they have been wrong, and that their whole heritage can be boiled down to the same thing as everyone elses. We might also have a hard time convincing them that our attitude was not born more of cultural tone-deafness than of tolerance.

The arguments here against Golden Rule universalism are obvious ones. Very clearly, we ought to know better, but we appear to have a strong emotional stake in not knowing better. Our refusal to face this has to be troubling to any rational person, and a source of concern to anyone genuinely interested in pursuing mutual understanding in a pluralistic world.

Stephen L. Anderson 2009

Stephen L. Anderson is a high school teacher, and a PhD candidate in the Philosophy of Education at the University of Western Ontario.

See the original post here:

The Golden Rule: Not So Golden Anymore | Issue 74 ...

Jan and I were walking into the parking lot after a quick run to one of our local grocery stores, when we noticed a bumper sticker. At first glance it seemed one of those co-exist stickers with the letters twisted out of symbols from the world religions. However, as we looked more closely we could see it was a parody of that sticker and instead, while using world religions letters it read contradict.

Im certainly okay with that. I mean, after all. But, then in smaller print was a citation of a popular chapter and verse from the Gospel of John. So, it appears the meta message here is that while the worlds religions do indeed contradict each other all over the place, there is, actually, among them, a true one. And, in case were confused, heres a pointer to which one that is. Okay. We all have the right to an opinion.

But, I have to say, if I had to pick a true or, more accurately the truer one among the many, as fond as I am of my natal lineage, and how much the stories of the Bible have a place in my heart, it just wouldnt be Christianity. In Arthur C. Clarkes novel Childhoods End theres a kind of time machine, although all it can do is look at the events of the past. Once people got to see how all the religions got going the only one left was a very modified and deeply simplified form of Buddhism.

Me, I think that would be true, although I think a simplified form of Daoism based exclusively on the so-called philosophical Daoists, Laozi (yes, not a historical person, the document that carries his name and is also called the Way & Its Virtue is vastly more likely a composite document with several authors and at least two editors. That said the book doesnt require a divine origin, and actually even the story attached to it puts its author as a simple librarian), the story teller Zhuangzi, and one more, Liezi, together with their commentators, and similarly a pretty pared down form of Confucianism might be able to stand the scrutiny of that time viewer. I fear thats it.

However, I agree, I think that slogan contradict is important, and a wise complement, as well as challenge, to the too simplistic, although I like it too, cooperate. Which I find includes an implied, they all teach the same truth. You dont have to go very far into a reading of comparative religions to know they are not all the same. And, even to make the claim, way down at bottom they are all the same is going to be rough slogging. Some believe in creator, some do not. Some see an end to time, while some do not. Some see souls and some do not. Its pretty hard to find that very far to the bottom place where they are all the same.

But, there is one area where near as I can tell all the religions seem to in fact agree. Interestingly, most, maybe none consider it their primary teaching. But they all have it, and they all consider it pretty important. And that common thing is the Golden Rule, which most of us here in English speaking North America know in its formulation in the Gospel of Luke, in the King James version, as do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

The golden rule goes way back and it is found all around. As far as written records go some see it as far back as two thousand years before the common era in the Egyptian story the Eloquent Peasant. Reading it, frankly, I find that a stretch. The Odyssey, which might trace as far back as seven hundred years before the common era, has the goddess Calypso tell Odysseus shell be as careful for him as for herself, because she knows what is right and fair. Among the pre-Socratic philosophers of Greece both Thales and Pittacus of Mytilene, call us to not do that which we would not

The Hebrew scriptures with strata that approach the Eloquent Peasants composition although as we understand the text more likely written closer to four or five hundred years before the common era in Exodus we are admonished to not oppress the foreigner, and in Leviticus to straight out love your neighbor as yourself.

We can find the Golden Rule in the Dhamapada, a collection of sayings attributed to Gautama Siddhartha, the Buddha of history. Confucius, from about the same period, tells us in his Analects not to do to others, what you would not want them to do to you. And the list just goes on and on. There are Muslim, Jewish, and Christian version, there are Hindu, Jain, and Buddhism versions, there is a Zoroastrian version. The gold rule abides among them all.

