The golden rule: do not do to others what you would not want done to you

Confucius c. 551 BC · c. 479 BCBecoming human through learning, ritual and benevolence.

See profile

What it claims

We must not do to others what we would not want done to us.

Why

Humans are close by nature: what is painful to me is painful to others too, so I can judge others by myself.

In short

"The golden rule: do not do to others what you would not want done to you" is an argument by Confucius (Analects 15.23 and 12.2) on the question "What makes something right?" (answer: virtue). Its claim: We must not do to others what we would not want done to us. According to AskPhilosophy's logic check (Z3 solver), the argument is valid only if one grants a premise the author leaves unstated (P3). AskPhilosophy presents 3 objections, 2 of them with a documented reply, and the original text behind each premise, checked word for word.

Analects 15.23 and 12.2

Valid with an implicit premise

His disciple Zigong asks him whether there is one word that can guide a whole life. Confucius answers: "reciprocity" (shu), and explains it: do not do to others what you would not want done to you. Confucius does not prove this rule, he states it. The P1, P2, P3 → C form below is our reconstruction: it links three sayings reported in different books of the Analects.

click a premise to reject it

If you accept every premise, logic forces you to accept the conclusion. So the debate is about the premises.

Checked by a logic solver: the premises cannot all be true while the conclusion is false.
Without the implicit premise: Without P3, the computer finds a case where I love others and people are close by nature, yet an act I would not want to suffer is not painful to the other: nothing then forbids doing it to them.

With its three premises, the argument is valid. Without P3 it no longer is: nothing then guarantees that what I refuse for myself is painful to the other. P3 is not written as such, but it is what Confucius calls judging others by what is near in ourselves. It is also where the objections strike: others may not be similar enough to me for me to use myself as the measure. Note: Confucius' rule is negative (do not do); the Analects also know a positive form (6.28).

Analogy. Before posting an embarrassing photo of a friend, ask yourself whether you would like them to post yours. You do not need to know their tastes: it is enough to know what would hurt you.

Objections

Each objection is a conversation: click to see who replies and where the debate stands.

Kant 1785 · attacks the conclusion

This "trivial" rule cannot be the principle of morality. It grounds neither duties to oneself nor the duty to help others: many would accept that nobody helps them, provided they are excused from helping. And the criminal could invoke it against the judge who punishes him.

Confucius replies

Confucius What the Analects say elsewhere (6.28): a positive form, which answers the charge about the duty to help (Kant came over two thousand years later)

The humane person, wishing to be established himself, also establishes others; wishing to advance himself, also helps others advance.

The debate goes on (our summary) Kant would reply that even this positive form starts from what I want for myself: it depends on each person's desires, whereas duty must hold unconditionally. And the passage says nothing about the criminal who invokes the rule against his judge, nor about duties to oneself.

The objection from different tastes (George Bernard Shaw) 1903 · attacks premise 3

Others do not necessarily share my tastes: what would bother me may not bother them, and what I would like may hurt them. Shaw said it with humour about the positive form of the rule; the extreme case is the masochist, who wants to be hurt.

no reply

summary: their text is not yet in our corpus

We have not yet found a direct reply by Confucius in the texts.

The debate goes on (our summary) Confucius' defenders note that the negative form holds up better: it forbids imposing, it does not require imposing one's tastes. A masochist who refrains from hurting others does not break the rule.

Laozi (Daodejing) attacks the conclusion

Reciprocity does not go far enough. The sage of the Daodejing repays injury with kindness, without keeping accounts.

Confucius replies

Confucius Confucius' reply to the formula "return good for evil" (Laozi is not named)

If you return good for evil, what will you return for good? Answer injury with uprightness, and return kindness with kindness.

The debate goes on (our summary) The Daoist would reply that weighing the good received against the harm received still keeps resentment alive. The sage keeps no accounts: by returning kindness, he puts out the conflict instead of settling it.