“That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah” —Rabbi Hillel the Elder “Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself”. —Confucius
“Do not do to yourneighbour what youwouldtake ill from him.” —Pittacus
“Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing.” —Thales “What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either.” —Sextus the Pythagorean “Do not doto otherswhat wouldangeryou if done to you by others.” —Socrates “One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Other behaviour is due to selfish desires.” —Brihaspati, Mahabharata “Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” —Udanavarga “Do to others what you want them to do to you.” —Matthew
Although golden rule is commonly associated with Christian ethics, many religions have preached similar principles. The quotation of Matthew is from the Bible; Udanavarga’s observation is from Buddhism; and the statement attributed to Brihaspati is from Mahabharata. The first quotation is a statement of an ancient Jewish preacher. The other quotations are from ancient Greek philosophers and Confucius. The same idea runs through all these quotations.
Many writers assert that the golden rule forms the essence of any morality. It is an ethic of equity. If there are two individuals X and Y, their conduct towards each other should be governed by identical principles. Human beings like to be treated by others with kindness and consideration. Therefore, according to the golden rule, each will treat the other kindly. The golden rule will automatically lead to ethical behaviour. If people adopt the golden rule, they need not refer to any elaborate moral codes.
The golden has wide practical acceptance. The “Declaration Toward a Global Ethic” of the Parliament of the World’s Religions (1993) proclaimed the Golden Rule (“We must treat others as we wish others to treat us”) as the common principle for many religions. From a commonsense point of view, the golden rule is a most reasonable moral principle. Still, some eminent philosophers criticized it since it can lead to unintended consequences. The main objection is that one may not know how others would like to be treated. This is because the tastes, needs and attitudes of people differ. Thus Bernard Shaw proposed an alternative view: “Do not do untoothers asyouwouldthatthey should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same”. According to Karl Popper, “The golden rule is agood standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever reasonable, as they want to be done by”. In other words, one should act towards others appropriately after ascertaining their likes and dislikes. This may be difficult if they fail to reach a reasonable understanding.
Immanuel Kant argued that the golden rule overlooks the differences between particular situations. He gives an example of a situation of a prisoner duly convicted of a crime. The prisoner invokes the golden rule while asking the judge to release him, pointing out that the judge would not want anyone else to send him to prison, and that he should not therefore do so to others. Kant’s counter example shows that the golden rule breaks down in certain situations. This only shows that the operation of the golden rule may not be universal and that some cases fall outside it. While
this observation may be valid on grounds of logical consistency or rigour, the golden rule will cover substantial areas of ordinary life. Further, the prisoner’s logic will apply only if the judge commits theft.
Uptil now, we considered various virtues. Now, we look at some common vices. Vices are the opposites of virtues. Obviously, we have to shun vices; otherwise, they harm us both physically and psychologically. Once, we get into the grip of a vice, it is hard to escape. It becomes a settled habit, and we can give up the habit, if at all, with great effort of will. Hence, it is best to watch our responses and nip in the bud any bad or immoral thoughts and responses that enter our mind. Like all other moral training, freeing ourselves from any vice needs arduous effort.
Moral and religious teachers have identified many vices. These are however, not separate and distinct. If we exclude the synonyms of the common vices, the list of vices becomes smaller. Moral philosophers have also made a distinction between grave and less serious vices. Grave vices are also known in theological terms as deadly sins. Although vices (like virtues) feature prominently in religious contexts, they are relevant to man’s personal and social life. Vices harm not only an individual but also his family.
We reproduce a list of vices from an internet site. The list is neither too long nor too short. But it also lists separately some vices which are essentially the same. Thus anger and wrath are similar. Similarly, arrogance,bragging andvanity aresimilar.Butthelist is a useful reference fordiscussion. It covers the commonly recognised vices.