Content area
Full Text
Introduction
It is perhaps true that there is no moral principle that has been more widely accepted among human civilizations than the so-called "Golden Rule," "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you,"1 together with its negative formulation, sometimes also called the "Silver Rule,"2 "Don't do unto others what you would not have them do unto you."3 Moreover, the very term "Golden," as pointed out by Marcus Singer, indicates that it is considered to be "of inestimable worth as a first principle of conduct" (Singer 1998, p. 405). Some authors think that these two expressions are merely different formulations of the same rule, since every positive imperative can be expressed negatively, and vice versa.4 Others believe that they express different ideas: the positive formulation tells us what we should do, while the negative one tells us what we should not do. Among the latter, some authors argue that the positive formulation is superior to the negative one, since one cannot become a moral person simply by doing nothing immoral (see Topel 1998), while others think that the negative formulation is better, as it embodies their cherished idea of negative freedom (see Allinson 1985 and 1992).
In this essay, I shall not enter this debate about whether these two imperatives are indeed different expressions of the same principle or, if they are not, which one is superior. In the history of human moral life, both have played important roles. The reason is quite simple: because (for example) I would like to be respected by others, I ought also to respect others; because 1 don't like to suffer pain, I ought not to inflict pain upon others. After all, there are similarities between "me" and others. Instead, I shall examine some of the problems that seem to me inherent in both expressions of the Golden Rule and several contemporary philosophical attempts to save it from "abuses." In this context, I shall draw on the resources of Daoism (particularly Zhuang Zi) and Confucianism (particularly Mencius) to develop an alternative moral principle, what I call the "Copper Rule": "Do unto others what they would have us do unto them" (positively expressed) or "Do not do unto others what they would not have us do unto them"...