Why the Golden Rule is flawed and immoral

[Kanade]

"Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself." – Confucius
"What thou avoidest suffering thyself seek not to impose on others." – Epictetus
"Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful" - Udanavarga 5:18
"Do to others what you would want them to do to you" - Luke 6:31

The Golden Rule is probably the most well known ethical code of all time. It was used by the Romans, the Chinese, the Greeks and adopted by every major religion imaginable. And at first glance it does seem like a good ethical code to hold by as a society. However i think that the golden rule is not only flawed and selfish, but it can also justify immoral acts.

The main reason why i think the golden rule is flawed is because the moral standard and criteria is not based on others desires and preferences, no it's solely focused on what your own preferences and desires are. The Golden Rule implies the basic assumption that other people would like to be treated the way that you would like to be treated. And with that we are inevitably lead to moral relativism, whatever your moral standard and desires are, is what is morally good for others.

Now such moral thinking can be counter-productive and used to justify immoral acts. Consider a suicide bomber, a suicide bomber has no regard for his own life, he is literally killing himself. According to the golden rule treating someone should be based on how you want to be treated and since the suicide bomber is treating himself with death is it therefor justified that he can kill others?

In the end it is fallacious to base your moral criteria on your own capacity to suffer, in the words of Karl Popper: "The golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever reasonable, as they want to be done by"

[brimstoneSalad]

The main reason why i think the golden rule is flawed is because the moral standard and criteria is not based on others desires and preferences, no it's solely focused on what your own preferences and desires are.

That's a common misconception.

Would you want others doing unto you based on their own preferences and needs, or on yours?

Of course, based on yours. Therefore, with respect, do unto others based on their respective needs.

You have to apply it in exactly the same way, which means taking into account situation and individual.

"The golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever reasonable, as they want to be done by"

This is a better phrasing, since the other can lead to confusion. Although I would say this is just a more precise restatement of the golden rule.

[Kanade]

It's not a restatement of the golden rule. It's the very opposite principle of the golden rule.

The golden rule specifically states don't treat others like you want others to treat yourself. If you want others to treat yourself badly then according to the golden rule treating others badly is justified.

[brimstoneSalad]

It's not a restatement of the golden rule. It's the very opposite principle of the golden rule.

I understand that you may view it that way. But that is not how most people who have studied the subject view it. Language is ambiguous like that, and when something is not very clear (like common statements of the golden rule), it's easy to interpret them in the wrong way.

The golden rule specifically states don't treat others like you want others to treat yourself.

That's the opposite.

If you want others to treat yourself badly then according to the golden rule treating others badly is justified.

What do you think "badly" means?

You want others to treat you the way you want to be treated. Whether that is good or bad. So, you should treat others the way they want to be treated. This is the golden rule, understood correctly.

[Volenta]

I actually agree with Kanade here. Making yourself the standard to do your measures on—not taking in consideration the other persons subjective views on the action—is indeed what it implies. It's a pretty common critic Kanade has given (he's not the first to notice), and he is right in doing so.

I have to say that I find your definition very strange, it's basically saying that you should treat people the way the want to be treating. Wow, really? That's just common sense.

I understand that you may view it that way. But that is not how most people who have studied the subject view it. Language is ambiguous like that, and when something is not very clear (like common statements of the golden rule), it's easy to interpret them in the wrong way.

It's just bending the definition of the Golden rule to deal with this problem. I really doubt that the people that studied it view it the way you do (but I'm happy to be proven wrong). People that believe in the rule undoubtedly saw it too, and didn't like the original definition.

What do you think "badly" means?

You want others to treat you the way you want to be treated. Whether that is good or bad. So, you should treat others the way they want to be treated. This is the golden rule, understood correctly.

Bad in the sense that it is objectively immoral, but the person subjectively views it as something good (like the suicide bomber). So you're right, except for the point that you should treat them like they want to be treated.

[brimstoneSalad]

I hate just posting a link, but all of these are very old arguments, which have been addressed many times.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Rul ... criticisms

Wikipedia covers both criticisms and responses in that section, and it's a pretty thorough summary.

Criticisms and responses to criticisms
Many people have criticized the golden rule; George Bernard Shaw once said that "the golden rule is that there are no golden rules". Shaw suggested an alternative rule: "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same" (Maxims for Revolutionists; 1903). Karl Popper wrote: "The golden rule is a good standard which is further improved by doing unto others, wherever reasonable, as they want to be done by" (The Open Society and Its Enemies, Vol. 2). This concept has recently been called "The Platinum Rule"[87] Philosophers, such as Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche, and Bertrand Russell,[citation needed] have objected to the rule on a variety of grounds.[88] The most serious among these is its application. How does one know how others want to be treated? The obvious way is to ask them, but this cannot be done if one assumes they have not reached a particular and relevant understanding.

One satirical version the Golden Rule makes a political and economic point: "Whoever has the gold, makes the rules."[89]

Differences in values or interests
Shaw's comment about differing tastes suggests that if your values are not shared with others, the way you want to be treated will not be the way they want to be treated. Hence, the Golden Rule is "dangerous in the wrong hands,"[90] according to philosopher Iain King, because "some fanatics have no aversion to death: the Golden Rule might inspire them to kill others in suicide missions."[91]

Differences in situations
Immanuel Kant famously criticized the golden rule for not being sensitive to differences of situation, noting that a prisoner duly convicted of a crime could appeal to the golden rule while asking the judge to release him, pointing out that the judge would not want anyone else to send him to prison, so he should not do so to others.[92] Kant's Categorical Imperative, introduced in Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals, is often confused with the Golden Rule.

