As I looked down beneath my feet, I saw a line of ants marching along, carrying large crumbs of something that I was sure they found very valuable toward our farmhouse. From my perspective far above, they looked diligent and intent on their mission and seemed to have no concern for me. I followed the line with my eyes, realizing they were marching straight into the logs that protected our home from the outdoors, when I had an almost instinctive thought—we better get the bug spray to stop them! Then, another, more sobering thought arose: Are they really doing me any harm? Just because I am bigger, or have access to something that would harm these creatures, should I? If the roles were reversed, would I want a larger creature to spray me away while I worked?
This was the first time I ever intuitively thought about the Golden Rule, an axiom that is viewed by some as a “fundamental ethical truth,” but it certainly would not be the last (Neusner & Chilton, 2008, p. 3). The Golden Rule, often described by the phrase “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” continues to arise for myself and others as the ethical virtue by which we can most quickly judge the morality of a situation. The Oxford English Dictionary suggests “that the rule of reciprocity is called ‘golden’ because of its inestimable utility,’ that is, because it is supremely useful.” It has even been known throughout history to be the “glue” that holds societies together. In fact, the Golden Rule is often associated with the concept of reciprocity. As Neusner & Chilton explain in their book The Golden Rule: The Ethics of Reciprocity in World Religions (2008, p. 27),
“the word ‘society’ itself is an Anglicization of the Latin word societas, the abstract noun formed form the stem socius, or ‘ally’—the person who is reciprocally able and willing to show up, who can be counted on to take my interests as well as his own into account. In its very etymology, a society is formed on acts of mutual, responsive trust and generosity.”
Neusner & Chilton go on to describe three types of reciprocity that tribes would use to bind their societies together: balanced, generalized and negative reciprocity. In what Marshall Sahlins calls “balanced reciprocity,” ancient cultures in the pre-archaic eras had a system of do ut des, or “I give so that you give,” which articulates “a systematic quid pro quo. . . I am fair to you, you are fair to me; we keep careful track of the running balance of favors done between us,” (2008, p. 29). Later, tribes developed “generalized reciprocity,” in which a “big man” or “chief” rewarded followers for their loyalty to ensure their continued service and dedication to him and the community. Nonetheless, negative reciprocity is where this seemingly “perfect” axiom comes to a place of contention. Perhaps the best definition of negative reciprocity is revenge or vengeance, in which a negative action is returned with another negative action to maintain “reciprocity” in the situation.
The Golden Rule, and its associated concept of reciprocity, is also considered to be the basic ideal of relational ethics in most major religions. In Christianity, the Golden Rule is directly taught by Jesus Christ when he taught brotherly love or hesed, “Love they neighbor as thyself,” and in Biblical tales such as the story of Ruth (Neusner & Chilton, p. 15). The Islamic Qur’ān teaches the lesson, “None of you believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself!” (2:1703) and while the Golden Rule is not elaborated on in the Torah, Judaism frames it through the lenses of both moral and ethical reciprocity.The Jain tradition declares, “A man should wander about treating all creatures as he himself would be treated,” and the Hindu faith offers ahimsa, the belief that harming another being is like harming oneself (Neusner & Chilton, 2008, p. 146). Perhaps most directly dedicated to the teachings of the Golden Rule is Theravāda Buddhism, which states “one who loves himself should not harm another,” and is founded on the basic tenet of protecting self-interest. Neusner & Chilton describe the Buddhist perspective in their book, saying “Self-interest is simply a fact, and we can deduce that every other individual is similarly self-interested. It is on this basis that one should not harm another, because it would be a violation of an other’s self-interest,” (p. 117-118). Through these examples and many more related to other ideologies like Zoroastrianism and Confucianism, it is clear that the Golden Rule is not only supremely prevalent, but also that it represents a cross-cultural dictum with an almost archetypal nature.
The Golden Rule is a truly remarkable axiom that for many thousands of years has formed the fundamental belief system of many religions, societies and philosophies. Some, like Jeffrey Wattles (1996), believe it to be a deeply powerful message that can bring us moral clarity:
“The Golden Rule . . . . is intuitively accessible, easy to understand in its simplicity, communicating confidence that the agent can find the right way. It tends to function as a summary of the practitioner’s moral tradition. The Rule most commonly expresses a commitment to treating others with consideration and fairness, predicated on the recognition that others are like oneself.”
Comments