Subject. "Golden Rule of Ethics". The golden rule of behavior (morality) Why is the moral rule called golden

28.05.2021

At the heart of human relationships with other people, with society as a whole is Golden Rule behavior: " don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you " (negative wording) and " treat others as you would like to be treated " (positive wording). Anyone who breaks the golden rule of behavior cannot expect to be treated kindly. At best, he will not be noticed; at worst, they will treat him on the principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

The golden rule has been known to people since time immemorial. It is mentioned in one of the oldest written monuments - the ancient Babylonian legend about Akihara. In Confucius (VI-V centuries BC), it is the basis of behavior. In the ancient Indian "Mahabharata" (5th century BC), it appears as a norm of norms.

At Kant the golden rule appears under the name categorical imperative. On the one hand, he elevated it to the value of the main principle of human behavior, on the other hand, he humiliated it, calling its generally accepted formulations trivial and limited. The categorical imperative is the golden rule transformed in the spirit of rigorism and deontologism: "act in such a way that the maxim of your action can become a universal law." By reformulating the rule as a categorical imperative, Kant has largely deprived it of what makes it golden, namely, the individual component, violating this measure, i.e. tipping the scales in favor of supra-individual,- general, universal.

The superficiality of Kant's understanding of the golden rule is manifested, in particular, in the fact that he did not see in it base duty, arguing that it allegedly does not articulate duties towards others. Doesn't the golden rule indicate, for example, a duty to parents? Doesn't it say that if you want your children to treat you properly, then you yourself should treat your parents the same way? Or: if you want your parents to treat you well, then you yourself should treat them well. And so on. Kant's understanding of the golden rule is due to his orientation toward the supra-individual. In his categorical imperative, the basis of duty is a universal law. By this Kant places society above the individual. The golden rule points to a specific person as the basis of debt. And it's fair because No stronger than the foundation than the man himself for yourself . Duty presupposes knowledge of oneself and others. And who does a person know better: himself or others? Of course, yourself. Duty implies respect and care. And who does a person respect more and who cares more about: about himself or about others? Of course about yourself. It `s naturally. The basis of duty is not in some sky-high heights, but in a concrete living person with all his virtues and shortcomings. Kant himself, in solidarity with the biblical commandment to love your neighbor as yourself, emphasized at the same time that a person who does not love himself cannot love another, because such a person can justify his hatred for another by his self-denial.

In Russian philosophy, about the problems associated with the golden rule, wrote V.S. Solovyov. Following Schopenhauer, he convincingly showed the importance of emotions, the psyche as the individually intimate basis of the golden rule. If people are guided by this rule unconsciously, it is largely due to feelings of conscience and compassion. Conscience is primarily responsible for the implementation of the negative component of the golden rule. Compassion - positive. Conscience says: do not do to others what you do not wish for yourself, that is, do not do evil. Compassion tells you to help the suffering, to do with them the way you want to be treated with you in a similar situation.

The intimate psychological “mechanisms” that implement the golden rule indicate that it is by no means some kind of abstract soulless norm, that it is deeply individualized, psychological, has not only “ antenna" in the form of a tradition generally accepted rules of conduct, but grounded”, is rooted in the very depths of human nature.

Golden Rule - main principle human hostel

In positive form, the rule reads:

treat others as you would like them to treat you.

In the negative:

do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

The golden rule gives a holistic and concentrated idea of morality, grasps the main thing in it: attitude to to another as to oneself. It establishes, fixes, defines measure human in man, morally calls people and likens them to each other.

Moral equalization - quantitative procedure, moral assimilation - quality procedure. Together we have measured process: the golden rule offers a person measure one's actions with the actions of others, to measure the actions of others with one's own yardstick and, conversely, to measure one's actions with someone else's yardstick; in a word, it proposes to find general measure own and other people's actions and act in accordance with this general measure.

In its negative form, the golden rule states minimum low forbid doing evil , in other words, sets minimum

In its positive form, it establishes the highest the bar of a person's moral attitude towards other people, encourages good , good deed, in other words, determines maximum moral requirements for human behavior.

Thus, the golden rule covers the entire range of moral actions and serves as the basis for distinguishing and defining moral categories. of good and evil.

