Category Archives: Golden Rule

KCRA 3 is rounding up all the information you need to know to get a head start on your day.Here you'll find what you missed overnight, what's happening throughout the day, the forecast and how your commute is shaping up.You can also watch our morning newscasts live from 4-10 a.m. here.WHAT'S HAPPENING IN NORCALDraymond Green suspended next game after chest-stomping Sabonis | The Golden State Warriors will have to play their next game against the Sacramento Kings without Draymond Green after he was suspended for stepping on Domantas Sabonis' chest, the NBA said. Sabonis might also not be able to play because of that injury. Read more here. Will California comply if SCOTUS limits the abortion pill? It's not clear | Gov. Gavin Newsom and several California legislative leaders on Tuesday promised to protect medication abortion in California, but it's not clear how the state will move if the United States Supreme Court decides to limit the availability of Mifepristone by stripping its Food and Drug Administration approval. Read more here. Family calls for justice after Rancho Cordova woman dies in hit-and-run crash | A Rancho Cordova family is calling for justice after a loved one was killed in a hit-and-run crash last week. The California Highway Patrol confirmed with KCRA 3 that 20-year-old Fabiola Rojas-Diaz died after getting hit by a car near Bradshaw Road and Countryroads Drive in Rancho Cordova around 11 p.m. on Wednesday, April 12. Nearly one week later, CHP said it's still searching for the driver. Read more here. Vehicle crashes into the second story of a home in Placer County | A vehicle crashed onto the second story of a home in Placer County over the weekend, authorities said. KCRA 3's Brittany Hope spoke to the home's owner. Read more here. As climate change threatens US forests, scientists look to 'assisted migration' to help trees thrive | Trees and plants have naturally migrated for millennia, but in order to keep up with climate change, scientists with the U.S. Forest Service say that migration needs to happen 10 times faster. Read more here. WHAT'S HAPPENING ELSEWHERESupreme Court set to rule on abortion pill restrictions | The Supreme Court is deciding whether women will face restrictions in getting a drug used in the most common method of abortion in the United States, while a lawsuit continues. The justices are expected to issue an order on Wednesday in a fast-moving case from Texas in which abortion opponents are seeking to roll back Food and Drug Administration approval of the drug, mifepristone. Read more here. Fox, Dominion reach $787M settlement over election claims | Fox News agreed Tuesday to pay Dominion Voting Systems nearly $800 million to avert a trial in the voting machine company's lawsuit that would have exposed how the network promoted lies about the 2020 presidential election. Read more here. Republicans object to replacing Feinstein on Judiciary panel | Republicans blocked a Democratic request to temporarily replace California Sen. Dianne Feinstein on the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday, leaving Democrats with few options for moving some of President Joe Biden's stalled judicial nominees. Read more here. Biden signs executive order to improve access to child care | President Joe Biden has signed an executive order containing more than 50 directives to increase access to child care and improve the work life of caregivers, the White House said Tuesday. Read more here. WHAT'S HAPPENING TODAY8 a.m. | The Sacramento County Sheriff's Office will hold a hostage negotiation training at Folsom Lake9 a.m. | The Power in Nature Coalition will rally at the State Capitol to accelerate action on conserving state land and coastal waters11:30 a.m. | Aaron Kallhoff, the new head coach for Sacramento State Women's Basketball, will hold his introductory press conference6:30 p.m. | A community meeting over a proposed Amazon Distribution Center in El Dorado Hills is being held at the fire station on Wilson Boulevard7 p.m. | West Sacramento will vote on declaring the property where Club Pheasant once stood - as surplus propertyTODAY'S WEATHER OUTLOOKMeteorologist Tamara Berg says to plan for a cool start to the day with temps in the 30s and 40s. Cooler areas will be in the Foothills, where we will see more widespread 30s and some patchy frost. A nice afternoon is ahead with dry weather and light winds. Highs will peak in the mid-60s, running close to 10 degrees below average. Expect another cool night under clear skies and calm winds. Temps begin to warm late week and stay warm into the weekend.REAL-TIME TRAFFIC MAP(App users, click here to see our interactive traffic map.)DOWNLOAD OUR APP FOR THE LATESTHere is where you can download our app.

KCRA 3 is rounding up all the information you need to know to get a head start on your day.

Here you'll find what you missed overnight, what's happening throughout the day, the forecast and how your commute is shaping up.

You can also watch our morning newscasts live from 4-10 a.m. here.

Draymond Green suspended next game after chest-stomping Sabonis | The Golden State Warriors will have to play their next game against the Sacramento Kings without Draymond Green after he was suspended for stepping on Domantas Sabonis' chest, the NBA said. Sabonis might also not be able to play because of that injury. Read more here.

Will California comply if SCOTUS limits the abortion pill? It's not clear | Gov. Gavin Newsom and several California legislative leaders on Tuesday promised to protect medication abortion in California, but it's not clear how the state will move if the United States Supreme Court decides to limit the availability of Mifepristone by stripping its Food and Drug Administration approval. Read more here.

Family calls for justice after Rancho Cordova woman dies in hit-and-run crash | A Rancho Cordova family is calling for justice after a loved one was killed in a hit-and-run crash last week. The California Highway Patrol confirmed with KCRA 3 that 20-year-old Fabiola Rojas-Diaz died after getting hit by a car near Bradshaw Road and Countryroads Drive in Rancho Cordova around 11 p.m. on Wednesday, April 12. Nearly one week later, CHP said it's still searching for the driver. Read more here.

Vehicle crashes into the second story of a home in Placer County | A vehicle crashed onto the second story of a home in Placer County over the weekend, authorities said. KCRA 3's Brittany Hope spoke to the home's owner. Read more here.

As climate change threatens US forests, scientists look to 'assisted migration' to help trees thrive | Trees and plants have naturally migrated for millennia, but in order to keep up with climate change, scientists with the U.S. Forest Service say that migration needs to happen 10 times faster. Read more here.

Supreme Court set to rule on abortion pill restrictions | The Supreme Court is deciding whether women will face restrictions in getting a drug used in the most common method of abortion in the United States, while a lawsuit continues. The justices are expected to issue an order on Wednesday in a fast-moving case from Texas in which abortion opponents are seeking to roll back Food and Drug Administration approval of the drug, mifepristone. Read more here.

Fox, Dominion reach $787M settlement over election claims | Fox News agreed Tuesday to pay Dominion Voting Systems nearly $800 million to avert a trial in the voting machine company's lawsuit that would have exposed how the network promoted lies about the 2020 presidential election. Read more here.

Republicans object to replacing Feinstein on Judiciary panel | Republicans blocked a Democratic request to temporarily replace California Sen. Dianne Feinstein on the Senate Judiciary Committee Tuesday, leaving Democrats with few options for moving some of President Joe Biden's stalled judicial nominees. Read more here.

Biden signs executive order to improve access to child care | President Joe Biden has signed an executive order containing more than 50 directives to increase access to child care and improve the work life of caregivers, the White House said Tuesday. Read more here.

8 a.m. | The Sacramento County Sheriff's Office will hold a hostage negotiation training at Folsom Lake

9 a.m. | The Power in Nature Coalition will rally at the State Capitol to accelerate action on conserving state land and coastal waters

11:30 a.m. | Aaron Kallhoff, the new head coach for Sacramento State Women's Basketball, will hold his introductory press conference

6:30 p.m. | A community meeting over a proposed Amazon Distribution Center in El Dorado Hills is being held at the fire station on Wilson Boulevard

7 p.m. | West Sacramento will vote on declaring the property where Club Pheasant once stood - as surplus property

Meteorologist Tamara Berg says to plan for a cool start to the day with temps in the 30s and 40s. Cooler areas will be in the Foothills, where we will see more widespread 30s and some patchy frost. A nice afternoon is ahead with dry weather and light winds. Highs will peak in the mid-60s, running close to 10 degrees below average. Expect another cool night under clear skies and calm winds. Temps begin to warm late week and stay warm into the weekend.

(App users, click here to see our interactive traffic map.)

Here is where you can download our app.

See more here:

KCRA Today: Supreme Court to rule on abortion pill restrictions, NorCal fight over distribution center and more top headlines - KCRA Sacramento

Getty Images A young woman shops on her laptop holding her credit card while her cat lounges in the background

Spring is a popular time to add a new pet to the household, and for those interested in welcoming a cat or kitten, I have good news. You'll probably save a lot of money compared to getting a dog. But that doesn't mean your furry friend is going to come cheap.

Here's a look at what one recent Rover survey had to say about the average cost of cat ownership, along with some steps you can take to keep your costs down.

Bringing home a new cat means you also have to cover a lot of additional costs for them, including:

Then, there are the adoption fees itself. This varies depending on several factors, including the breed, age, and health of the cat as well as where you get it. Adopting a cat from an animal shelter is usually your most affordable option. You could easily spend thousands of dollars if you want a purebred cat from a breeder.

All told, Rover estimates new cat owners could spend anywhere from $755 to $3,020 in their first year. The range is so wide because you have a lot of choice in how much you spend on your pet. Also, vet costs can vary significantly from one city to another, and that can affect how much you pay for checkups, vaccinations, and routine surgeries.

If you're trying to keep costs down, avoid bells and whistles, like automatic cat feeders or memory foam beds. Focus on just the essentials at first. You can always upgrade down the road if that's important to you.

Ongoing annual expenses for cats range from about $325 to $1,600 in 2023. This includes your pet's food, litter, toys, and an annual vet checkup.

Again, there's quite a range here and a lot of it comes down to your food and litter choices. This is a personal decision you'll have to make based on your budget and the food or litter's ingredients. If you're not sure what's really worth upgrading for and what's mostly just marketing hype, you could always ask your vet for their opinion.

Once you've settled on a food and litter you're happy with, keep an eye out for coupons or sales and stock up when you find them. Don't forget to check for coupons online as well.

So far, we've talked about essential costs, but there are a lot of extras you can splurge on too if you want. Things like regular grooming appointments or litter disposal systems are popular with some people, while others see them as unnecessary.

Then, you have the things that are absolutely necessary but hard to budget for, like emergency vet bills. You never know when your cat will get sick or injured, and if they do, you often have no choice but to take them in for treatment and pay whatever the vet charges.

More and more people are turning to pet insurance in an effort to combat this. Pet insurance helps pay for some vet bills, but it also has costs of its own, including premiums, deductibles, and copays. Still, many find this easier to budget for than the vet bills themselves.

Those seeking an affordable rate on pet insurance should start by comparing quotes from several top providers. Going with an accident-only plan can also help keep costs low, though pet owners will be on their own if their pet gets sick.

Ultimately, it's up to you to decide which cat expenses fit into your budget. And if you don't think you have enough money to buy all the things your cat needs, you may be better off waiting to add a new pet to your household.

SPONSORED:

Our experts vetted the most popular offers to land on the select picks that are worthy of a spot in your wallet. These best-in-class cards pack in rich perks, such as big sign-up bonuses, long 0% intro APR offers, and robust rewards. Get started today with our recommended credit cards.

We're firm believers in the Golden Rule, which is why editorial opinions are ours alone and have not been previously reviewed, approved, or endorsed by included advertisers. The Ascent does not cover all offers on the market. Editorial content from The Ascent is separate from The Motley Fool editorial content and is created by a different analyst team.The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

Go here to read the rest:

Here's How Much It Costs to Own a Cat in 2023 - msnNOW

Disclaimer: The text below is a press release that is not part ofCryptonews.comeditorial content.

