The Golden Rule
The Golden Rule is a near-universal tenet of moralistic systems. Various formulations of the rule manifest themselves in codebooks of ethics from throughout history and around the world. Its most well-known instance is biblical: Matthew 7.12, "Whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them." Its most common, glib interpretation is "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you." In the Analects, Confucius states the negative corollary, often referred to as the Silver Rule: "Do not do unto others what you would not like others to do unto you." Even Kant formalizes the principles behind the Golden Rule when he posits his Categorical Imperative: "Act only according to that maxim by which you can at the same time will that it would become a universal law." More complicated verbage, but the message is the same.
The rule has its roots in purely good intentions, unlike some religious maxims that have at their heart a desire to instill fear or obedience in their practitioners. The Golden Rule is perfectly acceptable from a secular perspective. The Golden Rule tries to prevent people from holding others to higher standards than they hold themselves. Don't be a hypocrite, it says. The underlying message is to recognize that others, even though you do not have direct access to their decision-making processes, their minds, to the things that you recognize in yourself that make you human, they still possess analogous faculties you ought to treat them as such. When others ask you for clemency in the face of mitigating circumstances, remember when you were in a position to seek the same kind of understanding.
That's all well and good, but there is a problem here. The most common, if somewhat facile, counterexample to Golden Rule type policies is that of the masochist. If he would have others cause him pain, then he is justified in causing others pain. It is possible to work this problem into other formulations of the rule, as well. Even if you don't accept this particular argument, it points to the fundamental flaw in this type of an ethical code.
The Golden Rule assumes that there is a single way to behave to which everyone should conform, that there is a uniform set of practices which, when enacted universally, will lead to a perfect, or at the very least better, society. The idea itself is not incoherent. It is possible in theory. However, it is not a practical possibility, barring science-fiction level methods of personality control. Even so, I contend that it is undesirable to try and pursue such a system as a social model. As the population of a society approaches uniformity, smaller and smaller deviations from the norm become more and more disruptive to the social order. A large-scale parallel to the 'uncanny valley' develops.
This disruption will exist whether or not the particular behavorial code which the society is approaching is the theoretical, stable ideal mentioned earlier, or whether it will eventually fall apart itself. The risk of significantly increased chaos is not worth a likely failure.
Of course, all this talk about hypothetical societies and the push for complete uniformity is too far from reality to even be that relevant. We aren't worried about there being a culture that literally expects its members to follow a precise code of behavior in the sci-fi dystopia sense, because there is an intuitive understanding that, to put it glibly, 'variety is the spice of life.' We look at the obedience to the state that was present in Nazi Germany and recognize both that it was bad in itself and that it had bad results.
This tendency towards accepting variation only works within a certain framework, though. Many people can't extend their levels of acceptance to openly gay people or Klan members (please don't make anything of that pairing - I only mean to come up with two types of behavior which different groups have serious problems with). The important thing is how strong these people's distaste for the types of behavior they dislike happens to be. Some just shake their head, express their annoyance in private, and then either grudgingly tolerate or just ignore the people who bother them. Others want to either keep the types who upset them out of the public eye or eliminate them entirely.
This dichotomy need not exist just on opposite sides of an issue, say between those in favor of gay rights and those opposed. Consider a person who is in favor of gay rights and who has a very specific idea of how homosexual ought to go about accomplishing the goals that this person has decided are important. He or she might be as opposed to progress that goes in a different direction than what he or she considers important as somebody on the other side of the issue might be opposed to any progress at all.
The really interesting about this essay is that I'm advocating taking a viewpoint that is based on broad acceptance, since diversity is not only necessary for life to be interesting, but it is also necessary for society to keep functioning. There's a balance that's been worked out between groups who find themselves on opposite sides of various issues, and the back and forth goes in cycles. Sometimes, one side wins and the issue is no longer an issue, as was the case with slavery in America. Sometimes, it's only a temporary win, like with prohibition in the twenties. That was rolled back pretty quickly, because the damage to society from prohibition was greater than the damage done by legal alcohol. I contend that society is self-correcting, in the long run. If some movement gains strength and then turns out to be bad, then it will fall out of favor.