Even in our more secular era, we see it continue to be presented. For instance, some see a philosophical variation in Immanuel Kants categorical imperative, Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law. And for me, even more intriguing, Charles Darwin, writing in the Descent of Man opines that the social instincts the prime principle of mans moral condition with the aid of active intellectual powers and the effects of habit, naturally lead to the golden rule. As ye would that men should do to you, do ye to them likewise, and this lies at the foundation of morality.

And it may be even reflect natural patterning. Donald Pfaff, author of the Neuroscience of Fair Play: Why We (Usually) Follow the Golden Rule, tells how he read a paper by William Hamilton and Robert Axelrod showing that they could teach computers to behave in a according to what you could call reciprocal altruism, a fair-play principle.

All rather wonderful.

And, yes, shall we say, of course theres a fly in the ointment. This sense of fair does indeed seem to be built into our human consciousness. But, at about an equal level of strength so is a predilection to cheat, to advance ourselves over others. We human beings live within a tension between these poles of our hearts.

And I suspect we may be the deep structures of another aspect common among religions here. That is the problem of evil. While there have always been a handful of people who value selfishness, Im looking at you Ayn Rand, these have always been outliers. The overwhelming majority of human beings and our religions rest upon a foundation of cooperation, of looking out for ones neighbors, of treating the other as we would treat ourselves.

And, then, we can look around at the world we live in today. We have just elected a president who draws the smallest possible circle of who gets to be a neighbor, whose actions seem vastly more in concert with Ayn Rand than with Jesus, Buddha, or, for that matter, Darwin.

In Jewish history in such harsh times when the rich put their boot on the neck of the poor, prophets arise and rail against the imbalance.

I consider these things, and I wonder if that prophet isnt getting ready to stand in front of the White House?

View post:

In the Neighborhood: A Meditation on the Golden Rule, Cheaters, and Prophets - Patheos (blog)

By R. Jay Allain

In an age that almost seems allergic to simple solutions, here's one -- a plausible idea for slashing mistrust towards our main institutions: Make practicing the Golden Rule a core value at every one.

Specifically, if each institution and its representatives began to treat all those who rely on it -- regardless of the person's race, gender, age or socioeconomic class -- as they themselves would like to be treated, a brave gust of cleansing wind would refresh every hallowed hall. Hope would surface. But to really happen, key obstacles to such mutual caring, like entrenched moneyed interests, would have to be reduced with all deliberate speed.

Take government. Is democracy itself not a lofty experiment which insists the rights and well-being of the humblest American matters as much as that of the richest among us? Yet today, powerful forces hound elected officials to insure their own economic interests are met -- regardless of its impact on the average American or the environment. These forces need to be skillfully removed. Until then, countless suffer from under-representation -- even as schools and bridges erode, good jobs depart, child-care costs soar and drinking water becomes unhealthy.

Consider medicine. Would any physician -- or health insurance CEO -- let his or her own mother or child be denied affordable, quality medical care because they couldn't afford it? No! Yet today, despite increased coverage through the Affordable Care Act, millions of fellow Americans face uncertainty under President Trump -- and a lack of care due to unfairness and costs in the current system. The rush to repeal Obamacare with no viable alternative is itself a scandal -- and a clear trashing of the Golden Rule. As the saying goes: "Without hope, the people perish" -- and shrinking life expectancy rates attest to it. We must demand better.

Finally, in the vital realm of science, let's examine an aspect of this institution with particular relevance for residents of Southeastern Massachusetts, namely, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Would any of its esteemed members live -- or ask their relatives to live -- near an obviously failing nuclear plant? Hardly. To be fully credible, such authorities would have to insist such a facility be completely overhauled -- or quickly closed down. Yet the NRC seems prone to vacillate and hedge its defense of public health when the financial interests of nuclear power companies are involved. This subverts their mission to protect the public -- something only we, the people, can remedy. Let us do so, even as we insist the once revered Golden Rule be rescued from the endangered list.

