What's wrong with the Golden Rule?
It's such a simple phrase that seems to capture the essence of most social contracts, in use for thousands of years across countless cultures. Seems simple enough:
"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."
"Don't treat others the way you would hate to be treated."
"What you desire for others will be what others desire for you."
"Judge not lest you be judged."
"Love your neighbor as you love yourself."
And so on.
The Story of the Eloquent Peasant from the Middle Kingdom of Egypt (2000-1600 BCE) offers this advice: "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to make him do." "The Culture of Ancient Egypt" John Albert Wilson
In Ancient India, it was taught that "One should never do something to others that one would regard as an injury to one's own self. In brief, this is dharma. Anything else is succumbing to desire. Mahābhārata 13.114.8 (400 BCE to 400 CE)
The Wikipedia article on the Golden Rule (GR) lists no less than 27 different thought traditions that espouse some form of the Rule. There's also a short section titled "Criticism," which includes observations from George Bernard Shaw, Immanuel Kant, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz and other philosophers. Their problem with the Rule?
It doesn’t account for differing "tastes" or values of the other
It ignores realities that call for nuance, as in cases of a judge handing down a sentence on a criminal
It suggests an alternative: "Do unto others, whenever appropriate, as they would want to be treated."
Even the amended version has some rough edges, though.
Consider the example of a fully convinced suicide bomber who is absolutely certain that their actions will give them a shortcut to a guaranteed afterlife of pure bliss, while sending their infidel targets to hell where they belong. If we were to prevent them from carrying out their intentions, they might perceive our violation of the GR as the worst kind of injustice.
How about mentally ill persons who have no idea of the danger they are to themselves and others? They will resist every effort of the mentally healthy to help them. Why? Because their concept of "doing unto others" leads them to an expectation of freedom to operate in their own paranoid reality uncontrolled by anyone. Even less extreme mental issues can completely muddy the moral waters.
Closer to home, we have all experienced times when we appreciate not getting caught. With a sigh of relief, we move on and hope no one finds out about our mistake or bad behavior. We are quick to assign blame, even if the oversight or intentional behavior is fixed immediately and appropriately. But what if, for the good of the social system, it would be best for blame to be assigned and deal with? It would take an exceptional level of maturity to personally take on blame for the good of the many, but each individual in that GR-governed system should step forward because they value the right to blame others for their mistakes.
Might this include a similar conundrum? If we agree with our society's social contract that there should be some kind of justice system, we should reasonably expect it to operate imperfectly. But what about our personal sense of justice when it makes a mistake against our own interests, or causes inconvenience merely because it’s a bureaucracy? Are we willing to suffer unjust or disagreeable consequences because we simply value the existence of a justice system, flawed as it might be? Should we treat institutions as we want to be treated?
Do we really want others to love us as themselves? What if that self-love is unhealthy or non-existent? Sociopaths and narcissists will engage with the GR very differently than mid-bell-curve psychological profiles. Someone might value a laissez-faire attitude toward others and therefore expects others to treat him or her accordingly, but what happens when a more directive or hands-on approach is needed? What if the live-and-let-live person allows negative behavior to occur to herself or others because that's the way she wants to be regarded? And what about those who legitimately hate themselves?
Let's pit an extrovert against an introvert. One treating the other as they would prefer to be treated may not end well. We might apply the amended GR here: "Do unto others, whenever appropriate, as they would want to be treated." However, that requires a) that I know with reasonable accuracy how someone else wants to be treated and b) when, how and why my treatment of them is appropriate.
Prying the introvert out of their shell is at times highly appropriate no matter how much the introvert protests. And the opposite is true: how the extrovert wants to be treated isn’t necessarily how they need to be treated. In addition to this, we aren't usually self-aware enough to know what we need versus what we want.
If an all-knowing mentor were to offer to treat us as we should be treated according to some objective standard of ideal behavior exactly tailored to our uniqueness, how many of us would assent to it? Most of us could probably imagine what painful vulnerabilities lie ahead as we vacate our blissful ignorance of ourselves and others.
Human beings build extremely complex social systems. Sometimes shortcuts like stereotypes and easy-to-remember maxims help us avoid conflict or misunderstanding, but living out a value like "loving God and others fearlessly" goes well beyond the Golden Rule into emotional and psychological territories that most of us aren't ready for. Until then, we should use simplistic aphorisms sparingly and with many a caveat emptor.
Comments