A general welfare clause is a section that appears in many constitutions and in some charters and statutes
that allows that the governing body empowered by the document to enact
laws to promote the general welfare of the people, which is sometimes
worded as the public welfare. In some countries, it has been used as a
basis for legislation promoting the health, safety, morals, and
well-being of the people governed by it.
Argentina
The Constitution of Argentina
provides in its Preamble that one of its purposes is to "promote the
general welfare". A comparative, international analysis of the meaning
of this phrase in the Argentine constitution is provided by an 1897
report from the Supreme Court of Argentina:
In Ferrocarril Central Argentino c/Provincia de Santa Fe,
569 the Argentine Court held that the General Welfare clause of the
Argentine Constitution offered the federal government a general source
of authority for legislation affecting the provinces. The Court
recognized that the United States utilized the clause only as a source
of authority for federal taxation and spending, not for general
legislation, but recognized differences in the two constitutions.
Philippines
The Constitution of the Philippines
contains five references to the general welfare: "The maintenance of
peace and order, the protection of life, liberty, and property, and
promotion of the general welfare are essential for the enjoyment by all
the people of the blessings of democracy. . . . Within its territorial
jurisdiction and subject to the provisions of this Constitution and
national laws, the organic act of autonomous regions shall provide for
legislative powers over . . . Such other matters as may be authorized by
law for the promotion of the general welfare of the people of the
region. . . . . and enter into agreements with foreign-owned
corporations involving either technical or financial assistance for
large-scale exploration, development, and utilization of minerals,
petroleum, and other mineral oils according to the general terms and
conditions provided by law, based on real contributions to the economic
growth and general welfare of the country. . . . . The State shall
pursue a trade policy that serves the general welfare and utilizes all
forms and arrangements of exchange on the basis of equality and
reciprocity. . . . . The advertising industry is impressed with public
interest and lust, and shall be regulated by law for the protection of
consumers and the promotion of the general welfare. . . . ."
The United States Constitution contains two references to "the General Welfare", one occurring in the Preamble and the other in the Taxing and Spending Clause. The U.S. Supreme Court
has held the mention of the clause in the Preamble to the U.S.
Constitution "has never been regarded as the source of any substantive
power conferred on the Government of the United States or on any of its
Departments."
The Supreme Court held the understanding of the General Welfare
Clause contained in the Taxing and Spending Clause adheres to the construction given it by Associate JusticeJoseph Story in his 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. Justice Story concluded that the General Welfare Clause is not a grant of general legislative power, but a qualification on the taxing power which includes within it a federal power to spend federal revenues on matters of general interest to the federal government. The Court described Justice Story's view as the "Hamiltonian position", as Alexander Hamilton had elaborated his view of the taxing and spending powers in his 1791 Report on Manufactures. Story, however, attributes the position's initial appearance to Thomas Jefferson, in his Opinion on the Bank of the United States.
These clauses in the U.S. Constitution are an atypical use of a
general welfare clause, and are not considered grants of a general
legislative power to the federal government.
Historical debate and pre-1936 rulings
In one letter, Thomas Jefferson
asserted that "[T]he laying of taxes is the power, and the general
welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They
[Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they
please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the
Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to
provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that
purpose."
In 1824 Chief JusticeJohn Marshall described in an obiter dictum a further view on the limits on the General Welfare Clause in Gibbons v. Ogden:
"Congress is authorized to lay and collect taxes, &c. to pay the
debts and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the
United States. ... Congress is not empowered to tax for those purposes
which are within the exclusive province of the States."
The historical controversy over the U.S. General Welfare Clause
arises from two distinct disagreements. The first concerns whether the
General Welfare Clause grants an independent spending power or is a
restriction upon the taxing power. The second disagreement pertains to
what exactly is meant by the phrase "general welfare."
The two primary authors of The Federalist essays set forth two separate, conflicting interpretations:
James Madison explained his "narrow" construction of the clause in Federalist No. 41,
published in 1788: "Some, who have not denied the necessity of the
power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the
Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged
and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts,
and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and
general welfare of the United States, amounts to an unlimited
commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary
for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be
given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections,
than their stooping to such a misconstruction. Had no other enumeration
or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the
Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of
the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have
been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an
authority to legislate in all possible cases."
Madison also advocated for the ratification of the Constitution at the Virginia ratifying convention with this narrow
construction of the clause, asserting that spending must be at least
tangentially tied to one of the other specifically enumerated powers,
such as regulating interstate or foreign commerce, or providing for the
military, as the General Welfare Clause is not a specific grant of
power, but a statement of purpose qualifying the power to tax.
Alexander Hamilton, only after the Constitution had been ratified, argued for a broad
interpretation which viewed spending as an enumerated power Congress
could exercise independently to benefit the general welfare, such as to
assist national needs in agriculture or education, provided that the
spending is general in nature and does not favor any specific section of
the country over any other.
This debate surfaced in Congress in 1790, when Madison strongly criticized Hamilton's Report on Manufacturing and industry
on the grounds that Hamilton was construing his broad interpretation of
the clause as a legal basis for his extensive economic programs.
Although Hamilton's view prevailed during the administrations of PresidentsWashington and Adams, historians argue that his view of the General Welfare Clause was repudiated in the election of 1800, which helped establish the primacy of the Democratic-Republican Party for the subsequent 24 years.
