Living the Golden Rule/Working Through Common Misunderstandings

Working Through Common Misunderstandings

Simplistic interpretations of the golden rule can lead to obviously incorrect conclusions. These fallacies often lead people to dismiss the golden rule as unhelpful, and discourage them from understanding it more deeply. Here are several common fallacies along with explanations of correct golden rule interpretations.

Literal GR Fallacy

It is a fallacy to assume that everyone has the same likes, dislikes, and needs that we have.

A simplistic interpretation, taking the words “as you want to be treated” literally and out of context can lead to absurd results in several situations. Consider this story of a monkey and a fish.^[1]

There once lived a monkey and a fish. The monkey followed the golden rule, always trying to treat others as he wanted to be treated. But he sometimes applied the golden rule foolishly. Now one day a big flood came. As the threatening waters rose, the foolish monkey climbed a tree to safety. Then he looked down and saw a fish struggling in the water. He thought, "I wanted to be lifted from the water." So he reached down and grabbed the fish from the water, lifting him to safety on a high branch. Of course that didn't work. The fish died.^[2]

The error was caused because the monkey applied the golden rule literally “treat others as you want to be treated” without considering the differences between monkeys and fish.

Here is another example:

Broccoli is Eileen’s favorite vegetable. Wanting to please her husband she serves him broccoli for dinner. Unfortunately broccoli tastes very bitter to her husband, and he will not eat the vegetable.

Again the error was caused because Eileen applied the golden rule literally “treat others as you want to be treated” without considering the differences between her and her husband. If instead she had thought about her husband’s situation and asked “what is my husband’s favorite dish” she would have been using the golden rule wisely.

In applying the golden rule, we need to know the other’s situation, which may differ from ours; the other person may have different likes, dislikes, and needs. We need to imagine ourselves in the other’s situation, and we need to ask “how do I desire that I be treated if I were in that situation?”

Rephrasing the golden rule to consider being in the same-situation helps with many cases:

I ask a doctor to remove my infected appendix. Should I then remove the Doctor’s appendix? No, because the doctor has a healthy appendix in this situation and in no need for surgery.
I love broccoli, should I insist on serving to others? No, because although broccoli is my favorite vegetable, many others are in a situation where they do not like eating broccoli.
I love listening to music by Joe Cocker. Should I broadcast Joe Cocker songs loudly through my backyard speakers so that the neighbors can enjoy his music? No, they may have different musical tastes, and in their situation may prefer quiet at this time.
I am a real party animal. Should I assume my friends also love to party hardy and drop in unannounced to bring the revelry to them? No, many people, especially introverts, enjoy quiet time alone in many situations.

Harry Gensler introduces the mnemonic “KITA” to help us remember the steps in avoiding this fallacy.

K—Know—“How would my action affect others?”
I—Imagine—“What would it be like to have this done to me in this situation?” Accurate empathy or asking the other person what they prefer can help here.
T—Test for consistency—“Am I now willing that if I were in the same situation then this be done to me?”
A—Act toward others only as you’re willing to be treated in the same situation.

In choosing vegetables to serve for dinner, begin by seeking to know how being presented with a particular vegetable will affect your partner or guests. Imagine what it would be like to have a food you dislike served to you. Imagine what foods they may like. Test the consistency by asking “am I willing to be served a vegetable I dislike?” Act, by finding out your partner’s or guests’ food preferences, and then serving them dishes they prefer.

Soft Golden Rule Fallacy

It is a fallacy to conclude that living the golden rule requires we should never act against what others want. Consider these examples.

Four year old Maddie wanted to put her fingers into the electrical outlet. If her mother were also a curious toddler, she would also want to explore the electrical outlet. Does the golden rule suggest this is a good idea? No, the mother needs to ask about her present reaction to a hypothetical case: “Am I now willing that if I were in the toddler’s situation I be protected from harm by being stopped from putting my fingers into electrical outlets?” Of course the answer is yes.

In a second example:

The golden rule does not require police to ignore bank robberies.

A criminal has just robbed a bank. The police arrive. Does the golden rule require the police accommodate the criminal’s preference and let the criminal go free? No, the police need to ask about their present reaction to a hypothetical case: “Am I willing that the police put me in jail if I do the things that this criminal has done?” The answer is yes, and so the arrest proceeds.

Sometimes we need to act against what others want. We may need to stop a baby from doing unsafe things, refuse a salesperson who wants to sell us inferior, unwanted, or overpriced products; fail a student who has not done the coursework, defend ourselves against attacks, or restrain a dangerous criminal.

Doormat GR Fallacy

It is a fallacy to assume we should ignore our own interests. Consider these examples.

