A thoughtful reader may wonder: These Ancient Imperatives from the Middle East – to love our neighbors as we love ourselves, and to treat one another as we’d want to be treated — have been on the human scene for over two thousand years. But much of the world remains very unloving – a place where they are widely ignored. A thoughtful reader may well suspect that’s because that pair of Ancient Imperatives is outdated.
“Aren’t there modern teachings that are more promising? What about (1) the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? and (2) Utilitarianism? Don’t they provide more promising moral bases – moral foundations — for education by parents and by all who teach in the 2020’s and beyond?
What about a more up-to-date – a 20th century basis for our moral choices — a basis with cross-cultural, world-wide input, like the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, formed by the United Nations after World War II?”
My Reply: Although the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) is itself much more recent than those ancient sources for the Golden Rule (and similar moral teachings), that Human Rights tradition of recommendations for human conduct is also very ancient.
The history of that tradition is long and complex; just glance at the Wikipedia article “History of Human Rights.”
For reliable general perspective on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, I suggest reading through the brief Britannica article entitled “Universal Declaration of Human Rights.”
In modern times the Human Rights tradition surfaced prominently at the times of the American and French Revolutions, when “the people” were being seriously impacted by the misdeeds of their governments. (I suggest you take time to view on line the 9 ½ minute video: Magna Carta and Human Rights; A Brief History of Human Rights.)
The American Declaration of Independence (1776) declares: “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States.” (Emphasis added.)
Accordingly, the American Constitution’s Bill of Rights (ratified in 1791) included amendments that explicitly limit the power of the new American government. They “declare” states’ and citizens’ rights against the new American Government (as well as obligations of that government toward its citizens):
AMENDMENT I declares: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. . . . (Emphasis added.)
In that important 18th century context, the “Declaration” of Independence with its reference to “self-evident human rights” — provided an attractive premise – an attractive (but not altogether clear, let alone genuinely self-evident) starting point for reasoning in favor of limiting, curtailing, — certainly not increasing — the power or authority of “the state” – the power of a potentially oppressive new government.
Even if the UDHR is the most credible 20th century rendering of the human rights tradition, there are several reasons parents and others who teach should prefer the “Love your neighbor/Golden Rule tradition” — the “Treat others the way you’d want to be treated” tradition, for educating all the individuals of each succeeding generation:
(1) The UDHR itself asks far too much of those who teach, namely: “that every individual and every organ of society, keeping this Declaration constantly in mind, shall strive by teaching and education to promote respect for these rights and freedoms. . . .” (Emphasis added.)
I respectfully ask readers to thoughtfully read through its 30 articles.
I suspect you’ll agree with the UDHR’s recognition – in Article 1 — of the importance of education, but you’ll almost certainly agree with me that it would be a rarely gifted individual (whether a student, or parent or other teacher) who would be able to do what Article 1 urges, namely: to keep these 30 articles “constantly in mind!”
Like the UDHR, I am recommending a guide for conduct to be learned and adopted by “every individual and every organ of society.”
But the guide I’m recommending – that pair of Ancient Imperatives – is one that actually can be learned, kept in mind, and intelligently (I don’t say infallibly!) used, even by the young.
Although the UDHR’s 30 articles are much briefer than Maimonides’ list of 613 commandments, is there any doubt that the UDHR is asking far too much of those who teach when it asks them to keep those thirty articles “constantly in mind”?
(2) Unlike the thirty articles of the UDHR, the two Ancient Imperatives really are teachable to the quite young.
And, very importantly, it’s much easier by far to teach what it is to love one’s neighbor as oneself (see chapter 2) than it is to teach what it is to have a supposedly self-evident human right!
Teachers take note: — from the earliest years through advanced studies, with the help of attainable, enlightened instruction, and with practice and discussion (not just posters on the wall, and not just words written on a page, or on a test, or presented on a screen, or words of agreement or of assent repeated in conversational exchanges), even young children – who do arrive in this world equipped with the rudiments of both self-love and love for others (see chapter 4) — can “get the hang” of . . . can catch on to . . . the way of deliberating, and deciding on human conduct, that’s called for by these Ancient Imperatives.
