Wednesday, June 02, 2010
About that "Golden Rule"
As a strong advocate of not meddling and doing no harm, I find this to be quite valid...
While explaining the "current" version of the Golden Rule, Roger E. Skoff offers this at Townhall.com:
"To seek to do good for people can all too easily put them at risk of losing their liberties. Even in a one-on-one situation, it’s difficult to know what another person will regard as good. To dare to pick a good for another is at least to risk denying that person’s freedom of choice. And if the good that’s given is not perceived as a good at all, the intended 'benefit' can be something else, entirely. When the giver is a government and the beneficiary is not a single person, but a group or an entire nation, the likelihood that what is intended well will actually do great harm increases enormously.
It’s far easier to simply do no harm. What’s harmful is easier to guess correctly, whether for one person or for many; and easier to avoid doing. All it requires is the recognition that the person or people you’re dealing with are fully competent human beings blessed with at least a normal level of intelligence and ability; that they have their own set of values; and that they are worthy of your respect."