Binance-Chain based token Golden Inu entered this week with a strong performance, rising +30% in value. This was likely in part to traders realizing the developers of the crypto brand had its new crypto app ready. Today that application launched. The $Golden Dashboard, a new token data simplification tool, has been realized and ready to disrupt retail trading habits.

A clarification point, Golden Inus new cryptocurrency technology is not just for the web. The new application was made to be compatible with iOS and Android traders devices as well.

$Golden Dashboard could disrupt cryptocurrency trading. Show Your Liquidity #Cryptocurrencies, read a tweet released yesterday.

This was less than 24 hours before the disruptive technology project went public.

Golden Inu created this data simplification tool to help train crypto traders to have higher expectations of tokens. And also to build the $Golden token subculture.

Building the habit of looking for the right crypto metrics is important said the bep20 tokens founder in a tweet earlier today.

The dashboard will give users a quick read of day to day Golden Inu tokenomics, trade volume, brand value catalysts, brand equity points, and more. This will hopefully give novice and veteran traders needed wisdom to see the difference between a good investment and a bad one. Such data will give transparency in what creates good yields versus a loss.

The $Golden Dashboard application is hailed as disruptive to crypto trading due to thes frank and transparent display of tokenomics. Tokenomics that are of the utmost importance, though most novice & mid-level traders seem to miss them. And more importantly, too many brands do not show them in laymans format.

Especially not liquidity. And this is a key and vital to anyones long-term success.

The BNB-Chain tokens founder believes $1 to $1 reserves for market cap liquidity is the only way for a cryptocurrency to be a good investment. Golden Inu follows the golden rule preached by its blockchains founder and CEO, Changpeng Zheng.

If unfamiliar with what liquid reserves are for a crypto brand, a trader is completely unaware of the risks they are taking. Failure to have good liquidity is the reason crypto exchanges like FTX, Celsius, Voyager, Three Arrows, Hodlnaut, and many others went bankrupt.

The Golden Inu token was created with a formula that prevents such failures. Every transaction brings the token closer to having a cash reserve that matches the value of tokens in circulation. The 7% slippage traders must allow to buy or sell the $Golden token contributes to its liquidity pool [LP].

This 7% slippage also helps to safeguard against quick pumps from whales looking to feast on shrimp investors emotion.

The stability in liquidity alongside the $Golden Quest job platform pushed the bep20 tokens value up +500% last month. The surge has since retracted a bit but initial investors still hold nearly a +250% yield.

And these surges are far from over. The $Golden Dashboard is the second application released from a much broader scale roadmap. Simplicity and changing lives as Jeff Bezos aimed to do with Amazon, is the pseudonym-using founders goal.

According to Takeishi Golden [founder], the Dashboard app is the first step in collecting data on user habits and building the cryptocurrencys subculture. As the Horde of followers build, it will be used to create another extension and third application, the $Golden Bazaar.

This Bazaar is a crypto market place that will start simple modeled from the foundations of Amazon and Shopify. It will be developed over time, allowing Golden Inu token holders to buy and sell goods and services, peer to peer directly.

Initially the $Golden token will be required for these transactions, which can be swapped via PancakeSwap. In time however, a Golden Inu atomic swap or bridge will be built to allow other types of token holders into the marketplace. The $Golden token will still be king however in the ecosystems marketplace.

Many public discussions, predictions, and details can be found on the official Golden Inu subreddit (visit here). Over 1,100 crypto enthusiasts and traders follow the reddit group.

General theories being spread by traders is that this token will burn up to 3 zeroes by the end of 2023. If this did happen, the Golden Inu token would likely become the biggest cryptocurrency story and investment yield [from any type of openly traded investment] of 2023.

On CoinGecko, Golden Inu token just moved into the top 2800 cryptocurrencies by market cap. The $Golden crypto has a market capitalization of $218,628.

Golden Inu token launched on PancakeSwap exchange on February 24th. It has less than 2 months open to the public.

More here:

Golden Inu Launches New Crypto Data Simplification Tool For Web ... - Cryptonews

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" is a biblical concept spoken by Jesus in Luke 6:31 and Matthew 7:12; it is commonly referred to as the "Golden Rule." "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets" (Matthew 7:12). "Do to others as you would have them do to you" (Luke 6:31).

John similarly records, A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another (John 13:34-35).

The NIV Biblical Theology Study Bible comments on Luke 6:31, "Many think that the Golden Rule is merely reciprocal, as if we act based on how we want to be treated. But other parts of this section downplay this focus on reciprocity, and, in fact, reverse it (vv. 27-30, 32-35). At the end of the section, Jesus gives a different basis for our actions: we should imitate God the Father (v. 36)."

Our response to God's grace should be to extend it to others; we love because he first loved us, therefore, let us love others as we are loved. This is the simple, yet difficult to live out command. Let's take a deeper look at how we can live this out each day.

In Mark 12:30-31, Jesus said, You must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength. The second is equally important: Love your neighbor as yourself.No other commandment is greater than these. Without doing the first part, you really dont have the ability to even try the second part. When you strive to love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind, and strength, you gain the help of the Holy Spirit which helps you to love other people.

Some people may say that its in our nature to do good to others. After all, there has been a random act of kindness movement for a long time. But, in general, most people only help other people when:

1. Its their friend or family.2. Its convenient for them.3. Theyre in a good mood, or4. They expect something in return.

But the Bible doesnt say do random acts of kindness when youre feeling good. It says to love others at all times. It even says love your enemies as well as those that persecute you. If you are kind only to your friends, how are you any different from anyone else. Everybody does that (Matthew 5:47). Loving everyone at all times is a much tougher task to accomplish. Its imperative to allow the Holy Spirit to help you.

It comes down to the Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would like them to do to you (Luke 6:31). In other words, treat all like you want to be treated, and more than that treat all as God has treated you.If you want to be treated nicely, treat someone else nicely; treat someone else nicely because of the grace you have been given. So that regardless of how you feel in any given situation, you can offer grace like the grace God extends to you daily. Youre probably thinking that sometimes you are nicevery niceand in return you get contempt from some people. Unfortunately, this can and will happen. People dont always treat you they way they want to be treated or the way you want to be treated. But that doesnt mean that you can stop doing the right thing. Dont let someone pull you into their web of uncaring harshness. Two wrongs never make a right, and vengeance does not belong to us.

Everyone is hurt or has been hurt in some way in this world; nobody has the perfect life. The hurts of life can harden me and make me bitter, therefore, causing me to only look out for myself. Selfishness will never enable me to grow and move forward. It is easy for hurt people to continue the cycle of hurting other people whether they realize it or not. People stuck in a mindset of hurt tend to wrap a cocoon of protection around themselves so tightly that all they see is themselves. But if everyone hurts in some way, how do we stop this cycle of hurting others?

Hurts don't have to harden me; I can become better because of them. It's OK to let myself feel the hurt deeply, but instead of toughening up, I can allow God to give me a new perspective. A perspective of empathy because I understand what a particular pain feels like. There is always someone else who is going through what Ive already gone through. This is a big way I can "do unto others" to help them get through the pains of life, but I must shed my hardened shell first. Sharing with others about my own pain begins the process. Vulnerability or risking hurt myself is being real with them, and hopefully, they will see that I am genuinely there for them.

In order to truly love others do good for them, we must put ourselves in their shoes. and When I am always thinking about myself and what I need to do, I often dont notice what others around me are really going through. Life can get busy, but I need to force myself to look around. There are usually more opportunities to help others if Id only take the time to really see them and their needs. Everyone is worried about their own duties, goals, and dreams but Scripture says to not be concerned for my own good but for the good of others (1 Corinthians 10:24).

Working hard to accomplish a goal can be a good, even godly, thing. But the best goals incorporate helping others into them. A person can study hard in medical school in order to create a lifestyle they want, or they can study hard in order to cure their patients ailments. Adding in the motivation of helping others makes any goal much better.

There are two big temptations when I compare myself to another person. One is to think I am better than them. The other is to think I am not-as-good as them. Neither is helpful; fight the comparison trap. When I compare, I see the other person through my filter; therefore, Im looking at them but thinking of me. Comparison wants me to keep my eyes on me. Only compare your self of today with the self of your yesterday. Am I acting better today than I did yesterday? Not perfect but better. If the answer is yes, praise God; if the answer is no, seek guidance from the Holy Spirit. Seek guidance from the Lord every day because we can't be better on our own.

Shedding thoughts of yourself as much as possible, and reflecting on who God is, will keep you on the track of helping others.

I was once dead in my own sin and disobedience. While I was still a sinner, Christ died for me. I had nothing to offer Christ, but he reached out to me. He died for me. Now, I have a brand new life in him. Because of grace, I have a new chance to do better each and every day and the assurance that he will never leave me nor forsake me. He died for you too.

Then respond by loving other people with the love that you receive daily. Work hard to live in harmony with everyone you come in contact with (Philippians 2:1-2).

Jesus made it simple by saying love others, and when we truly love others we will be doing many, many good deeds. The New Testament has many commands about doing unto others, which shows us the importance God places on loving others as we have been loved. We are able to love at all only because he first loved us.

Live at peace and in harmony with others; be patient with them because people learn at different rates, and people change at different times. Bear with them as they learn one step at a time. God didnt give up on you so dont give up on them. Be devoted to other people, love them deeply, care for them, and spend time with them. Listen to them, give accommodation and honor where it is warranted, be concerned for others equally, and dont favor the rich over the poor or vice versa.

Dont judge others harshly; even if their actions are wrong, look with compassion at their whys for doing it. Accept them as a person made in God's image even in their wrongdoing. They may or may not be convicted and see the error of their own ways when you listen to them, but when someone feels continually condemned they won't be able to see the hope that is in grace. Even worse, than judging others to their face, is complaining and slandering them behind their back. Nothing good ever comes out of slander and gossip, even when youre just venting your frustration.

Teach others, share with them, encourage and spur them on, and build them up. If youre musical, sing to them. If youre artistic, make them something beautiful to remind them that God's goodness reigns in a fallen world. When you make others feel better, you cant help but feel better yourself. Thats how God designed us: to love, to care, to build up, to share, to be gracious and grateful.

Sometimes all that it takes to encourage someone is to greet them where they are and be fully present with them. This hardened and fallen world often leaves off courtesies; so, even a smile and a simple hello can go far in helping people not feel alone. Serve others, offer hospitality, and figure out what they need in life and fill that need in some way. May your acts of love, point them to Christ's ultimate love for them. Do they need a babysitter? Do they need a hot meal? Do they need cash to get them through the month? You dont have to do everything, just step in and do something in order to lift some of their burden. When people have a need that you cant fulfill, pray for them and encourage them. You may not know the answer to their problem, but God does.

Let go of all your grievances and let God sort them out. Your own trek forward will be hindered or even stopped if you dont. Tell them the truth. If you see something they may need to change about their life, tell them honestly but kindly. Admonish others from time to time; words of warning are easier to hear from a friend. Little lies wont save them from hearing bad things from others. Lies only serve to save yourself from feeling uncomfortable.

