2. The Golden Rule across cultures

At first glance, rather than being something about which ‘careful thinkers’ tend to independently agree, moral principles like PUB and the principle of utility are associated with a small number of mostly anglophone philosophers in fairly recent history. But, as noted, de Lazari-Radek and Singer (Reference de Lazari-Radek and Singer2012: 25–26; Reference de Lazari-Radek and Singer2014: 193) claim that “the leading thinkers of distinct traditions” – they mention Judaism, Christianity, Confucianism, Hinduism, and Buddhism – have taken the “point of view of the universe” and “independently reached a similar principle [in the form of the Golden Rule] and have regarded it as the essence of morality.”

Let's begin with Christianity. Though Jesus does not comment explicitly on ‘morality’ (his concern is the religious law), the Gospels quote him stating that the Golden Rule is the essence of the religious commandments: “whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets” (Matthew 7:12). In another passage, he agrees with a lawyer's suggestion that one inherits eternal life by “‘lov[ing] the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind’, and ‘your neighbor as yourself’” (Luke 10:27). Paul expounds:

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus offers these instructions, which put the Golden Rule in context:

There are a few things to notice about the Golden Rule as it was taught by Jesus. First, it is clearly not concerned with ‘sentient beings’ generally, but people specifically. Singer (Reference Singer1975/2002: 191) himself notes that “[t]he New Testament is completely lacking in any injunction against cruelty to animals, or any recommendation to consider their interests.” There is no evidence that Jesus or any leading Christian thinkers thought that people merit love in virtue of being sentient or experiencing pleasure and pain (see ibid.: 191–96). Second, even restricted to human beings, the Golden Rule does not recommend impartially maximizing the good. Jesus tells his followers to allow themselves to be abused and to love their abusers, whom Jesus promises to later “cast … into the furnace of fire” (Matt. 13:42), which is described as an “everlasting punishment” (Matt. 25:46). A principle that enjoins us to disregard our own well-being vis-à-vis our abusers, and which can countenance a punishment of “everlasting fire” (Matt. 25:41) for those who “offend” (Matt. 13:41) God, seems to be profoundly dissimilar from PUB in important respects (again, even restricted to members of our species). Third, Jesus does not purport to take the ‘point of view of the universe’. He explicitly takes the point of view of a specific agent, namely, God. He interprets God's law from the perspective of God's priorities, which do not appear to be informed by PUB – and certainly not by the principle of utility. Although God may ‘love’ people, he will nevertheless “gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire” (Matt. 13:41–42). To suggest, as de Lazari-Radek and Singer do, that Jesus took the ‘point of view of the universe’ to discover a moral principle that is ‘similar’ to PUB is a big stretch.

The version of the Golden Rule in the Hebrew Bible is most naturally read as nonimpartial even with respect to human beings: “Do not take revenge and do not hold a grudge against bnei amechoh (= sons of your people/nation) and love reiachoh (= your fellow) like yourself” (Leviticus 19:18). Most of the rabbinic commentators interpret reia (fellow) to refer to Jews, or just religious Jews. Maimonides defines reia in this context as a Jew who is your “brother in Torah and mitzvos [i.e., religious commandments]” (Mishneh Torah, Avel 14:1; in Maimonides Reference Maimonidesn.d.). Even if reia is interpreted universally (as it was by some Jewish authorities), there is no indication in the Hebrew Bible that this is the ‘essence of morality’.

