Don't do to others as you would not want done unto you?
I think the first one is self and the second is more humaine. The first says just do nice things so people will be nice to you. The second says basically don't go around doing harm because you would not want to be harmed. Pay your employees on time because you expect to be paid on time.
2007-12-19 09:19:55 · 12 answers · asked by HALLALJPAA 4 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Confucius says:
What you do not want to be done unto you, do not do unto others.
I think what Confucius says is better than what Jesus says. One man's meat is another's poison. So if you love beef, giving beef to a vegetarian may not do anything good for the vegetarian.
2007-12-19 09:26:44 · answer #1 · answered by OKIM IM 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The first is better. The golden rule!
The first covers doing positive things for others as well as negative, the second only covers the negative.
2007-12-19 09:29:04 · answer #2 · answered by Jacyn91 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first is flawed. You may wish something done to you that certain others would not want done to them.
How about "Do unto others as they want done to them, unless it's too much of a burden for you"
2007-12-19 09:30:16 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am not convinced that one rule is better than the other. If you're evaluating the moral agent then it all depends upon what your motive is for following that maxim. If I adhere to the former because I am concerned with the welfare of others, I'm in the same moral position as I would be for abiding the second rule (presuming that my motive for following the second rule of conduct is a noble one; if my choice of behaviour is only to avoid the wrath of avengers you wouldn't hold me morally praiseworthy).
2007-12-19 09:36:20 · answer #4 · answered by Cle 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I Live by the golden rule, Do unto others as I want them to do unto me.
2007-12-19 09:25:27 · answer #5 · answered by Biker4Life 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The first implies the second. If you only do to others what you'd want done to you, you then won't do to them what you wouldn't want them to do to you. But the second leaves the possibility open of not doing anything to anyone, even good things that you would want done to you.
2007-12-19 09:22:58 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
It's the same thing just worded differently.
Jesus said: Love one another. Love your enemies, regardless
2007-12-19 09:31:04 · answer #7 · answered by ShannonKristi 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
True, but statements in the positive are always easier to understand.
"Do this so that X will happen" always makes more of an impression on our minds than "Don't to this so that non-X will happen."
2007-12-19 09:22:04 · answer #8 · answered by Acorn 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
the concept of the first includes the idea of the second
2007-12-19 09:22:30 · answer #9 · answered by bregweidd 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
the second one is the best.
the first one is wrong because it assumes that the things you like are universal.
2007-12-19 09:26:12 · answer #10 · answered by gjmb1960 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