Confess your own sins to others. Give testimony about how you used to be but by Gods grace you arent anymore. Admit sins, admit weaknesses, admit fears, and do this in front of other people. Never have a holier-than-thou attitude. We all have sin and fall short of what we really want to be like, and we all need grace that comes from faith in Christ alone. Use your God-given gifts and talents to serve others. Share what youre good at with others; dont keep it to yourself. Dont let the fear of rejection stop you from showing grace to others.

Finally, submit to one another out of your reverence for Christ. After all, he didnt think of himself. He took a humble position of coming to earth as a human being to make a way for us to get to heaven and to show us the way to live. He even died on the cross to seal the deal, once and for all. Jesus way is to think of others more often than ourselves, and he set the example for us. What you do for others, you do for him. You begin by loving God with all your heart, mind, soul, and strength. That leads you to love others as much as you can, and those acts of loving others are also acts of loving him. Its a beautiful circle of love and the way that we were all meant to live.

Related: What Does "Love the Lord with All Your Heart" Mean in the Bible?

Jennifer Heerenloves to write and wants to live in such a way that people are encouraged by her writing and her attitude. She loves to write devotional articles and stories that bring people hope and encouragement. Her cup is always at least half-full, even when circumstances arent ideal. She regularly contributes to Crosswalk. Her debut novel is available onAmazon. She lives near Atlanta, Georgia with her husband. Visit her ather websiteand/or onFacebook.

Photo credit:GettyImages/Rawpixel

The rest is here:

What Does "Do Unto Others" (The Golden Rule) Mean in the Bible?

1. Introduction

The Golden Rule do unto others as you would have them do unto you appears in some form in all of the great religious and ethical traditions. Some Western scholars have proclaimed it to be the universal foundation of morality. Since the second century, Christian thinkers have pointed to it as the essence of the natural law (du Roy Reference du Roy, Neusner and Chilton2008; Gensler Reference Gensler2013: 7980; Wattles Reference Wattles1996: 72) that is written in [the] hearts of everyone (Romans 2:15 NKJV). Hobbes (Reference Hobbes and Gaskin1651/1996: 14.5) describes the Golden Rule in its negative form (i.e., do not do unto others what you do not want them to do unto you) as the law of all men. Westermarck (Reference Westermarck1906: 103) avers that St. Augustine was right in saying that Do as though wouldst be done by is a sentence which all nations under heaven are agreed upon. In recent times, people have compiled examples of the Golden Rule from different traditions to show that this principle is the basis of ethics across cultures (see Wattles Reference Wattles1996: 4).

Some philosophers see the Golden Rule as affirming the value of moral impartiality, and potentially the core idea of utilitarianism. Mill (Reference Mill, Philp and Rosen1863/2015: 130) holds that Jesus's Golden Rule expresses the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. Westermarck (Reference Westermarck1906: 1012) says that versions of the Golden Rule found across cultures all express the same notion of disinterestedness. De Lazari-Radek and Singer (Reference de Lazari-Radek and Singer2012; Reference de Lazari-Radek and Singer2014) argue that the Golden Rule is similar to Sidgwick's (Reference Sidgwick1907) principle of universal benevolence (PUB), which enjoins us to impartially maximize the good of all sentient beings.Footnote 1

Debunking arguments target a belief that p by showing that the causal process that gave rise to the belief does not track the truth about p (see, e.g., Kahane Reference Kahane2011; Nichols Reference Nichols2014; Sauer Reference Sauer2018). Debunking arguments do not establish that a targeted belief is false only that it is unjustified in light of our discovery of its causal origins (Kahane Reference Kahane2011: 108; Sauer Reference Sauer2018: 29).

Suppose we construe our moral beliefs as being true in a non-natural realist sense as being objectively correct according to some independently existing standard (Shafer-Landau Reference Shafer-Landau2003: 15). Evolutionary debunking arguments in ethics claim that our evaluative judgments are saturated with evolutionary influence (Street Reference Street2006: 114), that is, the influence of natural selection. Natural selection aims at fitness rather than objective moral truth. The (alleged) discovery that our moral beliefs (realistically construed) were shaped to a large extent by the morally indifferent force of natural selection renders them unjustified (see also Joyce Reference Joyce2006; Ruse & Wilson Reference Ruse and Wilson1986).

Moral realists sometimes claim that belief in the Golden Rule has no good evolutionary explanation and therefore remains unscathed by evolutionary debunking arguments. Huemer (Reference Huemer2005: 217) contrasts moral beliefs about incest, special obligations to family, and reproductive practices, which may have plausible evolutionary explanations, with acceptance of the Golden Rule, which does not. According to Parfit (Reference Parfit2011: 536), the Golden Rule was independently proclaimed and accepted in several of the world's earliest civilizations. He says that belief in the Golden Rule like the belief that everyone's wellbeing matters equally is clearly not the product of evolutionary forces (ibid.: 538), so is immune from evolutionary debunking. According to de Lazari-Radek and Singer (Reference de Lazari-Radek and Singer2012; Reference de Lazari-Radek and Singer2014), the fact that thinkers in different traditions agree that the Golden Rule is the essence of morality has no plausible naturalistic (i.e., debunking) explanation and is evidence for the objective correctness of PUB.

De Lazari-Radek and Singer, who provide the most developed version of this argument, propose a three-step procedure for establishing that an intuition has the highest possible degree of reliability.Footnote 2 One must show that the following conditions hold:

1. careful reflection leading to a conviction of self-evidence;

2. independent agreement of other careful thinkers; and

3. the absence of a plausible explanation of the intuition as the outcome of an evolutionary or other non-truth-tracking process. (de Lazari-Radek & Singer Reference de Lazari-Radek and Singer2012: 26; cf. de Lazari-Radek & Singer Reference de Lazari-Radek and Singer2014: 195)

In regard to PUB, they summarize their argument as follows:

We form the intuition as a result of a process of careful reflection that leads us to take, as Sidgwick puts it, the point of view of the universe. This idea is not specific to any particular cultural or religious tradition. On the contrary, the leading thinkers of distinct traditions have independently reached a similar principle and have regarded it as the essence of morality. In addition to the well-known Jewish and Christian versions of the Golden Rule, we find similar ideas in the Confucian, Hindu, and Buddhist traditions. Admittedly, these rules do not require us to adopt universal benevolence, but they do require impartialityFinally, there is no plausible explanation of this principle as the direct outcome of an evolutionary process, nor is there any other obvious non-truth-tracking explanation. Like our ability to do higher mathematics, it can most plausibly be explained as the outcome of our capacity to reason. (de Lazari-Radek & Singer Reference de Lazari-Radek and Singer2014: 193; see also de Lazari-Radek & Singer Reference de Lazari-Radek and Singer2012: 2526)

I argue that the appearance of the Golden Rule in different traditions does not reflect independent agreement among careful thinkers about a principle similar to PUB, moral impartiality, or the principle of utility. Furthermore, there is a plausible naturalistic explanation for why many moral teachers would independently promulgate Golden Rule-like principles. In the following section, I examine the Golden Rule as it is understood in Judaism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism. Versions of the Golden Rule appear in other traditions as well (Terry Reference Terry2011), but I focus on the aforementioned five because they are the ones that de Lazari-Radek and Singer refer to. I argue that the Golden Rule is the essence of morality only in Christianity. The Golden Rule as it is understood in any of these traditions is not similar to PUB (or any related principle) in the ways required for de Lazari-Radek and Singer's argument to work. Furthermore, thinkers who endorsed the Golden Rule did not purport to take the point of view of the universe.Footnote 3 In the third section, I provide a naturalistic explanation for why versions of the Golden Rule have appeared in different traditions. In the fourth section, I offer a naturalistic explanation for why Mohists and Anglican utilitarians came to advocate impartial morality (though without appealing to the Golden Rule).

At first glance, rather than being something about which careful thinkers tend to independently agree, moral principles like PUB and the principle of utility are associated with a small number of mostly anglophone philosophers in fairly recent history. But, as noted, de Lazari-Radek and Singer (Reference de Lazari-Radek and Singer2012: 2526; Reference de Lazari-Radek and Singer2014: 193) claim that the leading thinkers of distinct traditions they mention Judaism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism have taken the point of view of the universe and independently reached a similar principle [in the form of the Golden Rule] and have regarded it as the essence of morality.

Let's begin with Christianity. Though Jesus does not comment explicitly on morality (his concern is the religious law), the Gospels quote him stating that the Golden Rule is the essence of the religious commandments: whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 7:12). In another passage, he agrees with a lawyer's suggestion that one inherits eternal life by lov[ing] the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and your neighbor as yourself (Luke 10:27). Paul expounds:

Owe no one anything except to love one another, for he who loves another has fulfilled the law. For the commandmentsare all summed up in this saying, namely, You shall love your neighbor as yourself. Love does no harm to a neighbor; therefore love is the fulfillment of the law. (Romans 13:810)

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus offers these instructions, which put the Golden Rule in context:

Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you. To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either. Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back. And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise. (Luke 6:2731)

There are a few things to notice about the Golden Rule as it was taught by Jesus. First, it is clearly not concerned with sentient beings generally, but people specifically. Singer (Reference Singer1975/2002: 191) himself notes that [t]he New Testament is completely lacking in any injunction against cruelty to animals, or any recommendation to consider their interests. There is no evidence that Jesus or any leading Christian thinkers thought that people merit love in virtue of being sentient or experiencing pleasure and pain (see ibid.: 19196). Second, even restricted to human beings, the Golden Rule does not recommend impartially maximizing the good. Jesus tells his followers to allow themselves to be abused and to love their abusers, whom Jesus promises to later castinto the furnace of fire (Matt. 13:42), which is described as an everlasting punishment (Matt. 25:46). A principle that enjoins us to disregard our own well-being vis--vis our abusers, and which can countenance a punishment of everlasting fire (Matt. 25:41) for those who offend (Matt. 13:41) God, seems to be profoundly dissimilar from PUB in important respects (again, even restricted to members of our species). Third, Jesus does not purport to take the point of view of the universe. He explicitly takes the point of view of a specific agent, namely, God. He interprets God's law from the perspective of God's priorities, which do not appear to be informed by PUB and certainly not by the principle of utility. Although God may love people, he will nevertheless gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire (Matt. 13:4142). To suggest, as de Lazari-Radek and Singer do, that Jesus took the point of view of the universe to discover a moral principle that is similar to PUB is a big stretch.

The version of the Golden Rule in the Hebrew Bible is most naturally read as nonimpartial even with respect to human beings: Do not take revenge and do not hold a grudge against bnei amechoh (= sons of your people/nation) and love reiachoh (= your fellow) like yourself (Leviticus 19:18). Most of the rabbinic commentators interpret reia (fellow) to refer to Jews, or just religious Jews. Maimonides defines reia in this context as a Jew who is your brother in Torah and mitzvos [i.e., religious commandments] (Mishneh Torah, Avel 14:1; in Maimonides Reference Maimonidesn.d.). Even if reia is interpreted universally (as it was by some Jewish authorities), there is no indication in the Hebrew Bible that this is the essence of morality.