Proponents of the “modern claim that the central character and essential originality of Judaism lies in its universalist, humanistic ethics” (Reinhard Reference Reinhard2005) often cite an exchange recorded in the Talmud between the sage Hillel and a potential convert. The would-be convert demanded that Hillel teach him the entire Torah while he stood on one foot, to which Hillel replied: “What you hate, do not do to others. All the rest is commentary. Go study” (Shabbos 31a; in Schorr Reference Schorr2001). At first glance this sounds similar to the Christian idea that the essence of the law is the Golden Rule. However, Hillel's statement needs to be understood in context. In a search of the classic Rabbinic literature, Navon (Reference Navon2010) found 80 instances where 15 different mitzvos or states of affairs are declared to be ‘equal to all’ the Torah or the commandments. Things that are equated with all the Torah or all the commandments include the sabbath, circumcision, tzitzis (putting fringes on four-cornered garments), studying the Torah, peace, charity, and living in Israel. The idea that Hillel's statement to the convert shows that the essence of Judaism or Jewish ethics is the Golden Rule is not supported when considering it in the context of the tradition.

Even if we take Hillel's statement at face value, it would not mean that something like PUB is the essence of Jewish ethics. His injunction does not say anything about maximizing the good of all people – let alone of all sentient beings. It is a general exhortation to prosocial behavior. And Hillel does not purport to take the ‘point of view of the universe’.

De Lazari-Radek and Singer (Reference de Lazari-Radek and Singer2012: 26, n. 44; Reference de Lazari-Radek and Singer2014: 193) quote the Mahabharata: “One should not behave towards others in a way which is disagreeable to oneself. This is the essence of morality. All other activities are due to selfish desire.” (The word translated as ‘morality’ is dharma.) But presenting this quote in isolation may paint a misleading picture of Hindu ethics. Bakker (Reference Bakker2013: 49) observes that:

As Davis (Reference Davis, Neusner and Chilton2008: 147) says, “Indic formulations of the Golden Rule” (including the one in the Mahabharata) “repeatedly point toward a principle that is much more significant within classical Indic ethical discourse, namely the principle of ahimsa, nonharming or nonviolence” (quoted in Bakker Reference Bakker2013: 49). It may be that some Western commentators eager to find commonalities between Christianity and the other great religions have assigned the Golden Rule in Hinduism a meaning and significance that it does not have. A few statements in the Hindu literature are superficially similar to the Golden Rule of the Gospels, but they are rooted in fundamentally different philosophical and ethical perspectives.

De Lazari-Radek and Singer cite but do not quote passages from Confucius and the Buddha.

The Analects records the following exchange with Confucius:

How this statement should be interpreted is not obvious, but the idea that the essence of Confucian morality is a Christian-style Golden Rule is implausible on its face. It simply does not fit with any of the conspicuous features of Confucianism. Consider the following observations by Csikszentmihalyi (Reference Csikszentmihalyi, Neusner and Chilton2008: 157):

Like Hillel, Confucius seems to be making a general exhortation to prosocial behavior, not instructing us to impartially maximize the good of all people or sentient beings, and not purporting to take the ‘point of view of the universe’. Confucians explicitly reject the idea of impartial moral concern. Mencius called Mozi a ‘beast’ for promoting an ethics of ‘inclusive care’, which Mencius interpreted (perhaps wrongly) to mean that people do not have special moral obligations to their fathers (Fraser Reference Fraser2016: xi). (More on Mozi in Section 4.)

De Lazari-Radek and Singer (Reference de Lazari-Radek and Singer2012: 26, n. 44; Reference de Lazari-Radek and Singer2014: 193, n. 25) refer to the following statement by the Buddha: “What is displeasing and disagreeable to me is displeasing and disagreeable to the other too. How can I inflict upon another what is displeasing and disagreeable to me?” (Saṃyutta Nikāya 353–54; in Bhikkhu Bodhi Reference Bhikkhu2000). Nothing the Buddha says here or elsewhere suggests that this principle is the essence of morality, that the good of all beings should be maximized impartially, or that he purports to take the ‘point of view of the universe’.