(3) Some of what the UDHR asks readers (and everyone who teaches) to accept – to believe — is, actually morally dubious, even dangerous. Look at Article 22:
Everyone, as a member of society, has the right to social security and is entitled to realization, through national effort and international co-operation and in accordance with the organization and resources of each State, of the economic, social and cultural rights indispensable for his dignity and the free development of his personality. (Emphasis added.)
In Article 22 the UDHR introduces alleged rights that are radically different from restraints, or limitations, designed to limit or restrict government in its relations with — in its treatment of – its citizens.
The alleged rights mentioned in Article 22 – “Everyone . . . has the right to social security and is entitled to realization . . . of . . . the free development of his personality” would require an increase, not a restriction, in the powers of the government.
The late Professor Roger Scruton was probably right when he said:
“The concept [human rights] that was introduced in order to guarantee individual freedom is now being used to constrain it.
“In the name of human rights, activist courts are enforcing orthodoxies that could never be imposed on us by an elected legislature.” (Emphasis added.)
You Tube: Roger Scruton July 1, 2018 “Human Rights” especially minute 24 and following.
Those familiar with the history of western thought will recognize that Scruton’s criticism is straightforwardly reminiscent of important criticisms made earlier by both Alexis de Tocqueville (in Democracy In America) and John Stuart Mill (in On Liberty) on the topic of the “tyranny of the majority.”
Don’t misunderstand. I’m not suggesting that those who teach should dismiss the content of the UDHR! Teachers, parents, and young students may find it helpful to spend time on the website: Kids for Global Peace, which provides child-oriented, rights-based instruction rooted in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.
However, I recommend noticing how the content of those articles indicates what that pair of Ancient Imperatives themselves may regularly call for in the present era. For example, Articles 3 and 4 of the UDHR depict as “rights” the sorts of things that love of neighbor, and treating others as one would want to be treated, would surely call for.
Interested students might well be challenged to explore, discuss, and write about connections between these two documents: the 30 articles of the UDHR and that pair of Ancient Imperatives as developed in this philosophy of education (especially in chapters 1 and 2).
Further, they may find it instructive to compare that pair of Ancient Imperatives with the thirteen rights presented at the Kids for Global Peace website. https://www.kidsforglobalpeace.info/camp.html
They’ll do well to find out how tyranny of the majority itself is to be judged by applying the Ancient Imperatives.
And they’ll do well to consider cases where conflicts among rights themselves occur.
About Utilitarianism
The pair of Ancient Imperatives central to this Philosophy of Education seem not to have been examined closely by most modern ethical theorists.
Perhaps like some others who’ve studied modern ethical theories, I was quite recently surprised to notice the very high praise that highly regarded modern ethical theorist, John Stuart Mill, had for this same pair of Ancient Imperatives from the Middle East. Mill – not really a religious man – wrote:
“In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility. To do as one would be done by, and to love one’s neighbour as oneself, constitute the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality.” (Emphasis added.) Utilitarianism, chapter 2, paragraph 19.
Modern philosopher, science-minded Mill’s remarkably outspoken support for these Ancient Imperatives should command the attention of every thoughtful person.
Somewhat like Mill, I had explicitly subscribed to the ideal that reflects those two ancient imperatives. That ideal – a powerfully attractive ideal world in which those imperatives are being fulfilled by everyone — is the over-arching aim I had “dared” to propose in this Philosophy of Education.
But unlike Mill, I contend that in the here and now — in our current, far from ideal, world — we ought to teach ourselves and others, especially the young, to follow – to “apply” – to USE that pair of Ancient Imperatives — when we decide on – when as individuals, as well as members of groups, we choose — our courses of conduct, and decide on our group or organizational policies.
That putting into practice will make our actual, often very unloving world (a world marked by far too much violence and hate) more like the attractive ideal Mill so emphatically supported himself in commending those (Ancient!) Imperatives.
In the 12th century CE, focusing on the ancient Hebrew Scriptures, the scholar Maimonides counted 613 commandments – a great many specific “Thou Shalt’s” and “Thou Shalt Not’s” — to be obeyed.
