When faced with a seemingly unresolvable
ethical dilemma, I resort to The Golden Rule.
Most know the New Testament version:
"So in
everything, do to others what you would have them do to you".
(Matthew 7:12 and
Luke 6:31)
But there is
another version, as worded by Rabbi Hillel in the Talmud:
“What is hateful
to you, do not do to your fellow.”
As the Talmudic story goes, A
non-Jew approached Hillel, asking to be taught the entire Torah while standing
on one foot. Hillel responded with the Golden Rule, and added, “the rest is
commentary. Now go study.”
Between these two versions, I
prefer Hillel’s. There are many things I would like “done to me” that others wouldn’t
like done to them. People are different that way, and vive la différence.
I find I prefer the approach through negation. It comes closer to respecting others.
But even here, there are those
things you would hate that others don’t. In other words, the Golden Rule is
still golden, but the duty to use discernment is never discharged.
I was faced with such a dilemma only
the other day. The Golden Rule helped me take the harder route. Did I choose
right? I can’t make this claim. But I stand by the way I went about trying.