Again, these are the five examples de Lazari-Radek and Singer themselves cite to support their claim that ‘leading thinkers’ in different traditions took the ‘point of view of the universe’ to discern a foundational moral principle that is ‘similar’ to PUB. The analysis above seems to cast doubt on this claim. Nevertheless, the Golden Rule is indeed widespread. Terry (Reference Terry2011: 14) collects numerous examples of the rule (in both its positive and negative form) and concludes that it is a “self-evident, universal doctrinal [principle] of ethics found throughout the history of civilization in one form or another.” The fact that some version of the Golden Rule (however it's interpreted) can be found in the literature of virtually every major tradition does not mean it is widely regarded as the foundational principle of morality. As argued above, it seems to have such significance only in Christianity. But why does the Golden Rule keep appearing at all? Could it be that thinkers in different traditions are grasping at the same ‘self-evident’, mind-independent moral truth? Or is there a naturalistic explanation for why thinkers have independently formulated similar-sounding moral principles?

3. The Golden Rule as a means of encouraging empathy and prosociality

When de Lazari-Radek and Singer (Reference de Lazari-Radek and Singer2012: 26) explicitly outline their procedure for defending an intuition, they say (as quoted above) that one must establish “the absence of a plausible explanation of the intuition as the outcome of an evolutionary or other non-truth-tracking process.” Note that they refer to “evolutionary or other non-truth-tracking process[es].”Footnote ⁴ However, despite asserting that belief in PUB does not have any evolutionary or “other obvious non-truth-tracking explanation,” they do not devote a single sentence to exploring any possible nonobvious, non-truth-tracking processes besides evolution by natural selection that could be responsible for it. Elsewhere, they present the evolutionary explanation and the realist explanation for belief in PUB as the only two options:

In practice, de Lazari-Radek and Singer conflate evolutionary debunking arguments with debunking arguments generally, which leads them to conclude that if a moral belief lacks a Street-style evolutionary explanation (Street Reference Street2006) – that is, if the underlying evaluative disposition would not have promoted fitness in the ancestral environment – then it cannot be debunked.

I suggest that there is a plausible naturalistic (albeit not directly evolutionary) explanation for why the Golden Rule arose independently in many traditions.

From a naturalistic perspective, morality serves a biological and/or social function of facilitating cooperation, at least within groups or certain segments within groups (see Boehm Reference Boehm2012; Harman Reference Harman1977; Joyce Reference Joyce2006; Mackie Reference Mackie1977; cf. Curry et al. Reference Curry, Mullins and Whitehouse2019; Sterelny & Fraser Reference Sterelny and Fraser2017). It is not surprising that moral educators in different traditions, who were concerned with the commonweal and understood basic human psychology, would hit upon some of the same rhetorical and pedagogical strategies. Some educators realized that they could foster prosocial, cooperative behavior by encouraging people to imagine themselves in others’ shoes, thereby harnessing our capacity for empathy. (Empathy, in turn, is the product of natural selection, so there is no reason to think that it is a moral-truth-tracking emotion; Cofnas Reference Cofnas2020: 3184–85.) Nevertheless, the Golden Rule has not been regarded as a central moral principle in any of the great religions besides Christianity. (And we have seen how, even in Christianity, the Golden Rule is quite different from PUB.)

Nagel (Reference Nagel1970) seems to consider but then reject an idea along these lines. He suggests that “we are all in some degree susceptible” to the (Golden Rule-style) moral argument, “How would you like it if someone did that to you?” (ibid.: 82). He speculates: “It could be that the thought of yourself in a position similar to that of your victim is so vivid and unpleasant that you find it distasteful to go on persecuting the wretch” (ibid.: 82). He dismisses the idea that this affective response accounts for the force of the argument with the following rhetorical questions: “what if you [do not have this] affective response? Or alternatively, why cannot such considerations motivate you to … take a tranquillizer to quell your pity, rather than to desist from your persecutions?” (ibid.: 82–83). Even if we discount our emotions, he assumes we would still recognize the validity of the Golden Rule via reason. But his rhetorical questions may have straightforward answers. It is not the case that everyone is, in all circumstances, in some degree susceptible to ‘How would you like it if someone did that to you?’ exhortations. Some people do lack the relevant affective response. Others are motivated to assuage their conscience with drink and drugs. The value of asking people to put themselves in the place of their victim is not that this always motivates people ‘in some degree’ to desist from harmful actions, but that it sometimes works for people who happen to possess the requisite affective and cognitive dispositions.

