The Golden Rule Is Crap (a Facebook Debate)
My former co-worker posted a note about the Golden Rule. I replied. What follows is the debate/discussion which ensued.
———————————————————————————————————————–
“Treat others like you want to be treated” has been espoused by parents, schools, and churches for centuries, if not millenia, as the moral ground to which we must aspire in order to be kind and caring human beings. While this platitude is almost universally accepted as the path to personal fulfillment and world peace, I tell you here and now, in front of God Almighty and anybody else who cares to read my occasional Facebook rant , that it is, in fact, a steaming pile of crap. And here is why…
Exactly what kind of monster egomaniac would I have to be in order to believe that every other human on this planet wants to be treated the same way I do? Have I actually attained God’s ideal state of human perfection to such a degree that all of humanity should imitate my particular wants and needs?
I, like most teachers, see 120 to 150 kids a day. Some of them need a warm, fuzzy hug, and we should give them that when appropriate. Some of them need a swift kick in the ass, and we should give them that, too. Some need someone to listen to them, and some need to be told to shut the hell up and sit down and listen to us. Some need a friend, some need a parent, and some just need a little space and to be left alone for ten minutes of peace and quiet away from everything and everyone who thinks they’re trying to “help” them through a difficult time. But whatever they need, I absolutely freakin’ guarantee that it’s not the same for every one of them, and nine times out of ten, it’s not the same thing I would need in a similar situation.
Now, the very fact that I’ve got the stones to post something so contrary to that which has been accepted as self-evident for hundreds of years indicates that I am, in fact, an egomaniac of legendary proportions (this is not news to anyone who has spoken to me for over ten minutes). But even my mania has not yet aspired to such heights as to make me believe that how I want to be treated in a given situation is how everyone else should/would want to be treated. And yet, it seems to be commonly accepted “wisdom” that this is the case among almost everyone else I know. I just don’t get it. How is it, that in the name of empathy for fellow man, we are admonished to ignore his needs and substitute our own?
Here’s a better version: “Treat others as they want to be treated.”
Here endeth my two cents’….(Subsequent replies in comments)
MEH: A reply to “The Golden Rule is Crap”
Sat 1:48pm | Edit Note | Delete
As one of the resident philosopher nerds, I’ve got to point out a few things . . . in my esteemed colleague’s post
The “golden rule” has more than one version. “Do unto others” is only one of them. Another is “DON’T do to others what you would NOT be done to you.” This might still come under your condemnation by asking “how the hell should I know what someone else wants?”, but your reply “treat others how they want to be treated would work.”
However, what if someone wants to be treated in a dehumanizing way: even if they are okay with it, you might not be. Should you do it because it makes them happy? What if the action is okay by you and by them, but is illegal, immoral, or unethical (before religious law, secular, or both)? Just because it makes someone happy, doesn’t mean it isn’t that bad.
Another way of looking at things is Immanuel Kant’s Categorical Imperative. In a nutshell, a person’s actions should be rationally and honestly considered in the aims of promoting universal good, not just personal. (I’m too lazy to type it out here, but http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-moral/).
I think this goes to the heart of the issue. Our actions should not be selfish or overly altruistic. People need to freaking think about themselves and others honestly, and then act. Even if that might cause another, or self, some pain or discomfort. Sometimes pain is good.
It being Valentine’s Day, and since I’ve been talking about love in the philosophy class all week, a quote from my old prof comes to mind.
“Love is to act intentionally in sympathetic response to others (including God) in the hopes of obtaining overall well-being.”
Love is an act, which takes into account the feelings/desires of others, with the purpose of making things as good as they can be.
2.5 cents
MEH said this on February 17th, 2009 at 4:47 am
Eric B ~ The Golden Rule discussion, part 3.
Sun 11:45am
Ahh, Mr. Henry, you are without a doubt one of my favorite people. Were I to attempt to best you in a battle of wits, I suspect the outcome would be analogous to Fluffy the Hamster challenging Godzilla to a death-cage match. (I get to be Fluffy in this metaphor, by the way.) Nonetheless, I have that whole ego problem that just won’t let me let go of it until I lie academically bloodied at the corner of Philosophy and Main.
