It can and obviously is argued that things like the Golden Rule come
from logical selfish thinking such as tit for tat or karma (what you do
tends to come back on you) and so on. I don't however notice that the
proponents of things like the Golden Rule usually offer such reasoning
as the reason we should follow them. Instead they
are offered as axioms of goodness, not something in our personal
interest, and we do them out of a desire to do what is good. Besides,
often enough it is to our selfish advantage to not follow the Golden
Rule, and even in society's rational advantage (such as punishing
criminals, even though we would not want to be punished).
We also see examples of human kindness and generosity that goes way
beyond anything that could earn reward for us -- saving beached whales,
at great inconvenience and expense, or people dying (maybe or maybe not
foolishly) for causes they perceive as greater than they, such as
country or God.
It is in the modern "materialist" frame of mind to try to explain
everything with some sort of selective advantage, including this
amazingly widespread Golden Rule type of thinking, in spite of all the
cultural differences from which such thinking derives. The thing is the
thinking does not come from ordinary people but from what we would call
religious geniuses or saints or prophets or things like that, and then
gets adopted by their followers because of its inherent rationality and
appeal. It took Jesus to introduce it into Abrahamic thinking, Buddha
into Indian thinking, and so on. (I rush to aver that similar thoughts
can be found in the OT or in Hindu teaching -- again from limited
sources). Most of us are not born with the Golden Rule, we are born
more selfish but with a desire to get praised. We learn if we are able.
So I have trouble saying this is an evolved instinct. It is I think
instead a rational proposition derived by religious geniuses from their
meditation or prayer or just reasoning that gets adopted quite widely
because of its power, and biology is not involved.
No comments:
Post a Comment