The Golden Rule as Universal Core
This text is a preview of History of the Reception of Hegel, volume II, to be published in 2026 by Reflexivity Press.
At the center of Küng’s project stands a discovery: the Golden Rule is found in all cultures, formulated independently of one another.
Confucius formulated it in the sixth century BCE: “Do not do to others what you would not want done to yourself.” Rabbi Hillel taught in the first century BCE: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. That is the whole Torah; the rest is commentary.” Jesus formulated it positively: “Whatever you want people to do to you, do also to them.” Muhammad taught: “None of you is a believer until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself.” Mahavira, the founder of Jainism, said: “A person should treat all creatures as he himself would like to be treated.” The Buddha taught: “As I am, so are others; as others are, so am I.”
This convergence is remarkable. It cannot be explained by cultural borrowing – Confucius and Hillel had no contact; the Buddha and Jesus did not know one another. The Golden Rule was discovered independently, at different times, in different places, in different languages.
What does this convergence mean? Küng argues: it shows that there are universal structures that any thinking person can discover. The Golden Rule is not an expression of a particular culture – it is an expression of human reason as such.
A performative derivation of this rule is possible without recourse to religion: whoever argues expects their arguments to be heard and examined. They thereby claim recognition for themselves. But this claim cannot hold only for oneself – that would be a contradiction. Whoever demands recognition for themselves must also grant it to others. The Golden Rule is the ethical explication of this structure: treat others as you yourself wish to be treated.
Küng’s achievement is the empirical-historical demonstration that all traditions have discovered this structure. This is not trivial. It could well be that different cultures had developed entirely different ethical principles – incommensurable, incomparable, without common ground. That they instead found the same basic structure is a strong argument for the universality of this structure.