A subtle way ot obtaining a negative result from the positive precept is mentioned by Schleiermacher {Predujten, iii. 84 ff.). One may say in haughty independence, ' What I wish is that others would let me go my own way ; therefore, I let them go theirs.' It is rightly said, in reply, that such pride is incom- patible with obedience to the command of Jesus. His words, * whatsoever ye would that men should do unto you,' are a recognition of the fact of men's mutual dependence. 'We are members one of another, and our chief danger is not that we should forget our claim? on others, but that we should neglect
' duties to others ;
vertheless there i
A practical difficulty presents itself to the minds
of many who desire to walk in accordance with Christ's rule. A king cannot do to his subject what he desires Ids subject to do to him, nor can a father to his child, nor a ma-ster to his servant. But our Lord's command is ' euen so do ye unto them.' The narrow interpretation is not only false to tlie spirit, but also to the letter. The saying of Christ leaves abundant room for good actions which the recipient may be known to be altogether unable to return, — another reason for refusing to see in the positive form of the Golden Rule an appeal to self-interest. The Gr. word used is oBtus, not TOLvra ; its meaning is rightly given by Alford {Com. in loc.), 'After the pattern of baa &v . . . Because what might suit us might not suit others. We are to think what we should like done to tis, and then apply that rule to our dealings with others.' A balaly literal interpretation would miss the beauty of St. Paul's words, when, after enumer- ating the duties of servants to their masters, he says, ' And, ye masters, do the same things unto them' (Eph 6"). The rule for masters and servants alike is ' imto the Lord' ; on each side of this and of every human relationship there is opportunity for ' goodwill ' and for ' doing the wUl of God from the heart' (v.s'-).
Many modern writers regard the Golden Rule as identical with the ethical maxim of Kant : ' So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only ' (cf. Votaw in Hastings' DB, Extra Vol. p. 42» ; Gore, Sermon on the Mount, 170 f. ; Loofs, PredUjten. ii. 227). In the language of philosophy, Kant forcefully expresses what is implied in the simpler words of Jesus. Doubtless it is inconsistent with the Golden Rule to exploit men for gain or for pleasure ; in a word, to have one ideal for ourselves and another for our neighbours. Loofs shows clearly how the unitersality of the ethical imperative on which Kant so strongly insists is a distinct note in the com- mand of Jesus. He also makes an instructive application of this principle to a concrete case, and shows how vamly partners in guilt try to shelter themselves behind their own parody of this rule. As though mutual agreement could ever be any excuse for collusion in dishonest actions, deceitful evasions, or even immoral pleasures. His reply to those who act on the principle ot the German proverb, 'The left hand washes the
another should do to him, let him do the same to that other.' The rule is universal. There must be no arbitrary limiting of the extension of the term ' men ' in the sajing, ' Whatsoever ye would that m€7l should do unto you, even so do ye also unto them.' A thief and his accomplice may, for the sake of divid- ing the spoil, wink at each other's crimes ; that is what is called honour among thieves. But neither of the accomplices can wish to make the rule of action universal ; they cannot desire to be deceived by all men as they have agreed to combine in deceiving others.
In the Golden Rule, John Stuart Mill found a fitting expression of the essential principle of his ethical system. ' To do as you would be done by, and to love your neighbour as yourself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality ' ( Utili- tarianism, p. 323). But when tlie crucial question is asked : How is the ideal perfection to be attained ? the reply is that utility enjoins, ' as the means of making the nearest approach to this ideal,' that (1) 'laws of social arrangements,' and (2) 'edu- cation and opinion ' should strive to ' establish in the mind of every individual an indissoluble associa- tion between his own happiness and tlie good of the whole ' {op. cit. p. 323). But no external force, such as law or education, can supply either the motive for doing as we would be done by, or the power to fulfil the precept we approve. It is true tliat on the lips of Christ the Golden Rule has its perfect expression ; but its superiority as an ethical maxim rests upon a broader basis. It is more to exemplify a rule than to formulate it ; it is still more to mrnisli the inward inspiration which con- strains men to obey it. Tlie disciples of Christ have another Golden Rule for tlieir actions one toward another ; it is expressed in His words, '_ as I have done to you ' ; and their all-powerful motive is the assurance that ' ye did it unto me ' (Mt 25*')