The Golden Rule, revised
Posted: June 29th, 2012, 7:31 pm
Hello everyone! I was looking for a place where I could get some feedback on this thing I wrote, hope I'm posting it in the right place. Enjoy!
“The Golden Rule”: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
This concept describes a "reciprocal" or "two-way" relationship between one's self and others that involves both sides equally and in a mutual fashion. This concept can be explained from the perspective of psychology, philosophy, sociology, religion, etc.: Psychologically it involves a person empathizing with others. Philosophically it involves a person perceiving their neighbor as also "an I" or "self." Sociologically, this principle is applicable between individuals, between groups, and between individuals and groups. (For example, a person living by this rule treats all people with consideration, not just members of his or her in-group.) Religion is an integral part of the history of this concept. (source: Wikipedia)
This rule has since long been considered a standard of moral behavior, and is shared by every religion in some way. I myself have made use of this rule for most of my life. However, today I will share my first attempt at defining a higher standard, an ethical code that can stand the test of time as humanity keeps evolving.
Why do I think the Golden Rule is flawed?
The Golden Rule implies that the correct moral decision on how to treat another can always be found within one’s self. Basically, to comply with the rule you should follow these steps:
1.) Empathize, try to put yourself in the other person’s shoes
2.) Ask yourself: How would I like others to treat me, now that I’m in this situation?
3.) Treat the other person in the way of 2.
4.) Success! You are now treating the other person in a moral way!
First problem: Not everyone is equally capable of putting themselves in other person’s shoes, think of people with autism for example. Does this make them less capable of making moral decisions? A better rule would be one that’s applicable even for people who lack the ability to empathize.
Second problem: Tastes differ, see the example of the sadist described as a masochist following the golden rule. So barring perfect empathy, you are neglecting certain traits of the other person and replacing them with your own. This problem led to The Platinum Rule, treating others as they would like to be treated, by for example asking them. Better, but not quite there. Which brings me to:
Third problem: The way someone would like to be treated is not necessarily a way that’s good for them. I think giving someone what they want (treating others as they would like to be treated) is morally inferior to giving someone what they need (treating others in a way that’s best for them). Think of parents and their children! We could call this The Diamond Rule: One should treat others in the way that’s best for them. The problem here is that it’s very difficult for someone to know what’s best for them, let alone what’s best for someone else.
Now, my definition of what’s ‘best’ for someone is different than the generally accepted idea. I believe what’s fundamentally good for you, is also good for everyone else and vice versa. Put differently: If something is bad for someone, it’s also bad for you. We are all connected, by the planet we inhabit, by the cells we have in common, by every aspect of our lives. John Nash said something along the lines of: “The best result will come where everyone in the group does what is best for himself ... and the group”. I believe doing what’s best for the group is always the same as doing what’s best for yourself. Seperating yourself from the group, by for instance gaining wealth or power (something many would say is a good thing), is not fundamentally good for you. The closer you are to the group, the better for you… and the group. We as a people will be at our absolute best, strongest and happiest when we are all together, as one.
So taking my own views on the subject into account, the most moral way to treat someone else is to do so in a way that’s fundamentally good for everyone. This isn’t easy, and seems impossible to pull off by yourself. If you’re trying to find out what’s good for everyone, you will need to be in touch with everyone. In this time and age that seems impossible. So what do we do?
My answer is two-fold: Research and math. When presented with a problem (such as: How do I treat someone?), do the research. Ask others, read, go online, recall and rethink past decisions, do as much until you have a clear winner, a course of action that is most likely to result in success… success being a solution that’s best for everyone, which also happens to be the best for you! If you use research and math, you cannot fail. Even if the consequences of your decision are completely disastrous, it was still the right decision at the time. You can learn from the consequences, but cannot change the past. You took your time, and took the decision that was most likely to have a good outcome for everyone. That, in my opinion, is truly moral behavior.
Of course this solution can be different each time, even if the question remains the same! If you tried something last time and it didn’t work, it should factor into the equation for the next time. It’s crucial to remain flexible at all times, and when a better solution presents itself, the only moral thing to do is to embrace that solution. If something doesn’t work, find something that does. If something works, stick with it, until you find something that works better.
All of this results in my attempt at a new rule for moral behavior, which is not exactly a replacement for the one I started with (that specified interaction with others), but rather a broad view on moral decision-making: For every problem, try to find the solution that’s most likely to benefit everyone. If later a better solution presents itself, adapt.
If we apply this to the Golden Rule, we get:
One should continuously look for the way to treat others that’s most likely to benefit everyone.
“The Golden Rule”: One should treat others as one would like others to treat oneself.