Of course, the beauty of this argument is that I don't expect everyone to agree with me. In fact, it is inherent in my point that some people won't. A society where everyone had the passive viewpoint I do might function, but a society where everyone had that attitude except for one person - that person could get away with anything. For every crazy, single-minded person on one side of an issue, there needs to be one of the other side to keep the scales from tipping. I try to recognize that fact and keep it in mind at all times.
It's the first component of my philosophy of latitudinarianism, if I haven't mentioned it already.
The rule has its roots in purely good intentions, unlike some religious maxims that have at their heart a desire to instill fear or obedience in their practitioners. The Golden Rule is perfectly acceptable from a secular perspective. The Golden Rule tries to prevent people from holding others to higher standards than they hold themselves. Don't be a hypocrite, it says. The underlying message is to recognize that others, even though you do not have direct access to their decision-making processes, their minds, to the things that you recognize in yourself that make you human, they still possess analogous faculties you ought to treat them as such. When others ask you for clemency in the face of mitigating circumstances, remember when you were in a position to seek the same kind of understanding.
That's all well and good, but there is a problem here. The most common, if somewhat facile, counterexample to Golden Rule type policies is that of the masochist. If he would have others cause him pain, then he is justified in causing others pain. It is possible to work this problem into other formulations of the rule, as well. Even if you don't accept this particular argument, it points to the fundamental flaw in this type of an ethical code.
The Golden Rule assumes that there is a single way to behave to which everyone should conform, that there is a uniform set of practices which, when enacted universally, will lead to a perfect, or at the very least better, society. The idea itself is not incoherent. It is possible in theory. However, it is not a practical possibility, barring science-fiction level methods of personality control. Even so, I contend that it is undesirable to try and pursue such a system as a social model. As the population of a society approaches uniformity, smaller and smaller deviations from the norm become more and more disruptive to the social order. A large-scale parallel to the 'uncanny valley' develops.
This disruption will exist whether or not the particular behavorial code which the society is approaching is the theoretical, stable ideal mentioned earlier, or whether it will eventually fall apart itself. The risk of significantly increased chaos is not worth a likely failure.
Of course, all this talk about hypothetical societies and the push for complete uniformity is too far from reality to even be that relevant. We aren't worried about there being a culture that literally expects its members to follow a precise code of behavior in the sci-fi dystopia sense, because there is an intuitive understanding that, to put it glibly, 'variety is the spice of life.' We look at the obedience to the state that was present in Nazi Germany and recognize both that it was bad in itself and that it had bad results.
This tendency towards accepting variation only works within a certain framework, though. Many people can't extend their levels of acceptance to openly gay people or Klan members (please don't make anything of that pairing - I only mean to come up with two types of behavior which different groups have serious problems with). The important thing is how strong these people's distaste for the types of behavior they dislike happens to be. Some just shake their head, express their annoyance in private, and then either grudgingly tolerate or just ignore the people who bother them. Others want to either keep the types who upset them out of the public eye or eliminate them entirely.
This dichotomy need not exist just on opposite sides of an issue, say between those in favor of gay rights and those opposed. Consider a person who is in favor of gay rights and who has a very specific idea of how homosexual ought to go about accomplishing the goals that this person has decided are important. He or she might be as opposed to progress that goes in a different direction than what he or she considers important as somebody on the other side of the issue might be opposed to any progress at all.
The really interesting about this essay is that I'm advocating taking a viewpoint that is based on broad acceptance, since diversity is not only necessary for life to be interesting, but it is also necessary for society to keep functioning. There's a balance that's been worked out between groups who find themselves on opposite sides of various issues, and the back and forth goes in cycles. Sometimes, one side wins and the issue is no longer an issue, as was the case with slavery in America. Sometimes, it's only a temporary win, like with prohibition in the twenties. That was rolled back pretty quickly, because the damage to society from prohibition was greater than the damage done by legal alcohol. I contend that society is self-correcting, in the long run. If some movement gains strength and then turns out to be bad, then it will fall out of favor.
Of course, the beauty of this argument is that I don't expect everyone to agree with me. In fact, it is inherent in my point that some people won't. A society where everyone had the passive viewpoint I do might function, but a society where everyone had that attitude except for one person - that person could get away with anything. For every crazy, single-minded person on one side of an issue, there needs to be one of the other side to keep the scales from tipping. I try to recognize that fact and keep it in mind at all times.
It's the first component of my philosophy of latitudinarianism, if I haven't mentioned it already.
posted by Matthew at 8:02 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home