Ethics 101 (2005), John C. Maxwell holds that the Golden Rule should be accepted for:
1) being accepted by most people
2) is easy to understand
3) is a win-win philosophy (if held by others is good for you!)
4) is a way to run your life positively
5) therefore, should be accepted
Alternatively, the Golden Rule is pragmatic and cynical!
It's the basis of, amongst other things, modern liberalism. It's the only principle that can generate a relatively peaceful and prosperous society. In this form, it emerged from the English civil wars. Two powerful conflicting groups who hate each other. It's both the best I can expect from you and the least I should settle for. And vice versa.
No-one needs believe it. Few need be included--only the powerful. It's a convenient fiction: untrue, but the only reasonable path to peace. The state must ensure you act as if you believe it. Over the long term, more and more come to believe it. More and more come to demand it. Eventually, you end up with some version of liberal-democracy. It becomes an undeniable "truth" and is now pursued as an end in itself. This is the shift from Political Liberalism (Hobbes) to Moral Liberalism (Kant).
That's it.
Christopher NOCK
The Golden Rule is exceptionally old-going back to ancient Egypt, a courtiers code based on careers. Its a way of not rocking the boat, in essence control of oneself and others.
No. Properly understood it is the closest thing we have to a universal principle. It's what underpins universal rights, of which there are actually very, very few. It's valid despite what people think about it. If you don't believe it, it is you, not the principle that's wrong! See my chapter "The rights of man: political weapons or universal principles?"
Oh, and for the sake of your own well-being, don't broadcast your views outside the university environment! Some out there believe it so deeply, they might just come to regard you as some sort of fascist--heaven forbid.
Usually, it implies an ethical response but does it need to, Christopher?
Misha, I had forgotten about Kohlberg-but not much depth there surely, although more defined.
My previous answer was meant, primarily, for Pm Misha. It applies to Stanley to some extent as well.
NOCK
No Stanley, it's origins, at least in the modern era are purely political. It doesn't even need people who believe it! So, bugger morality if I may be rude! It's claim to universality rests on the supposition that, all things being equal, people prefer a peaceful prosperous life to a nasty, brutish and short one.
For Pm Misha, who studies governments that get things very wrong, it provides the basis for demonstrating why that is! Good government is liberal government. It enforces liberal principle against recalcitrant subjects. Over time, it's this process that produces liberal citizens who can then judge the quality of their government directly. Let us impeach!
Stanley, it's a good question. But then I just might like it because it's right down my alley. It's letting me strut my stuff just a little! I will recommend it, and see it's wider appeal.
NOCK
Pm Misha
I very sorry you feel some offence at my answer to you. Please be aware that I have said nothing in it that I wouldn't say to anyone else in similar circumstances. You may think me rude, but I'm not being personal in any way.
If you'd be kind enough to read it again you will hopefully see this.
To be clear, do not believe that all opinions are equal.
Many thanks
NOCK
I don't think it is true-
Do unto others as they would do unto you-(the Christian version)- implies you can read their minds, knowing exactly what they would do-
in a situation of consensus, a close-knit community following agreed rules, this can be binding but not in the wider world
In a small community your neighbour might be trustworthy and help you out at all times, therefore such a policy is reasonable, but a stranger's intentions are unknown. If you offer help they may rob you, or worse. That being the case, would you rob or strike them first? This surely could escalate and possibly end in war.
So where in some circumstances your neighbour's actions are known, in other circumstances they cannot be. No premeditated action therefore is possible, only a reactive one.
Pm Misha
Oh I see one reason why you think it personal (I think). I don't mean if YOU (personally) don't believe it. That's a general statement in which everyone is potentially "you". Again not you personally!
The bit about fascism is not intended personally either. It's meant for Stanley as much as you, and anyone who questions (political) equality. We've reached a point in this society where many, many people accept the notion without question. So many protests are prompted these days by "undemocratic" views which question equality. That certainly doesn't mean we shouldn't question it. Just that when any of us do, we ALL need to be a little careful.
NOCK
Stanley
You've got to the platform, now get on-board the train! Your quite right, knowing everyone is very helpful. Indeed, this was Plato's view on the matter.
But we don't need to know most people in our world, and don't. We don't need to know much about those we do deal with. We just need them to behave as they should. With the help of the liberal state, we put them into a box. The state watches their general behaviour. We enter enforceable contracts with them. This constrains their behaviour in this particular case. They don't always manage it properly, but we do have cause for redress.
Welcome to the modern liberal world, like it or not. Look around you and just think about it! It's all about behaviour. Not beliefs. Not status. Not truth. Nothing but political equality and our behaviour.
Wave Plato good bye!
Chris
I don't think it is true- Do unto others as they would do unto you-(the Christian version)- implies you can read their minds, knowing exactly what they would do- in a situation of consensus, a close-knit community following agreed rules, this can be binding but not in the wider world In a small community your neighbour might be trustworthy and help you out at all times, therefore such a policy is reasonable, but a stranger's intentions are unknown. If you offer help they may rob you, or worse. That being the case, would you rob or strike them first? This surely could escalate and possibly end in war. So where in some circumstances your neighbour's actions are known, in other circumstances they cannot be. No premeditated action therefore is possible, only a reactive one.
📷
My previous answer is my answer to Stanley's last comment.
And, by the way Stanley, as you've probably guessed, it really doesn't matter what you--or anyone else--believes about it! Just behave yourself. I'm sure you do mostly anyway, being a good product of liberal-democracy? I bet you never thought you'd hear such a thing???
