The Golden Rule

[Eurynomus]

Wikipedia cites the Golden Rule as a universal suggestion of an "innnate human altruism".

"Do to others as you would have them do to you" ; "Love thy neighbor as thyself"; etc.

If we forget the precedents set by these words, and simply read them for what they are, are they really altruistic?

If I were to do unto somebody else what I would want them to do unto me, it would be for completely selfish reasons. I would not necessarily be robbing them of their integrity, nor would I be doing it for their sake. I would be doing it because I would fully expect them to help me, in turn, when the opportunity arose.

What are your thoughts on this?

[DavidOdden]

"Do to others as you would have them do to you" ; "Love thy neighbor as thyself"; etc.

The former is a correct statement of the rule, the latter is something somebody made up, so I have nothing to say about it. The "do unto others" line is obscurely phrased but correct, and is more or less a statement of the Trader Principle.

[aequalsa]

Wikipedia cites the Golden Rule as a universal suggestion of an "innnate human altruism".

"Do to others as you would have them do to you" ; "Love thy neighbor as thyself"; etc.

If we forget the precedents set by these words, and simply read them for what they are, are they really altruistic?

If I were to do unto somebody else what I would want them to do unto me, it would be for completely selfish reasons. I would not necessarily be robbing them of their integrity, nor would I be doing it for their sake. I would be doing it because I would fully expect them to help me, in turn, when the opportunity arose.

What are your thoughts on this?

I have always preferred the "silver rule"...

"Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you."

It does not require action on the part of the doer, just inaction. In other words, do not trample someone elses rights. The golden rule for most people is procative and boils down to "give others lots of free cookies" since thats what most people want.

If an individual truly did not desire the unearned in any manner, then it probably wouldn't make a difference, but then again, someone with that level of morality would not need a bromide to reinforce his ethics.

[JMeganSnow]

There are some occasions where it's rational to "Pay it Forward" so to speak; this comes about as a sort of statistical-analysis bet-hedging. It's most notable with things that don't cost you much: being polite, for instance. You're not going to meet that many people that genuinely deserve cold-shoulder rudeness out of you, so it's not worth worrying that maybe you were nice to a creep.

So, another way of thinking about this is: presumed innocent until proven guilty.

[aequalsa]

There are some occasions where it's rational to "Pay it Forward" so to speak; this comes about as a sort of statistical-analysis bet-hedging. It's most notable with things that don't cost you much: being polite, for instance. You're not going to meet that many people that genuinely deserve cold-shoulder rudeness out of you, so it's not worth worrying that maybe you were nice to a creep.

So, another way of thinking about this is: presumed innocent until proven guilty.

I agree except for the idea that there is any cost at all involved in being polite. Being rude and mean is usually much more stressful and tiring. I think it would be safe to argue that being congenial is usually in your best interests.

[Myself]

Not to be flippant, but if I were sadomasochistic, what I would want done to me shouldn't be the standard of how I treat errors. The Golden Rule (and other variations thereof) assume certain universal likes and dislikes. Bad phrasing, flawed reasoning at best and exploitable by altruists to easily. I'd say - reject it.

[ggdwill]

I did some reasearch and as best as I can determine the Golden Rule isn't even from any specific religious or cultural teaching. It's more of a boiled down composite of the ethical teachings of the major religions of the world. Since an objective ethical code is derived from deeper facts of reality and followed for more important reasons than simply social harmony, I disagree with the Golden Rule.

The statement "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" ignores factual differences in character and ability and amounts to treating everyone as if we were all metaphysically equal; which of course is not true. Imagine the injustice of a judge about to pass down a sentence suddenly remembering to treat this other person in front of him as he would like to be treated, and letting him go free.

Why everyone automatically assumes that this rule is only discussing the narrower topic of political equality - recognizing the rights of individuals regardless of their differences - I do not know. The statement is so irresponsibly vague that I don't see any reason to interpret it this way.

I think that even if could be shown that the Golden Rule is only an ethical command, it would still be incorrect. Even with dealing with others, Objectivist ethics (ie: ethics properly derived from Objectivist metaphysics) is not merely about respecting individual rights. It also involves passing judgement and providing or withholding values based upon facts about those you are dealing with. A retarded person should not be accepted into Harvard simply because the alumnus in the admissions office was confident that he deserved admission when he applied.

- Grant

[DavidOdden]

Bad phrasing, flawed reasoning at best and exploitable by altruists to easily. I'd say - reject it.

I think that, embedded in a generally altruistic cultural context and with only this brief slogan and no identifiable reason attached to it, a response like "Huh? What the H does that mean!" is the most charitable rational response. But imbedded in a rational philosophy, it is entirely correct. Context matters.

(BTW the classic statement of the Golden Rule, as taught in the West, is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", which is sometimes claimed to come from Matthew 7:12, but more likely -- based on looking at various translations -- is Luke 6:31 which says in the English Standard version "And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them", American Standard "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise" or in the King James version "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise", which translates "Καθώς θέλετε ίνα ποιώσιν υμίν οι άνθρωποι και υμείς ποιείτε αυτοίς ομοίως". Much noise is made of the supposed "universality" of this rule across religions; still, probably almost nobody actually is taught the supposedly corresponding passage from the Mahabharata. I think it's fair to say that the historical referent of "The Golden Rule" is indeed a Christian slogan, regardless of whether similar sentiments have been expressed elsewhere.)

[Vladimir Berkov]

The statement "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" ignores factual differences in character and ability and amounts to treating everyone as if we were all metaphysically equal; which of course is not true. Imagine the injustice of a judge about to pass down a sentence suddenly remembering to treat this other person in front of him as he would like to be treated, and letting him go free.