Prior to 1936, the United States Supreme Court had imposed a narrow interpretation on the Clause, as demonstrated by the holding in Bailey v. Drexel Furniture Co., in which a tax on child labor was an impermissible attempt to regulate commerce beyond that Court's equally narrow interpretation of the Commerce Clause. This narrow view was later overturned in United States v. Butler. There, the Court agreed with Associate JusticeJoseph Story's construction in Story's 1833 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.
Story had concluded that the General Welfare Clause was not a general
grant of legislative power, but also dismissed Madison's narrow
construction requiring its use be dependent upon the other enumerated
powers. Consequently, the Supreme Court held the power to tax and spend
is an independent power and that the General Welfare Clause gives
Congress power it might not derive anywhere else. However, the Court did
limit the power to spending for matters affecting only the national
welfare.
Shortly after Butler, in Helvering v. Davis,
the Supreme Court interpreted the clause even more expansively,
disavowing almost entirely any role for judicial review of Congressional
spending policies, thereby conferring upon Congress a plenary power
to impose taxes and to spend money for the general welfare subject
almost entirely to Congress's own discretion. Even more recently, in South Dakota v. Dole the Court held Congress possessed power to indirectly influence the states
into adopting national standards by withholding, to a limited extent,
federal funds. To date, the Hamiltonian view of the General Welfare
Clause predominates in case law.
Individual states
The
state of Alabama has had six constitutions. The Preamble of the 1865
Alabama Constitution notes one purpose of the document to be to "promote
the general welfare," but this language is omitted from the 1901 Alabama Constitution.
Article VII of the Constitution of Alaska,
titled "Health, Education, and Welfare", directs the legislature to
"provide for the promotion and protection of public health" and "provide
for public welfare".
Article IV of the Constitution of Massachusetts provides
authority for the state to make laws "as they shall judge to be for the
good and welfare of this commonwealth." The actual phrase "general welfare" appears only in Article CXVI, which permits the imposition of capital punishment for "the purpose of protecting the general welfare of the citizens".
"Golden Rule Sign" that hung above the door of the employees' entrance to the Acme Sucker Rod Factory in Toledo, Ohio, 1913.
The Golden Rule is the principle of treating others as one
would want to be treated by them. It is sometimes called an ethics of
reciprocity, meaning that you should reciprocate to others how you would
like them to treat you (not necessarily how they actually treat you).
Various expressions of this rule can be found in the tenets of most
religions and creeds through the ages.
Treat others as you would like others to treat you (positive or directive form)
Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form)
What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself (empathetic or responsive form)
Etymology
The term "Golden Rule", or "Golden law", began to be used widely in the early 17th century in Britain by Anglican theologians and preachers; the earliest known usage is that of Anglicans Charles Gibbon and Thomas Jackson in 1604.
Ancient history
Ancient Egypt
Possibly the earliest affirmation of the maxim of reciprocity, reflecting the ancient Egyptian goddess Ma'at, appears in the story of "The Eloquent Peasant", which dates to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040–1650 BCE): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do." This proverb embodies the do ut des principle. A Late Period (c. 664–323 BCE)
papyrus contains an early negative affirmation of the Golden Rule:
"That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."
Ancient India
Sanskrit tradition
In Mahābhārata, the ancient epic of India, there is a discourse in which sage Brihaspati tells the king Yudhishthira the following about dharma, a philosophical understanding of values and actions that lend good order to life:
One should never do something to
others that one would regard as an injury to one's own self. In brief,
this is dharma. Anything else is succumbing to desire.
— Mahābhārata 13.114.8 (Critical edition)
The Mahābhārata is usually dated to the period between 400 BCE and 400 CE.
Do not do to others what you know has hurt yourself.
— Kural 316
Why does one hurt others knowing what it is to be hurt?
— Kural 318
Furthermore, in verse 312, Valluvar says that it is the determination
or code of the spotless (virtuous) not to do evil, even in return, to
those who have cherished enmity and done them evil. According to him,
the proper punishment to those who have done evil is to put them to
shame by showing them kindness, in return and to forget both the evil
and the good done on both sides (verse 314).
Ancient Greece
The Golden Rule in its prohibitive (negative) form was a common principle in ancient Greekphilosophy. Examples of the general concept include:
"Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales (c. 624 – c. 546 BCE)
"What you do not want to happen to you, do not do it yourself either." – Sextus the Pythagorean. The oldest extant reference to Sextus is by Origen in the third century of the common era.
"Ideally, no one should touch my property or tamper with it, unless I
have given him some sort of permission, and, if I am sensible I shall
treat the property of others with the same respect." – Plato (c. 420 – c. 347 BCE)
"Do not do to others that which angers you when they do it to you." – Isocrates (436–338 BCE)
"It is impossible to live a pleasant life without living wisely and
well and justly, and it is impossible to live wisely and well and justly
without living pleasantly." – Epicurus
(341–270 BC) where "justly" refers to "an agreement made in reciprocal
association ... against the infliction or suffering of harm."
Ancient Persia
The Pahlavi Texts of Zoroastrianism (c. 300 BCE
– 1000 CE) were an early source for the Golden Rule: "That nature alone
is good which refrains from doing to another whatsoever is not good for
itself." Dadisten-I-dinik, 94,5, and "Whatever is disagreeable to
yourself do not do unto others." Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29
Ancient Rome
Seneca the Younger (c. 4 BCE – 65 CE), a practitioner of Stoicism (c. 300 BCE – 200 CE) expressed a hierarchical variation of the Golden Rule in his Letter 47, an essay regarding the treatment of slaves: "Treat your inferior as you would wish your superior to treat you."
