Respect! The Intercultural Dialogue by applying the Golden Rule

There is need for intercultural dialogue in the world today. The question is: How could it be realized, especially in a global society of different cultures, of particular political ideas and pluralistic religious views? One hint we can find is within the Golden Rule: mutual respect.

Different Cultures, Similar Rule

The Golden Rule is a fundamental moral principle that is a foundation of the ethics of reciprocity or mutuality. Mutuality is not possible without empathy, the ability to understand the needs of others, and that indeed is a precondition of the intercultural dialogue. So we are dealing with a moral principle that is deeply connected with one of the challenges of the world today. The Golden Rule can be found in all major religions and cultures, and is what makes it a “global” moral principle. Not only is it in the Bible, but the Golden Rule can also be found in other holy scriptures, for example in early Buddhism, Hinduism and Judaism.

In the Buddhist Samyutta Nikaya we find the following: “The Aryan disciple thus reflects, Here am I, fond of my life, not wanting to die, fond of pleasure and averse from pain. Suppose someone should rob me of my life… it would not be a thing pleasing and delightful to me. If I, in my turn, should rob him of his life one fond of his life, not wanting to die, one fond of pleasure and averse from pain, it would not be a thing pleasing or delightful to him. For a state that is not pleasant or delightful to me must also be to him also; and a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another? As a result of such reflection he himself abstains from taking the life of creatures and he encourages others so to abstain, and speaks in praise of so abstaining.” (v. 353.35-354.2). In the Hindu Mahabharata we read: “This is the sum of the Dharma: Do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.” (5, 15:17)

And the Talmud emphasizes: “A certain heathen came to Shammai and said to him, ‘Make me a proselyte, on condition that you teach me the whole Torah in the time I can stand on one foot.’ Thereupon he repulsed him with the rod which was in his hand. When he went to Hillel, Hillel said to him, ‘What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor: that is the whole Torah; all the rest of it is commentary; go and learn.'” (Shabbat 31a). Further on, the Golden Rule was articulated by Confucius and the Greek philosopher Thales of Milet in the 5th century B.C. In the Analects of Confucius we read: “What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others.” (15, 23) and Thales said: “Refrain from doing what we blame in others.” (Diog. Laert. I, 39). There were many other pre-Christian philosophers that did mention the Golden Rule, including Socrates, Plato and Aristotle.

In the Apocryph book of Tobit from the 2nd century B.C. the Golden Rule can be found, too: “Take heed to thyself, my child, in all thy works; and be discreet in all thy behavior. And what thou thyself hatest, do to no man.” (4, 14-15), before it became popular by Christianity: In the Gospel of Matthew (“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.”, 7, 12) the Golden Rule is mentioned as well as in the Epistle to the Galatians: “For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.” (5, 14). Islam knows such a commandment, too. It is mentioned in the Hadith, the book of Mohammad: “None of you is truly a believer until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.” (40, 13), whatever “brother” in this context does mean exactly.

Universality and Reciprocity, Benevolence and Justice, Tolerance and Appreciation

A very important point is that the Golden Rule has developed independently in different regions and in different cultural contexts. That makes it a principle of universal ethics. Beside its universality, it is an essential aspect of the Golden Rule, that the reciprocity and the moral responsibility make it possible to build up a relationship with empathy and respect as an essential precondition of the intercultural dialogue. Moreover, the Golden Rule covers two basic aspects of every theory in ethics: In the positive form (“Treat others as you like them to treat you.”) contextual benevolence is addressed, in the negative form (“Don’t treat others as you don’t like them to treat you.”) the contractually defined limits of intervention into the autonomic sphere of the individual are mentioned, led by the concept of justice.

Justice and benevolence come together in the Golden Rule, meanwhile they were treated separately in the traditional philosophical debate about deontological or teleological ethics: The claim that an action is right or wrong independent of the consequences (deontological ethics) favors justice as the central term, the claim that an action is right or wrong on the basis of the consequences (teleological ethics) does so with benevolence. In addition to this important fact, the Golden Rule manifests a valuable progress of civilization, from the ius talionis to a principle of desirability. Neglecting the talionist principle of the Old Testament, as it is summed up in the famous verse “And thine eye shall not pity; but life shall go for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.” (Deuteronomy 19, 21), covers the knowledge and the experience that continuing with the wrong does not heal any wounds. Only with the moral implications drawn by the Golden Rule, one can overcome hate and self-hate, installing a new form of relationship by appealing to the desirable: a relationship in tolerance and appreciation. So even in the challenges, fanaticism and extremism put on the open society, the Golden Rule proves to be a suitable principle, because the dialogue can only be successful when it strengthens the progressive concept of tolerance and appreciation, which takes into account justice and benevolence.

Applying the characteristic concepts of the Golden Rule, tolerance and appreciation, benevolence and justice on the intercultural dialogue, two points have to be clear: Tolerance is not all about benevolence, but also about justice, what makes necessary intolerance towards the intolerant. The fairness of the dialogue, carried on in the ethos of the Golden Rule for the worldwide establishment of human rights, must not be abused. This is the case if the cooperative attitude is used to violate human rights under the “protection” of tolerance. And: Appreciation is not all about justice, but also about benevolence. This increases the urge to connect the demand for autonomy and liberty of the subject with the cultural integrity of the communities which must be taken seriously in its special ways of living. Only if the Golden Rule is understood as a fundament of tolerance and appreciation it can be considered as a suitable ethical principle for the global intercultural dialogue.