Do Unto Others: A Poor Rule

[Revenant_Threshold]

I’ve seen a similar sentiment expressed quite often just recently on the boards, although it’s a fairly common one anyway. And it is this;

“If everyone treated others as they would like to be treated, the world would be a better place.”

A helpful rule which would solve all of our problems. Except that no, it would not, and for two reasons.

• What I want and like is not necessarily what you want and like.

An obvious problem, I would have said, although apparently it isn’t all that obvious. I don’t like the same thing you do. While i’m sure we can all agree on some general, vague things that are good, when we get down to specific things we often disagree. You might like puppies, and would be delighted with the free chance from someone of hugging one. I wouldn’t, because i’m scared of dogs. Likewise, I might like a tasty meal of chicken, but a vegan would turn down and might even be offended at the offer.

“But Revenant”, I hear you cry. “These are petty, small issues. When we say treat people as you would want to be treated, it means in general terms - that if you want to be treated well, you should treat others well, and that includes knowledge of what they like and dislike. If someone helps you, you don’t need to help them in that specific way back.” And that’s a fair point, but for the second problem.

• What I want and like is not necessarily what you want and like.

Ok, so it’s the same problem, but on a different scale. Let’s take taxes. I’m willing to accept taxes to a certain extent, as we all are. I am willing to vote for people who’ll take my money to give to other people, when I think that’s a good thing. But my vote doesn’t just mean my money will be taken, but yours, too. And you might not agree that your money should be taken forcibly, for whatever reason. Me treating you as I would want to be treated means you get taxed unfairly. Likewise, you treating me as you’d like to be treated means those I think need money don’t get as much.

Let’s take religion. A religious person, convinced of the rightness or the helpfulness of their beliefs, may look at a person who believes otherwise or an atheist and think that, in their shoes, preaching to them to convince them of the truth is a good thing. It is how they would like to be treated. But the atheist may not want to be preached to, and may try counter-convincing them in return, as they might think they’d want to be treated. Each is doing what they consider a good turn for the other, treating each other as well as they would want to be treated, and yet this is often an acrimonious situation.

So that’s my point, really. My title for this overstates it a bit; I wouldn’t say it’s a horrible rule, or one that would lead to more problems. Just that, were we able to enforce it, we’d pretty much have all the problems we have now.

[BrainGlutton]

Eh? “Do unto others” is a pretty good rule; proof being that it is so universally followed.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

I always thought it was “Do unto others BEFORE they can do unto you.”

[Revenant_Threshold]

@BrainGlutton

Eh? “Do unto others” is a pretty good rule; proof being that it is so universally followed.

Also it can fit into message board titles, unlike other rules.

[C_K_Dexter_Haven]

OK, seriously, it doesn’t mean that if you like spinach that you should serve spinach to your guests. It means that if you’re having a dinner, you should serve the guests what they like; since, if you were a guest, that’s how you’d want to be treated.

And, of course, I need to mention that Judaism usually expresses this as a negative: do NOT do to others what you would not want them to do to you. That avoids your problems, I think.

[Revenant_Threshold]

@C K Dexter Haven

OK, seriously, it doesn’t mean that if you like spinach that you should serve spinach to your guests. It means that if you’re having a dinner, you should serve the guests what they like; since, if you were a guest, that’s how you’d want to be treated.

@Me

“But Revenant”, I hear you cry. “These are petty, small issues. When we say treat people as you would want to be treated, it means in general terms - that if you want to be treated well, you should treat others well, and that includes knowledge of what they like and dislike. If someone helps you, you don’t need to help them in that specific way back.” And that’s a fair point, but for the second problem.

My prescience goes unchallenged yet again.

[Sampiro]

You’re not the first to critique it. From wiki’s The Ethic of Reciprocity article:

Immanuel Kant famously criticized 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.

My favorite statement of the rule is the negative version: “Do not do to others what you would not wish done unto you”, and of course the “a reasonable person” interpretation would apply.

Although if I were to make one simple “words to live by” rule as “The Golden Rule” it would be a derivative of the the saying from Lazarus Long’s Notebooks (a far more practical code in general than The Ten Commandments) that

“Sin lies only in hurting other people unnecessarily. All other sins are invented nonsense”.

Rephrase it as simply “Thou shalt not hurt other people unnecessarily” and I think it needs little by way of commentary, save perhaps that “because *it gives you something you want but do not need * is not covered by necessarily”.

[begbert2]

I prefer “Do unto others as they would like to be done unto them (if your interest in their happiness with you is the most important factor in the equation).” It’s not as quoatable as the ancient version (especially with the reality-based qualification), and it’s not from in some old book, but I think it works.

And I think it was what the classic version was meant to mean, anyway.

[Miller]

It’s more what you’d call a “guideline” than an actual rule.

[Polycarp]

@Miller

It’s more what you’d call a “guideline” than an actual rule.