It performs the same function in relation to the category debt . Let's look at this rule from the side as it measures own and others' actions. AT foundation this comparison, i.e. originally lies the following. People, society gave me life, made me a man, that is, they treated me more or less well, the way I I would like to for others to do with me. Accordingly, I act or should deal with them (parents, people, society), in a particular case, should repay them with the same, i.e., with my behavior, I not should worsen-reduce the quality-quantity of life (given to me and others), moreover, as much as possible should take care of improving-increasing the quality-quantity of life (mine and others, society as a whole). This is a common understanding of duty. It is, of course, divided into particular types, depending on who we mean by "others." If “others” are parents, then this is a duty to parents.

If morality (morality) regulates people's relations, ensures the health of society within the framework of the optimum norm and the nearest deviations from it, then right regulates people's relations, ensures the health of society in a broader sense - prevention, prevention or treatment pathological deviations from the norm-health, called offenses and / or crimes. What for the life-health of an individual are disease, the themes for the life-health of society are offenses and crimes. When there are many offenses and crimes in a society, then this is a sick society in the legal sense. There is even less to be said about the health of society in the moral sense.

The golden rule also has the property that it self-sufficient, looped, has a basis in itself. It, in particular, connects "I want" and "I must", the accidental "I want" and the necessity of "I must". This connection results in what I call freedom. Golden Rule - freedom formula . Combining in the golden rule, “I want” and “I must” mutually allow and limit each other, establish a measure, measures yat each other.

By connecting “want” and “should”, the golden rule also removes the dilemma of ethics happiness and ethics debt. It requires from a man only that he himself wants in relation to yourself. No wonder the rule is called golden.

It may be asked: if the golden rule is so good, then why do people break it, why do they do evil, do not fulfill their duty? The situation here is about the same as in the case of health and disease. The latter does not devalue health at all. On the contrary, a sick person strives to become healthy again. Same with the golden rule. Breaking a rule does not invalidate it. In the general balance of human actions, actions based on it certainly outweigh actions that violate it. Otherwise, we would be dealing with a sick, perishing society.

At the heart of a person's relationship with other people, with society as a whole, lies the golden rule of behavior: " don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you" (negative wording) and " treat others as you would like to be treated"(positive wording). Anyone who violates the golden rule of behavior cannot count on a kind attitude towards himself. At best, they will not notice him; at worst, they will treat him according to the principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

1. The golden rule is the main principle of human community

In positive form, the rule reads:

treat others as you would like them to treat you.

In the negative:

do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

According to A. A. Huseynov, when we talk about moral equality, we are talking about only one thing - that every human individual deserves to have the right to happiness and that "mutual recognition of this right is a condition for moral communication." The golden rule requires "the individual to put himself every time in the place of another and behave towards others as if he were himself in their place." "The mechanism of the golden rule can be defined as assimilation, as a requirement mentally, in the imagination, to put oneself in the place of another."

Moral Equalization - quantitative procedure, moral assimilation - quality procedure. Together we have measured process: the golden rule offers a person measure one's actions with the actions of others, to measure the actions of others with one's own yardstick and, conversely, to measure one's actions with someone else's yardstick; in a word, it proposes to find general measure their own and other people's actions and act in accordance with this general measure.

In its negative form, the golden rule states minimum low bar or boundary of a person's moral attitude towards other people, forbid doing evil, in other words, sets minimum

In its positive form, it establishes the highest the bar of a person's moral attitude towards other people, encourages good, good deed, in other words, determines maximum moral requirements for human behavior.

Thus, the golden rule covers the entire range of moral actions and serves as the basis for distinguishing and defining moral categories. of good and evil.

Here is what the well-known Polish teacher Janusz Korczak writes about this: “I often thought about what it means to be kind? It seems to me, a kind person- this is a person who has an imagination and understands what it is like for another, knows how to feel what the other feels. If someone tortures a frog or a fly, he will immediately say:

It performs the same function in relation to the category debt. To do this, let's look at the rule from the other side, namely, how it measures own and others' actions. AT foundation this comparison, i.e. originally lies the following. People, society gave me life, made me a man (fed, clothed, shod, educated, educated, etc.), i.e. they treated me more or less well, the way I I would like to for others to do with me. Accordingly, I act or should deal with them (parents, people, society), in a particular case, should repay them with the same, i.e., with my behavior, I not should worsen-reduce the quality-quantity of life (given to me and others), moreover, as much as possible should to take care of improving-increasing the quality-quantity of life (mine and others, society as a whole). This is the general understanding of duty. It is, of course, divided into particular types, depending on whom we mean by "others." If "others" are parents, then this is a duty to parents. If “others” are a people, a nation, then this is a duty to the Motherland, if “others” are all of humanity, then this is a duty to humanity.

