Select Page

The Golden Rule is closely related to Christian ethics, although its origins go back further and also adorn Asian culture. Usually, we interpret the Golden Rule as telling us how to act. But in practice, its broader role may be psychological, alerting us to everyday self-centeredness and the inability to consider our impact on others. The rule also reminds us that we are equal to others who deserve comparable consideration. It suggests a general orientation towards others, a perspective to see our relationships with them. At the very least, we should not negatively influence others and treat their interests as secondary. Given universal ethics, which are universally accepted principles, we should be what is acceptable to all, regardless of religion, gender, race and other social differences. Luke has a moral duty to do his best for his brother Owen by informing him despite the consequences of violating their company`s confidentiality. From the various ethical viewpoints, it is clear that the decision Luke makes should be the best for all parties. It`s for him, his brother and the ABC company he works for. Think more carefully about what we should achieve through role-taking and empathy through the Golden Rule. We have an idea of how different others are from us and how their situation is different from ours, uniquely tailored to their views and feelings on the issue. We then put ourselves in their shoes with these time differences, add to ours and subtract from ours if necessary.

So we take their point of view as they do, not as we do, as we want us to do when they act. (We don`t want them to treat us the way they want to be treated, but how we want to be treated when they adopt our point of view.) Those who adhere to the Golden Rule would never do to others what they do not want to do to themselves, such as publishing an article depicting someone in a compromising position. The golden rule is generally not helpful in deciding whether or not publication serves the common good. That`s because it`s based on a strong consensus of opinion, which is hard to find in a diverse newsroom with journalists with different ideological and political views. The final ethical theory, the happy medium, boils down to finding a happy medium between a surplus and a shortage. In a journalistic context, this theory could be used to blacken the names of a sensitive article or blur the faces of those who are victims of crime. Singer`s view has merit, especially in its emphasis on procedure. Yet the distinction between principles and rules may not be as clear as it is claimed. General rules (e.g. rules of evidence) can also be used to infer more specific rules based on their logic; The principles do not need to be consulted.

For example: Do beautiful things; Do beautiful things, anonymously to close neighbors in need; Leave breakfast pastries on a neighbor`s doorstep in the morning after a close relative`s funeral. Leave donuts and muffins on the welcome card of your neighbor next door, wrapped in a white bag with a heavy silver bow: leave bagels with chive cheese if they are Jewish, sfagliatelle if they are Italian. The most general rule here, “Do beautiful things,” is aimed at a type of action that can be morally evaluated as good or evil, but still requires a procedure to determine certain actions that fall into that category, especially at borders. Consultation of standards or conventions on Community reciprocity could be one of them. So doing nice things by looking at community standards would allow a rule to be proceeded to generate more specific guidelines for action. Again, there is no need to consult the principles. In such contexts, philosophical analysis usually answers questions and clarifies differences in concepts, meanings and their implications. The Hare report could most likely make the situation worse. I can choose, wish or want you to treat me with great kindness and generosity and show me a selfless altruistic pen.

But then, if I were legitimately expected to reciprocate for consistency, I could agree, agree, or submit only with mutual respect, or minimal fairness at most. That`s all I would gladly give to others, certainly if they didn`t even return respect and fairness. From this logic of consent, we are moving towards Kantian or social contract versions of mutual respect and a kind of rational expectation that can be widely generalized. But we are far removed from the many minds of the golden rule, desire and ideal. We move from extending self-respect to others to covering our bets, which makes a huge moral difference. However, both alternatives have terrible consequences for the Golden Rule. Rights simply do not cover enough ethical behaviour to exclude forms of psychological cruelty, insensitivity and interpersonal exclusion. The reciprocity they guarantee is compatible with most forms of personal interaction that it lacks, especially in public relations such as school or construction, but also in friendships and family.

The negative formulation of the Golden Rule is something like “Don`t do to someone else what you don`t want them to do to you.” However, the opposite of the rule is different. The opposite of the Golden Rule is: “Treat others as they want you to do unto them” (M.G. Singer, “The Golden Rule,” Philosophy 38, p.294, 1963). As another singer – Peter – notes at first glance, reversal implies perfect altruism: it implies that you must comply with someone else`s request, for example, to hand over your possessions, become their slave, and other similar untenable demands – because that`s what the other wants you to do for them. Following the overthrow and sacrificing one`s own happiness would be the true desire to promote the well-being of others, Kant writes, “a contradictory maxim if it were transformed into universal law” (Groundwork, p.117). However, reversing the golden rule might be a more appropriate formula for medical dilemmas where patient autonomy is important. Respecting a patient`s autonomy in making decisions, such as those related to withdrawing end-of-life support or heroic surgery, is about what they would want you to do to them, not what you might want in the same situation. A number of additional reasons are advanced to challenge the rule`s reputation as too idealistic and unworkable in everyday life. While emphasizing the psychological functions of the Golden Rule, the necessity of the rule of empathy and the cognitive role hypothesis is questioned. The rule can be followed by adhering to social reciprocity conventions and their recognized standards.

These may provide a better guide for one`s practice than personally practicing one`s empathetic perspective. This also seems to be the case in new situations for which these cultural norms can be extrapolated. Here, the Golden Rule can also serve as a procedural standard for assessing the moral legitimacy of certain conventions. Like most important ethical principles, the Golden Rule shows two main aspects: one that promotes fairness and individual claims understood as reciprocity; the other promotes helpfulness and generosity until the end of social welfare. The Kantian and utilitarian traditions focus on one side and promote the great differences in philosophical ethics – the distinctions of deontology-teleology and justice and benevolence. For the general theoretical project, this bias is intentional, a research tool for the reductive explanation. Here, as elsewhere, the Golden Rule can be used as a conceptual test of whether a society`s group reciprocity conventions are ethically equal to snuff. As a more morally direct means of simulation, those interested in the Golden Rule can try alternative psychological regimes – taking control of the role is one, empathy might be another.