Topic: While I do not wish others to impose on me, I also wish not to impose on others.”
(Analects 5:12).
Is there any difference between the positive and the negative formulations of the
golden rule? If so, are the differences significant in Confucian thought?
There are many versions of the golden rule. However for this essay we will assume that the
positive golden rule states: “Do unto others as you will have them do unto you”; and the
negative golden rule states: “While I do not wish others to impose on me, I also wish not to
impose on others”1. Even though I will try to deal with the basic concepts behind the positive
and negative golden rules, I have still stated them as definite concrete statements above,
because sometimes we need to analyse ‘concrete’ statements rather than concepts, because
even two different versions of the positive golden rule can be viewed as very different.
In this essay I will firstly try to show the assumptions made by the golden rules, and also
why such assumptions are necessary for any society. Then there will be a brief overview of
the rules, followed by the ideas of ‘stopping evil versus doing good’. Then we shall move on
to analysing the negative and positive version in Confucian thought and state why both
versions are a necessity in Confucianism. Lastly we shall analyse problems with both the
rules.
Assumptions made by the rules
The positive golden rule makes the assumption that the person following the rule knows not
only what he desires but also what the other person desires. What we want is our desires to be
fulfilled and hence we must fulfil other peoples desires if we wish them to fulfil ours. As we
can see, it is assumed that we can correctly guess what another person desires.
The negative rule assumes that we know just what the others person desires not to happen
and hence we know exactly what to avoid when interacting with other people.
Even though the assumptions made by both the rules may not be conceived as ideal, they are
nevertheless very important and must be made by every rule (concerning society) if there is to
be a society (ie. some interaction between people over a considerable amount of time) at all.
If we did not assume that we can (at least to a certain degree) correctly guess the other
persons intentions, then we could in no way understand what they either wanted (eliminating
the usefulness of the positive golden rule) or what they desired not to be (eliminating the
usefulness of the negative golden rule). As a result our actions towards other people would be
completely unpredictable by them, hence deterring them from even trying to communicate
with us in the future.
An overview of the positive golden rule
Many people claim that the positive golden rule can justify a masochist becoming a sadist.
On the very superficial level of analysis and understanding this might be true; that is, if a
person likes pain inflicted on himself then he should ‘hurt others as he will have others hurt
him’2. However at a deeper level of understanding, if a person hurts others (hoping that others
will hurt him) what he has in effect done is, he has gone against the desire of the other person
(which was to be treated kindly) and as a result the other person will go against his desires,
hence in effect treating him kindly! This type of interpretation/understanding also works
rather well when a kind person treats another kind person kindly, resulting in kindness ‘going
all around’. The only problem we face with this rule is if a kind person goes against the
desires of a sadist and treats how kindly, for this means that the sadist will go against the
kind persons desires and inflict pain on him.
An overview of the negative golden rule
Many people claim that the negative golden rule does not provide much incentive for us to
follow it. That is, if we wish others to treat us well, we cannot do any action that will lead
others to fulfil our wish; the only thing we can be assured of is that others will not treat us
badly if we do not treat them badly. As we can see, this can lead to a situation where we can,
faced with what is good, leave it undone. This can have quite dramatic consequences. Take
for example a case where we knew a person who was starving, and we also knew where some
spare food was located; now we could either get him the food (which would be doing good)
or we could ignore the situation as a result of which the person might dies. Now, we did not
do anything bad (satisfying the negative golden rule) but we did not do the good either
(hence, not satisfying the positive golden rule).
Stopping Evil versus Doing Good
The negative golden rule has commonly been associated with the quality of ‘stopping evil’ in
society, whereas the positive golden rule has been associated with the quality of ‘doing
good’. I will try to illustrate how both aspects are important in any society. Take for example
a group of people who kidnap children, cut their legs off and then place them on the sidewalk
to beg. This group then picks up the children from the sidewalk every evening and take the
money from them. If we were to ‘do good’ in such a situation, we would take the children to
hospitals and make sure they were looked after. However, if we were to stop the evil then we
would try to ‘reform’ the group that was the cause of the evil. As we can see, once without
the other would leave the task incomplete, and ‘society’ the worse off for it!
The negative and positive golden rules in Confucian thought
Confucius has emphasised on both the negative and positive formulations of the golden rule.
He seems to have recognised the importance of stopping evil and doing good, so that we may
achieve a harmonious result. However, he seems to have focused more on the negative rule. I
guess this is because he realised that unless the cause of evil were uprooted, no matter how
much good we did there would always be suffering and disharmony being created. Also, after
uprooting the cause of evil, if we did not ‘do good’ (ie. follow the positive golden rule), the
effect of the evil would stay around, not only being a hindrance in the progress of society but
also leaving open the possibility for more evil to be generated in the future. Hence, I believe
Confucius was very clever in saying “While I do not wish others to impose on me, I also
wish not to impose on others’3, intending it for the common man, so that evil may be
eradicated first. Then Confucius later states “A man of jen, wishing to establish himself,
seeks also to establish others, and wishing to advance himself, also helps others to advance”4,
the key words here being ‘A man of jen’ indicating a person who embodies jen (ie. a
‘superior’ man) can go ahead and ‘help others advance as he himself wishes to advance’ -
very much like the positive golden rule. In doing this, Confucius has saved the positive rule
from abuse by masochists, because a masochist is definitely not a man of jen, and hence may
not follow the positive golden rule.
Problems associated with the above interpretation
One may claim that, a man who is not jen, following the negative golden rule, may try to
stop good actions thinking them to be evil. Admittedly this is a problem with the above
interpretation, however, at least a man who is not jen, cannot follow the positive golden rule
and impose evil thinking it to be good. Hence, our interpretation still remains safe in the
sense that it cannot bring about evil.
There is also a problem with regard to the virtue of modesty (as Allison would have us
think), for if a jen man recognises that he is a jen man and can follow the positive golden
rule, then he is claiming to know what good is; whereas if he does not claim that he is a man
of jen then there is no-one who can follow the positive golden rule! However, we must
change our definition of modesty here and nothing else, for surely if a man really does have
certain knowledge/virtues he is not required to lie and say that he does not have it, just for the
sake of modesty.
We can see that the major difference between the positive and negative golden rules is that,
one is concerned with promoting good whereas the other is concerned with stopping evil. We
have also seen that the negative formulation is appropriate for use by anyone, whereas the
positive formulation is for use only by a man who embodies jen. Put together they make the
‘one thread’ in Confucian thought ... “The master said, ‘Ts‘an! There is one single thread
binding my way together.’”5 Without one the other version of the golden rule will fail achieve
complete harmony, and so distinctions between the rules are important in Confucian
philosophy.
References
1 Confucius: The Analects (Penguin Classics, 1979), Analects 5:12.
2 Variation of - Ivanhoe, P., “Reweaving the “one thread” of the Analects”, Phil2519 Course Notes
p.55.
3 Confucius: The Analects (Penguin Classics, 1979), Analects 5:12.
4 Confucius: The Analects (Penguin Classics, 1979), Analects 6:28.
5 Confucius: The Analects (Penguin Classics, 1979), Analects 4:15.