There is a debt normal deviation from the norm-optimum like needs. The latter is a deviation from the norm-optimum in relation to the life and health of an individual. Duty is a deviation from the norm-optimum in relation to the life and health of society. The fulfillment of duty by specific individuals is as important for the health of society as the satisfaction of needs is for the health of the individual. In youth, a person accumulates debt, because he still only takes from others, but practically does not give them anything yet. AT adulthood man and from gives debt and gives"on credit".

If a morality (moral) regulates people's relations, ensures the health of society within the framework of the optimum norm and the nearest deviations from it (consciousness of duty and its fulfillment), then right regulates people's relations, ensures the health of society in a broader sense - prevention, prevention or treatment pathological deviations from the norm-health, called offenses and / or crimes. What for the life-health of an individual are disease, the themes for the life-health of society are offenses and crimes. When there are many offenses and crimes in a society, then this is a sick society in the legal sense. There is even less to be said about the health of society in the moral sense.

The golden rule establishes a connection-correspondence between the life-health of an individual and the life-health of society. It asserts that the life and health of society are based on the life and health of people, which moral is not valuable in itself, but has a root in the life-health of a particular person, is, so to speak, natural continuation this life-health. Moral health, on the one hand, is part of the health of society or a separate set of people (nation, collective, etc.), and on the other hand, it is an integral part of individual human health. Right also not worth it. It is natural continuation morality. It, in essence, like morality, is based on the golden rule. Let's remember what Hobbes wrote: "a person should be content with such a degree of freedom in relation to other people, which he would allow other people to have in relation to himself" (see the text above). Approximately the same is said by the old political and legal rule: "Everyone is obliged to obey only such a law, to which he himself agreed". This rule may be somewhat categorical, but essentially true, since it is based on the golden rule. Or this rule: “Without violating other people's rights, you protect your own” (from the film by Jacques Yves Cousteau, 1984). This rule is followed by thousands of prospectors in the gold mines of the Amazon. There is practically no theft. The rule, if you think about it, is a particular expression of the golden rule in its negative formulation. So in the deepest sense law is the mutual admission and mutual restriction of freedom. From the mutual assumption of freedom flow various human rights. From the mutual restriction of freedom flow no less diverse human duties.

The golden rule also has the property that it self-sufficient, looped, has a basis in itself. It, in particular, connects "I want" and "I must", accidental "I want" and necessity "I must". This combination results in what we call freedom. Golden Rule - freedom formula . Combining in the golden rule, "I want" and "I must" mutually allow and limit each other, establish a measure, measures yat each other.

By connecting "want" and "should", the golden rule also removes the dilemma ethics of happiness and ethics of duty. It requires from a man only that he himself wants in relation to yourself. No wonder the rule is called golden.

A kind of negative cast of the golden rule is the “rule”, which is expressed in the well-known words “an eye for an eye; tooth for a tooth”, “avenge me and I will repay”, in proverbs like “how it comes around, it will respond”, etc. The meaning of this “rule” is that if you were done badly, then you have the right or must repay the same coin. This “rule” looks like the golden rule, but in essence it is its antipode. It works when not the golden rule is in effect (violated). How destructive it is for human relations can be seen in the example to sweep(if you did me wrong, then I will do you wrong). Particularly destructive blood revenge, sometimes leading to the destruction of entire clans.

———————

It may be asked: if the golden rule is so good, then why do people break it, why do they do evil, do not fulfill their duty? The situation here is about the same as in the case of health and disease. The latter does not devalue health at all. On the contrary, a sick person strives to become healthy again. Same with the golden rule. Violations of the golden rule do not devalue it. In the general balance of human actions, actions based on the golden rule certainly outweigh actions that violate it. Otherwise, we would be dealing with a sick, perishing society.

Tsar Berendey in the spring fairy tale by A. N. Ostrovsky "The Snow Maiden" quite rightly says:

What is the value of light?- Truth and conscience only hold on.