R. Jay Allain lives in South Yarmouth.

Originally posted here:

OPINION: If only our institutions practiced the Golden Rule - Nantucket Island Inquirer

By R. Jay Allain

In an age that almost seems allergic to simple solutions, here's one -- a plausible idea for slashing mistrust towards our main institutions: Make practicing the Golden Rule a core value at every one.

Specifically, if each institution and its representatives began to treat all those who rely on it -- regardless of the person's race, gender, age or socioeconomic class -- as they themselves would like to be treated, a brave gust of cleansing wind would refresh every hallowed hall. Hope would surface. But to really happen, key obstacles to such mutual caring, like entrenched moneyed interests, would have to be reduced with all deliberate speed.

Take government. Is democracy itself not a lofty experiment which insists the rights and well-being of the humblest American matters as much as that of the richest among us? Yet today, powerful forces hound elected officials to insure their own economic interests are met -- regardless of its impact on the average American or the environment. These forces need to be skillfully removed. Until then, countless suffer from under-representation -- even as schools and bridges erode, good jobs depart, child-care costs soar and drinking water becomes unhealthy.

Consider medicine. Would any physician -- or health insurance CEO -- let his or her own mother or child be denied affordable, quality medical care because they couldn't afford it? No! Yet today, despite increased coverage through the Affordable Care Act, millions of fellow Americans face uncertainty under President Trump -- and a lack of care due to unfairness and costs in the current system. The rush to repeal Obamacare with no viable alternative is itself a scandal -- and a clear trashing of the Golden Rule. As the saying goes: "Without hope, the people perish" -- and shrinking life expectancy rates attest to it. We must demand better.

Finally, in the vital realm of science, let's examine an aspect of this institution with particular relevance for residents of Southeastern Massachusetts, namely, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Would any of its esteemed members live -- or ask their relatives to live -- near an obviously failing nuclear plant? Hardly. To be fully credible, such authorities would have to insist such a facility be completely overhauled -- or quickly closed down. Yet the NRC seems prone to vacillate and hedge its defense of public health when the financial interests of nuclear power companies are involved. This subverts their mission to protect the public -- something only we, the people, can remedy. Let us do so, even as we insist the once revered Golden Rule be rescued from the endangered list.

R. Jay Allain lives in South Yarmouth.

Excerpt from:

OPINION: If only our institutions practiced the Golden Rule - Cape Cod Times (subscription)

Becky Vaughn-Furlow, Business Columnist 5:00 p.m. CT March 4, 2017

The AFLAC duck is seen in an image released by the company. Linda Kaplan Thayer's small advertising firm won the Aflac contract. Aflac contacted her to pitch an idea for an ad campaign because of referrals by influential individuals she had been kind to by taking the time to give them free advice over lunch.(Photo: AP Photo/Aflac)

Being kind or being nice is not being passive or being a pushover. Instead it is the epitome of ethical behavior. Treating other people like you would like to be treated, whether it is co-workers, customers or managers, does pay off in all relationships, including professional relationships, personal relationships, at home and on the job.

It pays off in businesses. If you don't believe it, just check out Chick-fil-A's financial success. Employees of the very successful restaurant chain are trained to say "please" and "thank you." These are simple things that are the secret to the company's success. According to a report, Chick-fil-A employees said "thank you" in 95.2 percent of drive-thru encounters, based on data from 2,000 restaurant visits to 15 restaurant chains. In 2015 Chick-fil-A generated more revenue per restaurant than any other fast food chain in the U.S. Average sales per restaurant were nearly $4 million.

RELATED: Vaughn-Furlow: Customer service is not dead

ALSO READ:Want a good manager? Invest in training

Superior customer service drives higher sales per unit and far outpaces other chains like KFC, Pizza Hut and Dominos with more than twice as many U.S. locations. One of the big differences is hiring the right kind of employees who embrace the company's culture, followed by the amount of time and money spent on training employees.

