February 17th, 2009
The Golden Rule is Selfish?
I saw a comment today that suggested the golden rule, as we know it, is selfish. Here is what I think of when I hear the Golden Rule:
“Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself.”
On the surface it seems pretty nice really. I never really thought it might be construed to be selfish. Do to others what you want them to do to you. The commentator made an interesting observation:
It’s comparable to serving my vegetarian friend a wonderful, slow cooked brisket. I’d love someone to offer me that, but he’s not going to care for it, and he’ll walk away thinking I’m an insensitive jerk and I’ll think he’s an ass for not appreciating my gift.
That seems like a fairly simplistic example, maybe even one devoid of common sense but it is still kind of interesting simply because I had never thought of the “Golden Rule” in that way. A more empathic way of stating the Golden Rule might be:
Don’t do to others what you wouldn’t want done to you
Though, really, that still seems pretty selfish; it’s all about looking out for you and not so much about looking out for your neighbor’s wants, needs, or feelings. Perhaps a better way still is to say:
Do for others what they would appreciate having done for them
This one doesn’t have the same nice ring to it but it does take into consideration the opinion of the recipient and how they would feel about having something done unto or for them. A cynic might say that this version just encourages laziness because the recipient can take advantage of the givers generosity. Of course, then, it is no longer the Golden Rule it’s just greedy deception. For it to be a valid Golden Rule it would have to be shared by both parties; with neither holding power over the other rather, simply both just doing for the other out of a desire to help without any concept of reciprocity.
I also like this because it takes out scenarios where the recipient needs the help but resents getting it because it makes them feel needy and thus they don’t appreciate it. For instance, let’s say you knew a poor family, it was winter, and you wanted to give them some nice warm coats. The family might accept your coat and not feel indebted toward you except, perhaps, in pure emotional gratitude. However, they might also take the coats with a shot to their pride and ego. They are now left feeling as if they are inferior to you because they couldn’t afford the coats in the first place. That family might have appreciated having their circumstances considered and being offered some work they could do to raise funds for coats instead of just being given a hand-out. Or they might just prefer that you but out of their lives and let them find a way to get coats on their own. It is up to the giver to understand the personality and desires of the recipient so that you truly treat the other with a basic level of human dignity they deserve. I think, if this can be accomplished, then the spirit of the Golden Rule is truly going to be met.
Comments
“It’s comparable to serving my vegetarian friend a wonderful, slow cooked brisket. I’d love someone to offer me that, but he’s not going to care for it, and he’ll walk away thinking I’m an insensitive jerk and I’ll think he’s an ass for not appreciating my gift. ”
I think that this comparison is not very apt, mostly because it is far to specific. The author appears to be saying to offer other people precisely what you would enjoy. I think a more comparable metaphor, in keeping with the food analogy would be, “I offered my vegetarian friend a meal more consistent with their values and tastes than what I was eating, because I would want them to do the same for me.”
It is exactly like having a party and knowing you have a guest who doesn’t really like wine, but loves beer. You get the beer for them because it is a kind gesture and in a perfect world they would reciprocate. However, I do think that the Golden Rule needs no reciprocation.
Justin
February 17th, 2009
Well I did say it was a pretty poor example but I still feel it illustrates the problem with the way the Golden Rule is written. I think the fact that it is simplistic is what helps to get you to view the Golden Rule in the way it is written as opposed to how we always consider it in our hearts.
I don’t think most people try to apply the Golden rule in a selfish manner; I just think it is written in one.
Bill
February 17th, 2009
As a kid I always thought the GR was to be interpreted somewhat concretely. (Basically, put others before yourself). But as an official “grown up” I’ve come to see it another way. I think Jesus was saying to respect others, but he was also saying to respect yourself. And more importantly, that those two things go together, they are not really separate. I don’t think he was saying to martyr yourself (ironically…….considering his ultimate demise), but to respect others as you might respect yourself, and at the same time he was saying, take care of yourself as you would take care of others. (A good lesson for those of us who struggle with self care…….) He is saying that we are all equal and special before the eyes of God and that we all matter, who knew he would have a little Ayn Rand (sp?) in him? Wendall Berry (a most brilliant writer and my literary hero) would call this “solving for pattern”, the most perfect and beautiful of solutions……that one naturally leads to the other. That we are all connected and that everything we do matters.
Sara
Sara Huber
February 18th, 2009
I agree that the vast majority of people who attempt to live by the golden rule don’t really consider the reciprocity aspect of it at all; they just try to treat people decently. I think all of us generally interpret the rule as “treat others right”
I just think the way it is written that it is a bit selfish.
Here is another example with more real world implications.
People who truly and seriously think Homosexuality is an abomination do whatever they can to help “heal” the homosexuals of the world; either by attempting to suppress their behavior or by convincing them what they are doing is horrible. These people are living by the Golden Rule. They believe that they would truly want that same treatment directed toward them if they were suddenly struck with “Homosexuality”
In this case they are doing to others what they would want done to them but never really considering the feelings of the recipient. In this case the Golden Rule is not being perverted in anyway; it just isn’t a good rule to live by (in my opinion). I’m sure there are many other social scenario’s where the circumstances are similar to my homosexuality one – generally directed towards minorities – that someone could identify and realize, if the roles were reversed suddenly the Golden Rule would bite them in the ass.