Helpful Harriet cannot say no when she is asked to help someone. Her brother asks to borrow $50,000 and she lends it, knowing it will never be repaid. A neighbor needs a ride to the airport early every Wednesday morning, and she agrees to drive him there. She never turns down a request for a favor and her life has been taken over by committee work she no longer enjoys, running errands for people who could take care of themselves, and rescuing adults from problems they should never have encountered.

In a second example:

Although Guilty Gladys does turn down requests for favors, she always feels guilty about not helping everyone who asks. This is almost as stressful as taking the time to do the favors.

The golden rule does not force us to do whatever others what. The golden rule lets us say no if we are willing to have others say no to us in similar situations. The golden rule lets us refuse another’s request if we are willing that others refuse us when we make such requests in similar situations. That is how you treat others as you would consent to being treated in a similar situation.

The golden rule is as much about your welfare as it is about the welfare of others. If you are a doormat, repeat to yourself, “As others have needs and rights that ought to be respected, so to do I.” Or more simply, “My needs are as important as any others.”

Third Parties GR Fallacy

It is a fallacy to assume we should consider only ourselves and the other person. Consider these examples.

A lazy student often skipped class, neglected to do the coursework, then at the end of the year pleaded with the teacher to give her an “A” in the course.
An impatient and inconsiderate driver attempts to cut into a long line of cars exiting the freeway. The driver expects you to be kind in the face of this selfishness, and let him pull into the line in front of you.
A mining company lobbied the government to allow them to continue with mountain top removal operations to gain an immediate economic benefit at the cost of forever destroying the landscape and impacting the environment.

These examples ignore the impact of their actions on (unnamed but very real) third parties. The lazy student is diminishing the reputation of the school and the value of good grades earned by the efforts of conscientious students—and she is encouraging a very harmful situation whereby grades depend on student persuasion rather than student achievement. The inconsiderate driver is delaying all the drivers waiting in line, and setting a dangerous example. The mining company is ignoring the legitimate claims others, such as people living in the region and future generations, who want to enjoy a wilderness environment that has not been destroyed by mining operations.

The generalized golden rule has us satisfy the golden rule when applied toward each affected party. “Act only as you’re willing for anyone to act in the same situation, regardless of where or when you imagine yourself or others.” The affected parties may include future generations. This leads to the carbon rule:

“Keep the earth livable for future generations, as we want past generations to have done for us.”

Easy GR Fallacy

The golden rule can be applied at different levels of sophistication, but a childlike understanding (as exemplified by the literal golden rule), while sufficient for children is not sufficient for adults. It is a fallacy to assume the golden rule gives an infallible test of right and wrong that can be applied in seconds. The decision is likely to be wrong if the beliefs or assumptions used to make the decision are wrong. Consider these examples.

Thinking it would prevent anoxia, it was common medical practice in the 1940s and 1950s to put premature babies in incubators and crank up the oxygen. An epidemic of blindness among some 10,000 premature babies in the 1940s and the early 1950s became one of the great medical mysteries of the postwar era. It was later determined that the extra oxygen, given with the intent of helping, was causing the blindness in premature babies. Acting on incorrect information, healthcare workers were doing harm when they believed they were treating their patients as they wanted to be treated.

In another tragic example:

Prior to the 1970s, Bangladesh had one of the highest infant mortality rates in the world. Ineffective water purification and sewage systems as well as periodic monsoons and flooding exacerbated these problems. As a solution, UNICEF and the World Bank advocated the use of wells to tap into deeper groundwater. Millions of wells were constructed as a result. Because of this action, infant mortality and diarrheal illness were reduced by fifty percent. However, with over 8 million wells constructed, approximately one in five of these wells is now contaminated with arsenic above the government's drinking water standard. Arsenic contamination of the groundwater in Bangladesh is a serious problem. People who contributed to the UNICEF fund and aid workers who worked to build wells were actually doing harm when they thought they were treating the people as they wanted to be treated.

In these examples, the “K” step of KITA, that requires gaining accurate knowledge of the situation, failed. The golden rule relies on accurate information to ensure good actions. Know how you know.

Assignments throughout this course will require increased sophistication in applying the golden rule as the course progresses.

Too Simple or too complex GR Fallacy.

It is a fallacy to believe that the golden rule is so simple that a kindergarten-level understanding is sufficient, or so complex that only philosophers can understand it. Instead we must work to understand the golden rule at a level corresponding to the real problems we face as we mature and our lives become more complex.

An important objective of this course is to provide practice in applying the golden rule at your present level of understanding and moral maturity. Learning to spot the fallacies described above, recall the incorrect and correct examples, and apply correct reasoning to problems you face will improve your moral decision making.

