4.4.2.1 Overlapping Consensus on Behaviour
(The latest version of this page is at Patterns of Power Repository; it has been updated since Edition 2. An archived copy of this page is held at https://www.patternsofpower.org/version02a/4421.htm)
Despite people's different beliefs and religions €“ their €ścomprehensive moral conceptions€ť in Rawlsian terminology[1] €“ there is commonality in what they regard as acceptable behaviour. As seen previously, the Golden Rule is consistent with all religions (4.2.2.2) and most philosophies (4.2.3), so it can form the nucleus of the €śsocial€ť aspect of what Rawls referred to as an €śoverlapping consensus€ť on how to behave,[2] as illustrated:
This diagram illustrates that many €ścomprehensive moral conceptions€ť, such as
religions, can be compatible with a consensus on one standard of
socially-acceptable behaviour €“ which includes the Golden Rule and many, but
not all, agreed human rights. Many aspects of religion do not affect people€™s
behaviour towards others.
Compliance with the Golden Rule is at the heart of this concept of acceptable behaviour. In the negative form stated by Karen Armstrong, the Golden Rule requires tolerance €“ and sympathy is not required or assumed:
€śDo not do to others what you would not have done to you.€ť
This formulation only requires a minimum level of empathy for another human being and is sufficient to avoid friction and violence even where people don€™t want to have much interaction with members of other communities. In this form the it provides a solid foundation that allows many €ścomprehensive moral conceptions€ť to be compatible with socially-acceptable behaviour. It is not only a theoretical formula; it has repeatedly been found useful. It constitutes a minimum standard for behaviour between people from different communities, though people may have higher expectations from those they know well (4.3.2).
© PatternsofPower.org, 2014