Kindness emerges from those who are confident, compassionate and comfortable with themselves. Kind individuals are loving and giving out of the goodness of their heart. It is in their nature to care and exhibit kindness with no ulterior motives. Niceness is being pleasant or agreeable to others, sometimes conforming to what they believe society expects or sees as "nice." The "nice" person is often focused on doing nice things in order to be perceived by others as being a nice person. I think the defining difference is that people can be trained and instructed to be nice but the exhibiting of kindness comes from the heart and is a core value.

The kind treatment of people is unfortunately undervalued in many businesses and other organizations. It is one of the most important qualities of a healthy workplace culture. It inspires a higher level of employee engagement. When the leadership of an organization possesses this quality it filters down through the entire business, enhances teamwork and results in excellent customer service.

Being kind is a trait missing in so many people, being replaced by arrogance and egotistical behavior. It is not a sign of weakness but instead a true sign of strength demonstrated by positive deeds and actions. It shows the deep-down motivation from the heart. No one wants to work in or do business with an organization that is arrogant or ruthless.

An example of how kindness has paid off is the story of the creation of the famous Aflac duck. It was introduced in 1999 by Linda Kaplan Thaler's small advertising firm. As it turned out, Aflaccontacted her to pitch an idea for an ad campaign because of two referrals by individuals who were influential people she had been kind to by taking the time to give them free advice over lunch. Thaler won the lucrative contract, and the Aflacduck has since become a TV sensation allbecause of thekindness being shown with no ulterior motive. The firm now has over 700 employees and accounts worldwide.

To get it down to each of us, think about places you like to shop and go back to because of the way you are treated. On the other hand, there are businesses you avoid because of poor customer service and rude treatment. We often pay more for products and services from the places where we feel appreciated and are treated well. And on top of that, we share with our friends, family, neighbors, anyone who will listen, about the bad experiences at businesses we don't patronize anymore. The referrals we make from being treated well are more valuable to a business than many dollars spent in advertising. There is nothing more valuable as a personal testimony.

Can you make a commitment to altruistic behavior to improve your customer service? We never know how much a customer or person we come in contact with needs a smile, a kind word or a listening ear. A phone call, card, email or text sent to someone who is ill, lonely or otherwise going through difficult times has such a positive impact and it takes so little effort, time or money.

When you are kind to others it will help you with your attitude and somehow lighten the load of your own burdens. Some of the kindest people I know are themselves dealing with inner struggles that most people are not aware of. You have read that it takes more muscles to frown than to smile. Try placing a small mirror in a place you can see yourself as you answer the phone. A smile comes across on the phone in your voice tone even though the customer can't see you.

You have the ability to satisfy the customer and gain satisfaction in a job well done as well asincrease customer loyalty. Keep in mind, customers are the reason you have a job. Enjoy making a difference in the customer experience and increase your value and success of your business.

Contact Becky Vaughn-Furlow at bvaughnfurlow@gmail.com.

Read or Share this story: http://on.thec-l.com/2lJzud4

See the original post:

Much to be gained from Golden Rule - Jackson Clarion Ledger

Angela Copeland

Have you ever gotten an email from someone who you just want to ignore? Perhaps its from a vendor you work with who wants to tell you about a new product he or she is selling. The email provides no immediate value for you. Theres nothing you can do about it right now, and frankly, youre busy. Youre so far up to your eyeballs in reports that you can barely breathe. Weve all been there. I can definitely relate. The easiest thing to do is often to ignore the email.

Now, think back to how you landed your last job, or maybe the one before. Chances are good that you found it not by applying online, but through a professional contact. Theres a good chance that you previously worked with that person, either directly or indirectly.

Its extremely common to be recruited by an outside company you do business with either your customer, or your supplier. After working with you, a company has a chance to see you up close. They know just how professional you are, and how devoted you are to your craft.

But, this will only happen if you treat those around you with a certain level of respect. Taking a moment to let people know youve received their email can mean the world, even if youre not able to fulfill their request. Im not suggesting that you say yes to everyone. And, Im certainly not suggesting you respond to things that are clearly spam. You dont have time for that.