Proponents of the modern claim that the central character and essential originality of Judaism lies in its universalist, humanistic ethics (Reinhard Reference Reinhard2005) often cite an exchange recorded in the Talmud between the sage Hillel and a potential convert. The would-be convert demanded that Hillel teach him the entire Torah while he stood on one foot, to which Hillel replied: What you hate, do not do to others. All the rest is commentary. Go study (Shabbos 31a; in Schorr Reference Schorr2001). At first glance this sounds similar to the Christian idea that the essence of the law is the Golden Rule. However, Hillel's statement needs to be understood in context. In a search of the classic Rabbinic literature, Navon (Reference Navon2010) found 80 instances where 15 different mitzvos or states of affairs are declared to be equal to all the Torah or the commandments. Things that are equated with all the Torah or all the commandments include the sabbath, circumcision, tzitzis (putting fringes on four-cornered garments), studying the Torah, peace, charity, and living in Israel. The idea that Hillel's statement to the convert shows that the essence of Judaism or Jewish ethics is the Golden Rule is not supported when considering it in the context of the tradition.

Even if we take Hillel's statement at face value, it would not mean that something like PUB is the essence of Jewish ethics. His injunction does not say anything about maximizing the good of all people let alone of all sentient beings. It is a general exhortation to prosocial behavior. And Hillel does not purport to take the point of view of the universe.

De Lazari-Radek and Singer (Reference de Lazari-Radek and Singer2012: 26, n. 44; Reference de Lazari-Radek and Singer2014: 193) quote the Mahabharata: One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality. All other activities are due to selfish desire. (The word translated as morality is dharma.) But presenting this quote in isolation may paint a misleading picture of Hindu ethics. Bakker (Reference Bakker2013: 49) observes that:

the Hindu commentaries do not pay special attention to the Golden Rule as a subject in its own rightThe Hindu authors focus on themes like dharma, self-control, ahimsa (non-violence), asceticism, the effects of certain deeds on afterlife and the importance of living in accordance with the caste hierarchy, while the Golden Rule itself is scarcely mentioned separately.

As Davis (Reference Davis, Neusner and Chilton2008: 147) says, Indic formulations of the Golden Rule (including the one in the Mahabharata) repeatedly point toward a principle that is much more significant within classical Indic ethical discourse, namely the principle of ahimsa, nonharming or nonviolence (quoted in Bakker Reference Bakker2013: 49). It may be that some Western commentators eager to find commonalities between Christianity and the other great religions have assigned the Golden Rule in Hinduism a meaning and significance that it does not have. A few statements in the Hindu literature are superficially similar to the Golden Rule of the Gospels, but they are rooted in fundamentally different philosophical and ethical perspectives.

De Lazari-Radek and Singer cite but do not quote passages from Confucius and the Buddha.

The Analects records the following exchange with Confucius:

Tzu-kung asked, Is there a single word which can be a guide to conduct throughout one's life? The Master said, It is perhaps the word shu. Do not impose on others what you yourself do not desire. (Analects 15.24; in Confucius Reference Lau1992)

How this statement should be interpreted is not obvious, but the idea that the essence of Confucian morality is a Christian-style Golden Rule is implausible on its face. It simply does not fit with any of the conspicuous features of Confucianism. Consider the following observations by Csikszentmihalyi (Reference Csikszentmihalyi, Neusner and Chilton2008: 157):

The earliest Chinese expressions of Golden Rule-style injunctions existed somewhat uneasily within a system that otherwise emphasized acting out of a set of virtues. While post-Buddhist Confucians were better able to integrate the general principle of reflexivity into their moral system, they still had difficulty reconciling it with classical aspects of their tradition. A close examination of both early and late traditional writing on Golden Rule passages in the Confucian canon reveals that the scope of the application of the rule was often restricted, sometimes even to the point of being used as a metaphor for reflexivity in action rather than as a moral imperative.

Like Hillel, Confucius seems to be making a general exhortation to prosocial behavior, not instructing us to impartially maximize the good of all people or sentient beings, and not purporting to take the point of view of the universe. Confucians explicitly reject the idea of impartial moral concern. Mencius called Mozi a beast for promoting an ethics of inclusive care, which Mencius interpreted (perhaps wrongly) to mean that people do not have special moral obligations to their fathers (Fraser Reference Fraser2016: xi). (More on Mozi in Section 4.)

De Lazari-Radek and Singer (Reference de Lazari-Radek and Singer2012: 26, n. 44; Reference de Lazari-Radek and Singer2014: 193, n. 25) refer to the following statement by the Buddha: What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me? (Sayutta Nikya 35354; in Bhikkhu Bodhi Reference Bhikkhu2000). Nothing the Buddha says here or elsewhere suggests that this principle is the essence of morality, that the good of all beings should be maximized impartially, or that he purports to take the point of view of the universe.

Again, these are the five examples de Lazari-Radek and Singer themselves cite to support their claim that leading thinkers in different traditions took the point of view of the universe to discern a foundational moral principle that is similar to PUB. The analysis above seems to cast doubt on this claim. Nevertheless, the Golden Rule is indeed widespread. Terry (Reference Terry2011: 14) collects numerous examples of the rule (in both its positive and negative form) and concludes that it is a self-evident, universal doctrinal [principle] of ethics found throughout the history of civilization in one form or another. The fact that some version of the Golden Rule (however it's interpreted) can be found in the literature of virtually every major tradition does not mean it is widely regarded as the foundational principle of morality. As argued above, it seems to have such significance only in Christianity. But why does the Golden Rule keep appearing at all? Could it be that thinkers in different traditions are grasping at the same self-evident, mind-independent moral truth? Or is there a naturalistic explanation for why thinkers have independently formulated similar-sounding moral principles?

When de Lazari-Radek and Singer (Reference de Lazari-Radek and Singer2012: 26) explicitly outline their procedure for defending an intuition, they say (as quoted above) that one must establish the absence of a plausible explanation of the intuition as the outcome of an evolutionary or other non-truth-tracking process. Note that they refer to evolutionary or other non-truth-tracking process[es].Footnote 4 However, despite asserting that belief in PUB does not have any evolutionary or other obvious non-truth-tracking explanation, they do not devote a single sentence to exploring any possible nonobvious, non-truth-tracking processes besides evolution by natural selection that could be responsible for it. Elsewhere, they present the evolutionary explanation and the realist explanation for belief in PUB as the only two options:

In the absence of an appeal to our evolved capacity to reason as the basis for our ability to grasp moral truthit is difficult to see what plausible evolutionary explanation there could be for the idea of equal concern for the interests of complete strangers [including all sentient beings] who do not belong to one's own group. (ibid.: 20)

In practice, de Lazari-Radek and Singer conflate evolutionary debunking arguments with debunking arguments generally, which leads them to conclude that if a moral belief lacks a Street-style evolutionary explanation (Street Reference Street2006) that is, if the underlying evaluative disposition would not have promoted fitness in the ancestral environment then it cannot be debunked.

I suggest that there is a plausible naturalistic (albeit not directly evolutionary) explanation for why the Golden Rule arose independently in many traditions.

From a naturalistic perspective, morality serves a biological and/or social function of facilitating cooperation, at least within groups or certain segments within groups (see Boehm Reference Boehm2012; Harman Reference Harman1977; Joyce Reference Joyce2006; Mackie Reference Mackie1977; cf. Curry et al. Reference Curry, Mullins and Whitehouse2019; Sterelny & Fraser Reference Sterelny and Fraser2017). It is not surprising that moral educators in different traditions, who were concerned with the commonweal and understood basic human psychology, would hit upon some of the same rhetorical and pedagogical strategies. Some educators realized that they could foster prosocial, cooperative behavior by encouraging people to imagine themselves in others shoes, thereby harnessing our capacity for empathy. (Empathy, in turn, is the product of natural selection, so there is no reason to think that it is a moral-truth-tracking emotion; Cofnas Reference Cofnas2020: 318485.) Nevertheless, the Golden Rule has not been regarded as a central moral principle in any of the great religions besides Christianity. (And we have seen how, even in Christianity, the Golden Rule is quite different from PUB.)

Nagel (Reference Nagel1970) seems to consider but then reject an idea along these lines. He suggests that we are all in some degree susceptible to the (Golden Rule-style) moral argument, How would you like it if someone did that to you? (ibid.: 82). He speculates: It could be that the thought of yourself in a position similar to that of your victim is so vivid and unpleasant that you find it distasteful to go on persecuting the wretch (ibid.: 82). He dismisses the idea that this affective response accounts for the force of the argument with the following rhetorical questions: what if you [do not have this] affective response? Or alternatively, why cannot such considerations motivate you totake a tranquillizer to quell your pity, rather than to desist from your persecutions? (ibid.: 8283). Even if we discount our emotions, he assumes we would still recognize the validity of the Golden Rule via reason. But his rhetorical questions may have straightforward answers. It is not the case that everyone is, in all circumstances, in some degree susceptible to How would you like it if someone did that to you? exhortations. Some people do lack the relevant affective response. Others are motivated to assuage their conscience with drink and drugs. The value of asking people to put themselves in the place of their victim is not that this always motivates people in some degree to desist from harmful actions, but that it sometimes works for people who happen to possess the requisite affective and cognitive dispositions.

Some thinkers have followed a religious line of reasoning, which led them to conclude that the interests of all human beings count equally not from the perspective of the universe, but of God. These thinkers were not concerned with sentience or pleasure and pain per se, so they had no regard for animals and did not advocate PUB or the principle of utility. But they did arrive at a principle that is genuinely similar to PUB and the principle of utility in an important respect, and which, unlike the Golden Rule, advocates genuine impartiality (among human beings). However, the theologians in question were making inferences about the intentions of a divine agent described in their religious tradition. As I argue below, assuming there is a naturalistic explanation for their religious beliefs, there is a naturalistic explanation for the inferences made on the basis of those beliefs. Taking the point of view of a divine agent is fundamentally different from taking the point of view of the universe.

First, there was Mozi, who lived during the Warring States period (fourth century BCE) in China. Mozi is famous for his doctrine of inclusive care, which enjoins us to care about all the people of the world like ourselves. He based his ethics on the perspective of Heaven, which was seen as a quasi-personal god (Fraser Reference Fraser2016: 16). Heaven's conduct is broad and impartial, he said (ibid.: 36). From its perspective, all people count equally: Now in the world there are no great or small states all are Heaven's towns. Among people there are no younger or elder, noble or common all are Heaven's subjects (ibid.: 36). According to Mozi, action should be guided by the following principle:

Does it benefit people? Then do it. Does it not benefit people? Then stopIn all statements and all actions, what is beneficial to Heaven, ghosts, and the people, do it. In all statements and all actions, what is harmful to Heaven, ghosts, and the people, reject it. (ibid.: 138)

In Mozi's philosophy, the benefit [l] of all, despite its utilitarian ring, does not refer to the total sum of welfare in society or to individuals average level of welfare (ibid.: 141). As Fraser (Reference Fraser2016: 138) explains, benefit includes three kinds of goods: material prosperity, an adequate population or family size, and sociopolitical order, including social stability and personal and national security. These three goods are the concrete criteria against which the Mohists evaluate statements, conduct, practices, and institutions. Although his theory of the good was very different from that of Bentham, Sidgwick, or any other advocates of PUB in the West, Mozi called on us to impartially maximize the good with respect to human beings.

In the long run, Mohism had little direct influence on the Chinese philosophical tradition (ibid.: 19). As mentioned earlier, Mozi's doctrine of impartiality was explicitly rejected by the Confucians who came to dominate Chinese philosophy.

