12 Jul The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (BEN DUPRE)
The ethical principle known as the golden rule is captured in the familiar saying ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’ Although the name itself seems not to have been used before the 18th century, the underlying idea – or rather group of ideas – is very ancient. It appears, in some guise or other, in almost every ethical code or system, both religious and secular, and is therefore presumed to appeal to one of our most fundamental moral intuitions or instincts.
The golden rule is often associated with Christianity in particular. Sometimes cited as the sum of Jesus’ ethics, it features in the Sermon on the Mount and is linked with several central aspects of Christian teaching, such as the commandment to love one’s enemies and to love one’s neighbour as oneself. However, the rule is also prominent in Jewish and Islamic writings, while variants of it occur in ancient Greek and Roman texts and in the teachings of eastern sages such as Confucius.
A large part of the golden rule’s attraction lies in its sheer generality, which explains why it has been so widely and variously interpreted and applied. According to particular taste and need, its dominant facets have been taken to include reciprocity, impartiality and universality. At the same time, the rule’s simplicity has exposed it to the criticism that little in the way of substantial practical guidance can be gained from adopting it.
You scratch my back …
One reason for the golden rule’s deep-seated appeal is its endorsement of the ethic of reciprocity. The great importance of returning a favour or benefit received, found in virtually all human societies, has often led to the obligation becoming ritualized. Among the Mycenaean Greeks of the Homeric world, for instance, the giving and receiving of gifts was an essential element in the hospitality rituals that tied bonds of friendship and loyalty and so fostered social cohesion. The Chinese sage Confucius, asked to give a single word that would serve as a guide throughout one’s life, is supposed to have replied, ‘Surely reciprocity is such a word? What you do not wish to be done to yourself, do not do to others.’
The reasons for reciprocity becoming a near-universal norm are easy to guess. Scratching your own back is more awkward and less effective than getting someone else to do it for you, so entering into a reciprocal arrangement leaves both parties better off. The danger, of course, is that the initial scratchee cheats, seeking a short-term advantage by reneging on the deal. Building an ethic of reciprocity, backed up by social sanctions against non-reciprocators, is intended to discourage such selfish behaviour. Such an ethic is encapsulated by the golden rule.
Impartiality and consistency
The idea that you should treat others as you wish to be treated might suggest that you should give equal weight to their wishes or interests and hence that you should behave with impartiality towards them. But this is in fact more than the golden rule formally requires. The rule does not demand that you do unto others as they want to be done by, merely that you treat others as you want to be treated, so they will only be treated as they wish if they happen to share your wishes. The most that seems to be required here is that you show consistency in your behaviour, not impartiality. An egoist who wishes to pursue his own self-interest follows the rule and acts consistently in recommending that others do likewise; the masochist who wishes others to inflict pain on him follows the rule and acts consistently in inflicting pain on others – whether they like it or not. The golden rule, on its own, does not necessarily produce substantive moral conclusions.
It is this aspect of the golden rule – the prompt towards consistency – that explains why we find hypocrisy obnoxious. The mismatch between what people do and what they recommend others should do – people not practising what they preach, such as the adulterous politician who pontificates on ‘family values’ – is objectionable because it is (among other things) inconsistent.
Tarnished gold
The golden rule, then, is no moral panacea. Its very vagueness has allowed people to read into it what they wish to find and to make weighty claims for it that it can scarcely bear. More rule of thumb than golden rule, it nevertheless has a place in the foundations of our ethical thinking: a useful antidote, at least, to the kind of moral myopia that often afflicts people when their own close interests are at stake.
50 Ethics Ideas You Really Need to Know
Ben Dupré