But, do take the time to value those around you even on the days when theyre asking for something rather than offering something. For example, if someone is asking for a meeting that you would normally be open to, but are just too busy to take, send an email letting him or her know youve received the message and would like to meet, but are swamped for the next few weeks. Most everyone understands the concept of being busy at work. Or, if a person is asking for your help with something that you really cant do right now due to existing commitments, be honest and upfront.

The most difficult scenario is when you dont respond at all. When you ignore an email, it doesnt just tell the person that youre busy. It tells them that theyre not important. It says that youll respond only if youre getting something out of the deal. And, it says that you may not be as professional as he or she thought.

When youve been with one company for a number of years, this can begin to seem normal. You want to be efficient and use your time in the best way. But, sometimes something unexpected can happen. Your company may lay off an entire division. If youve focused all of your attention on internal folks, while not nurturing outside relationships, you may struggle more to find something new.

It goes back to the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

Angela Copeland is CEO and founder of Copeland Coaching and can be reached at CopelandCoaching.com or on Twitter at @CopelandCoach.

Read more:

Career Corner: The Golden Rule - Journal Record (subscription)

Think of a chaplain, and the quirky character of Father Mulcahy from the beloved TV show M*A*S*H might come to mind. But while chaplain Alyssa Adreani of Newton Wellesley Hospital likes to laugh at this image, as a female multi-faith cleric, shes far from the typical male stereotype. As Adreani, 41, likes to point out, she isnt just hanging out in the hospital chapel and doesnt wear a collar or a cross. Instead, as she makes the rounds from the NICU, oncology, ICU, orthopedics, and medical/surgical units, she follows her own Golden Rule of chaplaincy, which is: Wear comfortable shoes. The Globe spoke with Adreani about how hospital chaplains are considered part of the treatment team, even improving health outcomes.

Early on in my training, I would get questions like, Are you a priest? A nun? I would get flustered but then realized that people are curious. Then they would say, You dont look like a chaplain, to which I would reply, What does a chaplain look like? I did learn the hard way not to wear a black suit to work; I once wore one and the patient saw me and turned white, as if I was preparing for their death bed.

To become a board certified chaplain requires a rigorous preparation process that includes 1,600 hours of clinical training and ministry. One of my first days of my internship, I walked into a patient room, and she was crying, and said, Why is God punishing me? I got thrown into the deep end right away on that one.

Lifes most significant events regularly occur in the hospital. I do deal mostly with death, illness or decline, but I also visit the maternity units as well. It is an incredible blessing to see both ends of the spectrum. Chaplains really do see birth, death, and everything in between. Im really lucky to work at a hospital where spiritual care is valued. That said, people may misunderstand what a chaplain does or does not do. For example, patients may worry that a chaplain will judge them or try to convert them thats definitely not what we are about. We also, unfortunately, cant perform miracles.

I cant assume anything when I walk into a room and see a person for the first time. People surprise me everyday the way in which people experience and practice their faith and spirituality is amazing. Everyone has a story it is my privilege to listen to it. A lot of patients or families find it helpful to talk to a neutral party. They may just need to vent, to think out loud, to process something. They may want to hold a hand and pray or they may just want someone to sit with them to bear witness to the life that is passing. Some of my most memorable experiences have been really tough watching a young mom die; blessing a deceased toddler; holding a stillborn infant. These are excruciatingly difficult and a constant reminder of lifes fragility. There are definitely hard days, days when I am horrified by how unfair and unpredictable life can be.

Being a chaplain has given me a deep thirst for life I dont want to let it pass me by. I want to do everything I can run up mountains, travel, go skydiving, learn a new language. Im a runner, and being a chaplain hasnt made me run faster, but its made me appreciate running more. When I run, I pray for my patients, the staff, and others. I think about those who cant run. I run a little further for them.

Catch up with The Boston Globe for free.

Get The Globe's free newsletter, Today's Headlines, every morning.

Thanks for signing up!

