I recently wrote a post called The Golden Rule on Steroids, and the post and the comments got me thinking about the subject of reciprocal ethics and doing research on the topic. Needless to say, my thinking has expanded quite a bit since that initial post. So, I will share those thoughts.
The first rule I would like to deal with is what I will call the Stone Rule. Basically, this is "might makes right." The powerful can do whatever they like since they have the power. Of course, no one is that powerful, and people who follow the Stone Rule find themselves quickly killed off. This is definitely not a winning strategy.
The second rule is what I will call the Iron Rule. It is like the Stone Rule except that it divides the world into allies and enemies with a set of rules directing conduct towards allies and another set of rules directing conduct towards enemies. There is no reciprocity since the enemy is purely a class instead of an individual. This is the sort of ethics behind racism, nationalism, and the like. It is very primitive like the Stone Rule.
The third rule is what I call the Brass Rule which is an "eye for an eye." This is an ethic of revenge that is almost mathematical. You pay back harm with equal harm. It goes beyond the primitive Iron Rule since it bases conduct on actions instead of allegiance and limits payback.
The fourth rule is what we all know as the Golden Rule which is "do unto others as you would have them do unto you." This is a positive rule since it commands us to do good things for others. But it is problematic as I have come to learn. The first thing is that it makes us debtors to all people. This is why a commenter on the previous post made such pains to promote socialism and taxation as a consequence of the Golden Rule. I was trying to argue that he was wrong, but I understand now that I was wrong. Socialism and the like is a natural consequence of the Golden Rule. If we believe we have positive obligations to others, we must sacrifice for their well being. But the answer to this absurdity is to face the flaw in the Golden Rule.
The fifth rule and the superior to the Golden Rule is the Silver Rule which is "do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you." Rephrased, it means "do no harm." Ironically, it jibes perfectly with my libertarian politics. Basically, it means that I don't go around hurting people. It is negative in orientation but easily abided by. I simply choose not to hurt other people. I respect their rights to life, liberty, and property. But it doesn't mean that I have to feed them or clothe them or feel guilty or whatnot about their misfortunes. I did not cause them, so I am not obligated to fix them.
The Silver Rule is like a breath of fresh air to me. It also settles a vexing philosophical problem that plagues many libertarians. What are we to do about the poor and the needy? The answer is nothing. Just don't hurt them. Leave them alone. There is no obligation to help them. Choosing to help them is another matter, but there is no moral obligation there to give aid nor is there any obligation on their part to take aid. The one thing you will notice about Golden Rule people is how they will walk roughshod over people's liberties and actually cause much harm in the process. This is all justified in the sake of doing some good.
The Silver Rule must also come to grips with those who do wish to do harm. I suppose I could call this the Silver Rule on Steroids which can still be phrased as "I treat people the way they are going to treat me." Basically, I don't harm others unless they try and harm me. This is way more harmonius. Think about it for a bit:
Do not harm others unless they try and harm you.
It is an elegant rule. Now, for the counterargument.
Golden Rule proponents will ask, "What happens if I see a drowning man?" My answer would be to help the man if you can. But above all, don't hurt the man. This means throwing him a life preserver instead of a brick. But you are under no obligation to help the man which is what causes lots of people paroxysms of judgment and guilt. For them, good is done under compulsion not freedom which is why they have no problem forcing other people to do good even if it means harming people. This even goes so far as doing something bad because it is better than doing nothing. This is just stupid and unethical. This explains why socialists cannot abandon their system no matter how much evidence there is showing how harmful it is. Likewise, they will toss the drowning man the brick because no life preserver is available. Something must always be done.
The Silver Rule people temper charity with the dictum to do no harm. This is why they can refuse to give money to winos and drug addicts begging on the street. No money is owed, and it would do them more harm than good. There is a certain benign neglect going on here. For Golden Rule people, the answer is to kidnap the substance abuser and take them to treatment.
The other thing I have noticed is how these various rules apply to the Nolan chart. Here is one I made to illustrate:
People who champion dictatorship are Stone Rule people. Likewise, centrists spend much of their time pulling the victim card without any corresponding need to look out for others. This would be the bulk of the electorate who want to be given stuff but not have to pay for it. We have already discussed leftists with their Golden Rule, and we see right wingers are definitely into the Iron Rule. Politics is simply ethics writ large. This is also why everyone argues with so much moral vituperation. Libertarians have been weak on this because they don't know their own ethics. Many of them hold to the Golden Rule on a personal level, but they hold to the Silver Rule on the political level. This is why they end up losing to some clever leftard who exploits the contradiction.
I believe the Silver Rule is the only correct position to have. I may choose to help someone in a positive sense, but I'm not going to do it out of guilt. I don't owe anyone a damn thing except to do no harm. And I will harm them if they try to harm me. This just makes too much sense.
0 comments:
Post a Comment