2. The golden rule is far from being so elementary and obvious.

as it may seem at first glance. For it to work, at least two conditions must be met:

1. A person himself must be normal, healthy, or, if he is unhealthy and abnormal in some way, then he must take this unhealthy, abnormality into account when determining his attitude towards another person (other people). Relationship to another (others) is a continuation of the relationship to oneself. If a smoker, alcoholic, drug addict ruins himself, ruins his health, then it is contraindicated for him to act in accordance with the golden rule (not in general, of course, but in a certain respect: smoking, drinking alcohol, drugs). Moreover, if for alcoholics and drug addicts such a contraindication is absolutely, of course, then for a smoker there is the possibility of adjusting their behavior in relation to others. A smoker may be aware of the harm of smoking and, in accordance with this consciousness, minimize the harm he causes to others (for example, try not to smoke in the presence of others - although this is almost impossible in a densely populated city).

2. A person must be able to mentally put himself in the place of others and thus correct his behavior. This is not an easy procedure. Very often, people harm others not out of malicious intent, but because of their thoughtlessness, in particular, because of the inability to mentally put themselves in the place of others in a particular situation. For example, a smoker, knowing that smoking is harmful, still smokes, not sparing not only himself, but also the people around him. Why is this happening? Because for the smoker, the pleasure of smoking outweighs the consciousness of harm from this smoking. Smoking in the presence of non-smokers, he does not think (or drives away the thought) that non-smokers do not at all enjoy his smoking, but, on the contrary, suffer.
The smoker has not put himself in the place of others (non-smokers). Otherwise, he would experience only pain instead of pleasure. It can be said that this situation with a smoker speaks rather not about his thoughtlessness, but about his callousness, shamelessness, his unwillingness to put himself in the place of another. Of course, all these thoughtless moments can be present. But after all, for this, the head is on his shoulders, in order to think through to the end the consequences of his callousness and dishonesty. If a smoker were to fully consider, i.e., think through his behavior to the end, then he would see that the pleasure he received from smoking cannot be compared with the harm that he no longer causes to his health, but to himself as personality as a person. Suppose he smokes in the presence of a non-smoking lover, betrothed. By this he shows his disdain for her, despite all his love, his desire to marry her. Usually a woman-girl is well aware of such neglect and sooner or later refuses him her favor. The same situation arises if a smoker allows himself to smoke in the presence of a friend, close, necessary person, etc. Much less obvious is the harm that a smoker inflicts on himself when he smokes in a public place, in the presence of strangers. (How often the author of these lines, a non-smoker himself, swore at the fact that a man walking down the street in front smokes a cigarette and does not understand that he makes those who follow him passively smoke with his smoking). In such cases, the smoker, as a rule, does not receive a direct rebuff, that is, a direct boomerang does not work here. Nevertheless, it is here as well. When a person neglects the interests of strangers, shows disrespect for them, then he has no right to expect a respectful attitude from them. The rudeness of a smoking person is combined, as a rule, with the rudeness of a foul-mouthed, foul-smelling, spitting, etc., etc. One rudeness condones another. There is a vicious circle of rudeness. As a result, the amount of evil, the amount of mutual anger of people, increases. In this atmosphere of disrespect for each other, our smoker may well become a victim of voluntary or involuntary rudeness on the part of strangers. This is where the indirect boomerang comes in. Conclusion: if a smoking person thought carefully about the consequences of his behavior, that is, every time he put himself in the place of other non-smoking people, then he would certainly give up smoking. Smoking people living in a modern city break the golden rule in one way or another. And this means that they act immorally, dishonorably. It is no coincidence that throughout the civilized world the campaign for quitting smoking is intensifying. The golden rule cannot be broken for a long time. People feel it and try to solve the problem.

Smoking is a relatively simple example. Here's a more complicated example: driving a car. The famous singer Willy Tokarev, who worked for some time as a taxi driver in New York, gave this advice to motorists: "You must think for the one who is following you." Indeed, (and I have experienced this first hand) the driver must think not only for himself, but also for the one who drives the car next to him, in front or behind.