Religious context
The golden rule, as described in numerous world religions
According to Simon Blackburn, the Golden Rule "can be found in some form in almost every ethical tradition".
A multi-faith poster showing the Golden Rule in sacred writings from 13
faith traditions (designed by Paul McKenna of Scarboro Missions, 2000)
has been on permanent display at the Headquarters of the United Nations since 4 January 2002. Creating the poster "took five years of research that included consultations with experts in each of the 13 faith groups."See also the section on Global Ethic.)
A rule of reciprocal altruism was stated positively in a well-known Torah verse (Hebrew: ואהבת לרעך כמוך):
You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.
— Leviticus 19:18
Rashi
commented what constitutes revenge and grudge, using the example of two
men. One man would not lend the other his ax, then the next day, the
same man asks the other for his ax. If the second man should say, "“I
will not lend it to you, just as you did not lend to me," it constitutes
revenge; if "Here it is for you; I am not like you, who did not lend
me," it constitutes a grudge. Rashi concludes his commentary by quoting Rabbi Akiva on love of neighbor: "This is a fundamental [all-inclusive] principle of the Torah."
Hillel the Elder (c. 110 BCE – 10 CE), used this verse as a most important message of the Torah
for his teachings. Once, he was challenged by a gentile who asked to be
converted under the condition that the Torah be explained to him while
he stood on one foot. Hillel accepted him as a candidate for conversion to Judaism but, drawing on Leviticus 19:18, briefed the man:
What is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow: this is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.
Hillel recognized brotherly love as the fundamental principle of Jewish ethics. Rabbi Akiva agreed, while Simeon ben Azzai
suggested that the principle of love must have its foundation in
Genesis chapter 1, which teaches that all men are the offspring of Adam,
who was made in the image of God.According to Jewish rabbinic literature, the first man Adam represents the unity of mankind. This is echoed in the modern preamble of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. And it is also taught, that Adam is last in order according to the evolutionary character of God's creation:
Why
was only a single specimen of man created first? To teach us that he
who destroys a single soul destroys a whole world and that he who saves a
single soul saves a whole world; furthermore, so no race or class may
claim a nobler ancestry, saying, 'Our father was born first'; and,
finally, to give testimony to the greatness of the Lord, who caused the
wonderful diversity of mankind to emanate from one type. And why was
Adam created last of all beings? To teach him humility; for if he be
overbearing, let him remember that the little fly preceded him in the
order of creation.
The Jewish Publication Society's edition of Leviticus states:
Thou
shalt not hate thy brother, in thy heart; thou shalt surely rebuke thy
neighbour, and not bear sin because of him. 18 Thou shalt not take
vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but
thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.
This Torah verse represents one of several versions of the Golden Rule,
which itself appears in various forms, positive and negative. It is the
earliest written version of that concept in a positive form.
At the turn of the era, the Jewish rabbis were discussing the scope of the meaning of Leviticus 19:18 and 19:34 extensively:
The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I the LORD am your God.
— Leviticus 19:34
Commentators interpret that this applies to foreigners (= Samaritans), proselytes (= 'strangers who reside with you').
On the verse, "Love your fellow as yourself", the classic commentator Rashi quotes from Torat Kohanim,
an early Midrashic text regarding the famous dictum of Rabbi Akiva:
"Love your fellow as yourself – Rabbi Akiva says this is a great
principle of the Torah."
The "Golden Rule" was proclaimed by Jesus of Nazareth during his Sermon on the Mount
and described by him as the second great commandment. The common
English phrasing is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you".
A similar form of the phrase appeared in a Catholic catechism around 1567 (certainly in the reprint of 1583). Various applications of the Golden Rule are stated positively numerous times in the Old Testament: "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
Or, in Leviticus 19:34: "But treat them just as you treat your own
citizens. Love foreigners as you love yourselves, because you were
foreigners one time in Egypt. I am the Lord your God.".
And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
— Luke 6:31
A similar passage, a parallel to the Great Commandment, is Luke 10:25.
Behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?"
He said to him, "What is written in the law? How do you read it?"
He answered, "You shall love the Lord your God with all your
heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your
mind; and love your neighbor as yourself."
He said to him, "You have answered correctly. Do this, and you will live."
The passage in the book of Luke then continues with Jesus answering
the question, "Who is my neighbor?", by telling the parable of the Good Samaritan, which John Wesley interprets as meaning that "your neighbor" is anyone in need.
Jesus' teaching goes beyond the negative formulation of not doing
what one would not like done to themselves, to the positive formulation
of actively doing good to another that, if the situations were
reversed, one would desire that the other would do for them. This
formulation, as indicated in the parable of the Good Samaritan,
emphasizes the needs for positive action that brings benefit to another,
not simply restraining oneself from negative activities that hurt
another.
In one passage of the New Testament, Paul the Apostle refers to the golden rule, restating Jesus' second commandment:
For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
— Galatians 5:14
St. Paul also comments on the golden rule in the book of Romans:
The commandments, "You shall not
commit adultery", "You shall not murder", "You shall not steal", "You
shall not covet", and whatever other command there may be, are summed up
in this one command: "Love your neighbor as yourself."
