Originally posted by: ruu
I think that the wording of the Golden Rule is perhaps a bit imprecise.
The Golden Rule doesn't mean that you should do a certain thing to/for/with another person in the exact same manner as you would have it done to/for/with you. The Golden Rule means that you should do a certain thing to/for/with another person
with the same intent as you would have it done to/for/with you.
The Golden Rule is not perfect; it does not assure proper results the first time applied. However, it
does ensure
better results the
more it is applied. As time stretches on into infinity, constant application of the Golden Rule will almost certainly guarantee that the proper results are achieved.
(Insert geeky reference to asymptotes and limit notation.)
Let's look at
Jack Ryan's example here:
Originally posted by: Jack Ryan
Put yourself in an office setting. You like it when the office gets together and has a Christmas party or celebrates someones birthday. You order a cake, have a little party, and one person doesn't seem interested in participating. You love parties and would like to be included in them so you treat everyone else like they want to be engaged in office parties. This person is embarrassed and put on the spot for why they don't participate.
Turns out this person is a Jehovah's Witness and doesn't celebrate Christmas or birthdays and is now upset that they had to share this information (or chose not to and is now the subject of behind the back talking by others in the office).
You chose to treat them like you would (love office parties) but it turns out you made them feel uncomfortable. Which in my world is a failure in human relations.
Clearly the Golden Rule, applied here, missed its mark. But one must recognize
how it missed---it didn't say, "Because you want an office party, you should throw an office party and assume that everyone wants one because you want one." Instead, it said, "You want to create a social gathering that will make everyone feel included, because if someone else threw a party, you would want to be included; too---therefore, include everyone."
There's a big difference there; the Golden Rule emphasizes the intent, not the means. The intent was good; it just so happened that the means (Christmas-themed) didn't apply for everyone. Oops. Yes, the Rule can screw up.
The Golden Rule then will probably say, "When a screw-up occurs, make amends, because if someone screwed up something for you, you would like them to make amends." That might mean apologizing to the co-worker for one's own insensitivity, banning Christmas parties, giving him monetary compensation---whatever. The Rule doesn't dictate
what you should do; the Rule offers a guideline for the
spirit under which you perform an action.
Suppose then that the Jehovah's Witness co-worker is then further embarrassed by your apology. The Golden Rule might then say, "If your efforts to correct the situation simply make it worse, then stop trying, because if it were you in this situation and someone kept trying to make things better only made them worse, you would like them to stop trying." You then leave the co-worker alone. Maybe he never forgives you, but at least you aren't making his life more miserable.
I absolutely agree with
Amused that all you can do is the best you can do. There is no such thing as a rule that will tell you the exact ethical thing to do under every circumstance; that's impossible. But the Golden Rule is perhaps the most probable way to assure that a very, very large percentage of the time, the ethical thing is done.
One bad application doesn't mean that the rule is crap. In the long run, the Golden Rule is the best that anyone's got.
Incidentally, I do think Kant worded this whole thing better than did Jesus or Buddha or the Jains, but Kant is quite long-winded and harder to quote sensibly.
Cliffs: Always have some empathy.