Golden rule and murder . I would like to emphasize: the golden rule prohibits murder in any form. In fact, any normal person does not want death, and even more so that someone kill him. If you don't want to be killed, then you can't want or do it to others. Thus, murder by malice, and murder by negligence, and murder in war, and the death penalty by sentence - all this is contrary to the golden rule. Here is the testimony of a specialist: “... if a smoker wishes others well, then he (she) should smoke in a separate room. pose a real threat to innocent people, unfortunately, who happened to be nearby."

Fragment of work:

1. Formulate the "golden rule of morality." Why is this rule called golden?

Fundamental moral requirement: "(do not) act towards others as you (not) would like them to act towards you." Historically, this requirement has appeared under various names: a short saying, a principle, a rule, a commandment, a basic principle, a saying, a prescription, and so on. The term “golden rule of morality” has stuck to him since the end of the 18th century.

The first mention of the golden rule of morality refers to the middle. I millennium BC This rule is found in the Mahabharata, in the sayings of the Buddha. Confucius, when asked by a student whether it is possible to be guided by one word all his life, answered: “This word is reciprocity. Don't do to others what you don't want for yourself." From ancient Greek sources, one should point to the "Odyssey" of Homer and the "History" of Herodotus. In the Bible, the golden rule of morality is mentioned in the Old Testament book of Tobit (Tob 4:15) and twice in the Gospels when presenting the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 3:31; Mt 7:12). The gospel formulation of the golden rule of morality is considered the most complete and adequate: “Therefore, in everything you want people to do to you, do the same to them” (Matthew 7:12). The golden rule of morality is not recorded in the Koran, but it is found in the Sunnah as one of the sayings of Muhammad. Once having arisen, Z.p.n. firmly entered culture and mass consciousness, settled in the form of proverbs, obvious demands of worldly wisdom (German: “Was du nicht willst, dass man dir tu, das fucg auch keinem anderen zu”; Russian: “What you don’t love in another, that don't do it yourself." It has been one of the constant (though not always central) subjects of ethical reflection.

The golden rule of morality is both genetically and essentially a negation of the talion (the ancient custom of equal retribution). In the process of diverse internal differentiation and expansion of social relations, the talion is transformed in two directions: the damage to be avenged begins a) to be calculated taking into account the subjective aspect (damage caused by livestock, unintentional actions, etc. is gradually taken out of its brackets) and b) replaced by material reward, ransom. These changes led to the need to move from the collective responsibility of the clan to the individual responsibility of individuals and to remove that sharp division between “us” and “them”, which could only be balanced by mutual recognition of the right of force. They were embodied in it, which differs from the talion in that 1) affirms the actor himself as the subject of behavior and obliges him to be guided by his own ideas about good and bad (“what you don’t like in another ...”, “in everything, like wanted..."); 2) connects “us” and “them”, which now become simply different and embrace all people; 3) is an ideally (mentally) given regulator of behavior, and not a custom.

Related Documents:

Define the concept of "manager's code of honor", what aspects of a manager's life it displays

control, 13 lines200 rub

Option 1. Features of business etiquette

control, 12 lines200 rub

Option 5. There is an opinion that in the process of business communication, interlocutors should see you as

control, 8 lines200 rub

control, 10 lines200 rub

Option 4. You have a partner in front of you who has an easy manner of switching attention

control, 3 lines60 rub

Option 10. In the book "The Art of Being Different", Vladimir Levy reproduced the answers of young people to the question: What is the art of communication?

control, 6 lines200 rub

THE GOLDEN RULE OF MORALITY“(Do not) act towards others as you (do not) want them to act towards you.” This moral requirement appeared under various names: a short saying, a principle, a commandment, a basic principle, a saying, a prescription, and so on. The term "golden rule" has been attached to him since the end of the 18th century.