The Arabian peninsula was known to not practice the golden rule prior to the advent of Islam. According to Th. Emil Homerin:
"Pre-Islamic Arabs regarded the survival of the tribe, as most
essential and to be ensured by the ancient rite of blood vengeance." Homerin goes on to say:
Similar examples of the golden rule are found in the hadith of the prophet Muhammad. The hadith
recount what the prophet is believed to have said and done, and
traditionally Muslims regard the hadith as second to only the Qur'an as a
guide to correct belief and action.
From the hadith, the collected oral and written accounts of Muhammad and his teachings during his lifetime:
A Bedouin came to the prophet,
grabbed the stirrup of his camel and said: O the messenger of God! Teach
me something to go to heaven with it. Prophet said: "As you would have
people do to you, do to them; and what you dislike to be done to you,
don't do to them. Now let the stirrup go! [This maxim is enough for you;
go and act in accordance with it!]"
None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.
— An-Nawawi's Forty Hadith 13 (p. 56)
Seek for mankind that of which you are desirous for yourself, that you may be a believer.
— Sukhanan-i-Muhammad (Teheran, 1938)
That which you want for yourself, seek for mankind.
The most righteous person is the
one who consents for other people what he consents for himself, and who
dislikes for them what he dislikes for himself.
O my child, make yourself the
measure (for dealings) between you and others. Thus, you should desire
for others what you desire for yourself and hate for others what you
hate for yourself. Do not oppress as you do not like to be oppressed. Do
good to others as you would like good to be done to you. Regard bad for
yourself whatever you regard bad for others. Accept that (treatment)
from others which you would like others to accept from you ... Do not
say to others what you do not like to be said to you.
Winter is ahead of us. Refugees
from the Armenian Jacobite Community will probably need warmth. Help
them how you would help your brothers. Pray for these people who have
been expelled from their homes and left homeless and devoid of livestock
and all their property.
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 behavior is due to selfish desires.
Buddha (Siddhartha Gautama, c. 623–543 BCE)
made the negative formulation of the golden rule one of the
cornerstones of his ethics in the 6th century BCE. It occurs in many
places and in many forms throughout the Tripitaka.
Comparing oneself to others in such
terms as "Just as I am so are they, just as they are so am I," he
should neither kill nor cause others to kill.
The Golden Rule is paramount in the Jainist philosophy and can be seen in the doctrines of ahimsa and karma.
As part of the prohibition of causing any living beings to suffer,
Jainism forbids inflicting upon others what is harmful to oneself.
The following line from the Acaranga Sutra sums up the philosophy of Jainism:
Nothing which breathes, which
exists, which lives, or which has essence or potential of life, should
be destroyed or ruled over, or subjugated, or harmed, or denied of its
essence or potential.
In support of this Truth, I ask you a question – "Is sorrow or pain
desirable to you?" If you say "yes it is", it would be a lie. If you
say, "No, It is not" you will be expressing the truth. Just as sorrow or
pain is not desirable to you, so it is to all which breathe, exist,
live or have any essence of life. To you and all, it is undesirable, and
painful, and repugnant.
A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated.
What you do not wish for yourself, do not do to others.
子貢問曰：「有一言而可以終身行之者乎？」
子曰：「其恕乎！己所不欲，勿施於人。」
Zi Gong [a disciple of Confucius] asked: "Is there any one word that could guide a person throughout life?" The Master replied: "How about 'shu' [reciprocity]: never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself?"
The same idea is also presented in V.12 and VI.30 of the Analects (c. 500 BCE), which can be found in the online Chinese Text Project.
The phraseology differs from the Christian version of the Golden Rule.
It does not presume to do anything unto others, but merely to avoid
doing what would be harmful. It does not preclude doing good deeds and
taking moral positions.
The sage has no interest of his
own, but takes the interests of the people as his own. He is kind to the
kind; he is also kind to the unkind: for Virtue is kind. He is faithful
to the faithful; he is also faithful to the unfaithful: for Virtue is
faithful.
If people regarded other people's
states in the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite
their own state to attack that of another? For one would do for others
as one would do for oneself. If people regarded other people's cities in
the same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their
own city to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one
would do for oneself. If people regarded other people's families in the
same way that they regard their own, who then would incite their own
family to attack that of another? For one would do for others as one
would do for oneself. And so if states and cities do not attack one
another and families do not wreak havoc upon and steal from one another,
would this be a harm to the world or a benefit? Of course one must say
it is a benefit to the world.
Hear ye these words and heed them well, the words of Dea, thy Mother Goddess,
"I command thee thus, O children of the Earth, that that which ye deem
harmful unto thyself, the very same shall ye be forbidden from doing
unto another, for violence and hatred give rise to the same. My command
is thus, that ye shall return all violence and hatred with peacefulness
and love, for my Law is love unto all things. Only through love shall ye
have peace; yea and verily, only peace and love will cure the world,
and subdue all evil."
The "Declaration Toward a Global Ethic" from 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.
The Initial Declaration was signed by 143 leaders from all of the
world's major faiths, including Baháʼí Faith, Brahmanism, Brahma
Kumaris, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Indigenous, Interfaith,
Islam, Jainism, Judaism, Native American, Neo-Pagan, Sikhism, Taoism,
Theosophist, Unitarian Universalist and Zoroastrian. In the folklore of several cultures the Golden Rule is depicted by the allegory of the long spoons.