Well, that depends on your perspective. It was used by both Hillel and Yeshua bar Mariam to encapsulate the Law and the Prophets; the latter laid it down as mandative for ethical behavior (Matt 7:12). I believe it ws also taught as authoritative by Kung Fu-Tse, though I’m not a student of his works.

[tomndebb]

@Sampiro

Rephrase it as simply “Thou shalt not hurt other people unnecessarily”. . . .

That boy needed killin’.

[Princhester]

I think that you are criticising the rule for being unable to resolve all problems, when I have never heard it held out as being capable of that. It is a rule that provides a base level of behaviour in some circumstances. Specifically, it means I should do for you *at least * what I would have you do for me.

To use your tax example: I think taxes should be 20%, you think they should be 30%. The rule does not resolve the conflict about the final 10%. But it does mean that I should pay at least 20% for you, because I would have you do at least that for me. After that, we can argue.

[Princhester]

And your religious argument is easily resolved by the golden rule. It’s just that you haven’t taken the final step. You and I start out trying to convince one another because each thinks that is what we would want done to ourself. Then it turns acrimonious ie you tell me that you don’t want to be convinced. So the golden rule gets applied again: if the positions were reversed, I wouldn’t want you to continue after I’d told you to stop, so I stop. Simple.

[Revenant_Threshold]

“Do not do” changes it from an imperative to do good to an imperative to not do bad. Again it relies on a definition which people tend to disagree on quite a bit.

@Princhester

I think that you are criticising the rule for being unable to resolve all problems, when I have never heard it held out as being capable of that. It is a rule that provides a base level of behaviour in some circumstances. Specifically, it means I should do for you *at least * what I would have you do for me.

Not merely all problems, but in having a significant effect. Though I can share one of the examples that prompted me to open this thread, from here;

@plnnr

Can I only opt for a religious tenant instead of the whole ball of wax?

If so, I’d say, “Let everyone REALLY treat others as they themselves would like to be treated.”

That would just about solve every problem I can come up with.

@Princhester

To use your tax example: I think taxes should be 20%, you think they should be 30%. The rule does not resolve the conflict about the final 10%. But it does mean that I should pay at least 20% for you, because I would have you do at least that for me. After that, we can argue.

But in such situations the rule is superfluous. You’re going to choose to pay (or vote to pay, anyway) 20% regardless of whether you followed the rule or not.

And your religious argument is easily resolved by the golden rule. It’s just that you haven’t taken the final step. You and I start out trying to convince one another because each thinks that is what we would want done to ourself. Then it turns acrimonious ie you tell me that you don’t want to be convinced. So the golden rule gets applied again: if the positions were reversed, I wouldn’t want you to continue after I’d told you to stop, so I stop. Simple.

Ah, but what if you believe the annoyance you may cause me is as nothing compared to the joys of being a believer and knowing the truth? That the very best you can do for me is to ignore my temporary protests until i’m eventually convinced? Your application of the rule is considerably different from that hypothetical, but both are equally possible, and both are equally honestly fulfilling it to the best of their ability.

[Jas09]

I think the sort of generalized version that Kant came up with does solve some of these concerns, but perhaps not all - I’m not sure that any rules-based system of ethics can resolve all of these questions, not that ethicists and philosophers will stop trying.

[cosmosdan]

@Revenant Threshold

I’ve seen a similar sentiment expressed quite often just recently on the boards, although it’s a fairly common one anyway. And it is this;

“If everyone treated others as they would like to be treated, the world would be a better place.”

A helpful rule which would solve all of our problems. Except that no, it would not, and for two reasons.

• What I want and like is not necessarily what you want and like.

You might like puppies, and would be delighted with the free chance from someone of hugging one. I wouldn’t, because i’m scared of dogs.

Likewise, I might like a tasty meal of chicken, but a vegan would turn down and might even be offended at the offer.

Um No, Doing unto others means showing them the same fair honest consideration you would like them to show you. Showing them consideration means you wouldn’t assume they like the same things you do, you’d make an effort to find out because that’s how you’d like to be treated.

Ok, so it’s the same problem, but on a different scale. Let’s take taxes. I’m willing to accept taxes to a certain extent, as we all are. I am willing to vote for people who’ll take my money to give to other people, when I think that’s a good thing. But my vote doesn’t just mean my money will be taken, but yours, too. And you might not agree that your money should be taken forcibly, for whatever reason. Me treating you as I would want to be treated means you get taxed unfairly. Likewise, you treating me as you’d like to be treated means those I think need money don’t get as much.

This is more interesting. When you’re talking of taxes you’re talking about considering lots of aspects of lots of different people so I’m not sure the golden rule applies specifically. Let’s reduce it down. Bob meets a person who seems down on their luck and has their hand out. Bob’s the kind of guy who , if he was down on his luck, would want the opportunity to earn his keep rather than accept charity. His response is to offer this person a few bucks to wash his car or do some yard work.
Ralph meets a similar person , but his response is to just give the person a few bucks, because he feels he would like someone to be compassionate to him if he was down on his luck.