This concept describes a "reciprocal" or "two-way" relationship between one's self and others that involves both sides equally and in a mutual fashion. This concept can be explained from the perspective of psychology, philosophy, sociology, religion, etc.: Psychologically it involves a person empathizing with others. Philosophically it involves a person perceiving their neighbor as also "an I" or "self." Sociologically, this principle is applicable between individuals, between groups, and between individuals and groups. (For example, a person living by this rule treats all people with consideration, not just members of his or her in-group.) Religion is an integral part of the history of this concept. (source: Wikipedia)
This rule has since long been considered a standard of moral behavior, and is shared by every religion in some way. I myself have made use of this rule for most of my life. However, today I will share my first attempt at defining a higher standard, an ethical code that can stand the test of time as humanity keeps evolving.
Why do I think the Golden Rule is flawed?
The Golden Rule implies that the correct moral decision on how to treat another can always be found within one’s self. Basically, to comply with the rule you should follow these steps:
1.) Empathize, try to put yourself in the other person’s shoes
2.) Ask yourself: How would I like others to treat me, now that I’m in this situation?
3.) Treat the other person in the way of 2.
4.) Success! You are now treating the other person in a moral way!
First problem: Not everyone is equally capable of putting themselves in other person’s shoes, think of people with autism for example. Does this make them less capable of making moral decisions? A better rule would be one that’s applicable even for people who lack the ability to empathize.
Second problem: Tastes differ, see the example of the sadist described as a masochist following the golden rule. So barring perfect empathy, you are neglecting certain traits of the other person and replacing them with your own. This problem led to The Platinum Rule, treating others as they would like to be treated, by for example asking them. Better, but not quite there. Which brings me to:
Third problem: The way someone would like to be treated is not necessarily a way that’s good for them. I think giving someone what they want (treating others as they would like to be treated) is morally inferior to giving someone what they need (treating others in a way that’s best for them). Think of parents and their children! We could call this The Diamond Rule: One should treat others in the way that’s best for them. The problem here is that it’s very difficult for someone to know what’s best for them, let alone what’s best for someone else.
Now, my definition of what’s ‘best’ for someone is different than the generally accepted idea. I believe what’s fundamentally good for you, is also good for everyone else and vice versa. Put differently: If something is bad for someone, it’s also bad for you. We are all connected, by the planet we inhabit, by the cells we have in common, by every aspect of our lives. John Nash said something along the lines of: “The best result will come where everyone in the group does what is best for himself ... and the group”. I believe doing what’s best for the group is always the same as doing what’s best for yourself. Seperating yourself from the group, by for instance gaining wealth or power (something many would say is a good thing), is not fundamentally good for you. The closer you are to the group, the better for you… and the group. We as a people will be at our absolute best, strongest and happiest when we are all together, as one.
So taking my own views on the subject into account, the most moral way to treat someone else is to do so in a way that’s fundamentally good for everyone. This isn’t easy, and seems impossible to pull off by yourself. If you’re trying to find out what’s good for everyone, you will need to be in touch with everyone. In this time and age that seems impossible. So what do we do?
My answer is two-fold: Research and math. When presented with a problem (such as: How do I treat someone?), do the research. Ask others, read, go online, recall and rethink past decisions, do as much until you have a clear winner, a course of action that is most likely to result in success… success being a solution that’s best for everyone, which also happens to be the best for you! If you use research and math, you cannot fail. Even if the consequences of your decision are completely disastrous, it was still the right decision at the time. You can learn from the consequences, but cannot change the past. You took your time, and took the decision that was most likely to have a good outcome for everyone. That, in my opinion, is truly moral behavior.
Of course this solution can be different each time, even if the question remains the same! If you tried something last time and it didn’t work, it should factor into the equation for the next time. It’s crucial to remain flexible at all times, and when a better solution presents itself, the only moral thing to do is to embrace that solution. If something doesn’t work, find something that does. If something works, stick with it, until you find something that works better.
All of this results in my attempt at a new rule for moral behavior, which is not exactly a replacement for the one I started with (that specified interaction with others), but rather a broad view on moral decision-making: For every problem, try to find the solution that’s most likely to benefit everyone. If later a better solution presents itself, adapt.
If we apply this to the Golden Rule, we get:
One should continuously look for the way to treat others that’s most likely to benefit everyone.
Both your way of putting it and mine suffer from the same issue: I suspect there will be many who will not understand what those words mean. I look forward to the day where this rule is formulated in a perfect, elegant way. I believe it can be done, although I realize I'm not quite there yet. I believe it was Einstein who said: "If you can't explain something in a way that's easy to understand, you don't understand it yourself." Guess I still have some thinking to do!