I picked the Golden Rule to talk about because it is the version of the Ethic of Reciprocity I am familiar with. However, when I was writing the article I actually discovered the whole “Ethic of Reciprocity” as an ethic, and not just the Golden Rule. It turns out the core statement, almost to the letter, predates Jesus by quite a bit. I don’t think anyone would find that too surprising.
It should also not be too surprising that I’m not the first, by a long shot, to feel this way. Heck, I admit as much in my post. However, some folks like George Bernard Shaw and Bertrand Russel also criticized it on similar grounds: Shaw sums it up, “Do not do unto others as you would expect they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.”
Bill
February 18th, 2009
I think in the example about Homosexuality you used, the Golden Rule means mind your business. I am heterosexual and I have friends who are homosexual. Whatever my view points are on homosexuality, I keep them to myself and understand that in life I am allowed to make my own decisions, as are they.
I think that most people who take metaphors literally are doing the meaning a large disservice. Because, while I am fairly certain the original meaning of “Do not put all your eggs in one basket,” was in fact about eggs, I know I do not think about it in that context as far as day to day application is concerned.
Now, I know that the Golden Rule “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” is written simplistically. Conversely, I do not think many would recite something more complicated than this. Otherwise we would be using metaphors and analogies three paragraphs long, which read like legal documents.
Justin
February 18th, 2009
Just because that is how YOU apply the golden rule to certain topics doesn’t mean that is how others do. The Homosexuality example is a perfect one. You and I just but out but obviously there are a lot of people who think they are doing the right thing by opposing homosexuality; they think they are doing the gay person a favor by trying to save them from their sickness.
My version isn’t all that complicated, “Do for others what they would appreciate having done for them”, it just takes the focus off yourself and puts it on other people; I think it more fully encapsulates how I have always interpreted the Golden Rule and how I would like everyone to.
Bill
February 18th, 2009
i think its just about treating others with respect. I can’t believe how you are over analyzing this. I don’t think too many people thing the golden rule means “save” homosexuals. Perhaps you have been in the bible belt too long and you think these extremests are suddenly the majority
ted
February 19th, 2009
I agree, your way is not that complicated. However, I am sure given enough time I could probably force you to give me one legal paragraph on the subject. lol. My point is only that the debaters in question, that you mentioned previously, were taking the golden rule far too literally.
And thanks for the thread jack BTW Ted. ;P
Justin
February 19th, 2009
I read a comment and thought it was interesting so shared that perspective. I agree the intent of the Golden Rule is to respect others; I just thought it could be expressed better. As I pointed out I’m not the first, by a long shot, to think so.
Wasn’t there a big vote in California, well outside of my part of the country, that took away the right to get married to someone of the same sex? 35 states have constitutional amendments that specifically target gay marriage. That’s a bit more of the country than just the Bible belt. Sure, not all of the people who oppose Gay Marriage are doing so for Biblical reasons but I’m pretty sure it is those people who are making the most noise and raising the most funding to impact public policy.
There are A LOT of people who take the call to save others seriously. Again, not all of the people opposing gay marriage are, but anyone who takes the call seriously is probably opposing Homosexuality in general just as fervently.
The “saving homosexuals” was just an example. I’m sure if I wanted to I could come up with others that one just jumped out at me.
Bill
February 19th, 2009
I agree that treating others as they’d like to be treated rather than how we’d like to be treated is an important distinction.
I’ve often wondered how many relationships get all messy because it is so easy to forget what brings one person pleasure or happiness or feelings of acknowledgment isn’t necessarily (or even likely) the same for the other person in the relationship.
Jenny
February 19th, 2009
“Perhaps you have been in the bible belt too long and you think these extremests are suddenly the majority”
I agree with Bill. The extremists are definitely not in the majority, however those who are afraid of differences in other people are. However, I would not pin that on the golden rule. Even the christian (and other) religious extremists are doing this hoping someone would do the same for them. Even to raise a hypothetical question such as, “If you were gay would you want me to do this” would lead to a counter of “It would never happen, christ would not allow it (or some such brief).
And for what it is worth, I enjoy these debates Bill. Keep them coming.
Justin
February 20th, 2009
I know I didn’t express it very well but I think Jenny summarized my point pretty well. Thanks for contributing some clarity!
Bill
February 20th, 2009
I think you answered your own question in the scenario about giving the coats. If you think you would feel less superior because someone gave you a coat, then you might want to approach the problem in various ways which would align with your feelings. The assumption is that we are connected enough with other people to come to appropriate terms and not just to look away because we fear reprisal of some sort.
monapellerin
January 16th, 2010
Thanks for your comment Mona. It has been a while since anyone else shared their perspective.
Bill
January 16th, 2010
Hi Bill,
Sure. If you have any more thoughts on the Golden Rule, I would be interested. I am writing a book that discusses science vs human perspectives and I am trying to compare physics and mathematical constants as universalities and fee that the Golden Rule could be accepted as a constant relating to human social interaction. Although subjectivity is widespread and usually linked to religious bias, it seems that the social part of humanity should be able to adopt standards that meet the test of positive outcomes whether or not it is based in religion beliefs, good practices or just common sense. Thanks.
monapellerin
January 17th, 2010