I don't see anything in the rule which requires treating everybody else as equals or as you in fact should be treated. I think the rule is inherently contextual.

For instance, the judge isn't supposed to treat the convicted criminal as if he were a law-abiding judge, he IS supposed to treat the criminal in the same manner as he would want a judge to treat himself, were he a convicted criminal.

Thus, if the judge for instance is about to sentence the criminal to a long term just because he doesn't like the tie he is wearing, if he applies the rule he will realize that if he were ever convicted of a crime, he would never want HIS sentence dependant on whatever tie he happened to wear. The judge would thus hopefully refrain from sentencing on the basis of the convicted criminal's tie on that basis.

[Dismuke]

I don't see anything in the rule which requires treating everybody else as equals or as you in fact should be treated. I think the rule is inherently contextual.

I think a better way of putting it would be that the rule makes a good point only if it is applied contextually. It certainly is not inherently contextual because it is put forth as an article of dogma.

The problem with religious based moral teachings is not that they don't sometimes make valid points. There are, for example, perfectly valid points in the Ten Commandments. The problem with those points, however, is that they are commandments put forth as dogma because an authority says so.

Contextual absolutism and dogma are diametric opposites.

In today's culture, religion is pretty much the only place most people can turn to for moral principles and moral guidance. I've known quite a number of parents who were not particularly religious who, nevertheless, sent their kids to church or church schools because they felt that they might offer them benefit in the way of moral instruction. As a result, there are a great many people out there who are fundamentally rational and have great senses of life who consider themselves to be religious. Most of them temper religion with "common sense" and, in doing so, often imply a de-facto sort of contextualism in their day-to-day application of it.

My own experience is I have seen a lot of people who were once complete whim worshipping subjectivist hippie types who turned their lives around after becoming religious. They, of course, credit their subsequent success and happiness to religion. My take on it is it is because they, for the first time in their lives, took moral issues seriously - and, as a result, they took how they conducted their day-to-day lives seriously for the first time in their lives.

[Bold Standard]

I don't see anything in the rule which requires treating everybody else as equals or as you in fact should be treated. I think the rule is inherently contextual.

For instance, the judge isn't supposed to treat the convicted criminal as if he were a law-abiding judge, he IS supposed to treat the criminal in the same manner as he would want a judge to treat himself, were he a convicted criminal.

Thus, if the judge for instance is about to sentence the criminal to a long term just because he doesn't like the tie he is wearing, if he applies the rule he will realize that if he were ever convicted of a crime, he would never want HIS sentence dependant on whatever tie he happened to wear. The judge would thus hopefully refrain from sentencing on the basis of the convicted criminal's tie on that basis.

Um, if the judge were being convicted of a crime, why would he want anything besides for his conviction to be overturned? Isn't "inherently contextual" a contradiction in terms?

[ian]

I don't think the Golden Rule is altruism. It doesn't tell you to put others before yourself, it just asks you to put yourself in their shoes. I think it is a good enough rule for kids until such time as they are old enough to understand proper philosophy.

[DavidOdden]

I don't think the Golden Rule is altruism. It doesn't tell you to put others before yourself, it just asks you to put yourself in their shoes. I think it is a good enough rule for kids until such time as they are old enough to understand proper philosophy.

The importance of context has been mentioned. Let's look at the "Golden Rule" in context:

"He lifted up his eyes to his disciples, and said, Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the Kingdom of God. Blessed are you who hunger now, for you will be filled. Blessed are you who weep now, for you will laugh. Blessed are you when men shall hate you, and when they shall exclude and mock you, and throw out your name as evil, for the Son of Man's sake. Rejoice in that day, and leap for joy, for behold, your reward is great in heaven, for their fathers did the same thing to the prophets.

But woe to you who are rich! For you have received your consolation. Woe to you, you who are full now, for you will be hungry. Woe to you who laugh now, for you will mourn and weep. Woe, when men speak well of you, for their fathers did the same thing to the false prophets.

But I tell you who hear: love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, and pray for those who mistreat you. To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer also the other; and from him who takes away your cloak, don't withhold your coat also. Give to everyone who asks you, and don't ask him who takes away your goods to give them back again.

As you would like people to do to you, do exactly so to them. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them. If you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same. If you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, to receive back as much. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing back; and your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High; for he is kind toward the unthankful and evil.

Therefore be merciful, even as your Father is also merciful. Don't judge, and you won't be judged. Don't condemn, and you won't be condemned. Set free, and you will be set free. Give, and it will be given to you: good measure, pressed down, shaken together, and running over, will be given to you. For with the same measure you measure it will be measured back to you." [Luke 6:20-38]

Now then, this pretty much summarizes what "altruism" -- anti-self -- refers to.

[Vladimir Berkov]

Um, if the judge were being convicted of a crime, why would he want anything besides for his conviction to be overturned? Isn't "inherently contextual" a contradiction in terms?

I am not saying that the judge wouldn't desire being free if he were convicted of a crime, I am saying that it would be even more desireable for him to want to be treated in a reasonable, fair and just manner.

This is akin to the objectivist principle that there are no disagreements between rational men. A rational man who has committed murder cannot wish to be set free without serving a sentence.

By inherently contextual I mean that the Golden Rule doesn't supply a context for when it should be applied. It assumes that the "user" will just apply it in whatever context he finds himself in.

Edited July 24, 2006 by Vladimir Berkov

[RationalBiker]

I am not saying that the judge wouldn't desire being free if he were convicted of a crime,

Well, that fits some of the judges I know, but certainly not all of them.

[softwareNerd]

Ian, You seem to be saying that if we abstract out the particular ethical system one holds, the golden rule simply states: be principled. However, that's not all it is saying; else why not simply say, "be principled" or "act on principle" or something like that? I think the latter are far more useful formulations.