Several decades before Bentham (Reference Bentham1789) formulated the principle of utility, some Anglican theologians developed a religious version of what scholars now call utilitarianism, which was restricted to our species (or rational beings). Like Mozi, they reasoned that God has an interest in impartially maximizing the good. They combined this idea with a theory of the good that was much closer to Bentham's, namely, the good consists in maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain in rational beings (Heydt Reference Heydt, Eggleston and Miller2014).

Berkeley (Reference Berkeley and Fraser1712/1871: 6) argued that, because God has the power to bring us everlasting bliss or damnation, the principles of Reason demand that we act in conformity to His will. In addition, we are duty bound to obey God as the maker and preserver of all things. Since God is infinitely good, His end must be the good of men.

[A]ntecedent to the end proposed by God, no distinction can be conceived between men; that end therefore itself, or general design of Providence, is not determined or limited by any respect of persons. It is not therefore the private good of this or that man, nation, or age, but the general well-being of all men, of all nations, of all ages of the world, which God designs should be procured by the concurring actions of each individual. (ibid.: 7)

Another leading theological utilitarian, John Gay, argued similarly that obligation is the requirement to act to promote our happiness (Gay Reference Gay and Law1731/1781: xxxxxxi). [O]bligation is evidently founded upon the prospect of happiness, and arises from that necessary influence which any action has upon present or future happiness or misery (ibid.: xxx). [B]ecause God only can in all cases make a man happy or miserablewe are always obliged to conform to the Will of God (ibid.: xxxi).

Now it is evident from the nature of God, viz. his being infinitely happy in himself from all eternity, and from his goodness manifested in his works, that he could have no other design in creating mankind than their happiness; and therefore he wills their happiness; therefore the means of their happiness: therefore that my behaviour, as far as it may be a means of the happiness of mankind, should be suchThus the will of God is the immediate criterion of virtue, and the happiness of mankind the criterion of the will of God(ibid.: xxxi)

Gay argued that those who define virtue without reference to the will of God must be guilty of one of two absurdities. They must either allow that virtue is not in all cases obligatoryor they must say that the good of mankind is a sufficient obligation. But, he asks rhetorically, how can the good of mankind be any obligation to me, when perhaps in particular cases, such as laying down my life, or the like, it is contrary to my happiness? (ibid.: xxxiii).

One might have thought that, for Mozi and the Anglican theologians, Heaven and God were somehow equivalent to the universe that these religious thinkers were simply using the vocabulary available to them to communicate Sidgwick's core idea. But the quotes above suggest that they were explicitly making inferences about the intentions of a particular divine agent based on the actions ascribed to it. For them, the divine agent was not a metaphor, the literal reality of which did not matter for their conclusions. For Mozi, there is no reason to think that we would be bound by the doctrine of inclusive care if Heaven disappeared or changed its intentions. The argument of the Anglicans can be summarized as follows: (a) God, being good, must desire good for humans, (b) we should do what an (omnipotent and omniscient) God wants in order to be rewarded and to avoid punishment, (c) from God's perspective the good of all people is equally important, (d) ergo we should act to impartially maximize the good of all people. All three premises leading to the conclusion collapse if we reject God. Although one could make a case for substituting the universe for God in premise (c), there's no indication that the Anglican utilitarians would have accepted that, and, without (a) and (b), the argument falls apart anyway. The Anglicans were clear about their view that moral obligation requires God and God's sanctions (Heydt Reference Heydt, Eggleston and Miller2014: 26). As noted, Gay (Reference Gay and Law1731/1781: xxxiii) ridiculed those who believed otherwise.

If the argument above is right, Mohists and Anglicans came to advocate moral impartiality only because they held some very particular beliefs about God. In order to give a complete naturalistic explanation for their moral conclusions, we have to explain the religious beliefs that motivated them. Why did they believe in a Creator and/or Designer who wants good for human beings? Why did the Anglicans ascribe to this Being the power and motivation to reward and punish people? (The Mohists also believed in divine retribution by Heaven, ghosts, and spirits, but this principle did not play such a crucial role in their argument for moral impartiality at least not explicitly.)

Regarding the attribution of infinite power and goodness to God, Hume (Reference Hume and Beauchamp1757/2007: 6.5) offers some interesting speculations. Originally, he suggests, pagans represent one god as the prince or supreme magistrate of the rest. To ingratiate themselves to this special deity, people compete with each other to invent new strains of adulation, which become increasingly extravagant, till at last they arrive at infinity itself, beyond which there is no farther progress. All other gods eventually dissolve into insignificance or even nothingness, supplanted by an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good Creator.

Norenzayan (Reference Norenzayan2013) argues that belief in Big Gods who enforce prosocial behavior was culturally successful because it made large-scale cooperation possible. The gods of huntergatherers often have strikingly humanlike limitations and parochial concerns, with little interest in morality (ibid.: 7). But when some groups developed concepts of powerful, morally concerned gods, this triggered a runaway process of cultural evolution (ibid.: 8). Shared belief in a powerful god who demands prosocial behavior allowed people to form large, anonymous communities that would otherwise fall apart if many would-be cheaters did not fear divine retribution. These communities, being large and extra cooperative, tended toward expansion, spreading their way of life including their religious beliefs across the world. It is only recently that, in a handful of developed countries, sophisticated, secular law-enforcement institutions have taken the place of God.

Hume's and Norenzayan's theories are not necessarily in conflict. It could be that belief in Big Gods initially proliferated because it facilitated cooperation among large groups. One god in the original pantheon became magnified in significance via the process described by Hume.

Once achieved, belief in an all-powerful and moral God does not inevitably lead to the conclusion that He/It demands moral impartiality. But from the premises that God (or Heaven) is very powerful or omnipotent, a moral paragon, and concerned with human well-being, theologians may draw the conclusion that, from the perspective of that divine agent, the well-being of all people matters equally.

Some Western scholars claim that the Golden Rule is the cornerstone of morality across many if not all cultures, and that it affirms the value of moral impartiality. Some moral realists contend that widespread acceptance of the Golden Rule has no naturalistic explanation, and is best explained as the result of people independently recognizing the same non-natural moral truth. I have argued that the Golden Rule is a central moral principle only in Christianity. It does not advocate anything like moral impartiality or PUB or the principle of utility. And the appearance of the Golden Rule across cultures has a straightforward naturalistic explanation, namely, some moral educators independently recognized the pedagogical value of encouraging people to empathize with others in their moral community. The Mohists and the Anglican utilitarians did advocate genuinely impartial morality among human beings, but they did so on the basis of explicitly religious premises. Since (I have argued) it is reasonable to suppose that the Mohists and the Anglicans religious beliefs have naturalistic explanations, so do the conclusions about impartiality that were derived from them.

All that being said, I think Gensler (Reference Gensler2013: 22) is right that the Golden Rule does capture much of the spirit behind morality. All moral systems depend on (more or less selective) empathy to function. By inviting us to imagine ourselves in the position of others, the Golden Rule highlights the importance of empathy and helps us cultivate this key moral emotion. Rnnedal (Reference Rnnedal2015) has shown that, if we make certain assumptions that are plausible in some contexts, the Golden Rule If you want others to do A to you, then you ought to do A to them is equivalent to the Platinum Rule If others want you to do A to them, then you ought to do A to them. Although the two rules often generate the same moral demands, psychologically [they] might have different effects (ibid.: 235). The Platinum Rule reminds us that not everyone shares our desires, so does not literally want us to do unto them as we would have them do unto us. The Golden Rule reminds us that we treat people well by acting against their wishes in cases where we ourselves would not want our desires to be indulged (e.g., when our inebriated friend wants to borrow our car). The Golden Rule and the Platinum Rule are not absolute moral principles, but rules of thumb that are useful in moral education, at least at some stages (ibid.: 235). However, from an anthropological perspective, the Golden Rule (or the Platinum Rule) does not express a substantive moral principle that has been widely held across cultures.

The Golden Rule may be a useful starting point for constructing normative ethical theories. In particular, it can serve as the basis or as a slogan for the sort of humanistic, impartial ethics favored by many theorists today. But to do this it will need to be enriched by a number of qualifications (Carson Reference Carson2010: ch. 6; Reference Carson and LaFollette2013; Gensler Reference Gensler2013; Rnnedal Reference Rnnedal2015; Wattles Reference Wattles1996: ch. 13) that were not part of how it was historically interpreted in most of the religious and ethical traditions in which it appeared. If I am right that belief in the Golden Rule has a debunking explanation, that does not mean that it is without value. Nor does it mean that the Golden Rule does not represent a moral truth if morality is naturalistically construed (e.g., Sterelny & Fraser Reference Sterelny and Fraser2017). It does, however, undermine the justification for our belief that the rule represents a non-natural moral truth.

Theoretically, non-natural moral realists only need to find a single moral belief that lacks a plausible naturalistic explanation, which would be immune from the challenge posed by debunking arguments. But this will not be as easy as pointing to a moral belief that apparently would not have been favored by natural selection. Debunking arguments do not need to be evolutionary. Beliefs are debunked by revealing them to be the product of any causes not just evolutionary ones that do not track truth in the relevant domain. If the sociological processes that produced our moral beliefs can be reduced to non-moral-truth-tracking causes, the resulting beliefs can be debunked.

Read the original:

The Golden Rule: A Naturalistic Perspective - Cambridge Core

Please Note:

Important Notice:

Network availability may vary by state, and a specific health care provider's contract status can change at any time. In addition, only the office locations listed are in your network. Visiting a physician at any other location may result in reduced benefits. Therefore, before you receive care, it is recommended that you verify with the health care provider that he or she is still contracted with your network and at the location where you are planning to visit the physician.

Please be aware, providers are not required to accept repriced amounts for denied charges (unless their contract states otherwise). Previously LabCorp routinely accepted the repriced amounts on denied charges. but has since changed their policy and are no longer accepting repriced amounts for denied charges as of 10/01/18.

State Disclaimers

California:

California Medical Necessity Review Process for Mental Health: Licensed nurses perform the initial clinical review for pre-service, concurrent and/or post service/retrospective requests consistently using clinical review criteria to determine medical necessity of the mental healthcare services. All requests that cannot be certified through an initial review are sent to a clinical peer for determination. The reviewer will request only information reasonably necessary to make a determination.

In the case of a review of pre-service or concurrent care, the decision not to approve the service based on medical necessity will be made within 5 business days of receipt of information reasonably necessary to perform the review. A decision regarding services that have been completed will be made within 30 days of receipt of information reasonably necessary to perform the review. Expedited reviews will be performed when the insureds condition is such that they face an imminent and serious threat to his or her health or could jeopardize the insureds ability to regain maximum function. An expedited review determination will be completed within 72 hours of receipt of information reasonably necessary to perform the review. The decision will be communicated verbally, by fax or email within 24 hours to the provider and in writing within 2 business days to the insured. Notifications will provide an explanation of the reasons for the decision, a name and number to contact for questions and instructions on how to file an appeal.

In the case of a concurrent review, care shall not be discontinued until the treating provider has been notified of the insurers decision and a care plan has been agreed upon with the treating provider that is appropriate for the medical needs of the patient.

The information provided to you is a guideline used by this insurer to authorize, modify, or deny health care benefits for persons with similar illnesses or conditions. Specific care and treatment may vary depending on individual need and the benefits covered under your insurance plan.

