The Golden Rule is the principle of treating others as one would want to be treated by them. Often referred to as an ethic of reciprocity, meaning that you should reciprocate to others how you would like them to treat you (not necessarily how they actually treat you, which is a fundamental point within Christian teachings).
The maxim can appear in a number of forms:
- Treat others as you would like others to treat you (positive or directive form)
- Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated (negative or prohibitive form)
- What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself (empathetic or responsive form)
Applications of the Golden Rule are stated positively in the Old Testament:
Leviticus 19:18
New King James Version
You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbour as yourself: I am the Lord.
Leviticus 19:34
New King James Version
The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.
The “Golden Rule” was proclaimed by Jesus of Nazareth during his Sermon on the Mount and described by him as the second great commandment.
The common English phrasing is notably: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.
Matthew 7:12
King James Version
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.
Matthew 7:12
New King James Version
Therefore, whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets.
Luke 6:31
King James Version (KJV)
And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
Luke 6:31
New King James Version (NKJV)
And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.
I think it’s worth looking at some additional verses, before and after for added context.
Love Your Enemies
New King James Version (NKJV)
27“But I say to you who hear: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
28bless those who curse you, and pray for those who spitefully use you.
29To him who strikes you on the one cheek, offer the other also. And from him who takes away your cloak, do not withhold your tunic either.
30Give to everyone who asks of you. And from him who takes away your goods do not ask them back.
31And just as you want men to do to you, you also do to them likewise.
32But if you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners love those who love them.
33And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? For even sinners do the same.
34And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive back, what credit is that to you? For even sinners lend to sinners to receive as much back.
35But love your enemies, do good, and lend, hoping for nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High. For He is kind to the unthankful and evil.
36Therefore be merciful, just as your Father also is merciful.”
Jesus’ teaching goes beyond the negative formulation of not doing what one would not like done to themselves, to the positive formulation of actively doing good to another that, if the situations were reversed, one would desire that the other would do for them.
This formulation, as indicated in the parable of the Good Samaritan, emphasises the needs for positive action that brings benefit to another, not simply restraining oneself from negative activities that hurt another.
Greek philosophy
The idea or concept of applying moral ethics to human behaviour was discussed by Greek philosophers many years before Christ.
Isocrates (436–338 BCE) [1]
“Do not do to others that which angers you when they do it to you.”
Plato (c. 420-c. 347 BCE)
“Ideally, no one should touch my property or tamper with it, unless I have given him some sort of permission, and, if I am sensible, I shall treat the property of others with the same respect.”
Modern philosophical departure
Some more modern-day philosophers such as Immanuel Kant (1724-1804) and Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) have objected to the rule on a variety of grounds. One is the epistemic question of determining how others want to be treated.
The obvious way is to ask them, but they might give duplicitous answers if they find this strategically useful, and they might also fail to understand the details of the choice situation as you understand it.
We might also be biased to perceiving harms and benefits to ourselves more than to others, which could lead to escalating conflict if we are suspicious of others.
Due to this, in 1960, Nobel laureate Linus Pauling (1901-1994) suggested introducing a bias towards others into the ‘Golden rule’:
“Do unto others 20 percent better than you would have them do unto you” to correct for subjective bias.
Immanuel Kant famously criticised the Golden rule for not being sensitive to differences of situation, noting that a prisoner duly convicted of a crime could appeal to the Golden rule while asking the judge to release him, pointing out that the judge would not want anyone else to send him to prison, so he should not do so to others.
Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz (1646-1716) had previously responded to this long before Kant, suggesting that the judge should put himself in the place, not merely of the criminal, but of all affected persons and then judging each option (to inflict punishment, or release the criminal, etc.) by whether there was a “greater good in which this lesser evil was included.”
Marcus George Singer (1926-2016) when discussing the logic of ethics noted that there are two importantly different ways of looking at the golden rule:
- That you perform specific actions that you want others to do to you or
- That you guide your behaviour in the same general ways that you want others to.
Counter-examples to the Golden rule typically are more forceful against the first than the second.
If we apply the Golden rule to our own method of using it, asking in effect if we would want other people to apply the Golden rule in such ways, the answer would typically be no, since others’ ignoring of such factors will lead to behaviour which we object to. It follows that we should not do so ourselves, according to the Golden rule. In this way, the Golden rule may be self-correcting.
It is possible, then, that the Golden rule can itself guide us in identifying which differences of situation are morally relevant. We would often want other people to ignore any prejudice against our race or nationality when deciding how to act towards us, but would also want them to not ignore our differing preferences in food, music, culture, and so on.
Which leads to the failing of multiculturism because standards are relative.
Footnotes
1. Don’t confuse Socrates with Isocrates. While Isocrates promoted in his work public life and preparation for political participation in the city’s governance, often specifically drawing attention to students who had excelled in relevant fields, Socratic dialogues underscore the importance of self-knowledge and promote a private study of true virtues in life.
Leave a Reply