In the view of Greg M. Epstein, a Humanistchaplain at Harvard University, " 'do unto others' ... is a concept that essentially no religion misses entirely. But not a single one of these versions of the golden rule requires a God". Various sources identify the Golden Rule as a humanist principle:
Trying to live according to the
Golden Rule means trying to empathise with other people, including those
who may be very different from us. Empathy is at the root of kindness,
compassion, understanding and respect – qualities that we all appreciate
being shown, whoever we are, whatever we think and wherever we come
from. And although it isn't possible to know what it really feels like
to be a different person or live in different circumstances and have
different life experiences, it isn't difficult for most of us to imagine
what would cause us suffering and to try to avoid causing suffering to
others. For this reason many people find the Golden Rule's corollary –
"do not treat people in a way you would not wish to be treated
yourself" – more pragmatic.
— Maria MacLachlan, Think Humanism
Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you. [is] (…)
the single greatest, simplest, and most important moral axiom humanity
has ever invented, one which reappears in the writings of almost every
culture and religion throughout history, the one we know as the Golden
Rule.
Moral directives do not need to be complex or obscure to be worthwhile,
and in fact, it is precisely this rule's simplicity which makes it
great. It is easy to come up with, easy to understand, and easy to
apply, and these three things are the hallmarks of a strong and healthy
moral system. The idea behind it is readily graspable: before performing
an action which might harm another person, try to imagine yourself in
their position, and consider whether you would want to be the recipient
of that action. If you would not want to be in such a position, the
other person probably would not either, and so you should not do it. It
is the basic and fundamental human trait of empathy, the ability to
vicariously experience how another is feeling, that makes this possible,
and it is the principle of empathy by which we should live our lives.
— Adam Lee, Ebon Musings, "A decalogue for the modern world"
When we say that man chooses for
himself, we do mean that every one of us must choose himself; but by
that we also mean that in choosing for himself he chooses for all men.
For in effect, of all the actions a man may take in order to create
himself as he wills to be, there is not one which is not creative, at
the same time, of an image of man such as he believes he ought to be. To
choose between this or that is at the same time to affirm the value of
that which is chosen; for we are unable ever to choose the worse. What
we choose is always the better; and nothing can be better for us unless
it is better for all.
John Stuart Mill in his book, Utilitarianism
(originally published in 1861), wrote, "In the golden rule of Jesus of
Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. 'To do
as you would be done by,' and 'to love your neighbour as yourself,'
constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality."
Other contexts
Human rights
According to Marc H. Bornstein, and William E. Paden, the Golden Rule is arguably the most essential basis for the modern concept of human rights, in which each individual has a right to just treatment, and a reciprocal responsibility to ensure justice for others.
However, Leo Damrosch
argued that the notion that the Golden Rule pertains to "rights" per se
is a contemporary interpretation and has nothing to do with its origin.
The development of human "rights" is a modern political ideal that
began as a philosophical concept promulgated through the philosophy of Jean Jacques Rousseau in 18th century France, among others. His writings influenced Thomas Jefferson, who then incorporated Rousseau's reference to "inalienable rights" into the United States Declaration of Independence
in 1776. Damrosch argued that to confuse the Golden Rule with human
rights is to apply contemporary thinking to ancient concepts.
There has been research published arguing that some 'sense' of fair
play and the Golden Rule may be stated and rooted in terms of neuroscientific and neuroethical principles.
The Golden Rule can also be explained from the perspectives of
psychology, philosophy, sociology, human evolution, and economics.
Psychologically, it involves a person empathizing with others. Philosophically, it involves a person perceiving their neighbor also as "I" or "self".
Sociologically, "love your neighbor as yourself" is applicable between
individuals, between groups, and also between individuals and groups. In
evolution, "reciprocal altruism"
is seen as a distinctive advance in the capacity of human groups to
survive and reproduce, as their exceptional brains demanded
exceptionally long childhoods and ongoing provision and protection even
beyond that of the immediate family. In economics, Richard Swift, referring to ideas from David Graeber, suggests that "without some kind of reciprocity society would no longer be able to exist."
Study of other primates provides evidence that the Golden Rule exists in other non-human species.
Criticism
Philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Nietzsche
have objected to the rule on a variety of grounds. One is the epistemic
question of determining how others want to be treated. The obvious way
is to ask them, but they might give duplicitous answers if they find
this strategically useful, and they might also fail to understand the
details of the choice situation as you understand it. We might also be
biased to perceiving harms and benefits to ourselves more than to
others, which could lead to escalating conflict if we are suspicious of
others. Hence Linus Pauling suggested that we introduce a bias towards
others into the golden rule: "Do unto others 20 percent better than you
would have them to unto you-to correct for subjective bias."
One religion that officially rejects the Golden Rule is the Neo-Nazi religion of the "Creativity Movement" founded by Ben Klassen. Followers of the religion believe that the Golden Rule doesn't make sense and is a "completely unworkable principle."
Differences in values or interests
George Bernard Shaw wrote, "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same."
This suggests that if your values are not shared with others, the way
you want to be treated will not be the way they want to be treated.
Hence, the Golden Rule of "do unto others" is "dangerous in the wrong
hands", according to philosopher Iain King, because "some fanatics have no aversion to death: the Golden Rule might inspire them to kill others in suicide missions."
