Robert MacIver was a professor of Sociology and Political Science at Columbia University. His most known works are; Academic freedom in Our Time and Community: A social Study. The article in which we were assigned to read, MacIver justifies the golden rule; he does not use it to define good or evil, moral or immoral. He justifies it by showing us (the reader) how other forms of ethical rule can be and are unjust. How can one abide by one set of beliefs and expect everyone else to abide by the same. We live in a world where religions collide, races segregate themselves (as well as others), economics corrupt people at both ends of the spectrum, as well as the middle class. MacIver makes it clear that ones beliefs are not universal and not everyone would willingly abide by others beliefs. If one was to make their beliefs universal, MacIver says that this would only result in beliefs that are falsely tyrannous. We all have different definitions of the word "good"; some define is as pleasure, others happiness, some self fulfillment while even some define good as the act of looking away from ones self. It is stated that even if one was to rule the whole world, one could never succeed in making their principals universal. Even in the process of attempting to make ones" principals universal, one would compromise their own values in doing so. MacIver uses the example of communist and totalitarian governments. One of their main weapons in gaining political favor is to offer rights which in turn will use to destroy the rights of those who grant them. One example that I will take form the text is the example of the Catholic Church. "The Roman Catholics know that they possess the truth; therefore they should not permit others to propagate error." All parties will have beliefs and believe that their beliefs are the right beliefs, they are the true beliefs. MacIver says that this is a must because that is what beliefs are.