4. A religious route to impartial morality

Some thinkers have followed a religious line of reasoning, which led them to conclude that the interests of all human beings count equally – not from the perspective of the universe, but of God. These thinkers were not concerned with sentience or pleasure and pain per se, so they had no regard for animals and did not advocate PUB or the principle of utility. But they did arrive at a principle that is genuinely similar to PUB and the principle of utility in an important respect, and which, unlike the Golden Rule, advocates genuine impartiality (among human beings). However, the theologians in question were making inferences about the intentions of a divine agent described in their religious tradition. As I argue below, assuming there is a naturalistic explanation for their religious beliefs, there is a naturalistic explanation for the inferences made on the basis of those beliefs. Taking the point of view of a divine agent is fundamentally different from taking the ‘point of view of the universe’.

First, there was Mozi, who lived during the Warring States period (fourth century BCE) in China. Mozi is famous for his doctrine of ‘inclusive care’, which enjoins us to care about all the people of the world like ourselves. He based his ethics on the perspective of Heaven, which was seen as a quasi-personal god (Fraser Reference Fraser2016: 16). “Heaven's conduct is broad and impartial,” he said (ibid.: 36). From its perspective, all people count equally: “Now in the world there are no great or small states – all are Heaven's towns. Among people there are no younger or elder, noble or common – all are Heaven's subjects” (ibid.: 36). According to Mozi, action should be guided by the following principle:

In Mozi's philosophy, the “benefit [lì] of all,” despite its utilitarian ring, does not refer to “the total sum of welfare in society or to individuals’ average level of welfare” (ibid.: 141). As Fraser (Reference Fraser2016: 138) explains, “benefit” includes three kinds of goods: “material prosperity, an adequate population or family size, and sociopolitical order, including social stability and personal and national security. These three goods are the concrete criteria against which the Mohists evaluate statements, conduct, practices, and institutions.” Although his theory of the good was very different from that of Bentham, Sidgwick, or any other advocates of PUB in the West, Mozi called on us to impartially maximize the good with respect to human beings.

In the long run, Mohism “had little direct influence on the Chinese philosophical tradition” (ibid.: 19). As mentioned earlier, Mozi's doctrine of impartiality was explicitly rejected by the Confucians who came to dominate Chinese philosophy.

Several decades before Bentham (Reference Bentham1789) formulated the principle of utility, some Anglican theologians developed a religious version of what scholars now call utilitarianism, which was restricted to our species (or ‘rational beings’). Like Mozi, they reasoned that God has an interest in impartially maximizing the good. They combined this idea with a theory of the good that was much closer to Bentham's, namely, the good consists in maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain in rational beings (Heydt Reference Heydt, Eggleston and Miller2014).

Berkeley (Reference Berkeley and Fraser1712/1871: § 6) argued that, because God has the power to bring us everlasting bliss or damnation, “the principles of Reason” demand that we act in “conformity to His will.” In addition, we are duty bound to obey God as “the maker and preserver of all things.” Since God is infinitely good, His end must be the “good of men.”

Another leading theological utilitarian, John Gay, argued similarly that ‘obligation’ is the requirement to act to promote our happiness (Gay Reference Gay and Law1731/1781: xxx–xxxi). “[O]bligation is evidently founded upon the prospect of happiness, and arises from that necessary influence which any action has upon present or future happiness or misery” (ibid.: xxx). “[B]ecause God only can in all cases make a man happy or miserable … we are always obliged” to conform to “the Will of God” (ibid.: xxxi).

