Three Levels of Understanding Confucius' Golden Rule

by Hubert Cua


We learned that we must be responsible and help others. Hopefully, this help will come back. This hope of the help coming back must remain hope. In other words, the coming back of the help must not be the motivation of helping others, because motivation connotes precondition. When coming back of the help becomes a motivation, it means that one will help only if others will help that one in return. By being responsible and helping others without making the coming back of the help as motivation, we can see the purity or the innocence, in a good sense, in this ethical reasoning.

Since childhood, we knew Confucius’ Golden Rule, which is “Do not do unto others what you do not want others do unto you.”, but do you know that there is at least three levels of understanding Confucius’ Golden Rule? (I will only be giving three levels of understanding Confucius’ Golden Rule, because I only know three as of now. After reading this blog post, you might even come up with more levels of understanding.) However, sadly, many understand Confucius’ Golden Rule in lower level. This lower level can be shown in a situation like this. One must not punch others, because one does not want others to punch one. This is problematic. This means that one must not punch others, because one does not want the bad consequence of punching others. In other words, it is the bad consequences of punching others that prevent one from punching others. Where are the good morals and right conduct then?

If we say, “One must not punch others, because it is against good morals and right conduct.”, where then does the second part of Confucius’ Golden Rule go? Thus, Confucius’ Golden Rule must be applied on beliefs, such as religion and politics. This is what I refer to as understanding Confucius’ Golden Rule in intermediate level. This intermediate level can be shown in a situation like this. One must not spread beliefs, especially those one does not agree with, in pressuring ways, just like how one does not want others to spread beliefs, especially those others does not agree with, in pressuring ways to us. Here, we are able to prevent understanding Confucius’ Golden Rule in terms of actions and consequences.

Is that all? Applying the purity and innocence in the ethical reasoning seen in the first paragraph of this blog post, we can then understand Confucius’ Golden Rule in higher level. This higher level can be shown in a situation like this. One must not do things, which are against good morals and right conduct, because it is against good morals and right conduct. To know things what one must not do, think of the things what one does not want others to do to one. Here, we are using the second part of Confucius’ Golden Rule as comparison only and not as consequence.

"There is no Eastern and Western Philosophy"

by Hubert Cua (Part 5 of 5)

I used to think that Eastern Philosophy, particularly Chinese Philosophy, and Western Philosophy strongly differ from each other. Even if they have some similarities, their similarities are quite insignificant to talk about. It is only until recently that I started to think that this seems wrong.

Several meetings ago, Dr. Garcia said something like this. For the westerners, art is to hide art. Poetry brings us to the unsaid and leaves it unsaid. Isn’t that eastern art? My impression of Western Philosophy on art is that they are materialistic, distinct, clear, direct, demonstrative and showy. On the other hand, my impression of Eastern Philosophy on art is that they are spiritualistic, indistinct, vague, indirect, undemonstrative and hiding. (All the adjectives I use do not connote inferiority and superiority.)  However, it seems that Eastern and Western Philosophy on art has converging point.

Few meetings ago, we talked about how some western philosophers think that humans is essentially good, while other western philosophers think that humans is essentially bad. Isn’t that one of the debates in Chinese Philosophy several thousands of years ago? When we took Chinese Philosophy in high school, our Chinese teacher said that some Chinese Philosophers, like Mencius, think that humans is essentially good, while other Chinese Philosophers, like Xunzi, think that humans is essentially bad. How is that?

Well, I think before, since civilizations generally do not interact with one another, each civilization formed its own unique characteristics. This makes each civilization clearly contrasts with all other civilizations. As time passes by, philosophy slowly becomes universal. Eventually, there will be a possibility that there will be no Eastern and Western Philosophy in the future. Is this good?