Click Here for the Golden Rule Insurance Company California Grievance Procedures.

Colorado:

UnitedHealthcare Choice Plus has providers in every Colorado county except Gilpin and San Juan.

UnitedHealthcare Options PPO has providers in every Colorado county except Gilpin and San Juan.

Connecticut:

UnitedHealthOne performs an annual survey in the state of Connecticut. Click here for results.

Delaware:

You may request a printed copy of a network provider directory by:

Every Delaware provider that you use must clearly disclose to you in writing if they (or any provider practicing in their group practice or facility) are not in your network (non-network). Each non-network provider in Delaware must obtain your written consent prior to treating you, and require you to sign a network disclosure statement indicating you will accept financial responsibility for any non-network services which may not be covered by your plan. You cannot be balanced billed by a non-network provider if the non-network provider (or the facility based provider employing non-network facility based providers) fails to provide you with the required network disclosure statement and obtain your written consent. This requirement includes the disclosure of non-network lab services ordered by your provider or facility.

Florida:

For Florida Residents, Legislation Effective 7/1/2004: Direction on appropriate utilization of emergency services and alternative urgent care services. Choosing the Right Health Care Setting:

Emergency Rooms: When you or a loved one is hurt, you want the best care. Deciding where to go isn't always easy. You may be tempted to go to the emergency room (ER). But, this may not be the best choice. At the ER, true emergencies are treated first. Other cases must wait--sometimes for hours. And, it may cost you more. Go to the ER for heavy bleeding, large open wounds, sudden change in vision, chest pain, sudden weakness or trouble talking, major burns, spinal injuries, severe head injury or difficulty breathing. Of course, each case is unique. If a situation seems life-threatening, take action. Call 911 or your local emergency number right away.

Urgent Care: Sometimes, you may need care fast. But, a trip to the ER may be unnecessary. You may want to try an urgent care center. They can treat many minor ailments. Chances are, you won't have to wait as long as at the ER. You may pay less, too. An urgent care center can help with: sprains, strains, minor broken bones, mild asthma attacks, minor infections, small cuts, sore throats or rashes.

Clinical Care: If it's not urgent, it's usually best to go to your own doctor's office. Your doctor knows you and your health history. He or she can access your medical records. And, he or she can provide follow-up care or refer you to specialists.

Louisiana:

The Louisiana Hospital-Based Physician Disclosure List is for informational purposes only and contains the names and location of certain hospital-based physicians located in the State of Louisiana as reported to UnitedHealthcare. It is provided in accordance with the Louisiana Consumer Health Care Provider Network Disclosure Act. It is not part of UnitedHealthcare's directory of Network Providers and the physicians on this list may not be contracted with UnitedHealthcare and includes Network and Non-Network Providers.

Health care services may be provided to you at a network health care facility by facility-based physicians who are not in your health plan. You may be responsible for payment of all or part of the fees for those out-of-network services, in addition to applicable amounts due for copayments, coinsurance, deductibles, and non-covered services. Specific information about in-network and out-of-network facility-based physicians can be found by clicking on the link above or by calling the customer service telephone number on the back of your ID card.

North Dakota:

Click here for North Dakota Grievance Procedures.

Texas:

A facility-based physician or health care practitioner may not be a member of your health benefit plan's provider network, even though the physician or health care practitioner provides health care services at an in-network health care facility. If the physician or health care practitioner is not a member of your health benefit plan's provider network, you may be responsible for payment of the physicians or practitioners fees not paid by your health benefit plan.

Click here for a list of UnitedHealthcare in-network health care facilities that may staff facility-based physicians or health care practitioners which may not participate in your health benefit plan's provider network.

Click herefor additional Information for Texas Insureds.

Wisconsin:

You are strongly encouraged to contact us to verify the status of the providers involved in your care including, for example, the anesthesiologist, radiologist, pathologist, facility, clinic or laboratory, when scheduling appointments or elective procedures to determine whether each provider is a participating or nonparticipating provider. Such information may assist in your selection of provider(s) and will likely affect the level of co-payment, deductible and amount of co-insurance applicable to care you receive. The information contained in this directory may change during your plan year. Please call the Customer Service phone number on your ID card to learn more about the participating providers in your network and the implications, including financial, if you decide to receive your care from nonparticipating providers.

See the rest here:

Find A Doctor or Dentist | UnitedHealthOne

Golden Rule of interpretation: Written By: Tshewang Dema

The essence of law lies in the spirit, not its letter, for the letter is significant only as being the external manifestation of the intention that underlies it Salmond

Statutory interpretation is the process of interpreting and applying legislation to decide cases. Interpretation is necessary when the case involves subtle or ambiguous aspects of a statute. Generally, the words of a statute have a plain and straightforward meaning. But in some cases, there may be ambiguity or vagueness in the words of the statute that must be resolved by the judge. The reason for ambiguity or vagueness of legislation is the fundamental nature of language. It is not always possible to precisely transform the intention of the legislature into written words.

A judge is then forced to resort to the documentation of legislative intent, which may also be unhelpful, and then finally to his or her own judgment of what outcome is ultimately fair and logical under the totality of the circumstances. To find the meanings of statutes, judges use various tools and methods of statutory interpretation, including traditional canons of statutory interpretation, legislative history, and purpose. In common law jurisdictions, the judiciary may apply rules of statutory interpretation to legislation enacted by the legislature or to delegated legislation such as administrative agency regulations.[1]

Very often occasions will arise where the courts will be called upon to interpret the words, phrases and expressions used in the statute. There are numerous rules of statutory interpretation. Over time, various methods of statutory construction have fallen in and out of favour. Some of the better-known rules of construction methods are The Golden rule, The Literal rule, The Mischief rule and The Purposive approach.[2]

Whenever literal interpretation leads to an irrational result that is unlikely to be the legislatures intention, the court can depart from that meaning. It is such a rule which disposes of ambiguity, inconsistency, unclarity, hardship, inconvenience, injustice, etc. arose from the language of Statute while interpreting it. Hence the golden rule is an exception and has an important place in the Interpretation of Statutes to the literal rule and will be used where the literal rule produces the result where Parliaments intention would be circumvented rather than applied. Golden rule is a principle of statutory construction that the grammatical and ordinary sense of words may be modified so as to avoid an absurdity or inconsistency, but no farther.

Interpretation is of two kinds grammatical and logical. Grammatical interpretation is arrived at by reference to the laws of speech to the words used in the statute; in other words, it regards only the verbal expression of the legislature. Logical interpretation gives effect to the intention of the legislature by taking into account other circumstances permissible according to the rules settled in this behalf. Proper construction is not satisfied by taking the words as if they were self-contained phrases. So considered, the words do not yield the meaning of a statute.[3]

A statute is the will of the legislature and the fundamental rule of interpretation, to which all others are subordinate, and that a statute is to be expounded, according to the intent of them that made it. The object of interpretation is to find out the intention of the legislature.

The primary and foremost task of a court in interpreting a statute is to ascertain the intention of the legislature, actual or imputed. The words of the statute are to be construed so as to ascertain the mind of the legislature from the natural and grammatical meaning of the words which it has used. The essence of the Law, according to Salmond:[4]

Lies in its spirit, nor in its letter, for the letter is significant only as being the external manifestation of the intention that underlies it. Nevertheless, in all ordinary cases, the courts must be content to accept the litera legis as the exclusive and conclusive evidence of the sententia legis. They must, in general, take it absolutely for granted that the legislature has said what it meant, and meant what it has said.

The rule was defined by Lord Wensleydale in the Grey v Pearson case (1857)[5] as: The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther.

Therefore, it is the modification of the literal rule of interpretation. The literal rule emphasises on the literal meaning of legal words or words used in the legal context which may often lead to ambiguity and absurdity. The golden rule tries to avoid anomalous and absurd consequences from arising from literal interpretation. In view of the same, the grammatical meaning of such words is usually modified.

The court is usually interested in delivering justice and in order to foresee the consequences of their decisions the golden rule is usually applied. This rule of interpretation aims at giving effect to the spirit of the law as the mere mechanical and grammatical meaning may not be sufficient.

According to Maxwell, The golden rule is that words of Institute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning.

According to Gray, the process by which a judge (or indeed any person, lawyer or layman, who has occasion to search for the meaning of a statute) constructs from words of a statute book, a meaning which he either believes to be that of the legislature, or which he proposes to attribute to it, is called interpretation.

The words of a statute must be prima facie according to Golden Rule to be given their ordinary meaning because when meaning of the word is plain, it is not the duty of the courts to busy themselves with supposed intention. But when grammatical interpretation leads to absurdity it is permissible to depart from and to interpret the provision of statues in such a manner so that absurdity is removed.[6]

The court when faced with more than one possible interpretation of an enactment is entitled to take into consideration the result of each interpretation in a bid to arrive at the true intention of the legislature. The golden rule provides no clear means to test the existence or extent of an absurdity. It seems to depend on the result of each individual case. Whilst the golden rule has the advantage of avoiding absurdities, it therefore has the disadvantage that no test exists to determine what is an absurdity.

In short, it is an interpretation which will give effect to the purpose of legislature, when the words itself becomes ambiguous, by modification of the language used. On the face of it, this rule solves all problems and is therefore known as Golden Rule. Further since the literal meaning is modified to some extent, this approach is also called the modifying method of interpretation. This rule, therefore, suggests that the consequences or effect of an interpretation deserve a lot more importance because there are clues too the true meaning of a legislation.

In the year 1857, for the first time, Lord Wensleydale propounded the golden rule of interpretation, in Grey Vs. Pearson.[7] Thereafter this rule has become famous by the name of Wensleydales Golden rule.

The Golden Rule was used in the R v Allen case (1872).[8] In this the defendant was charged with bigamy (S.57 of offences against the person act 1861) which, under statutes states: whosoever being married shall marry any other person during the lifetime of the former husband or wife is guilty of an offence.

It is a very useful rule in the construction of a statute to adhere to the ordinary meaning of the words used, and to the grammatical construction, unless that is at variance with the intention of the legislature to be collected from the statute itself, or leads to any manifest absurdity or repugnance, in which case the language may be varied or modified so as to avoid such inconvenience, but no further.

The golden rule can be applied in two ways:

Narrow Approach This approach is applied when the word or phrases capable of more than one literal meaning. This allows the judge to apply the meaning which avoids the absurdity.

Broad Approach This approach is applied when there is only one literal meaning. But applying that one literal meaning would cause an absurdity. Under this approach the court will modify the meaning to avoid the absurdity. The modification shall be keeping in mind the intention of the Parliament making the law in question.

The golden rule of statutory interpretation allows a shift from the ordinary sense of a word(s) if the overall content of the document demands it. It states that if the literal rule produces an absurdity, then the court should look for another meaning of the words to avoid that absurd result. The grammatical and ordinary sense of the words is to be adhered to unless that would lead to some absurdity or some repugnance or inconsistency with the rest of the instrument in which case the grammatical and ordinary sense of the words may be modified so as to avoid the absurdity and inconsistency, but no farther.[9]

The significance of the golden rule in the interpretation is explained followed:

The golden rule can be put forward as a compromise between the literal rule and the mischief rule. It follows the path of literal interpretation by giving the status its ordinary meaning. At the same time, when the literal interpretation leads to an irrational result unlikely to the ends of the act, the court can deviate from the literal sense. Also, while using, abides by the public policy.[11]

An illustration of the use of the rule in its wider as well as its narrower sense is given below:

If there is a sign that say, Do not use the elevators in case of fire, the literal interpretation would mean never to use the elevator while there is a fire. However, this interpretation is absurd and what the sign truly tries to convey is to prevent using the elevators when a fire is nearby.

