I'll bite first and say yes they are.
I agree.
Where there are influences there are facts about values. What values produce the best results, and create a stability in a society?
I think the Golden Rule is ubiquitous?
My search engine offered this:
"The primary difference between Eastern and Western versions of the Golden Rule lies in their formulation: Eastern traditions typically express it in the
negative (prohibitive) form, while Western traditions, particularly Christianity, emphasize the
positive (directive) form.
The
Eastern version, most famously articulated by Confucius in the 5th century BCE, is known as the Silver Rule or the negative formulation: "
Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself." This approach focuses on restraint, non-harm, and avoiding actions that would cause suffering. It is considered less demanding because it requires refraining from negative behavior rather than actively initiating positive behavior.
In contrast, the
Western version, central to the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament (Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31), is the
positive formulation: "
Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This version commands active beneficence, requiring individuals to proactively perform good deeds and show love, even when inconvenient. It is viewed as more demanding and idealistic, setting a standard of moral perfection that mimics divine compassion.
The Eastern Focus is social harmony and restraint): In Confucianism, the rule is intrinsically linked to the concept of
ren (humane-ness) and
shu (reciprocity/empathy). The negative formulation is often seen as more practical for maintaining social order and harmony, as it avoids the "subjective imposition of preferences" on others. It assumes that knowing what causes harm is easier and more universal than knowing what brings specific benefit to another.
The Western Focus is active love and individual agency: The Western Christian interpretation emphasizes
agape (active love) and the moral obligation to seek the welfare of others. It moves beyond simply avoiding evil to actively doing good, reflecting a theology where human action mirrors God's active love. This formulation places a higher burden on the individual to initiate kindness.
Scholars note that the negative rule is easier to satisfy and serves as a baseline for peaceful coexistence ("do no harm"), whereas the positive rule is an aspirational ideal that requires constant effort and engagement ("do good"). While the Eastern version prevents conflict by limiting harmful actions, the Western version seeks to resolve needs and build community through proactive service.
+++
I think metaphysics is a different order of engagement.
