The Golden Rule is Wrong

October 15, 2007

?Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.? It’s the Golden Rule. We’ve all heard it, we all like to think that we live by it, but did you ever stop to wonder if it truly is the best way to live? Did you ever really give any thought to the real message behind this philosophy? Not only is the Golden Rule not what it seems on the outside, but it may have a darker message than any of us previously thought. Could it really be that this bedrock of human morales, this unalienable nugget of advise that your grandmother always gave you, isn’t the espousal of wisdom you were lead to believe? Follow along and see if I can’t convince you that everything you think you know about morality may be wrong.

The 4 Building Blocks of Human Morality

1.An Eye for an Eye ? ever since the time of Hammurabi, we’ve had the very Newtonian philosophy of an equal, yet opposite, reaction. This is the code that says violence is justified by further violence. Somewhere along in our evolution we discovered that an eye for an eye only made a lot of blind people and that perhaps this wasn’t the best way to handle certain situations. Under the code of Hammurabi, you didn’t treat others kindly because you cared for them, you treated them kindly because any ill will might just be given back to you.

2.The Judgment of God ? this the idea that we treat each other with kindness and refrain from doing ?evil? because of the wrath of God. Bad behavior will be punished by God, while good behavior will be rewarded. At some point in time we, as humans, decided that God was to be a parental figure, ever looming over us with the carrot and the stick. Treat others well or God will give you what you deserve.

3.The Golden Rule ? do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This rule of thumb says that we shouldn’t hurt others, because we don’t want them to do the same to us. The idea being that if we all act kindly toward our neighbor, our neighbor will act kindly toward us. The only way to avoid living in a world of crime is to not commit the crime yourself. I personally like to call this ?The Karmic Rule,? that what you do will come back around, so do good things.

4.Be the Example You Wish to See ? this is probably the most modern idea, though it has been practiced by a few through out history. This ideal says that we should do good things because we wish to do good things and avoid doing bad things because we dislike doing bad things. We are not guaranteed to avoid living in a world of crime, but at least will be proud to practice what we preach, even if no one else wants to listen.

Do you see the inherent problem with the first three moral philosophies? The trouble is that the first three are all based on some form of the carrot and stick ideal, or reward versus punishment. They all assume that humans would be immoral, unless presented with a reason not to be, such as a punishment. Even the Golden Rule says we should be kind to our neighbor only because it will prevent him from being unkind to us. The first three put their emphasis on the need to control other people and protect ourselves. The Code of Hammurabi says that an unkind gesture will result in an equally unkind gesture; the Judgment says that there is a spiteful and parental God who will punish you for wrong decisions; the Golden Rule says that Karma comes back around. We are always trying to protect ourselves either from the ill-will of others or the powers that be, be they spiritual or governmental.

The Example is the Only Philosophy that Suggests Kindness for the Sake of Kindness.

Richard Dawkins, the Pit Bull of Naturalism, says that man couldn’t possibly have gotten all of its morality from God because of the nature of the judgment of God. He says that if we ever met anyone who says they only abstain from doing wrong because God will punish them, we would label them as being an evil person. The idea of abstaining from evil out of fear implies that you would do bad things if given the choice, or that evil would be your natural, default position.

I agree with Dawkins when he says that the reason he pays his taxes and does not steal is because he does not wish to live in a society where that sort of behavior is the norm. He says he does good things because he wants to do good things and he would like the society in which he lives to appeal to those good things as well. Do you see the difference between this school of thought and the Golden Rule?

The Golden Rule advocates morality in the hopes that others will look kindly on your morality and choose to act morally toward you. Dawkins’ idea is leading by example, or saying that we should act morally because it is what we wish to do. He says there is never a guarantee that anyone else will ever follow your example, or that people will choose to act morally toward you, but we all want to live in law and order and therefore we should choose to live lawfully and orderly. The difference may seem trivial, but as I said in my last post about why tolerance doesn’t work, the difference is all the difference.

The Intention of the Thought Always Overrides the Words.

Words are really quite useless things when you really think about it. They are simply guttural sounds that we have all agreed to label objects by. The only reason a pen is called a ?pen? is because we have all agreed that ?pen? is the sound that should go with that object. When it comes to the true creation of thoughts into manifested forms, words are the weakest form of creation. Think of it this way, if you say the word ?love? while really thinking ?hate,? what do you think you are truly creating? A begrudging ?thank you? doesn’t create gratitude, it creates resentment. The words in these cases are useless, it is the feelings and intentions behind them that matter.

To this end, you may say that arguing the semantics of the Golden Rule is useless and you would be right, arguing the language of it is trivial. I, however, am not arguing against the language, but rather the sentiment behind it.

To stop a negative thought and remind yourself ?do unto others as you would have them do unto you,? only serves to create a, shall we say ?false positive? thought. In other words, if you try to think positive thoughts about someone who has wronged you, you are only doing so begrudgingly and therefore your positive thoughts do little more good than the negative thought you switched from. To force yourself to act in a way that is contradictory to your natural feelings can only result in suboptimal results.

Want to Live Morally? Practice What You Preach.

The only path to true morality is not by forcing yourself to be kind out of fear of retribution. The path to morality lies in fully embracing your morality, such as it is, while living by the rules laid down by society. Or, put more plainly, practice what you preach. If you think stealing is immoral, don’t pirate music or movies. If you think gossip is immoral, don’t participate. The true beauty of this method is that it removes the burden of control from your shoulders. You are not asking anything of anyone. You have no expectation for the rest of the world to act in a certain way and therefore you cannot be disappointed. You have taken it upon yourself to control only your own thoughts and actions, which are the only things you ever truly had control over in the first place.

The Steps to Living a Moral Life

1.Define What is Moral to You ? it doesn’t matter what your preacher thinks is moral, or even what the Bible tells you is moral. Decide for yourself what is right and wrong.

2.Live by Your Decision ? practice what you preach. Live your life under your own moral code. Be the change you wish to see in the world.

3.Force Your Morals of No One ? your views on a moral subject should be forced upon no one. Protesting against something, only serves to make the subject of the protest stronger.

4.Accept the Morality of Others ? learn to accept rather than to tolerate.

I know some people will read this and the previous post and think it useless of me to take exception to the wording of an old adage. It isn’t the wording of the Golden Rule I’m warning you against, it’s the intent behind it. You may think it pointless to dig so deeply into such an old saying, but I wonder why you wouldn’t do so. Socrates said the unexamined life isn’t worth living and this is the spirit in which these last two post were written. I’m not trying to be contradictory, I simply want to be sure that the words and intentions that are being put to use in my life are truly in line with my values. I wrote this article, not to convince you of anything, but to plant a seed for later thought. I’m not asking you to believe me. I’m asking you to examine you life for yourself; to overturn every stone, no matter how seemingly inconsequential.

To live your life under a philosophy that hasn’t truly been made your own, is to live someone else’s life.

Posted in Emotions, Fear, Happiness, Law of Attraction, Providing Value, Relationships