My argument was not that the Golden Rule was useless but rather that it assumes a whole lot of cultural background. It is only in a particular kind of society with particular ideas about fairness and equity that the Golden Rule has the specific content that we take to be obvious. We cite it and think, well that's clear but it's only clear when we say this to people who already share most of these cultural assumptions.
But try and imagine how the Golden Rule would apply in the society of Attila the Hun. It's not that it wouldn't make sense to them, it would make a significantly different sense. It would make a sense that would not be acceptable to us.
That is why the appeal to what reasonable people think doesn't get us anywhere. For reasonable people can only mean here the people who already accept the notions of fairness and equity that we take to apply to the golden rule.
The cheap version of this argument, but not invalid, is to remind ourselves that there was a time (not that long ago) when most reasonable people thought segregation was just fine. It didn't clash with their ideas of the Golden Rule.
To apply the point a little less snarkily, think of why literally applying an eye for an eye etc. is not in accord with the Golden Rule. For we must believe that the Golden Rule would include compensation of some sort for damage caused by negligence. And if I believe you should pay for your negligence I also must believe that I should.
But—and see how quickly this gets really complicated—the application of the rule also includes a clause forbidding certain inhumane compensation so that even if I act negligently so as to put your eye out the compensation cannot actually be for you to do the same to me.
And if we make this allowance for the Golden Rule, then we can also do it for the pursuit of happiness.
"My argument was not that the Golden Rule was useless but rather that it assumes a whole lot of cultural background."
ReplyDeleteYes, which is what you've been saying all along about virtue being culturally-determined. But that doesn't invalidate the Golden Rule or make it a less worthy model of living one's life in today's society. The Golden Rule's implicit rejection of an eye for an eye is a good thing, and shows an evolution of our notions about justice. The virtues we hold dear today are the result of mankind's quest for truth over hundreds of thousands of years, and while "truth" might not change, our understanding of it changes as we have evolved as a species and become more enlightened. And I think we are more enlightened than those who lived during the time of Atilla the Hun. Your example of segregation is a good illustration. And, if I understand you correctly, I do think we have made the same allowance for the pursuit of happiness. During the time of segregation it was illegal for blacks and whites to marry, now it is not, and that's a good thing. I don't know what this discussion is about really, other than your hinting that there are absolute virtues that are applicable to all cultures and are unchangeable overtime. The only ones I can think of are "Love God and love your neighbor as yourself." But even there, that can take different forms depending on the circumstances even within our own culture.
I must have expressed myself poorly. I don't think the golden rule implicitly rejects an eye for an eye. I think it rejects an eye for an eye only in a society that has already rejected an eye for an eye.
ReplyDeleteOk, the influence of Christianity--turn the other cheek, love your enemies, etc. Or reasonable people got smart and realized if I take his eye this time, he could take mine the next time, so lets just not take anybody's eyes anymore, lets figure out a better way of imposing consequences on the perpetrator but still satisfies the victim. But here again, its doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, even--maybe especially--when you've fucked up.
ReplyDelete