The Golden Rule

The centerpiece of Morality in the tradition of Western Civilization is the 'Golden Rule': 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. But whether or not it accomplishes what it means to is unclear. Its main intent is seemingly to serve as a corrective to selfish behavior, and in many circumstances it does successfully awaken someone to consideration for others. However, in others it can be counterproductive, as, for example, in the case of a loner, for whom 'as you would have them do unto you' translates into not getting involved with someone else's problems. Furthermore, even when, as prescribed by the principle, one is responsive to another, the results can be less than admirable, as, for example, in the case of an excessive hedonist, who will thereby over-indulge someone else. These examples expose, not an unforeseen abuse, nor an imprecision in the wording, of the Rule, but a fundamental flaw in the notion itself. For, while putting oneself in the place of another might be a necessary condition of Moral conduct, it is not a sufficient one, i. e. doing something for someone else is not the same as doing some good for them. The shortcoming can be said to lie, as Aristotle, Kant, and Mill, have all observed, in the distinction between lower and higher selves, which each have, in their own way, attempted to accommodate into their principles, in order to guarantee that action for the sake of someone else is truly beneficial to them. The criterion of the Golden Rule, 'as you would have them do unto you', entails no such guarantee, and, ultimately, can be as selfish as the behavior that it purports to correct.