While using the wider approach, the golden rule avoids a result that would go against the public policy. For example, A son murders his mother and commits suicide. According to the law, the heirs of the mothers property would be either the mothers family or the sons descendants. Since there is a question of profiting from the crime, the court is likely to favour the mothers family in the interest of public policy.

The Golden Rule enables the court to look at the literal meaning of an Act. This rule allows a Judge to depart from a statutes normal meaning to avoid an absurd result. This rule of statutory interpretation may be applied when an application of the Literal Rule would lead to an absurdity. The Golden Rule gives the words of a statute their basic, ordinary meaning. However, when this may lead to an illogical result that is unlikely to be the legislatures intention, the golden rule allows a Judge to depart from this meaning.[12]

If the choice is between two interpretations, said Viscount Simon, L.C. in Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd.[13] We should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility or the narrower one which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation. We should rather accept the bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result. Thus, if the language is capable of more than one interpretation, one ought to discard the literal or natural meaning if it leads to an unreasonable result, and adopt that interpretation which leads to reasonably practical results.

In this case[14] Section 154 of the Companies Act, 1929, was in question. This provision provided machinery for the transfer of the undertaking (an old company) to a new company. Under the section, transfer includes all property, rights, liabilities and duties of the former company vest with the latter. An issue therefore was whether a contract of service previously existing between an individual and transferor company automatically becomes a contract between the individual and the latter company.

Hence, an action was taken against him; however, no notice was given to him about the proposed amalgamation either by the transferor or the transferee company. It was contended that the contract of service could fall under the term property. Rejecting the contention, the House of Lords held that the benefits of a contract entered into between the former company and the employee cannot be transferred (by X company to Y company) without the consent of the employee.

It is said that the application of Golden Rule of Construction, and its limits, can be seen in the area devoted to construction with reference to the consequences, and construction to avoid inconvenience and injustice, and to prevent evasion He illustrated the application of the rule in various cases relating to criminal, civil, labour, revenue taxation and administration branches of law.

In India there are several good examples where the Supreme Court or High Courts have applied the Golden Construction of Statutes. Certain confusion one may face when it appears that even for literal rule, this rule is named. As golden rule initially starts with the search of literal meaning of the provision, and if there is unequivocal meaning, plain and natural and no repugnancy, uncertainty of absurdity appears, apply the meaning. But when there is possibility of more than one meaning, we have to go further to avoid the inconvenience by even modifying the language by addition, rejection or substitution of words so as to make meaning accurate expounding of intention of the legislature.[15]

In Uttar Pradesh Bhoodan Yagna Samiti v. Brij Kishore,[16] the Supreme Court held that the expression landless person used in section 14 of U.P. Bhoodan Yagna Act, 1953 which made provision for grant of land to landless persons, was limited to landless laborers. A landless labour is he who is engaged in agriculture but having no agricultural land. The Court further said that any landless person did not include a landless businessman residing in a city. The object of the Act was to implement the Bhoodan movement, which aimed at distribution of land to landless labourers who were verged in agriculture. A businessman, though landless cannot claim the benefit of the Act.

In Lee v. Knapp,[17] section 77(1) of the Road Traffic Act, 1960 provided that a driver causing accident shall stop after the accident, the interpretation of the word stop was in question. In this case, the driver of the motor vehicle stopped for a moment after causing an accident and then ran away. Applying the golden rule the court held that the driver had not fulfilled the requirement of the section, as he had not stopped for a reasonable period so as to enable interested persons to make necessary inquires from him about the accident at the spot of accident.

In Ramji Missar v. State of Bihar[18] in construing section 6 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958, the Supreme Court laid down that the crucial date on which the age of the offender had to be determined is not the date of offence, but the date on which the sentence is pronounced by the trial court An accused who on the date of offence was below 21 years of age but on the date on which the judgment pronounced, if he was above 21 years, he is not entitled to the benefit of the statute. This conclusion reached having regard to the object of the Act. The object of the Statute is to prevent the turning of the youthful offenders into criminals by their association with the hardened criminals of mature age within the walls of the prison. An accused below 21 years is entitled to the benefit of the Act by sending him under the supervision of the probation officer instead of jail.

In state of Punjab v. Qaiser Jehan Begum,[19] the respondent made an application under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for reference to the civil court within six months from he her knowledge of the award regarding compensation whereas the section says that such reference would be made within six months from the date of the award. Holding that the application was within time, Supreme Court held that unless an award of compensation comes to the knowledge, either actually or constructively, how can a reference, if any, be made against the award. Therefore, justice and fair play required that the counting of the limitation period must begin from the date of knowledge of the award.

In Narendra Kiadivalapa v. Manikrao Patil,[20] section 23 of the Representation 33 of People Act, 1951, which permitted inclusion of the name in the electoral roll till the last date for nomination for an election in the concerned constituency, has been construed. Section 33(1) of the R.P. Act, 1951 specifies that the nomination papers shall be presented between the hours of 110 clock in the fore noon and 30 clock in the after noon. Reading these provisions together in the light of the object behind them, the Supreme Court construed the words last date in section 23 as last hour of the last date of nomination under section 33(1) of the Act.

In Tirath Singh v. Bachitter Singh[21] the appellant argued that it was obligatory under Section 99 (1) (a) of the Representation of the Peoples Act, 1951 for the tribunal to record names of all persons who had been guilty of corrupt practices including parties and non parties to the petition and that under the proviso, notice should be given to all persons named under Section 99(1)(a)(ii) He being a party to the petition was, therefore, entitled to a fresh notice. Supreme Court said that such an interpretation will lead to an absurdity and held that the proviso along with clause (b) thereto and the setting of the section pointed out that notice is contemplated only against non- parties to the petition.

In Annapurna Biscuit Manufacturing Co. v. Commissioner of Sales Tax,[22] U P., Sales 34 Tax was fixed at two per cent, of the turnover in the case of cooked food under section 3A of the U.P. Sales Tax Act, 1948. The appellant firm engaged in the business of biscuit manufacture and sale. Whether biscuits though intended for human consumption, can be construed as cooked food and liable to be taxed as per the notification issued under the said provision. Held that if an expression is capable of a wider meaning, the question whether the wider or narrower meaning should be accepted depends on the context of the statute. Here biscuit was not covered within the words cooked food. However, where the precise words used are plain and unambiguous the court is bound to construe them in their ordinary sense and not to limit plain words in an Act of Parliament by consideration of policy which has to decided not by court but by Parliament itself.[23]

Lord Moulten in Vacher & Sons v. London Society of Compositor,[25] had explained the reasons for adopting caution before application of the golden rule of construction in these words: There is a danger that it may generate into a mere judicial criticism of the propriety of the Acts of legislature. We have to interpret statutes according to the language used therein, and though occasionally the respective consequences of two rival interpretations may guide us in our choice in between them, it can only be where, taking the Act as a whole and viewing it in connection with the existing state of law at the time of the passing of the Act, we can satisfy ourselves that the words cannot have been used in the sense the argument points. It may sometimes happen that laws made for the benefit of public at large may come in conflict of some individual interest or take away his legal right and cause injustice to him. Like public policy, absurdity, uncertainty or repugnance, are very unruly horses.

In State Bank of India v. Shri N. Sundara Money,[26] the Supreme Court said that it is the duty of all courts of justice, to take care for the general good of the community, that hard cases do not make bad law. Referring earlier cases the court observed that absurdity should be understood in the same sense as repugnance that is to say something which would be as absurd with reference to the other words of the statute as to amount to repugnance

In the case of Grundi v. Great Boulder Proprietary Cold Mines Ltd.,[27] Lord Greene M.R. said, Although 38 absurdity or non-absurdity of one conclusion as capered with another may be and very often is, of assistance to the court in choosing between two possible meanings of ambiguous words. The Golden Rule of Construction is a doctrine, which must be applied with great care, remembering that judges may be fallible in this question of absurdity and in any event it must not be applied so as to result in twisting language into a meaning, which it cannot bear. It is a doctrine which must not be used to re-write the language in a way different from that in which it was originally framed.

The Golden Rule is probably the most well-known ethical code of all time. It was used by the Romans, the Chinese, the Greeks and adopted by every major religion imaginable. And at first glance it does seem like a good ethical code to hold by as a society. However, the golden rule is not only flawed and selfish, but it can also justify immoral acts. The main reason for the golden rule is flawed is because the moral standard and criteria is not based on others desires and preferences and its not even solely focused on what our preferences and desires are. The Golden Rule implies the basic assumption that other people would like to be treated the way that you would like to be treated. And with that we are inevitably led to moral relativism, whatever your moral standard and desires are, is what is morally good for others.[31]

Now such moral thinking can be counter-productive and used to justify immoral acts. Consider a suicide bomber, a suicide bomber has no regard for his own life, he is literally killing himself. According to the golden rule treating someone should be based on how you want to be treated and since the suicide bomber is treating himself with death is it therefor justified that he could kill others?

The word absurdity is a vague concept and arises only in a few cases where it necessary for the court to apply the golden rule of interpretation. Golden rule suffers from the same problems which were faced by the Literal approach i.e. lack of wider contextual understanding of meanings. The majority of the cases contain tough scenarios where touch choices have to be made between many credible arguments, not scenarios in places where wordings of the legislation take you to obvious ambiguity.[32]

The golden rule gives a court opportunities to create exceptions given public that are not based on the social subject matter under the legislation, not even on the consequences of the wordings made use by the law-making body, but entirely on the social and political perceptions of the judges who deal with such difficult cases.

They are not rules in any ordinary sense of the word since they all point to different solutions to the same problem. Nor is there any indication, either in the so-called rules or elsewhere, as to which to apply in any given situation. Each of them may be applied but need not be. Following are criticized that is made by Zander about the golden rule for being silent as to how the court should proceed if it does find an unacceptable absurdity[33]:

The result is that in ultimate analysis the golden rule does allow a court to make quite openly exceptions which are based not on the social policy behind the Act, not even on the total effect of the words used by the legislature, but purely on the social and political views of the men who happen to be sitting on the case.

Every nation has its own judicial system, the purpose of which to grant justice to all. The court aims to interpret the law in such a manner that every citizen is ensured justice to all. To ensure justice to all the concept of canons of interpretation was expounded. These are the rules which are evolved for determining the real intention of the legislature.

It is not necessary that the words used in a statute are always clear, explicit and unambiguous and thus, in such cases it is very essential for courts to determine a clear and explicit meaning of the words or phrases used by the legislature and at the same time remove all the doubts if any.

Hence, the Golden Rule of Interpretation could be concluded as[34]

[1] Indian Institute of legal studies, Golden Rule of Interpretation, available at: https://www.iilsindia.com/blogs/golden-rule-of-interpretation/ (visited on September 22, 2021).

[2] Prof. T. Bhattacharyya, The interpretation of Statutes (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 10th edn, 2017).