The first mention of the "golden rule of morality" refers to the so-called. "axial time" - the middle of the 1st millennium BC. It is found in the Mahabharata (Mokshadharma, book 12, ch. 260), in the sayings of the Buddha (Dhammapada, ch. X, 129; ch. XII, 159), in Homer (Odyssey, V, 188-189) and Herodotus (History, book III, 142; VII, 136). Confucius, when asked by a student about whether it is possible to be guided by one word all his life, answered: “This word is reciprocity. Do not do to others what you do not wish for yourself” (“Lun Yu”. 15, 23). In the Bible, the “golden rule” is mentioned in the Old Testament book of Tobit (Comrade 4:15) and twice in the Gospels when presenting the Sermon on the Mount (Luke 3:31; Matt. 7:12). The gospel formulation is considered the most complete and adequate: “So, in everything you want people to do to you, do the same to them; For in this is the law and the prophets” (Matthew 7:12). The "golden rule" is not recorded in the Qur'an, but it is found in the "Sunnah" as one of the sayings of Muhammad. The “golden rule of morality” has firmly entered culture and mass consciousness, settled in the form of proverbs, obvious demands of worldly wisdom (German: “Was du nicht willst, dass man dir tu, das flieg auch keinem anderen zu”; Russian: “What is in the other If you don't love it, don't do it yourself."

In ancient philosophical texts, the "golden rule" is rare and always as a requirement of worldly morality, but not as a theoretically sanctioned principle. It is attributed to two seven wise men - Pittacus and Thales. When asked how to live the best and most righteous life, Thales answered: “If we ourselves do not do what we reproach others for” (Fragments of early Greek philosophers, part I. M., 1989, p. 103). Seneca refers to the "golden rule" ("Letters to Lucilius", 94, 43).

Medieval Christian ethics considers the "golden rule of morality" in the context of the Sermon on the Mount. For Augustine, the “golden rule” is the principle of natural morality, which should be guided in relations between people (“On Order”, II, 8) and the violation (turning out) of which deforms human behavior (“Confession”, I, 19); at the same time, he considers it as a concrete expression of the law of love, understood as love for God: “The law of love consists in this, that a person wishes his neighbor the same good that he wishes for himself, and does not wish him that evil that he does not wish himself ” (“On True Religion”, 46). The “Golden Rule of Morality” is included in the social contractual concept of T. Hobbes, acting as a criterion for determining whether an action does not contradict natural laws (“On the Citizen”, section I, ch. III, 26). D. Locke sees in the "golden rule" "an unshakable moral rule and the basis of any social virtue" ("Experiments on human understanding", Book I, ch. 3, § 4). Leibniz believes that the “golden rule” is not a self-evident measure of morality: “If it depended on us, then we would want the superfluous from others; does this mean that we must do what is superfluous to others?” (“New experiments on the human understanding of the author of the system of pre-established harmony.” Book I, ch. II, § 4). In his opinion, this rule only describes the disposition for making a fair judgment (to take the point of view of another).

X.Thomasius on the material of the "golden rule of morality" delimits the spheres of law, politics and morality. He distinguishes three forms of the "golden rule", calling them respectively the principles of right (justum), decency (decorum) and respect (honestum). The principle of right is that a man should not do to another what he does not want another to do to him. The principle of decency involves doing to another what he wants the other to do to him. The principle of respect requires a person to act as he would like others to do. The first two principles are generalized in natural law and politics (Thomasius calls them external laws), the last - in ethics. According to Kant, the "golden rule of morality" cannot be a universal law, because it does not contain the grounds of duty, and the criminal, proceeding from it, “would begin to argue against his punishing judges” (“Foundation on the Metaphysics of Morality”, Soch., vol. 4 (1), p. 271). Kant emphasized the distinction categorical imperative and the golden rule. Some critics of Kant, on the other hand, saw in the categorical imperative only another expression of the "golden rule" (cf. Schopenhauer A. On the basis of morality. § 7). References to the "golden rule" as a criterion of moral evaluation and a concentrated expression of humanistic morality are also found in Marxist texts - by K. Marx (Debate on freedom of the press ... - Marks K.,Engels F. Works, vol. 1, p. 3), A. Bebel (Woman and socialism. M., 1959, p. 516). P. Kropotkin saw in it an expression of the general natural law of mutual assistance ( modern science and anarchy. M., 1990, p. 338-41). L.N. Tolstoy considered the “golden rule” as an ethical invariant inherent in all religions, most consistently formulated in the teachings of Christ and expressing the universal essence of morality (“What is religion and what is its essence?”).