Consistency

Consistency—the virtue of fidelity—is at the core of the golden rule. The golden rule rests on two basic consistency requirements:

We must be impartial; making similar evaluations about similar action, regardless of the individuals involved. When we are impartial the same moral beliefs apply regardless of who they apply to. Impartiality requires our willingness to exchange “self” for “other” in similar situations.
We must also be conscientious; living in harmony with our moral beliefs. When we are conscientious we align our actions with our beliefs. Conscientiousness requires our willingness to exchange “does” for “believe” in similar situations.

These two consistency requirements ensure we follow the golden rule if we wish to be consistent. The golden rule is actually a theorem that can be proven as a logical consequence of these two consistency principles.^[3]

Consider again how grandpa is treated in the story of “The Old Man and His Grandson.” If you are both conscientious and impartial, then you won’t make grandpa eat apart unless you are willing that you be made to eat apart in the same situation. This graphic illustrates the underlying logic in more detail:

You make grandpa eat apart.	⇨⇨⇨⇨⇨ If you are conscientious, then your beliefs align with your actions. (Substitute “believe” for “make”)	You believe it would be alright for you to make grandpa eat apart.
		⇩⇩⇩⇩⇩ If you are impartial, then your beliefs remain consistent regardless of who they apply to. (Substitute “you” for “grandpa”)
You are willing that you be made to eat apart in the same situation.	⇦⇦⇦⇦⇦ If you are conscientious, then your actions align with your beliefs. (Substitute “be made to” for “believe”.)	You believe it would be alright for you to be made to eat apart in the same situation

Here is the same argument presented as a narrative:

You make grandpa eat apart.
If you are conscientious, that is, if your actions are congruent with your beliefs, then your beliefs are implied by your actions so:
You believe it would be alright for you to make grandpa eat apart.
If you are impartial, that is, if the beliefs you apply to others also apply to you, then:
You believe it would be alright for you to be made to eat apart in the same situation.
If you are conscientious, then you act based on your beliefs, so:
You are willing that you be made to eat apart in the same situation.

The golden rule provides a shortcut from step 1 to step 7. If you have difficulty applying the golden rule directly, perhaps breaking it down into these component steps can be helpful in clarifying your thinking.

Assignment

Please select answers to each of the following questions: Press the "Submit" button after you have made your selections.

Please continue. Select answers to each of the following questions: Press the "Submit" button after you have made your selections.

	the future-regard principle (where we ask whether we consent to this act being done when we imagine ourselves experiencing its future consequences).
	the golden rule (where we ask whether we consent to others acting this way toward us).
	the self-regard principle (where we ask whether we consent to others, especially those we care about, doing as we do).
	all of the above.

	True
	False

Please continue the course with the topic on Moral Reasoning.

References

↑ From http://harryhiker.com/stories.htm
↑ This story may have originated as a traditional Tanzanian folktale and was adapted by Gensler for use in teaching the golden rule. See: http://www.afriprov.org/index.php/african-stories-by-season/14-animal-stories/67-how-the-monkeys-saved-the-fish.html
↑ Gensler, Harry J. (March 21, 2013). Ethics and the Golden Rule. Routledge. pp. 256. ISBN 978-0415806879. section 2.1d

[1] From http://harryhiker.com/stories.htm

[2] This story may have originated as a traditional Tanzanian folktale and was adapted by Gensler for use in teaching the golden rule. See: http://www.afriprov.org/index.php/african-stories-by-season/14-animal-stories/67-how-the-monkeys-saved-the-fish.html

[3] Gensler, Harry J. (March 21, 2013). Ethics and the Golden Rule. Routledge. pp. 256. ISBN 978-0415806879. section 2.1d

[1]

[2]

[3]

	Ima is to help X to rob Y.
	Ima is to refrain from helping X to rob Y.
	Both are implied by GR
	Neither is implied by GR.

	in an imagined relevantly similar situation.
	in actual situations that we regard as relevantly similar.
	in an imagined exactly similar situation.
	all of the above.

	is a basic first principle of formal ethics.
	is a clear principle with sensible consequences
	both of the above.
	none of the above.

	the virtue of fairness (which involves treating others only in ways that you're willing to be treated in the same situation).
	hypothetical imperatives involving consistency ("If you want to be conscientious and impartial, then you ought to follow GR").
	a description of what certain ideals involve ("If you're conscientious and impartial then you'll follow GR").
	any of the above.

	"To a patient: if you want the doctor to remove your appendix, then remove the doctor's appendix."
	"To a masochist: if you want X to torture you, then torture X."
	both are good objections.
	neither is a good objection.

	if you were a little boy who loved to fight and who wanted your sister to fight with you, then you'd have to fight with her.
	if you were a parent who wanted your child to refrain from punishing you, then you'd have to refrain from punishing your child.
	both of the above.

	to have our son or daughter treated.
	to be treated ourselves.
	both of the above.

	a sufficient condition for permissible action.
	a necessary condition for permissible action.
	neither.