Jesus of Nazareth, who had emphasized that pair of Ancient Imperatives more than a thousand years earlier, reportedly said of them that they are “the essence of all that is taught in The Law and The Prophets.” Matthew 7:12
This teaching of Jesus is a truly radical intellectual simplification that’s especially important for all those who teach.
Whether or not it was original with him, it surfaced amusingly in a story about the highly respected, and exemplary Hillel the Elder. It was said that he summed up the Torah’s (the five books of the Hebrew Law’s) teaching — along those concise, simplified lines — for an inquirer who wanted it done in the time that inquirer could stand on one foot!
As for recent times, some modern Western philosophers, following more familiar portions of Mill’s writings, have recommended Utilitarian tests for the rightness of conduct – tests that have us ask: (1) Is this the act that will do the most good for all who are affected directly and indirectly? (“Act-utilitarianism”)
Other Utilitarians propose that we test acts for their rightness by determining: (2) Does this act comply with the set of rules that, when generally followed, brings about the greatest happiness of the greatest number? (“Rule-utilitarianism”)
Strongly in favor of these “modern” Utilitarian proposals is that they do stress the consequences of actions, the human harms and the benefits – and thus the thriving, the flourishing, the happiness, of people — that’s at stake in human conduct.
Probably the most serious problem with both of these modern Utilitarian tests for the rightness of actions is that, when it comes to actually applying those tests, Utilitarianism requires an agent to have unrealistically sweeping information as to facts (information regarding all the resulting harms and benefits) – information as to the greatest happiness resulting from the alternatives (the possible acts, or those sets of rules) — information that is rarely, perhaps never, accessible.
Regarding that first version of a Utilitarian test: very often (perhaps always), when a particular action is being considered, as agents we simply don’t know what the entire array of consequences will be for any of the options. And since the agent doesn’t know those consequences, she doesn’t know which of her options is the right one, and is left without a conclusion. So, according to that version of Utilitarianism, what is a person — an actor, an agent — to do?
Regarding the second version: we simply don’t know which set of rules of conduct will be the set that, when generally followed, will cause the greatest happiness of the greatest number. So which set of rules are parents and other teachers to teach? We may have well-founded guesses as to the right rules, but we can hardly be fully confident about guesses.
In this philosophy of education I’m proposing the teaching of an attitude (that is, a settled way of thinking and feeling and being inclined to act and speak) that includes skill (and so calls for actual practice) in applying the Golden Rule – in order to learn which act(s) would treat the other person(s) as the actor himself (or herself, or themselves) would want to be treated.
Those ancient imperatives can and should be part of a teachable, learnable attitude that directs us to check (or “test”) any act by whether we’d want those we know and love (ourselves included) to be on the receiving end of – to be impacted by — that act.
Of course consequences – human harms and benefits — are central to this test. And be sure to notice: The Ancient Imperatives direct us to judge by consequences that those who must choose and act DO have substantial access to; they don’t have to just guess, or conjecture as to probabilities.
These Ancient Imperatives tell us to treat others the way we’d want to have our loved ones (including ourselves) treated.
These are consequences that we can often confidently know – consequences that, when it’s needed, can be thoughtfully discussed among available loved ones.
I suspect that this test provides the implicit basis for the intuitive (unanalyzed) moral judgments of many millions of thoughtful, conscientious people. Compare with Paul’s (the former Saul of Tarsus) letter to the Romans chapter 2, verses 14 and 15.
Response by the inquirer to the second – the Utilitarianism — suggestion: In view of those replies to my objection, to my surprise, those Ancient Imperatives do clearly seem more defensible than those two modern Utilitarian theories. But what are the “implications” of that pair of Ancient Imperatives for such things as:
1. A democratic government where no one is above the law, vs. an autocracy?
2. How to judge which option would be fair or just when the options involve actions that distribute some public benefit – like funds to rebuild after a hurricane, among many individuals?
3. Whether to support a punitive criminal justice system, or a restorative criminal justice system as in Norway?
4. Whether a developed society should institute a universal basic income?
5. Whether US presidents should be chosen via the “Electoral College” or popular vote, and whether the US Senate’s Filibuster rule, and the Supreme Court’s prohibition of early abortions are justified?