The Golden Rule

by Jeffrey Wattles

In an age plagued by selfishness, materialism, and violence, ethicists feel impelled to find a universal system of values. To arrive at such a "rule" requires that they struggle with a series of seemingly irreconcilable questions. First, are universal values possible in a pluralistic world, and how does one do justice to both human equality and to individual and cultural differences? How is one to understand the interface between religious moral teachings and the ethics of secular humanism? Finally, can such a system integrate moral intuition and moral reason? In the first scholarly book in English on the golden rule since the seventeenth century, Jeffrey Wattles demonstrates how a clear understanding of the psychological, philosophical, and religious ramifications of the rule can form the synthesis needed to solve these dilemas.

The golden rule , "do to others as you would have others do to you," is widely assumed to have a single meaning, shared by virtually all the world's religions. It strikes the average person as intuitively true, though most modern philosophers reject it or recast it in more rational form. Wattles surveys the history of the golden rule and its spectrum of meanings in diverse contexts, ranging from Confusius to Plato and Aristotle, from classical Jewish literature to the New Testament. He also considers medieval, Reformation, and modern theological and philosophical responses and objections to the rule, as well as how some early twentieth-century American leaders have tried to use the rule. Wattles draws these diverse interpretation into a synthesis that responds, at the psychological, philosophical, and religious levels, to the challenges to moral living in any given culture. Emotionally, the rules counsels consideration for others feelings by asking that "you place yourself in their shoes." Intellectually, it activates moral thinking about what is fair. At the same time, it retains a spiritual appeal as "the principle of the practice of the family of God."

Demonstrating how, despite its contentious history, this age-old ethical principle contiues to be relevant in dealing with contemporary issues, The Golden Rule should interest students and scholars working in religious studies, philosophy and ethics, and psychology, as well as anyone looking for an alternative to postmodern cynicism and alienation.

Genres: Nonfiction

272 pages, Hardcover

First published January 1, 1996

Reviews

[J.D. Steens · Rating 2 out of 5]

Wattles provides a history of the golden rule, highlighting its various cross-cultural iterations. Generally, “approximately,” he states, the golden rule is, “Do to others as you want others to do to you.” Wattles’ account details how this seemingly simple statement has been subject to multiple interpretations and debate. In essence, the rule for Wattles requires that one imagine oneself from the perspective of the other, which places a check on one’s actions. We are required to do this because others are to be seen as individuals of equal moral worth.

Wattles says that while this ethical rule can stand on its own, it also mirrors a divine pattern.* God is the “Source Personality,” he writes. As God is the “parent of the other,” we as God’s children are all equals and this requires us to “treat others in a Godlike way as you want others to treat you.” The golden rule is, then, “the principle of the practice of the family of God.” In engaging the world this way, he states that the “kinship of humanity is evident,” but it is also to risk encountering the divine and the realization that every step along the forward path is illumined by the Creator.”

The book cover states that Wattles “explores with his students ways of integrating science, philosophy, and religion,” but the book is short on science, other than seeing the (divine) parallels between the universality of natural laws and moral laws, of which the golden rule would be the paramount example. Absent from his discussion is any reference to evolutionary theory where the ties to the golden rule are significant. First, reciprocity is a central theme in evolutionary theory.** Second, an other-regarding feeling is also a central theme,*** at least it was for Darwin who showed its relevance for group formation (hence, tribalism, but also the difficulty in transcending the tribal boundaries by extending fellow-feeling and golden-rule-like considerations to non-groups). Because of a social nature, many individuals follow the golden rule not because it is a moral requirement but because the other’s pain is their own.

Third, evolution may explain why we might be motivated to abide by the golden rule. It’s not about moral worth. It’s about pragmatism and utility. We follow the golden rule because it’s in our own long-term and broader interest. It’s about practically pursuing our self-interest in ways that are compatible with others doing the same. If each is free to pursue their self-interest, then the logic of that dynamic is that turmoil is the inevitable result. It’s what Hobbes saw certainly, but Hobbes was extreme. Theoretically, we all have the same right to be free, but that right also means that it must be balanced vis-à-vis the other’s same right. The golden rule sits at the point of balance between the freedom of one and the freedom of the other. As Wattles notes, this forces us into a conversation at least about how to work out the inherent tension between self and other. In many areas, this is done easily enough. In other areas, the resolution of tension is more or less intractable.

And then, of course, there are those situations where one side abides by the spirit of the golden rule and the other takes advantage of that self-restraint. This is where Wattle’s argument breaks down. He wants us to take the high road and employ reason and argument to resolve disputes out of respect for the other’s moral worth. That only works if there’s good intent on the other side. If there’s not, then counter power is the only option that’s left. External restraint fills in when self-restraint is missing. But Wattles would see this as aggressive and would take it off the table. It’s interesting that the pros and cons of Wattles’ argument boils to the perpetually-cited Chamberlain-Hitler question: does peace come through noble aspiration or does it come from strength?

*“My experience of working on this book,” he writes, “was initially an exercise of piety. Next it turned into an effort to construct the appearance and reality of an academic specialty. Then it became an affair of self-redefinition. The book culminates as a gift, an invitation to come and see what I have found.”

** Given Wattle’s emphasis on relationships as the essence of the golden rule, it’s interesting that he says little about the golden rule as it operates in reverse. Just as we treat others with fairness and respect, we also require that others do the same. We are like cells that way. We act on the world, but we also defend against that which harms and, in this way, the golden rule might be seen as embedded in who we are as biological beings.

***Wattles rests the golden rule dictate on the Kantian moral worth of the other because the other is capable of behaving rationally i.e., of acting in accord with the objective-universality requirement, thereby transcending passions and sentiments that are, in essence, subjective.

[John Hodge · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book's analysis of the history and meaning of the golden rule is thorough and insightful. The book shows that the idea expressed by the golden rule is widespread and cross-cultural, is not simplistic, is not tied to any particular religion, and has been affirmed in both religious and non-religious contexts. The book concludes that the golden rule "is a nontheologic principle" and is "an expression of human kinship, the most fundamental truth underlying morality." I highly recommend this book to anyone interested in ethics and moral philosophy.