	"If I were in my child's exact place, would I then (as a child) consent to being disciplined?"
	"Do I now (as an adult) consent to the idea that if I were in my child's exact place then I'd be disciplined?"
	Both questions mean the same thing.

	GR entails that Ima ought to torture X.
	Ima could torture X and yet satisfy GR.

	other sentient beings.
	other human beings
	other members of our tribe or social group.

	it concretely applies ideals like fairness, concern, and impartiality.
	it doesn't assume any specific theoretical approach to ethics.
	it motivates us.
	it counteracts our limited sympathies.
	it engages our reasoning, instead of imposing an answer.
	it helps us to see the point behind specific moral rules.
	all of the above.

	"Do I now (while awake) desire that if I were in this sleeping person's exact place then I be robbed?"
	"If I were in this sleeping person's exact place, would I then (while asleep) desire to be robbed?"
	Both questions mean the same thing.

	You should change the action. Since you are unwilling to have A done to you, you shouldn't do A to another.
	You should change your desire. Since you act to do A to another, you should consent to the idea of A being done to you.
	Either may be defective.

	a don't-combine form.
	a present attitude to a hypothetical situation.
	a similar situation qualifier.
	all of the above.

	True.
	False.

	True
	False.

	Confucius
	Buddha
	Jesus Christ
	Rabbi Hillel
	Baha'i, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Mormonism, Sikhism, Taoism, Urantianism, and Zoroastrianism
	All of the above

	Two.
	Ten
	One hundred.
	Over a thousand.

	what we now desire be done to us in a hypothetical or future case in which we picture ourselves as confused, senile, or in a coma.
	what we'd desire if we were confused, senile, or in a coma.

	as they'd treat you if the situation were reversed.
	as they wish to be treated.
	as they treat you.
	as they wish to treat you.
	as they in turn treat others.
	as you want to be treated.

	The positive form tells us to do good to others, while the negative form just tells us not to harm others.
	The two forms are logically and historically equivalent.

	Yes -- since you follow the golden rule toward your children.
	No -- since you are acting in a way that you think it would be wrong for others to act in similar circumstances.

	Americans should vote for him instead of for Nixon.
	racial segregation was wrong.
	cutting taxes would promote the economy.
	the Russians ought to withdraw their missiles from Cuba.

	other members of our tribe or social group.
	other human beings.
	other sentient beings.

	a patient: If you want the doctor to remove your appendix, then remove the doctor's appendix.
	a violent little boy who loves to fight: If you want your sister to fight with you, then fight with her.
	a masochist who wants to be tortured: If you want Jones to torture you, then torture Jones.
	All of the above are objections.

	cultural-relativist justification
	subjectivist justification
	self-interest justification
	supernatualist justification
	intuitionist justification

	Yes -- and he'd probably get 100% on these exercises!
	No -- he needs to read Gensler's ethics book!

	is a clear principle with sensible consequences
	is a basic first principle of ethics.
	both of the above.
	none of the above.

	are complementary.
	sometimes conflict.
	are equivalent in meaning.

	seeing GR as only forbidding inconsistent action-desire combinations.
	including some method to criticize irrational desires.
	having Ima ask whether he's willing that he be tortured if he were in the exact place of X (who presumably is a nonmasochist).
	all of the above.

	"If I were in the same situation, would I then be willing that this be done to me?"
	"Am I now willing that this be done to me (in my present situation)?"
	"Am I now willing that if I were in the same situation then this be done to me?"
	All of these mean the same thing.

	Don't combine these two: (a) I do something to another, and (b) I'm unwilling that this be done to me in the same situation.
	Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation.
	both of the above
	neither of the above

	Yes -- since you aren't violating the golden rule toward others.
	No -- since you are treating yourselves (in the future) as you aren't willing to have been treated by yourselves (in the past).

	a don't-combine form.
	a present attitude toward a hypothetical situation.
	a same-situation clause.
	all of the above.

	"Am I now willing that if I were in my child's place then I'd be punished?"
	"If I were in my child's place, would I then be willing to be punished?"
	Both questions mean the same thing.

	a description of human behavior.
	an infallible guide to what is right or wrong.
	a consistency principle.
	all of the above.

	"If I were senile, would I then be willing to be treated in such and such ways?"
	"Am I now willing that if I were senile then I'd be treated in such and such ways?"
	Both questions mean the same thing.

	it counteracts self-centeredness.
	it concretely applies ideals like fairness and impartiality.
	it helps us to see the point behind moral rules.
	it engages our reasoning, instead of imposing an answer.
	all of the above.