These two men have responded differently , but *both * have followed the golden rule.

The golden rule is about trying to put yourself in the other persons shoes when you interact and decide how to treat them. It’s also about looking inward to examine your own motives.
You don’t like being lied to or cheated. Don’t lie to or cheat others. If you make a mistake how would you like others to respond? Helpful fair criticism or belittlement.
Think about that when those around you make mistakes. etc.

Let’s take religion. A religious person, convinced of the rightness or the helpfulness of their beliefs, may look at a person who believes otherwise or an atheist and think that, in their shoes, preaching to them to convince them of the truth is a good thing. It is how they would like to be treated. But the atheist may not want to be preached to, and may try counter-convincing them in return, as they might think they’d want to be treated. Each is doing what they consider a good turn for the other, treating each other as well as they would want to be treated, and yet this is often an acrimonious situation.

Again NO, I can see how a Christian or an atheist might justify preaching to others by their concept sharing the truth. Heck, Christians who believe you must share their beliefs or go to hell can easily think they are following the golden rule but I think they are missing the point.
The golden rules means giving fair honest consideration to others. With a little bit of thought both parties would realize they if they don’t want to be preached to about beliefs they don’t agree with then they shouldn’t inflict that on others. It might mean showing them the consideration of asking if they have any interest in hearing about X. It might mean giving each other equal time to share their different beliefs.
The golden rule would mean, since we want the freedom to pursue our own belief system without being harassed by others, we allow them that same freedom.

So that’s my point, really. My title for this overstates it a bit; I wouldn’t say it’s a horrible rule, or one that would lead to more problems. Just that, were we able to enforce it, we’d pretty much have all the problems we have now.

I doubt we have any realistic way to enforce it since it is largely a condition of the heart and mind. We do a little thing called our legal system which addresses it to some degree, under the name of justice. I do think that if we strive to follow the golden rule and give fair and honest consideration to others, trying to put ourselves in their shoes, while examining our own motives, things would definitely improve.

Additionally,

Immanuel Kant famously criticized 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.

IMO this is a ridiculous example. This isn’t just a matter of the judge considering what the prisoner would like. He also has to consider the victims of the prisoner and the interests of society as a whole in the pursuit of justice. That’s not considering the fact that the judge might say, “If I’ve committed a crime and been found guilty by a jury of my peers, I’d accept and expect a fair punishment”

[suranyi]

@begbert2

I prefer “Do unto others as they would like to be done unto them (if your interest in their happiness with you is the most important factor in the equation).” It’s not as quoatable as the ancient version (especially with the reality-based qualification), and it’s not from in some old book, but I think it works.

And I think it was what the classic version was meant to mean, anyway.

We had to go through “sensitivity and workplace harassment training” a while ago, and this is one of the things they said. The old Golden Rule was not so good because it implied that one could get away with making unwanted sexual remarks by saying “if she did it to me, I would have liked it.” So instead we were advised to use the version you quoted above.

Ed

[AHunter3]

a) Intentions count. We’re devising a prescriptive here anyhow, it’s the mindset of the doers we’re concerned with.

b) You are allowed to draw abstractions. “I would like to be treated as a sovereign omnipotent entity entitled to make my own decisions. I will therefore endeavor to treat all other people as sovereign omnipotent entities who are accustomed to and expect to make their own decisions”.

c) You are allowed to continue to THINK and not just devise a rule and follow it blindly. The original purpose behind the rule was that some truth was sensed and someone tried to put it into words. As with most profound truths, the words expressing it are less than the abstract comprehension of the truth itself. Get it, critique the wording if you must, but then move on and live it.

[Bosstone]

@Miller

It’s more what you’d call a “guideline” than an actual rule.

Hang the Code!

Just didn’t want that to go unrecognized.

[cosmosdan]

@begbert2

I prefer “Do unto others as they would like to be done unto them (if your interest in their happiness with you is the most important factor in the equation).” It’s not as quoatable as the ancient version (especially with the reality-based qualification), and it’s not from in some old book, but I think it works.

And I think it was what the classic version was meant to mean, anyway.

I’m afraid I don’t get this. IMO the golden rule requires introspective thought and consideration. If you decided that what you’d like is for people to give you stuff for free, and so you started giving away your stuff for free, you’d soon see that doesn’t work and refine how you treated others and how they treated you.

Oddly enough , working retail I see a lot of examples of how this applies. Since I am often a customer in other stores I can put myself in the customers shoes and strive to treat them as I would want to be treated as a customer. I also expect them to treat me and my staff with a little respect and consideration. The golden rule.

Your take on it seems too one sided. It seems I’m required to consider what they want but they aren’t required to consider how that affects me. Unless the rule is applied by both parties to the other at the same time. In which case the golden rule seems more practical.