[3] Prof. T. Bhattacharyya, The interpretation of Statutes (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 10th edn, 2017).

[4] Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, The Golden Rule, available at: https://iep.utm.edu/goldrule/ (visited on September 23, 2021).

[5] 1857) 6 HL 61, p 106,26 LJ Ch 473,p 481

[6] Brief regarding rules of interpretation of statutes, available at: https://taxguru.in/corporate-law/rules-interpretation-statutes.html (visited on September 23, 2021).

[7] Ibid

[8] 2 ALL ER 641

[9] Becke v Smith,1836 150 E.R. 724 .

[10] Prof. T. Bhattacharyya, The interpretation of Statutes (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 10th edn, 2017).

[11] Radhika Saxena The Golden Rule of Interpretation 22 IJN 17 (2020).

[12] Sidharth Sabu Golden Rule of Interpretation 20 LLNN 12 (2020).

[13] 1940) AC 1014.

[14] Viscount Simon, L.C. in Nokes v. Doncaster Amalgamated Collieries Ltd. 1940) AC 1014.

[15] Shraddha Agrawal The Golden rule of Interpretation, available at: https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/golden-rule-interpretation/#_edn52 (visited on September 23, 2021).

[16] 1988 RD 363 (SC)

[17] (1967) 2 QB 442.

[18] AIR 2003 P.& H. 135.

[19] AIR 1963 SC 1604

[20] AIR 1977 SC 2171

[21] AIR 1955 SC 850

[22] AIR 1981 SC 1656

[23] Prof. T. Bhattacharyya, The interpretation of Statutes (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 10th edn, 2017).

[24] Shraddha Agrawal The Golden rule of Interpretation, available at: https://www.lawctopus.com/academike/golden-rule-interpretation/#_edn52 (visited on September 24, 2021).

[25] [1912] UKHL 3; (1913) AC 107

[26] [1976] 3 S.C.R. 160

[27] 1948 a ALL ER 21

[28] Golden Rule of Interpretation And Evolutionary Principals, available at: https://www.academia.edu/34857472/GOLDEN_RULE_OF_INTERPRETATION_AND_EVOLUTIONARY_PRINCIPALS (visited on September 23, 2021).

[29] Ibid

[30] [1946] AC 278

[31] Langan P St. J, Maxwell, The Interpretation of Statutes, Lexi Nexis Butterworths Wadhwa, 12th edn., (2010).

[32] Rosedar S R A, Interpretation of Statutes, (Thomson Reuters, Haryana, 3rd edn., 2020).

[33] The Law Making Process (4th edition, 1994), 130.

[34] Prof. T. Bhattacharyya, The interpretation of Statutes (Central Law Agency, Allahabad, 10th edn, 2017).

5,010total views, 14views today

Read the original post:

GOLDEN RULE OF INTERPRETATION AND CASES - Social Laws Today

The Golden Rule is the ethical principle of treating other people as one's self would prefer to be treated. One of Jesus' most famous and impactful teachings, the Golden Rule can be found in the Bible verses Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31:

So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets. Matthew 7:12

Do to others as you would have them do to you. Luke 6:31

A simple notion about the ethical treatment of others that was profound in its origin and resonates through the ages.

"Golden Rule" is not explicitly found in Scripture, this became the popular way of referring to the words of Jesus in Matthew 7:12 and Luke 6:31. In summary, the Golden Rule encompasses the empathic essence of morality. It is a simple yet powerful way of saying that we should recognize the respective dignity of our fellow man and not forget we all are capable of inflicting immoral actions. This is vital in following the commandments of God and creating a more virtuous world.

Jesus declares, "Do to others as you would have them do to you." With regard to the Old Testament, two main points prevail. Matthew's reference presents the Golden Rule as encapsulating the teachings of the law and the prophets. Matthew 7:12 reads, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Second, even though the Golden Rule addresses human interpersonal relationships, its message is additionally theological. That is, the very character of God guides how we should interact and relate to one another.

We are to follow and exercise the Golden Rule because God's heavenly wisdom teaches self-control, and his virtue teaches kindness. This proverb is appropriately called the Golden Rule, for it encompasses in its few words the underlying and guiding principle of all morality. It comprises all the rules of the law with regard to man and all the amplification of those precepts given by the prophets. It instructs us to put ourselves in our neighbor's place, and guide our behavior accordingly. It assumes, of course, that when we put ourselves in our neighbor's place, we are wise enough not to make any foolish wishes and good enough not to make any evil ones. The Golden Rule was a vital emphasis on empathy and the reciprocity of morality.

The Golden Rule has inspired several subsequent sayings and ethical declarations since its revelation by Jesus. Listed below are some examples of such inspirations:

Put yourself in their shoes - Another call to empathy and understanding anothers situation and point of view, this phrase calls upon us to picture ourselves as our fellow human and recognize the sovereignty and emotions of each individual.

Do not do unto others as you would not want done to you. - Also known as the Silver Rule, this inversion of the Golden Rule reminds us to not do what we would prefer not to happen to ourselves. Essentially this is the negative version of the Golden Rule.

Act only in accordance with that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal law." - Kants Categorical Imperative is the primary philosophical concept in the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant. This imperative basically dictates to follow the rules that apply to everyone. In other words, Dont create rules for yourself that you wouldnt apply to others.

View original post here:

What is the Golden Rule? - Biblical Meaning, Importance and Examples

Always Ate a Restricted Carbohydrate Diet: King of Aesthetics Frank Zanes Golden Rule to Stay in Shape All Year Round Revealed in 2010  EssentiallySports

Excerpt from:

Always Ate a Restricted Carbohydrate Diet: King of Aesthetics Frank Zanes Golden Rule to Stay in Shape All Year Round Revealed in 2010 -...

Opinions expressed by Entrepreneur contributors are their own.

"Treat others as you would want to be treated," the Golden Rule is short, succinct and powerful.

Having been taught this age-old concept from the time we were young, most of recognize its place in our personal lives.

When it comes to the world of business, though, this rule isn't applied nearly as fervently.

Sure, we'd like to say that we uphold this rule in our professional lives -- but when it comes down to it, do we really? How often do we ensure that ethics are held in the same regard as, say, our financial goals? Are morals ever measured as diligently or given as much consideration as our ROI spreadsheets?

It's easy to dismiss the concept of ethics as less important than other areas of business; to stuff them into our business values page, but to leave them out of the day-to-day processes. But far from being "fluffy" concepts with no real place in the business world, it's important to recognize that ethics are directly tied to a company's long-term success.

Related: The Ethics Coach: In Tough Conversations, Do This

When you think about it from a practical standpoint, applying the Golden Rule in business makes a lot of sense. Treat your customers right and they'll be happier, more likely to come back -- and more inclined to recommend you to friends and family. Treat your workers fairly, and they'll be motivated to provide excellent service, which leads to satisfied and committed customers. And the numbers don't lie. In most industries, companies that are the loyalty leaders have a compound annual growth rate that is more than twice that of their competitors. Likewise, treating your workers well has been shown to lead to excellence, which of course, results in increased profits.

When it comes to the Golden Rule, this simple yet timeless guideline holds more value than first meets the eye. In a world where the question of ethics and moral dilemmas often arises, having a standard that you can refer to in your decision-making process can be invaluable.

Likewise, in today's ultra-competitive marketplace, where companies start and fail at a drastic rate, having a solid set of ethics could be just what your company needs to stand head and shoulders above the rest. With this in mind, let's take a look at how the Golden Rule breaks down practically and see how implementing it into your business strategy and daily operations can pay off.

One of the most valuable possessions that you have is your reputation -- and it's important to guard it at all costs. Profits can be lost and regained, but rebuilding a damaged reputation -- that's far more difficult.

Related: How To Be An Ethical Leader

Ensuring that you follow the Golden Rule in your interactions with others and your decision-making processes in business -- is a simple way to keep your reputation intact.

"Each time you live up to the Golden Rule, your reputation is enhanced; each time you fail, it is diminished," writes author and speaker Fred Reichheld in an article in Harvard Business Review.

As it turns out, rising above the situation and treating others decently is just as important in the business world as it is in our personal lives. A cut-throat business strategy may work at first, but as scientist Robert Axelrod argues, over time it will, ironically, "destroy the very environment it needs for its own success."

Build your business sustainably. Don't step on others to climb the corporate ladder. Treat your team, your customers, your vendors, and competitors fairly. Go above and beyond what's required of you. Doing so will help to preserve your reputation and pay off significantly in the long run.

The secret to a satisfied customer base is your ability to put yourself in your client's shoes.

Henry Ford recognized the value of this simple concept. "If there is any one secret of success --" Ford is quoted as saying, "-- it lies in the ability to get the other person's point of view and see things from that person's angle as well as from your own."

While it's fairly easy for small companies to give customers the attention that they need, as a company expands, this concept usually becomes more difficult. But even as a company grows, it's important for them to remain true to their roots -- to continue to recognize and meet their customer's expectations -- and to provide excellent service. In short, to treat their customers how they want to be treated.

The sobering fact is that customer satisfaction works both ways. "When customers feel mistreated or misled, they give what they got," writes Fred Reichheld, highlighting the reality of dissatisfied customers. "They leave -- if they can -- and complain if they can't. They demoralize your employees. And they badmouth your company, alienating your prospects. They're costly."

Related: Are Business Ethics at a Low Ebb?

How costly? Studies show that people are far more likely to complain about a negative experience than they are to talk about a good one. News of bad customer service reaches more than twice as many people as praise for a good service experience, and a whopping 91 percent of unhappy customers -- will leave and won't come back.

As it turns out, treating customers well is important for their satisfaction and retention -- helping to keep them happy -- and coming back for more.

One of the best ways to assemble a team that's driven, motivated and on board, is by treating them well.

A satisfied workforce will be motivated to provide great service to your customers, and they'll be more loyal to your company as well. Not surprisingly, studies show that pure, simple appreciation can go a long way towards motivating employees.

Harry C. Handlin, former President of Lincoln Electric, believed in applying the Golden Rule in the workplace -- and the importance of putting others first -- not only in the more obvious area of customer relations, but the employer-employee relationship as well.

"If, as managers, we treat our employees the way that we would like to be treated, we are rewarded with a dedicated, talented and loyal work force that will consistently meet the needs of the marketplace," Handlin said.

It's easy to spot a company that treats its team well. Workers are motivated, turnover is lower, and customers are happier as well.

Having a satisfied and happy team that's committed to meeting customers' needs is important for sustainable growth. I've seen this concept myself during my time at Renters Warehouse. As founder and CEO, I was committed to providing the best work environment for my team -- and in return, they were motivated and driven to provide excellent service to our clients.

For companies today, dusting off the Golden Rule and putting it to work in your customer service department would be a good start but I would argue that employing this rule throughout every aspect of your company, and professional career, is an even better approach. Using it to guide your actions in business may not instantly put you on the fast-track for success -- but it will most definitely pave the way for sustainable, long-term growth.

The best companies know that relationships rather than transactions are what matter; something that is at the heart of the Golden Rule. Treat others like people, not numbers and put yourself in their place once in a while. It's not as complex as some of the other business philosophies out there, but it undoubtedly encompasses many of them as well. As it turns out, following the Golden Rule will help you to go far -- in life and in business as well.

More:

Why the Golden Rule Must Be Practiced in Business - Entrepreneur