In modern literature, the most complete meaningful description of the "golden rule of morality" (which echoes the interpretation of Thomasius) was offered by G. Reiner, who singled out three of its forms. Empathy rule (Einfühlungsregel): "(do not) do to another what you (do not) wish for yourself." Here the egoistic will of the individual becomes the scale of behavior, and in this form the rule cannot be elevated to a universal moral principle - its negative formulation excludes punishment, since it is unpleasant for a person, the affirmative form cannot be a universal scale of behavior, because egoistic desires are often immeasurable. Rule of autonomy (Autonomieregel): "(do not) do yourself what you find (not) laudable in another"; the basis of decision-making in this case is an unbiased judgment of the behavior of others. The rule of reciprocity, which combines the first two and coincides with the gospel formulation (Gegenseitigkeitsregel): "as you want people to do to you, do the same to them." Here the basis for decision-making is own wish individual, coinciding with his own impartial judgment about the behavior of others. Reiner justifiably believes that the rule of reciprocity is the most complete and adequate formula of the "golden rule".

The “golden rule of morality” is both genetically and essentially a denial of talion . In the process of diverse internal differentiation and expansion of social relations, the talion was transformed in two directions: the damage to be avenged began to be calculated taking into account the subjective aspect (unintentional actions, damage caused by livestock, etc. are gradually taken out of its brackets) and replaced by material reward, ransom . The changes that led to the need to move from the collective responsibility of the clan to the individual responsibility of individuals and the removal of that sharp division between “us” and “them”, which could only be balanced by mutual recognition of the right of force, were embodied in the “golden rule of morality”. As A. Dile believes, the intermediary link in the process of transition from the talion to the "golden rule" was the rule: "good for good, insult for insult." The “Golden Rule” differs from the talion in that it: 1) affirms the actor himself as the subject of behavior and obliges him to be guided by his own ideas about good and bad (“what you don’t like in another ...”, “in everything, how wanted..."); 2) connects “us” and “them”, which now become simply different and embrace all people; 3) is an ideally (mentally) given regulator of behavior, and not a custom.

The "Golden Rule of Morality" is the formula of a person's attitude to himself through his attitude to others. It is essential that these types of relationships have different modalities: the attitude towards oneself is real, it covers actions (“do it yourself”, “do not do it yourself”), the attitude towards others is ideal, it covers the area of wishes (“as you want”, "what you don't like in others"). It is assumed that a person must and wants to be guided by norms that have the dignity of universality (do not destroy his ties with others, but open up the prospect of cooperation with them). The Golden Rule suggests a way in which this can be established. A norm can be considered universal (and, in this sense, moral) if the subject of the action is ready to recognize (sanction, wish) it, and in the event that others apply it in relation to him. To do this, he needs to mentally put himself in the place of another (others), i.e. those who will experience the action of the norm, and put the other (others) in their own place. The arguments of Leibniz (desires can be unlimited) and Kant (the criminal would not wish to be condemned) do not take into account this mental exchange of dispositions, as a result of which the subject proceeds not from his situationally given egoistic desires in relation to another, but from those supposed desires with which he would be guided if he were in the place of the other, and that, the other, in his place. The Golden Rule can be interpreted as a thought experiment to identify the moral quality of relationships between individuals (the mutual acceptability of these relationships for both parties). It connects the arbitrariness of moral requirements with their universal validity and in this sense expresses the specificity of morality as such.

The specificity of the "golden rule" as a purely moral phenomenon was reflected in its linguistic expression. The wording of the talion is sustained exclusively in the imperative mood - its imperativeness is categorical, and in this respect "life for life" is no different from "thou shalt not kill." The "golden rule of morality" complements the imperative mood with the subjunctive ("as you wish" in the sense of "as you would like"). Through the imperative mood, the formula of the "golden rule" sets the attitude of the subject to himself, and through the subjunctive mood - the attitude towards others. Thus, morality turns out to be generally significant as an ideal project, in desires, and arbitrary as a real choice, in actions.

Literature:

1. Huseynov A.A. The golden rule of morality. M., 1988, p. 91–131;

2. Dihl A. Die goldene Regel. Eine Einführung in die Geschichte der antiken und frühchristlichen Vulgärethik. Gott., 1962;

3. Reiner H. Die "Goldene Regel" Die Bedeutung einer sittlichen Grundformel der Menschheit. – “Zeitschrift für philosophische Forschung”, 1948, Bd. 3, H1.

