The same scenario of reduced effort applies when evaluating moral exemplarism, often associated with the Golden Rule, and the life of its sister principles. Service to the poor and sick often involves the routine work of truck drivers or dockers, loading canned goods or medical supplies to be transported, or the transport itself. This can be primary breastfeeding or cooking, and service work at the point of contact regularly taken care of as non-example jobs. These are not considered careers in sacred heroism. Pursuing this work as a mission rather than a profession requires a lot of commitment and courage. But many examples report that they gradually fall into their roles without really noticing or thinking clearly (David Fattah of Umoja House) or being dragged into «life» by others (Andrie Sakharov and Martin Luther King, for example). (See Colby and Damon 1984, Oliner and Oliner 1988, The Noetics Institute «Creative Altruist» Profiles). In addition, daily examples report that they do their work from an atypical vision of society and its relationship with it. It comes to them spontaneously, as ours comes to us. No extra, let alone extraordinary, effort is required. This seems to be the meaning of Mother Teresa`s refrain to those who ask how she could work with lepers and the dying: «Come and see.» But the story was cruel to legalists. The Qin Dynasty (221-207 B.C.) Chr.), which was to rule for «countless generations» (Shiji 6:236), collapsed shortly after the death of the founder, who was brought down by a popular rebellion of unprecedented scale and cruelty. This rapid collapse – which occurred just a few years after Li Si`s infamous biblioclasm – shaped Qin`s image for millennia to come.
The dynasty was no longer a success, but a story of dismal failure; And the ideas that guided their policymakers have also been discredited. Already in the first generations after the Qin, a consensus was reached: their collapse was due to excessive activism, abnormal assertion of its administrative apparatus, excessive use of punishment, senseless expansionism and paralyzing distrust between emperors and their entourage (Jia Yi 賈誼 [200-168 BC] quoted in Shiji 6: 276-284; Xin yu 4:62). All this policy could usefully be attributed to the legalists, whose intellectual legacy has therefore been discredited. At best, it was reduced to Sima Tan`s assessment: «a one-off policy that could not be applied all the time». The strong adherence of the legalists to the principles of monarchism is evident; But it is not free of multiple tensions and contradictions. These are fully embodied in Han Fei`s thought. Han Fei shared his predecessors` view of the ruler as the pivot of the socio-political order, as the sole guarantor of stability and prosperity for his subjects; But he was also bitterly aware of the sovereign`s inadequacy. The very fact that the monarch – unlike his officials – owed his position solely to the pedigree meant that this position was in most cases occupied by mediocrity.
Several historical examples scattered around Han Feizi clearly show how devastating the incompetence of the leader can be (Graziani 2015). The intrinsic contradiction between an institutionally infallible and humanly misguided ruler is the main source of tension in Han Feizi (Pines 2013b). A major advantage of Singer`s perspective is that he emphasizes practice within the prescriptive nature of the rule. Most philosophical principles of ethics are explanatory and provide an ultimate basis for understanding regulations. These can also be used to justify moral reasons. But they are prescriptive only in the logical sense of distinguishing `should` from `would` or `ares`, not in the sense of the directive – making X in the way that Y. Singer`s attitude reveals the instructions for use or know-how of the Golden Rule. From this, the interpersonal role of the rule in communicating and explaining to others can be easily deduced, especially when socializing. The rule is therefore not represented, then as a motionless intellectual object notched against the wall of a curious mind. He assumes a life for the moral community that lives his life. Mr.
Bernard Shaw`s remark: «Don`t do to others what you would do, they should do it to you. Their tastes may be different» is undoubtedly a wise saying. But he seems to overlook the fact that «doing what you would do» involves considering your neighbor`s tastes as you would, that he should consider yours. Thus, the «golden rule» could still express the essence of universal morality, even if two men in the world had no common needs or tastes. [94] Neither in Eastern nor Western traditions did the Golden Rule shine alone. Therefore, it bypasses isolated consideration and analysis. The relationship of the Golden Rule with the sibling principles associated with it has changed its meaning and purpose in different contexts. The most important standard-bearer in this family of rules seems to have been: «Love your neighbor as yourself.» This «royal law» is a very different type of regulation from the Golden Rule, which provides for a multitude of extraordinarily benevolent practices that result from extraordinary identification with others. In Judaism, benevolence usually meant helping family members and neighbors first and foremost, and focusing on one`s own gender – the particular sect. Generosity also meant hospitality to the stranger or stranger, remembering that Jews were once strangers in a foreign land. Alms were given to the poor; Crops were not harvested from the edges of their own fields so that the poor could find food from the leftovers.
Agricultural land was to remain fallow every seven years (like the Sabbath, when God was resting) so that the poor could find peace and space to grow there (Deuteronomy XV: 7, Leviticus XXIII: 22, XXV: 25, 35). What seems necessary to philosophize skillfully about the Golden Rule and its parents are theoretical models adapted to the rules of thumb. These would be models of know-how, defined by the conceptual work draped around algorithms, operations and steps of rules implementation procedures. As mentioned earlier, these can be psychological rules for adopting certain moral viewpoints, rules for problem solving, negotiation, contribution to current practices, interactions and more unilateral actions. These elements would be placed in a context of use and linked to each other in a decidedly different way, with proposals for a broader relationship. High, medium and low quality illustrations of their application and incorrect application are provided. The resulting combination would have an overall structure and comprehensibility that would include the justifications necessary to explain and justify its components. The justifications for the application of the methods would allow unique and flexible alliances between components adapted to specific functions and new situations. This would include the best features of the otherwise immature topic of a conceptual «toolbox». The illustrations would include the best features of the philosophically enhanced codes of ethics.
A number of implications would be foreseen for the rules in question, such as the golden family of rules, which reflects the kind of expectations and conventional practices adopted when creating and developing the rules. These are of paramount importance for its practicality and success. And of equal importance would provide background frames for the practice of the rule, indicating the difference in orientation of the beginner and the experienced user. How can we follow a recipe in the kitchen, as a chef who «knows his way in the kitchen» would? Present and future philosophical narratives cannot be useful in clarifying the Golden Rule in their own terms, but rather distorting it by overgeneralizing. Nevertheless, the development of a general theory in ethics is an important project. It reveals ever deeper and broader logics that underlie our common logic, the golden rule being one. (It is important for some to examine these fundamental questions in order to treat the Golden Rule philosophically.) However, both alternatives have terrible consequences for the Golden Rule. Rights simply do not cover enough ethical behaviour to exclude forms of psychological cruelty, insensitivity and interpersonal exclusion. The reciprocity they guarantee is compatible with most forms of personal interaction that it lacks, especially in public relations such as school or construction, but also in friendships and family.