Cannot be a sole guide to action
Philosopher Iain King has argued that “(although) the idea of mirroring your treatment of others with their treatment of you is very widespread indeed… most ancient wisdoms express this negatively – advice on what you should not do, rather than what you should.” [93] He argues this creates a bias in favour of inertia which allows bad actions and states of affairs to persist. The positive formulation, meanwhile, can be “incendiary”,[94] since it “can lead to cycles of tit-for-tat reciprocity,” unless it is accompanied by a corrective mechanism, such as a concept of forgiveness.[94] Therefore, he concludes that there can be no viable formulation of the Golden Rule, unless it is heavily qualified by other maxims.[95]

Responses to criticisms
Walter Terence Stace, in The Concept of Morals (1937), wrote:

Mr. Bernard Shaw's remark "Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may be different" is no doubt a smart saying. But it seems to overlook the fact that "doing as you would be done by" includes taking into account your neighbor's tastes as you would that he should take yours into account. Thus the "golden rule" might still express the essence of a universal morality even if no two men in the world had any needs or tastes in common.[96]

Marcus George Singer observed that there are two importantly different ways of looking at the golden rule: as requiring (1) that you perform specific actions that you want others to do to you or (2) that you guide your behavior in the same general ways that you want others to.[97] Counter-examples to the golden rule typically are more forceful against the first than the second.

In his book on the golden rule, Jeffrey Wattles makes the similar observation that such objections typically arise while applying the golden rule in certain general ways (namely, ignoring differences in taste, in situation, and so forth). But if we apply the golden rule to our own method of using it, asking in effect if we would want other people to apply the golden rule in such ways, the answer would typically be no, since it is quite predictable that others' ignoring of such factors will lead to behavior which we object to. It follows that we should not do so ourselves—according to the golden rule. In this way, the golden rule may be self-correcting.[98] An article by Jouni Reinikainen develops this suggestion in greater detail.[99]

It is possible, then, that the golden rule can itself guide us in identifying which differences of situation are morally relevant. We would often want other people to ignore any prejudice against our race or nationality when deciding how to act towards us, but would also want them to not ignore our differing preferences in food, desire for aggressiveness, and so on. The platinum rule, and perhaps other variants, might also be self-correcting in this same manner.

As I have said, the golden rule as a moral dictate may be dangerous in the hands of the naive due to the ambiguity of language and variation in interpretation.

Philosophically, however, these are trivial with regards to the proper meaning of the rule.

For practical application, of course, that formulation (the variation presented) is more clear and could be a better phrasing
Both are rather common sense matters in ethics.

[Volenta]

Yes these are old arguments and have been addressed, but I'm not so sure I find those responses very satisfactory.

If you're going to lean fully on the self-corrective power of the rule, you're assuming everyone wants that others take differences in opinion in consideration. While most people do, it's still bad in the wrong hands, even when interpreting it according to the second definition given in the response (which by the way seems to be different from yours if I understood you correctly). You would have to make it part of the rule itself in order to make it safe, but that would take away the whole idea of the rule since it means you always have to listen to what the other wants (making it a rule of it's own). But if you don't, you're inevitably making yourself the standard. I don't see any other way to get out of this problem...

[brimstoneSalad]

If you're going to lean fully on the self-corrective power of the rule, you're assuming everyone wants that others take differences in opinion in consideration. While most people do,

Most people?

It's almost a tautology to say that people can not want done to them what they don't want done to them.

it's still bad in the wrong hands, even when interpreting it according to the second definition given in the response (which by the way seems to be different from yours if I understood you correctly).

Any simplification is bad in the wrong hands. The platinum rule is no exception to this, although it may be marginally more difficult to self correct, there's the issue of what they do want, what they would want, and what they should want, as well as what you think or assume they want.

A Child wants to be fed candy and allowed to play in traffic.

Should we then feed the child candy and let him or her play in traffic?

No, because the child also presumably wants, or should want, to be protected, which is in his or her best interests.

But if we extend that reasoning to religion, we really should want to be subjugated by the "right" religion, and forced to be saved from eternal damnation, right?

I don't see any other way to get out of this problem...

The way to avoid it is to avoid simplifications that are so easily misunderstood and misinterpreted, or to have more than one rule.

The Golden rule is adequate if properly understood and interpreted, but most people lack the wisdom and competence to do that, which is where you run into trouble.

[Volenta]

It's almost a tautology to say that people can not want done to them what they don't want done to them.

You mentioned yourself the examples of the necessity of making decisions for kids that they consciously don't want, but unconsciously really do want. They don't like to be vaccinated, but they even stronger want to avoid getting sick, though they are not always consciously aware of that desire. And you seem to understand that you could extend this to religious reasoning as well, so how could you still defend this rule? You're say it's an interpretation and simplification problem, but if you're interpretation of it is that you should treat others as they like to be treated, that would still leave you nowhere...

[brimstoneSalad]

You mentioned yourself the examples of the necessity of making decisions for kids that they consciously don't want, but unconsciously really do want.

Which is what is wrong with the Platinum rule (which the OP advocates). The Golden rule is self-correcting in this regard, and doesn't use that limited phrasing.

You're say it's an interpretation and simplification problem, but if you're interpretation of it is that you should treat others as they like to be treated, that would still leave you nowhere...

That's not my interpretation; it's regressive and nuanced.

You should treat others as they want to be treated in the context that you, yourself, would be forced to agree with based on circumstance and consideration for informed consent, and rational objectively verifiable basis for one's knowledge of truth and their interests with respect to them... and that's already too much of a mouth full.

You can't simplify the golden rule beyond what it already is and not break it in the process.