At the heart of a person’s relationship with other people, with society as a whole, lies the golden rule of behavior: “ don't do to others what you don't want them to do to you " (negative wording) and " treat others as you would like to be treated " (positive wording). Anyone who breaks the golden rule of behavior cannot expect to be treated kindly. At best, he will not be noticed; at worst, they will treat him on the principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

The golden rule is attributed to two of the seven Greek sages - Pittacus and Thales. It can be found in Homer's Odyssey, in Herodotus' History, and in the Bible. In the latter it is mentioned at least three times: in the book of Tobit (4.15), in the Gospel of Luke (6.31) and in the Gospel of Matthew (7.12). The so-called biblical commandments - do not kill, do not steal, do not commit adultery, etc. - are nothing more than partial and truncated expressions of the golden rule. The same can be said about the commandment “Love your neighbor as yourself” (Leviticus 19:18, Matthew 22:39).

In modern times, T. Hobbes, D. Locke, H. Tommasius, I.G. Herder...

At Kant the golden rule appears under the name categorical imperative. On the one hand, he elevated it (albeit in a transformed form) to the value of the main principle of human behavior, on the other hand, he humiliated it, calling its generally accepted formulations trivial and limited. The categorical imperative is the golden rule transformed in the spirit of rigorism and deontologism (ethics of duty): "act in such a way that the maxim of your action can become a universal law." By reformulating the rule as a categorical imperative, Kant has largely deprived it of what makes it golden, namely, the individual component, violating this measure, i.e. tipping the scales in favor of supra-individual,- general, universal. (The name itself is truly frightening: an imperative, and even a categorical one! An imperative is a command, a demand, an obligation, an order, a law! Only iron necessity and not a drop of chance. Only an obligation and not a drop of desire.)

The superficiality of Kant's understanding of the golden rule is manifested, in particular, in the fact that he did not see in it base duty, arguing that it allegedly does not articulate duties towards others. Doesn't the golden rule indicate, for example, a duty to parents? Doesn't it say that if you want your children to treat you properly, then you yourself should treat your parents the same way? Or: if you want your parents to treat you well, then you yourself should treat them well. And so on. Kant's understanding of the golden rule is due to his orientation toward the supra-individual. In his categorical imperative, the basis of duty is a universal law. By this Kant places society above the individual. The golden rule points to a specific person as the basis of debt. And it's fair because there is no stronger foundation than the man himself for himself . Duty presupposes knowledge of oneself and others. And who does a person know better: himself or others? Of course, yourself. Duty implies respect and care. And who does a person respect more and who cares more about: about himself or about others? Of course about yourself. It `s naturally. The basis of duty is not in some sky-high heights, but in a concrete living person with all his virtues and shortcomings. Kant himself, in solidarity with the biblical commandment to love your neighbor as yourself, emphasized at the same time that a person who does not love himself cannot love another, because such a person can justify his hatred for another by his self-denial.

In Russian philosophy, about the problems associated with the golden rule, wrote V.S. Solovyov. Following Schopenhauer, he convincingly showed the importance of emotions, the psyche as the individually intimate basis of the golden rule. If people are guided by this rule unconsciously, it is largely due to feelings of conscience and compassion. Conscience is primarily responsible for the implementation of the negative component of the golden rule. Compassion - positive. Conscience says: do not do to others what you do not wish for yourself, that is, do not do evil. Compassion tells you to help the suffering, to do with them the way you want to be treated with you in a similar situation.

V.S. Solovyov, however, was too carried away by the passive side of the golden rule. The latter relies not only on feelings of pity, compassion, but also on feelings of love, pleasure, and simply on curiosity, on interest (of one person to another). In addition, he called the golden rule the principle altruism and this does not seem to be entirely true. The word "altruism" comes from alter, another and in the principle he designates, the emphasis is naturally placed on friend, others. Altruism is self-sacrifice, selflessness. In the golden rule, the emphasis is on the ego, on the person. After all, from him, as from a stove, the golden rule “dances”. The last "does not turn away" from I to the side another , but "trying" to coordinate positions I and another , find a common denominator, a common measure between them. The golden rule is therefore a measure, a norm, because it establishes a certain balance of interests.

Subject. "Golden Rule of Ethics". The golden rule of behavior (morality) Why is the moral rule called golden

1. The golden rule is the main principle of human community

2. The golden rule is far from being so elementary and obvious.

Interesting articles

Interesting articles