Topics Ethics

Question The Golden Rule, at least in its usual formulation, would seem to be problematic in cases of justice. If a judge were to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you", then they would probably never sentence anybody. A teacher couldn't fail a student who tried very hard because, presumably, that teacher (at least as a student) would have preferred a barely passing grade if they had tried very hard. The only way around this seems to be for people to enthusiastically and voluntarily be willing to punish themselves, which seems a bit of a stretch, to say the least; at most, people recognize that some system of rules requires they be punished and, perhaps, that system has a point, but nobody really wants to be punished. So how do proponents of the Golden Rule deal with such cases? Must they search elsewhere for their justification, or do they change the scope or meaning of the Golden Rule?

Accepted:
June 5, 2011

Comments

Dear Fan of the Golden Rule,

We are a pair, as I am also enthusiastic about the GR. But instead of the version you cite, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," I prefer this version: "What is hateful to you, do not do to others." This second version is found in Rabbi Hillel. It is also found in Confucius and many other sources.

The difference between the two formulations is that the first asks someone to determine how one would like to be treated and then extrapolate that to a code for behavior towards others. The second formulation asks someone to determine what one hates and then simply refrain from doing that behavior towards others. I think I prefer the second version for its simplicity. Figuring out how you want others to treat you is fairly abstract, but picking out what you hate is usually pretty easy.

Now, on to the case of the failing student. Everyone hates to fail. So the teacher would say to himself, "I hated failing, so I ought not to fail this student." However, let's imagine that the student deserves to fail because she did not demonstrate learning of the material, despite her effort. In that case, the teacher has to ask himself - armed with his life experience as an educator - what he would hate more: rightfully failing an assignment now (and getting another chance to learn the material) OR failing to get job later on in life because he can't read or write. Surely the latter is something to hate more. It will be difficult for the student to see it the same way because the student hasn't yet seen the connection between acquiring academic skills and success later on in life, as the teacher presumably has. (And here we are assuming there is some connection!)

I think one funny part of the GR that you are pointing out is that it requires us to exercise the "moral imagination." The hitch in the Rule that I have observed is that people too often let their moral imaginations get flabby from disuse. That explains why mothers everywhere resort to this painful routine: "Now, how would you like it if someone did that to you?"