The original Spanish expression is "Hoy por ti, mañana por mi", and I find the Golden Rule to be the closest direct application of the concept in a single expression. Interestingly, the three suggested translations of the expression I found were: "You scratch my back and I'll scratch yours", "What goes around, comes around", and "Tit for tat" (http://www.proz.com/kudoz/spanish_to_english/idioms_maxims_s...). However, none of those seem to accurately convey the sentiment/ideal expressed in the original phrase.
[Pay it forward] was rediscovered and described by Benjamin Franklin, in a letter to Benjamin Webb dated April 22, 1784:
I do not pretend to give such a Sum; I only lend it to you. When you [...] meet with another honest Man in similar Distress, you must pay me by lending this Sum to him; enjoining him to discharge the Debt by a like operation, when he shall be able, and shall meet with another opportunity. I hope it may thus go thro' many hands, before it meets with a Knave that will stop its Progress.
Not really. All those phrases imply that the recipient should take action (except for "what goes around comes around"). "Today you, tomorrow me" means "Today I helped you, tomorrow I might need your help, so you don't need to repay me", but not exactly in a "what goes around comes around" way (it doesn't imply certainty or karma).
Basically, the equivalent is probably "it could have been me in your place", I guess.
Yep, except the "scratch" one has a slightly negative connotation of doing something just because the other one will do something in return. The Spanish phrase is a bit more positive.
Actually, the best part about the "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" is that it refers to whipping. It's an expression that comes from ship life, where shipmates would be tasked with whipping each other when they misbehaved. The idea was that if you whip me more softly (scratch my back), then when it's my turn to whip you I'll do the same.
I notice this explanation seems to be commonly favoured by google, but it is unlikely.
Floggings in the Royal Navy were done by the bosun's mate, not a random crew member. The bosun and the lieutenants would watch carefully for favouritism. There was no rancour directed towards the mate because everyone knew he was just doing his job.
I agree, since there is no implication in the Spanish phrase of "what can you offer in return?". The Golden Rule seems to mesh better with the original ideal expressed. I always find it interesting when literal translation, or convenience in closeness of expressions, are preferred over intended meaning.
At any rate, I vastly prefer it to the "Golden Rule." Whenever anyone goes on about it, I always say, "what about masochists?" It may sound a trite response, but I think it's a really important aspect of a moral system that people are different, and you should think about what they want, not what you would want in that situation.
The golden rule is not about what you want, it is about something you could will as a universal maxim. So you must take the masochists etc into consideration when universalizing.
It's not really a translation of karma, nor is it a translation of the Golden Rule. It does mean "I do this in the hopes that you would do it for me if I were in your place", but not in a "$deity will reward you if you do this". Basically, it's the spirit, rather than the letter, of the Golden Rule.
Seriously? What the fuck. His comment wasn't clear.
Was his comment to distance the Golden Rule from Christianity? I'm having a hard time interpreting it otherwise, but that's an ignorant effort, as the "do unto others" concept predates Jesus of Nazareth by 1,000+ years.
I'm still not clear on what the point of his comment was; all I did was ask for clarification, with NO commentary at all. Can you clarify his initial intent? If so, please do.
Also, I know you might not have been one of the folks to give me downvotes, so I'll address whoever that was separately: Don't just downvote a comment on HN without explaining your beef. This isn't Reddit.
Sorry for all the confusion! I'm actually a Christian, and wasn't meaning it as something to distance the Golden Rule from Christianity. I was simply meaning that I think the phrase I mentioned, which the original article quoted, is a great way to rephrase the Golden Rule. Just like we now say "24/7" instead of "all the time" or other similar phrases, this phrase can be used to sum up the Golden Rule (or other similar ideas) in a memorable way.
Hope that clears things up! I definitely wasn't trying to start a controversy. Hope you have a Merry Christmas season :)
You are being downvoted because the parent comment expressed a personal belief -- that he enjoyed a particular way of expressing the concept of "Golden Rule" (from a Spanish saying) -- and you are apparently questioning his need or personal preference for any other way of expressing this fundamental human concept at all.
It really provided little to negative value to the conversation, and your profanity-laden response doesn't help your case.
I'm really not sure why charliepark got all those downvotes either; I don't see anything wrong with his comment -- as far as I can see he's pointing out that the traditional formulation of the "Golden Rule" is a pretty good one.
I've been reading a great book called "The Gift" by Lewis Hyde about just this difference in feeling. Like you seemed to intuit, giving is very different from trading.