...seems to overlook the fact that
"doing as you would be done by" includes taking into account your
neighbour's tastes as you would that he should take yours into account.
Thus the "golden rule" might still express the essence of a universal
morality even if no two men in the world had any needs or tastes in common.
Differences in situations
Immanuel Kant
famously criticized the golden rule for not being sensitive to
differences of situation, noting that a prisoner duly convicted of a
crime could appeal to 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, so he should not do so to others. On the other hand, in a critique of the consistency of Kant's writings, several authors have noted the "similarity" between the Golden Rule and Kant's Categorical Imperative, introduced in Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals (See discussion at this link).
This was perhaps a well-known objection, as Leibniz actually
responded to it long before Kant made it, suggesting that the judge
should put himself in the place, not merely of the criminal, but of all
affected persons and then judging each option (to inflict punishment, or
release the criminal, etc.) by whether there was a “greater good in
which this lesser evil was included.”
Other responses to criticisms
Marcus George Singer
observed that there are two importantly different ways of looking at
the golden rule: as requiring (1) that you perform specific actions that
you want others to do to you or (2) that you guide your behavior in the
same general ways that you want others to. Counter-examples to the golden rule typically are more forceful against the first than the second.
In his book on the golden rule, Jeffrey Wattles makes the similar
observation that such objections typically arise while applying the
golden rule in certain general ways (namely, ignoring differences in
taste or situation, failing to compensate for subjective bias, etc.) But
if we apply the golden rule to our own method of using it, asking in
effect if we would want other people to apply the golden rule in such
ways, the answer would typically be no, since others' ignoring of such
factors will lead to behavior which we object to. It follows that we
should not do so ourselves—according to the golden rule. In this way,
the golden rule may be self-correcting. An article by Jouni Reinikainen develops this suggestion in greater detail.
It is
possible, then, that the golden rule can itself guide us in identifying
which differences of situation are morally relevant. We would often want
other people to ignore any prejudice against our race
or nationality when deciding how to act towards us, but would also want
them to not ignore our differing preferences in food, desire for
aggressiveness, and so on. This principle of "doing unto others,
wherever possible, as they would be done by..." has sometimes been termed the platinum rule.
The just-world hypothesis or just-world fallacy is the cognitive bias that assumes that "people get what they deserve" – that actions will necessarily have morally
fair and fitting consequences for the actor. For example, the
assumptions that noble actions will eventually be rewarded and evil
actions will eventually be punished fall under this hypothesis. In other
words, the just-world hypothesis is the tendency to attribute
consequences to—or expect consequences as the result of— either a
universal force that restores moral balance or a universal connection
between the nature of actions and their results. This belief generally
implies the existence of cosmic justice, destiny, divine providence, desert, stability, order, or the anglophone colloquial use of "Karma". It is often associated with a variety of fundamental fallacies, especially in regard to rationalizing suffering on the grounds that the sufferers "deserve" it.
Many
philosophers and social theorists have observed and considered the
phenomenon of belief in a just world, going back to at least as early as
the Pyrrhonist philosopher Sextus Empiricus, writing circa 180 CE, who argued against this belief. Lerner's work made the just-world hypothesis a focus of research in the field of social psychology. Aristotelian ethics
views "justice" as the chief of the virtues, moral sense being deeply
rooted in the nature of humans as social and rational animals.
Melvin Lerner
Lerner was prompted to study justice
beliefs and the just-world hypothesis in the context of social
psychological inquiry into negative social and societal interactions. Lerner saw his work as extending Stanley Milgram's work on obedience.
He sought to answer the questions of how regimes that cause cruelty and
suffering maintain popular support, and how people come to accept social norms and laws that produce misery and suffering.
Lerner's inquiry was influenced by repeatedly witnessing the tendency of observers to blame victims
for their suffering. During his clinical training as a psychologist, he
observed treatment of mentally ill persons by the health care
practitioners with whom he worked. Although Lerner knew them to be
kindhearted, educated people, they often blamed patients for the
patients' own suffering. Lerner also describes his surprise at hearing his students derogate (disparage, belittle) the poor, seemingly oblivious to the structural forces that contribute to poverty.
The desire to understand the processes that caused these phenomena led
Lerner to conduct his first experiments on what is now called the
just-world hypothesis.
Early evidence
In 1966, Lerner and his colleagues began a series of experiments that used shock paradigms to investigate observer responses to victimization. In the first of these experiments conducted at the University of Kansas,
72 female participants watched what appeared to be a confederate
receiving electrical shocks for her errors during a learning task
(learning pairs of nonsense syllables). Initially, these observing
participants were upset by the victim's apparent suffering. But as the
suffering continued and observers remained unable to intervene, the
observers began to reject and devalue the victim. Rejection and
devaluation of the victim was greater when the observed suffering was
greater. But when participants were told the victim would receive
compensation for her suffering, the participants did not derogate the
victim. Lerner and colleagues replicated these findings in subsequent studies, as did other researchers.
Theory
To
explain these studies' findings, Lerner theorized that there was a
prevalent belief in a just world. A just world is one in which actions
and conditions have predictable, appropriate consequences. These actions
and conditions are typically individuals' behaviors or attributes. The
specific conditions that correspond to certain consequences are socially
determined by a society's norms and ideologies. Lerner presents the
belief in a just world as functional: it maintains the idea that one can
influence the world in a predictable way. Belief in a just world
functions as a sort of "contract" with the world regarding the
consequences of behavior. This allows people to plan for the future and
engage in effective, goal-driven behavior. Lerner summarized his
findings and his theoretical work in his 1980 monograph The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion.
