(This article was partly inspired by this article on Homosexuality, Buddhism and Sri Lankan Society)
Quote from cited article:
“A noble disciple should reflect like this: ‘If someone were to have sexual intercourse with my spouse I would not like it. Likewise, if I were to have sexual intercourse with another’s spouse they would not like that. For what is unpleasant to me must be unpleasant to another, and how could I burden someone with that?”
This is also the kind of thinking embodied in the “Golden Rule” – “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you”.
The problem that I see with this philosophy (am I taking things too literally?) is that it prescribes a process where an individual can extrapolate what must be good for others, based on what is good for him/herself, without necessarily making reference to any prevailing social norms, and automatically making the assumption that others share the same value judgments. And I believe that this assumption is unreasonable.
Let’s take a simple example… a friend once told me “Dhoni is really hot… all the Indian women must be crazy about him“. Well, maybe she found Dhoni attractive, but why assume that all Indian women share her taste? In this particular instance, perhaps it was not intended to be taken literally, and only an exaggeration used for emphasis; but even the fact that it works as an emphasis reflects an underlying tendency to believe that others share your same views.
A comment on the cited article says “homosexuality is sexual misconduct” (which drew some flak on the lines of “who are you to judge?“). If the person had instead written “I believe that homosexuality is sexual misconduct [and therefore I choose to abstain from it]“, I would have found it to be a totally acceptable point of view – just as acceptable as “I believe that homosexuality is not sexual misconduct and therefore I choose to engage in it“. It all becomes problematic only when it is written as a judgment that everyone is expected to adhere to.
What if someone else says “heterosexuality is sexual misconduct“? Why should we intrinsically value one opinion over the other? The only way we can make a comparison is by reference either to dogma (which remains relatively stable) or social acceptance (which varies by society and by time).
Here’s how I see the Golden Rule breaking down… a pragmatic example:
I usually feel embarrassed to be praised in public – I much prefer private feedback. But does this mean that I can assume everyone will be embarrassed by public feedback? And if I know that someone values public praise more than private, then shouldn’t I make an effort to give that person praise in public?
And an extreme example (1):
“A noble disciple should reflect like this: ‘If a male visitor to my house does not offer to have sex with my wife, I would not like it – because it insinuates that my wife is not desirable. Likewise, if I did not offer to have sex with my host’s wife, he would consider it an insult to his wife and would not like it. For what is unpleasant to me must be unpleasant to another, and how could I burden someone with that?”
Unless we make some reference to what is socially/legally acceptable, why should the first (original) argument be any more valid than the latter? I admit that if I saw both arguments, I would find the first more reasonable, but that is only because it matches my personal emotions (I would not like it if someone had sex with my wife, and I would not be insulted if male visitors did not offer to have sex with my wife) – but then, how can I assume that my neighbor would think the same way?
Every individual will have his or her own opinion.
I believe that society cannot function as a collection of such individuals where even a minority assumes that what is acceptable to them must be acceptable to all.
I believe a society can function as a collection of such individuals where a majority (preferably all) realize that they can speak only for themselves, and who moderate the actions arising from their opinions according to currently accepted social and legal norms. In constitutional form – “everyone is free to have their own opinions and beliefs, but their freedom to act upon those opinions and beliefs shall be constrained by what is socially and legally accepted”.
P.S. I don’t believe that a society functioning as above will be utopian (2), just that it would function better than one literally based on the Golden Rule.
(1) Written from a male frame of reference only to avoid the “his/her” and “husband/wife” notation.
(2) If you had a society that was 90% ku-klux-klan and 10% negro, the majority opinion would be that the negroes should be disenfranchised and treated as slaves.