Continued here:

Golden Rule of Chaplaincy: Thy Shoes Matter - Boston.com

As a result, the Golden Rule permeates Australian society, in our courts and parliaments, and our laws and judgments. It is an integral and inalienable part of our social infrastructure.

Cambridge professor David Howarths recent book, Law as Engineering: Thinking About What Lawyers Do, considers some of the implications of this. Howarths thesis is that most UK lawyers do not argue in court. Rather, on behalf of their clients, they design and implement, through contracts, laws, deeds, wills, treaties and so forth, small changes to the prevailing social infrastructure.

Australian law practice seems to follow a similar pattern, and this is a good and useful thing; without these ongoing small changes to social infrastructure there would be large scale confusion, massive imposition on the court system, and general, often escalating, grumpiness.

Engineering serves a similar function. Engineers, on behalf of their clients, design structures and systems that change the material infrastructure of society.

This is also a good and useful thing. And, with the history of and potential for significant safety impacts resulting from these physical changes, engineers have over time developed formal design methods to ensure safe outcomes.

These methods consider not only the design at hand, but also the wider physical context into which the design will fit. This includes multi-discipline design processes, integrating civil, electrical, mechanical, chemical (and so on) engineering. It also includes consideration of what already exists, and the interfaces that will arise. Road developments will consider their impact on the wider network, as well as nearby rail lines, bike paths, amenities, businesses, residences, utilities, the environment, and so on.

Howarths book considers this approach to design in the framework of changing social infrastructure. He argues that lawyers, in changing the social infrastructure, ought to consider how these changes may interact with the wider social context to avoid unintended consequences. As an example, he examines the 2009 global financial crisis in which, he argues, many small changes to the social infrastructure resulted in catastrophic negative global impacts.

Following formal design processes could have, if not prevented this situation occurring, perhaps at least provided some insight into the potential for its development. But the question arises: how should negative impacts on social infrastructure be identified? In contrast to engineering changes to material infrastructure, social infrastructure changes tend not to have immediate or obvious environmental or health and safety impacts.

One option that presents itself is also apparent in good engineering design. Engineers follow the Golden Rule. It is completely embedded in engineering practice, and is supported and reinforced by legislation and judgements. Engineers design to avoid damaging people in a physical sense. Subsequent considerations include environmental harm, economic harm, and so on.

A key aspect of this is consideration of who may be affected by infrastructure changes. Proximity is critical here, as well as any voluntary assumption of risk. That is, potential impacts should be considered for all those who may be negatively affected, and who have not elected to put themselves in that position. This is particularly important when others (such as an engineers or lawyers client) prosper because of such developments.

A recent example involving material infrastructure is the Lacrosse tower fire in Melbourne. In this case, a cigarette on a balcony ignited the buildings cladding, with the fire spreading to cladding on 11 floors in a matter of minutes. The cladding was subsequently found to not meet relevant standards, and to be cheaper than compliant cladding.

In this case, it appears a design decision was made to use the substandard cladding, presumably with the lower cost as a factor. Although it is certain that the resulting fire scenario was not anticipated as part of this decision, the question remains as to how the use of substandard materials was justified, given the increased safety risk to residents. One wonders if the developers would have made the same choice if they were building accommodation for themselves.

In a social infrastructure context, an analogy may be that of sub-prime mortgages being packaged and securitized in the United States, allowing lenders to process home loans without concern for their likelihood of repayment. In this scenario, more consideration perhaps ought to have been given by the lawyers (and their clients) drafting these contracts as to, firstly, how they would interact with the wider context, and, secondly, whether the financial risks presented to the wider community as a result were appropriate. In many respects the potential profits are irrelevant, as they are not shared by those bearing the majority of the risk.

The complexities here are manifest. Commercial confidentiality will certainly play a role. No single rule could serve to guide choices when changing social or material infrastructure, and unforeseen, unintended consequences will always arise. But, when considering the ramifications of a decision, a good start might be: how would I feel if this happened to me?

Read more here:

Engineering's Golden Rule - Sourceable