Lerner hypothesized that the belief in a just world is crucially
important for people to maintain for their own well-being. But people
are confronted daily with evidence that the world is not just: people
suffer without apparent cause. Lerner explained that people use
strategies to eliminate threats to their belief in a just world. These
strategies can be rational
or irrational. Rational strategies include accepting the reality of
injustice, trying to prevent injustice or provide restitution, and
accepting one's own limitations. Non-rational strategies include denial, withdrawal, and reinterpretation of the event.
There are a few modes of reinterpretation that could make an
event fit the belief in a just world. One can reinterpret the outcome,
the cause, and/or the character of the victim. In the case of observing
the injustice of the suffering of innocent people, one major way to
rearrange the cognition of an event is to interpret the victim of
suffering as deserving. Specifically, observers can blame victims for their suffering on the basis of their behaviors and/or their characteristics. Much psychological research on the belief in a just world has focused on these negative social phenomena of victim blaming and victim derogation in different contexts.
An additional effect of this thinking is that individuals experience less personal vulnerability because they do not believe they have done anything to deserve or cause negative outcomes. This is related to the self-serving bias observed by social psychologists.
Many researchers have interpreted just-world beliefs as an example of causal attribution.
In victim blaming, the causes of victimization are attributed to an
individual rather than to a situation. Thus, the consequences of belief
in a just world may be related to or explained in terms of particular
patterns of causal attribution.
Others have suggested alternative explanations for the derogation of
victims. One suggestion is that derogation effects are based on accurate
judgments of a victim's character. In particular, in relation to
Lerner's first studies, some have hypothesized that it would be logical
for observers to derogate an individual who would allow himself to be
shocked without reason.
A subsequent study by Lerner challenged this alternative hypothesis by
showing that individuals are only derogated when they actually suffer;
individuals who agreed to undergo suffering but did not were viewed
positively.
Guilt reduction
Another
alternative explanation offered for the derogation of victims early in
the development of the just-world hypothesis was that observers derogate
victims to reduce their own feelings of guilt. Observers may feel responsible,
or guilty, for a victim's suffering if they themselves are involved in
the situation or experiment. In order to reduce the guilt, they may
devalue the victim.
Lerner and colleagues claim that there has not been adequate evidence
to support this interpretation. They conducted one study that found
derogation of victims occurred even by observers who were not implicated
in the process of the experiment and thus had no reason to feel guilty.
Discomfort reduction
Alternatively,
victim derogation and other strategies may only be ways to alleviate
discomfort after viewing suffering. This would mean that the primary
motivation is not to restore a belief in a just world, but to reduce
discomfort caused by empathizing.
Studies have shown that victim derogation does not suppress subsequent
helping activity and that empathizing with the victim plays a large
role when assigning blame. According to Ervin Staub,
devaluing the victim should lead to lesser compensation if restoring
belief in a just world was the primary motive; instead, there is
virtually no difference in compensation amounts whether the compensation
precedes or follows devaluation. Psychopathy
has been linked to the lack of just-world maintaining strategies,
possibly due to dampened emotional reactions and lack of empathy.
Additional evidence
After
Lerner's first studies, other researchers replicated these findings in
other settings in which individuals are victimized. This work, which
began in the 1970s and continues today, has investigated how observers
react to victims of random calamities like traffic accidents, as well as
rape and domestic violence, illnesses, and poverty.
Generally, researchers have found that observers of the suffering of
innocent victims tend to both derogate and blame victims for their
suffering. Observers thus maintain their belief in a just world by
changing their cognitions about the victims' character.
In the early 1970s, social psychologists Zick Rubin and Letitia Anne Peplau developed a measure of belief in a just world. This measure and its revised form published in 1975 allowed for the study of individual differences in just-world beliefs. Much of the subsequent research on the just-world hypothesis used these measurement scales.
These studies on victims of violence, illness, and poverty
and others like them have provided consistent support for the link
between observers' just-world beliefs and their tendency to blame
victims for their suffering. As a result, the existence of the just-world hypothesis as a psychological phenomenon has become widely accepted.
Violence
Researchers have looked at how observers react to victims of rape
and other violence. In a formative experiment on rape and belief in a
just world by Linda Carli and colleagues, researchers gave two groups of
subjects a narrative about interactions between a man and a woman. The
description of the interaction was the same until the end; one group
received a narrative that had a neutral ending and the other group
received a narrative that ended with the man raping the woman. Subjects
judged the rape ending as inevitable and blamed the woman in the
narrative for the rape on the basis of her behavior, but not her
characteristics. These findings have been replicated repeatedly, including using a rape ending and a "happy ending" (a marriage proposal).
Other researchers have found a similar phenomenon for judgments of battered partners.
One study found that observers' labels of blame of female victims of
relationship violence increase with the intimacy of the relationship.
Observers blamed the perpetrator only in the least intimate case of
violence, in which a male struck an acquaintance.
Bullying
Researchers have employed the just-world hypothesis to understand bullying.