NOCK
Hi, in search for a justification of the Golden Rule, it might be helpful considering Immanuel Kant's argument for his Categorical Imperative.
Kind Regards
Wolfgang Leidhold
KANT: maxims rationally generalised that apply equally to everyone-rationally do what we would rationally want others to do-
and the golden rule doesn't do this, it presupposes knowledge.
Quite so. And no moral basis will do it. The key problem is that we are NOT equal in any way. We're not worthy of equal consideration. We're not moral, intellectual, physical, sporting, political, or social equals. And yet, deep down, most of us know we must treat others as equals in some sense. Why? To obtain peaceful coexistence.
So, again, it doesn't matter who believes or not. You can think anything you like in private. But in the public domain you must behave as appropriate in a world of equality--a world we don't inhabit, and which doesn't exist, and never will!
NOCK
There is no explicit reference to rationality as a normative criterion in Kant's Categorical Imperative. Nor does it presuppose equality (of human beings, human nature or the like). It might be helpful just to read the relevant passages, culminating in: "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law." (Kant, Immanuel (1993) [1785]. Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals. Translated by Ellington, James W. (3rd ed.). Hackett. p. 30). The GR is just an everyday-language form of the CI. The GR is focussing on acts ("do what you ..." etc.) while Kant's formula focusses on the general form of all such acts that comply with the GR.
We now have three distinct strains of thought going on here. This I not necessarily a bad thing, and might even be considered a good thing. Unfortunately, given the current state of my health, I just can't keep my mind on three at a time! I'll have to stick to mine, I'm afraid. So, Wolfgang, not meaning to be or appear rude, I'll have to decline commenting on Kant--never my strongest suit anyway! I do hope someone else picks up the challenge.
Best regards
NOCK
Although I’m a philosopher, let me start by pointing out that there are empirical grounds to treat others as one would wish to be treated—psychological, evolutionary, neural: to elicit a friendly response, act friendly. This is the way instinctual social interaction works in animals. So the basic justification is easy, just like ”don’t touch a hot stove” unless you wish to burn your fingers.
However, just because something makes practical sense doesn’t mean it should be made into a maxim. (Wars make sense, we’re also told.)
Sidenote: compared to the Kantian imperative, the golden rule is confined to human interaction; Kant’s rule includes behaviour towards nature, god, anything really: ”Do as I do,” rather than ”do unto others.”
So, even if the golden rule can be justified on empirical grounds, it’s philosophical-ethical justifiability seems less straightforward. If pushed for an answer, I’d say it’s more a question of general commitment and trust (or faith) than of proof.
Ismo
How nice to hear from Finland. The happiest country in the world we're told! You must be doing something right, following the golden rule perhaps?
As my previous answer suggests I'll have to leave the Kant stuff to you, Wolfgang and Stanley. Still, you do link that to my own concerns. Yea, the rule has to be imposed by state coercion and legal contract to begin with. But over time that can produce citizens who believe it and act on as if fact.
Anyone who's interested, please see my article "On the dissent theory of political obligation" in POLITY (Winter, 1995).
NOCK
Empirical grounds? How? This is the one area it most certainly doesn't fit, unless after an event.
I think the golden rule is recommended as a default position. Every encounter is unique, so ethical rules cannot act as covering laws, only as guides.
I’m not certain if I understand your question correctly, but what I mean is that a general ethical principle (unlike, e.g., laws) cannot release a person from individual responsibility or deliberation in particular cases. The ”other part of ethics” is knowing how to apply a general practical rule in a particular situation.
I'm not sure of your point to be honest. If attacked by someone with a knife, the response might be to reply in kind, but as with all Golden Rule predictions, it tends to be reactive. You might say, if a father with a dependent family, the ethical position is self-protection. Ethical positions do not necessarily come with the territory, but, if you are saying that they are situational, then I agree-to an extent.
Plenty of intriguing questions here, more than I’m prepared to delve into. To take just an example, it seems to me our frames of reference differ quite markedly: one focuses on crisis management and deliberation under pressure (time & otherwise), and the other inquires into an unhurried mindset and the kind of default position that would best sustain a whole way of life.
That’s my two pennies worth, but hopefully this thread inspires more ideas and comments from others.
The Christian understanding is surely the default one? Always be kind, in the belief that kindness and love were desired by all. But the history of Christianity proves this view to be precious not predictive. Unhurried mindset? For the Buddhist or hermit perhaps?
Naturally, we love to be treated with respect and dignity, loved and cared for. If we do same for others, the world would be a better place. Indeed, this wise biblical principle if applied by global communities will be our single weapon to effect the global peace we have all yearned since the dawn of time.
Good Lord, no! Unhurried mindset? Try supreme courts. Deliberation under pressure? Try everyday life. Crisis management? Carefully pick the right help.
No moral basis can sustain it. That's due to value-pluralism. No collective morality can create it, unless you want to call mutual fear a morality. I wouldn't.
It's not morality at all. It's politics. It needs no agreement. It needs no believers. All it needs is people who know their own self-interest to behave as if it is true. Just as long as you do that, you can believe anything you want about it! Why, oh why, do people have to think that what they believe actually matters?
NOCK
I don’t have much to add to my previous comments. Good question, plenty of varied answers & points of view. Age old problems are seldom solved in a few scattered sentences, but often a single word can spark an insight or inspire, so thank you.
For that philosophical question, I would recommend the book, Abolition of Man for some good insights.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Biological Science
- Kinesiology
- Running