“The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who will represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?”
In June 1963, at a time when racial tension and hatred in the USA were spilling over into overt violence and public demonstration, President John F. Kennedy made a speech to the American people arguing passionately against segregation and discrimination on grounds of race. At the heart of his speech was an appeal to one of the most fundamental and ubiquitous of all moral principles, the so-called “golden rule.” Encapsulated in the saying “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” the underlying notion seems to be central to the most basic human ethical sense and is expressed in some variant or other in virtually every religious and moral tradition.
“Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you.”
Muhammad, c.630
“So in everything, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, for this sums up the law and the prophets.”
Jesus, c.30 AD
Few moral philosopher have failed to invoke the golden rule or at least to remark on its relation to principles of their own theories. Although Kant claimed that the golden rule lacked the rigor to qualify as a universal law, there are clearly echoes of it in the most famous formulation of his categorical imperative: “Act only in accordance with a maxim that you can at the same time will to become a universal law” (see The categorical imperative). At the other end of the philosophical spectrum, J.S. Mill claimed the golden rule for, stating that “In the golden rule of Jesus of Nazareth, we read the complete spirit of the ethics of utility” (see The experience machine). A more recent example is to be found in prescriptivism, the ethical theory developed by R.M. Hare, who proposes that the notion of “universalizability”—clearly a variant of the golden rule—is an essential property of moral judgments.
The universal appeal of the golden rule—the reason it has featured in some form or other in virtually every philosophical and religious ethical system—is partly due to its sheer generality. Thus, according to particular taste and need, its dominant facets may be variously seen to include (amongst other things) reciprocity, impartiality and universality. The rule’s protean character has also meant that it (or something very like it) has popped up in many different guises in many different systems. One influential incarnation is that of the “ideal observer.” The assumption here is that our uncorrected or untutored instincts will be distorted by various factors, including ignorance, partiality for friends and lack of sympathy for others. As an antidote to these, an ideal (or idealized) observer is introduced, whose view is unclouded by such flaws and so provides a suitable moral yardstick.
One of the best-known elaborations of this notion is the “impartial and well-informed spectator” drawn by the Scottish philosopher and economist Adam Smith in his Theory of the Moral Sentiments of 1759. Smith’s spectator is the voice of conscience within, “the man within the breast, the great judge and arbiter” of our conduct; whose jurisdiction is founded “in the desire of possessing those qualities, and performing those actions, which we love and admire in other people; and in the dread of possessing those qualities, and performing those actions, which we hate and despise in other people.”
Making sense of the golden rule In spite of its intuitive appeal, it is less clear how much practical guidance can actually be gleaned from the golden rule. Its sheer simplicity, while part of its attraction, makes it an easy target for critical sniping. People take their pleasures in very different ways; the nonmasochistic majority should be wary of the masochist who firmly adheres to the golden rule. Yet when we try defining and refining the rule, we risk sapping its force. We may wish to specify the context and circumstances in which the rule is to apply, but if we are too specific, the rule begins to lose the universality that is a large part of its appeal. At the heart of the golden rule is a demand for consistency, but the egoist can consistently pursue her own self-interest and show no inconsistency in recommending that others do likewise.
“The golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever possible, as they want to be done by.”
Karl Popper, 1945
Rather than seeing the golden rule as a moral panacea (as some have sought to do), it is more fruitful to regard it as an essential ingredient, a necessary part of the foundations of our ethical thinking: a demand not only for consistency, but for fairness; the requirement that you seek imaginatively to put yourself in someone else’s position, that you show to others the kind of respect and understanding that you would hope to receive yourself. As such, the golden rule is a useful antidote to the kind of moral myopia that often afflicts people when their own close interests are at stake.
Not-so-distant cousins of golden-rule flouters—those who wish to do but are less happy to be done by—are free-riders, whose aim is to enjoy the benefit of being done by without incurring the cost of doing. Workers who do not join a union but benefit from a pay rise won by union action; countries that make no effort to control their carbon emissions but benefit from collective international action to reduce global warming. The problem in such cases is that it may be rational for individuals, considering only their own self-interest, to free-ride, but if too many people reason in the same way, none of the hoped-for benefits will be achieved. So is it right to use coercion? Is it right to enforce union membership through closed shops, or to push through binding international agreements, backed by threat of sanctions or other force?
Other close relatives of golden-rule delinquents are hypocrites, who take the small step from not doing as they would be done by to not practicing what they preach: the adulterous vicar who eulogizes the sanctity of marriage; the politician who takes a backhander while fulminating against financial impropriety. As in violations of the golden rule, the basic objection in these cases is inconsistency: between people’s stated opinions and the beliefs that are suggested by their behavior; between the importance they claim to attach to certain propositions and the indifference that one infers from their actions.
the condensed idea
Do as you would be done by
| Timeline | |
|---|---|
| c.AD30 | The golden rule |
| 1739 | Hume’s guillotine The boo/hoorah theory |
| 1781 | The categorical imperative |
| 1974 | The experience machine |