Given other research on beliefs in a just world, it would be expected
that observers would derogate and blame bullying victims, but the
opposite has been found: individuals high in just-world belief have
stronger anti-bullying attitudes. Other researchers have found that strong belief in a just world is associated with lower levels of bullying behavior.
This finding is in keeping with Lerner's understanding of belief in a
just world as functioning as a "contract" that governs behavior.
There is additional evidence that belief in a just world is protective
of the well-being of children and adolescents in the school environment, as has been shown for the general population.
Illness
Other
researchers have found that observers judge sick people as responsible
for their illnesses. One experiment showed that persons suffering from a
variety of illnesses were derogated on a measure of attractiveness more
than healthy individuals were. In comparison to healthy people, victim
derogation was found for persons presenting with indigestion, pneumonia,
and stomach cancer. Moreover, derogation was found to be higher for
those suffering from more severe illnesses, except for those presenting
with cancer. Stronger belief in a just world has also been found to correlate with greater derogation of AIDS victims.
Poverty
More
recently, researchers have explored how people react to poverty through
the lens of the just-world hypothesis. Strong belief in a just world is
associated with blaming the poor, with weak belief in a just world
associated with identifying external causes of poverty including world
economic systems, war, and exploitation.
Some research on belief in a just world has examined how people react
when they themselves are victimized. An early paper by Dr. Ronnie
Janoff-Bulman found that rape victims often blame their own behavior,
but not their own characteristics, for their victimization. It was hypothesized that this may be because blaming one's own behavior makes an event more controllable.
Theoretical refinement
Subsequent
work on measuring belief in a just world has focused on identifying
multiple dimensions of the belief. This work has resulted in the
development of new measures of just-world belief and additional
research. Hypothesized dimensions of just-world beliefs include belief in an unjust world, beliefs in immanentjustice and ultimate justice, hope for justice, and belief in one's ability to reduce injustice.
Other work has focused on looking at the different domains in which
the belief may function; individuals may have different just-world
beliefs for the personal domain, the sociopolitical domain, the social
domain, etc.
An especially fruitful distinction is between the belief in a just
world for the self (personal) and the belief in a just world for others
(general). These distinct beliefs are differentially associated with
positive mental health.
Correlates
Researchers have used measures of belief in a just world to look at correlates of high and low levels of belief in a just world.
Limited studies have examined ideological correlates of the
belief in a just world. These studies have found sociopolitical
correlates of just-world beliefs, including right-wing authoritarianism and the Protestant work ethic. Studies have also found belief in a just world to be correlated with aspects of religiousness.
Studies of demographic differences, including gender and racial
differences, have not shown systemic differences, but do suggest racial
differences, with black people and African Americans having the lowest
levels of belief in a just world.
The development of measures of just-world beliefs has also
allowed researchers to assess cross-cultural differences in just-world
beliefs. Much research conducted shows that beliefs in a just world are
evident cross-culturally. One study tested beliefs in a just world of
students in 12 countries. This study found that in countries where the
majority of inhabitants are powerless, belief in a just world tends to
be weaker than in other countries.
This supports the theory of the just-world hypothesis because the
powerless have had more personal and societal experiences that provided
evidence that the world is not just and predictable.
Belief in unjust world has been linked to increased self-handicapping, criminality, defensive coping, anger and perceived future risk. It may also serve as ego-protective belief for certain individuals by justifying maladaptive behavior.
Current research
Although
much of the initial work on belief in a just world focused on its
negative social effects, other research suggests that belief in a just
world is good, and even necessary, for mental health. Belief in a just world is associated with greater life satisfaction and well-being and less depressive affect.
Researchers are actively exploring the reasons why the belief in a just
world might have this relationship to mental health; it has been
suggested that such beliefs could be a personal resource or coping strategy that buffers stress associated with daily life and with traumatic events. This hypothesis suggests that belief in a just world can be understood as a positive illusion.
In line with this perspective, recent research also suggests that
belief in a just world may explain the known statistical association
between religiosity/spirituality and psychological well-being. Some belief in a just world research has been conducted within the framework of primal world beliefs,
and has found strong correlations between just world belief and beliefs
that the world is safe, abundant and cooperative (among other
qualities).
Some studies also show that beliefs in a just world are correlated with internal locus of control.
Strong belief in a just world is associated with greater acceptance of
and less dissatisfaction with negative events in one's life.
This may be one way in which belief in a just world affects mental
health. Others have suggested that this relationship holds only for
beliefs in a just world for oneself. Beliefs in a just world for others
are related instead to the negative social phenomena of victim blaming
and victim derogation observed in other studies.
Belief in a just world has also been found to negatively predict the perceived likelihood of kin favoritism.
The perspective of the individual plays an important role in this
relationship, such that when people imagine themselves as mere observers
of injustice, general belief in a just world will be the stronger
predictor, and when they imagine themselves as victims of injustice,
personal belief in a just world will be the stronger predictor. This
further supports the distinction between general and personal belief in a
just world.
International research
More
than 40 years after Lerner's seminal work on belief in a just world,
researchers continue to study the phenomenon. Belief in a just world
scales have been validated in several countries such as Iran, Russia, Brazil, and France. Work continues primarily in the United States, Europe, Australia, and Asia. Researchers in Germany have contributed disproportionately to recent research. Their work resulted in a volume edited by Lerner and German researcher Leo Montada titled Responses to Victimizations and Belief in a Just World.