Gay argued that those who define virtue without reference to “the will of God” must be guilty of one of two absurdities. They “must either allow that virtue is not in all cases obligatory … or they must say that the good of mankind is a sufficient obligation.” “But,” he asks rhetorically, “how can the good of mankind be any obligation to me, when perhaps in particular cases, such as laying down my life, or the like, it is contrary to my happiness?” (ibid.: xxxiii).

One might have thought that, for Mozi and the Anglican theologians, ‘Heaven’ and ‘God’ were somehow equivalent to ‘the universe’ – that these religious thinkers were simply using the vocabulary available to them to communicate Sidgwick's core idea. But the quotes above suggest that they were explicitly making inferences about the intentions of a particular divine agent based on the actions ascribed to it. For them, the divine agent was not a metaphor, the literal reality of which did not matter for their conclusions. For Mozi, there is no reason to think that we would be bound by the doctrine of inclusive care if Heaven disappeared or changed its intentions. The argument of the Anglicans can be summarized as follows: (a) God, being good, must desire good for humans, (b) we should do what an (omnipotent and omniscient) God wants in order to be rewarded and to avoid punishment, (c) from God's perspective the good of all people is equally important, (d) ergo we should act to impartially maximize the good of all people. All three premises leading to the conclusion collapse if we reject God. Although one could make a case for substituting ‘the universe’ for ‘God’ in premise (c), there's no indication that the Anglican utilitarians would have accepted that, and, without (a) and (b), the argument falls apart anyway. The Anglicans were clear about their view that “moral obligation requires God and God's sanctions” (Heydt Reference Heydt, Eggleston and Miller2014: 26). As noted, Gay (Reference Gay and Law1731/1781: xxxiii) ridiculed those who believed otherwise.

If the argument above is right, Mohists and Anglicans came to advocate moral impartiality only because they held some very particular beliefs about God. In order to give a complete naturalistic explanation for their moral conclusions, we have to explain the religious beliefs that motivated them. Why did they believe in a Creator and/or Designer who wants good for human beings? Why did the Anglicans ascribe to this Being the power and motivation to reward and punish people? (The Mohists also believed in divine retribution by Heaven, ghosts, and spirits, but this principle did not play such a crucial role in their argument for moral impartiality – at least not explicitly.)

Regarding the attribution of infinite power and goodness to God, Hume (Reference Hume and Beauchamp1757/2007: 6.5) offers some interesting speculations. Originally, he suggests, pagans “represent one god as the prince or supreme magistrate of the rest.” To ingratiate themselves to this special deity, people compete with each other to “invent new strains of adulation,” which become increasingly extravagant, “till at last they arrive at infinity itself, beyond which there is no farther progress.” All other gods eventually dissolve into insignificance or even nothingness, supplanted by an all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfectly good Creator.

Norenzayan (Reference Norenzayan2013) argues that belief in ‘Big Gods’ who enforce prosocial behavior was culturally successful because it made large-scale cooperation possible. The gods of hunter–gatherers often have strikingly humanlike limitations and parochial concerns, with little interest in morality (ibid.: 7). But when some groups developed concepts of powerful, morally concerned gods, this triggered a “runaway process of cultural evolution” (ibid.: 8). Shared belief in a powerful god who demands prosocial behavior allowed people to form large, anonymous communities that would otherwise fall apart if many would-be cheaters did not fear divine retribution. These communities, being large and extra cooperative, tended toward expansion, spreading their way of life – including their religious beliefs – across the world. It is only recently that, in a handful of developed countries, sophisticated, secular law-enforcement institutions have taken the place of God.

Hume's and Norenzayan's theories are not necessarily in conflict. It could be that belief in Big Gods initially proliferated because it facilitated cooperation among large groups. One god in the original pantheon became magnified in significance via the process described by Hume.

Once achieved, belief in an all-powerful and moral God does not inevitably lead to the conclusion that He/It demands moral impartiality. But from the premises that God (or Heaven) is very powerful or omnipotent, a moral paragon, and concerned with human well-being, theologians may draw the conclusion that, from the perspective of that divine agent, the well-being of all people matters equally.