The Golden Rule - Not So Simple

The golden rule is one of the most basic and universal concepts: “do unto others as you would be done by them”. This idea is present in some form in most cultures. Although it is often stated that it was originally a Christian teaching, similar principles occur in Confucianism, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, and Judaism before Jesus’s time. Influence of the golden rule can be found in most ethic systems as well. Utilitarianism focuses on achieving the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people.

 Mill said that he thought utilitarianism to be an improvement on the golden rule, which he thought selfishly ignored the collective happiness of the community for individuals’ needs. However, true utilitarianism can easily result in ignoring minorities, while the following the golden rule works on specific instances, preventing sacrifice for the ‘greater good’. Kant felt that he too was improving the golden rule with categorical imperative. The two concepts are similar – followers of both would agree that if there is something you would not want done to you, then you should not do it.

 Kant would expand this argument to universalize the judgment as a maxim, and say that no one should do the action in question. This condition aims to prevent any problems that would arise from differences of taste. The example George Bernard Shaw gives is that a sadist or a masochist would personally enjoy causing or receiving pain, and according to the golden rule would be justified in hurting others. Religiously following the categorical imperative can also result in consequences not thought to be moral. The golden rule is said to be ‘empirical’ in how it is used to judge situations, while Kant’s rule is binding. If someone was hiding Jews from the Nazis, by the universalization of lying being bad, they would be forced to reveal the Jews when confronted, while under the golden rule they would not because they would not want to be exposed if they were the ones hiding.

While utilitarianism and deontology have specific similarities and differences to the golden rule, virtue does not because of its approach to ethics, as its focus is on the character of the individual making the decisions rather than the individual him/herself. This being said, those concerned with morals first would certainly consider the golden rule to be a good base for judgments because it requires empathy and compassion.

As popular as it is, the golden rule in its most frequent form is not perfect. William T. Vollmann reflects on the variations of the golden rule in the ‘Moral Calculus’ chapter of his book, Rising Up and Rising Down. The most pressing issue is that it could be interpreted into what he calls the zealot’s golden rule: “do unto others as you are doing for yourself”; another formulation would be the so-called missionary’s golden rule: “do unto others as you convince yourself they would be done by.” According to these extrapolations, a Christian could be justified in forcing others to convert because it is as they would want. These variations are the cultivation of what hesitations Kant and Shaw had about the golden rule. In response, Vollmann offers the empath’s golden rule: “do unto others, not only as you would be done by, but also as they would be done by. In case of variance, do the more generous thing.” His expansion eliminates the problems of the original form, but requires knowledge that may not always be available. However, it still improves the initial maxim.

There also has been much debate about whether the positive (do unto others….) or negative (do not do unto others) form of the golden rule is superior; the first is more popular in Western society as it is the Christian form, but the latter is much more widespread. The problem translates the same using the empath’s variation or the original. The implications of the negative version are that it only provides guidance in what not to do, not what one should do. It focuses on preventing negative action, while the positive form gives motivation toward positive action, which would bring more good into the world.