Honestly, sir, I am somewhat confused by the path of your post. It seemed as though you had taken a contrary stance to start, but by the end it seems as though you were agreeing with me (“People need to freaking think about themselves and others honestly, and then act.”) If I wasn’t clear, that is EXACTLY what I was saying. Instead of raising our kids on the Golden Rule to believe that their actions should be dictated by the simplistic view that everyone else is the same as they are, they should rather give some consideration to the wants and needs of others, balance that with the effect the actions will have on they themselves, and then make a conscious choice to act or not to act in a given situation.
To your question, “What if someone wants to be treated in a dehumanizing way?” Switch the roles, and you have the exact same problem with the Golden Rule. What if I want to be treated in a dehumanizing way? Does that mean I should treat others that way because it’s how I want to be treated? Sounds like a serial killer in the making…
Obviously, both the Golden Rule and my perversion of it are intended as guidelines when dealing with rational, adult (or in the case of our kids, semi-adult, quasi-adult, whatever…) humans. The mentally deficient, the morally bankrupt, and the psychologically damaged are not within the scope of the same rules designed for how the rest of us treat each other. And neither one was ever meant as a responsive moral imperative (You’ll have to forgive me for putting together words that were probably never meant to go together. After all, I teach math and eloquent expression is not a strong suit among my species). Just because an action makes someone happy does not mean we should feel obligated to do it on that basis alone.
Lastly, I believe you are probably as guilty as anyone of exhibiting my version of the Golden Rule over the traditional one. When you see a kid in trouble, and you decide to act, do you really ask yourself, “What would I want in his situation?” Or rather, do you ask yourself, “What does he want (need) right now?”
Okay, so that wasn’t really last. I don’t like your prof’s definition of love – seems selfish to me. “In hopes of obtaining overall well-being” implies that the driving force behind loving someone is solely to better your own situation. I like this definition better:
“Love is that state wherein another’s happiness and well being are essential to your own.”
–Robert Heinlein.
Yes, I do realize that your prof’s definition had a connection to the Golden Rule, and mine does not. Non sequitur, so sue me.
I’m sure Boston (it is Boston, right?) has no idea the real extent of its gain, but I sure as hell hope D50 knows what they’re losing. Of course, they do not…
-e
MEH said this on February 17th, 2009 at 4:48 am
MEH Re: to Golden Rule pt 4
Sunday at 12:49am
I will gracefully conceded/amend the following:
1. We probably were (ultimately) saying the same thing, from different vantage points. That’s why we get along and I used you as an example in a class last week (Something about taking cell phones and reading content of txt messages to classes and/or parents)
2. I wasn’t suggesting that the negative version of the GR (don’t do) was a perfect solution either. Everything is flawed.
However, in terms of the scenario presented with the upset student (When you see a kid in trouble, and you decide to act, do you really ask yourself, “What would I want in his situation?” Or rather, do you ask yourself, “What does he want (need) right now?”), I think that there is a huge distinction between “want” and “need” as you used them. They are not interchangeable, and I think that’s the point.
Someone’s wishes are not always what is best for them, hence the need for Kant’s (or some other) concept of rational, honest action, which takes into account as much data as possible. This is the other reason why I find my prof’s words to be applicable.
His definition is not selfish at all, but I can see why the wording might lead you to think so. “Over-all well being” is not saying “try to make both parties happy: myself and the other,” which is how I assume you took it. Instead he is referring to a higher social ideal, that believes that one’s actions effects more than just the self or the immediate other. As I explained this last week with my kids, if I see that student upset, my helping of them needs to include the fact that they are in community with others. I’ll use an example.
One of my freshman has been slipping in his work/attitude. I knew something was wrong. Sat down for a talk and through his tears, it comes out that he is still hurting from the death of his grandmother. Now there are multiple ways I can address him at this point, however, the most loving is not the method that simply makes him feel better and his grades improve in my class (Which would be selfish). It would also take into consideration the conversations he’s had with his granddad about it, the fact that he hasn’t been talking to his dad about it, how he relates in other teachers’ classes and the alerts they’ve posted on ESIS, the time he has not been spending with his best friend (also in my class), etc. “Over-all well being” is not just thinking about my needs, or his needs, but the needs of the other people who are effected by his actions/moods/feelings. The idea being that humans are social beings first and foremost, and any ethical/moral system which doesn’t take that into account rationally/honestly is somewhat flawed.
For the record, I’ve missed such intelligent discourse.
And I think Boston is slightly knowledgeable of what they’ve getting: they made me this way.
MEH said this on February 17th, 2009 at 4:49 am