20: Why Even The Golden Rule Fails to Bring About Accountability
When it comes to those universal truths that remind all of us how we ought to treat one another…we actually don’t have very many of them. But no single axiom is as well-known or as deeply-etched into our collective psyche as The Golden Rule. (So much so, you’re saying it in your head right now!; “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”) It is the personal and mutual accountability slogan par excellence, the most direct and unambiguous directive regarding compassionate human conduct that exists. It is at once instantly comprehensible and morally irrefutable; “Treat others in the manner you’d like to be treated.” That’s it, end of story, class dismissed. And if that weren’t enough of an endorsement, consider where it was taught to us; in that hallow-iest of hallowed places where all of the truly essential lessons of life are imparted; kindergarten; be nice, practice The Golden Rule, and always bring enough cupcakes for everyone.
Everyone knows The Golden Rule, most everyone at least endorses it, and most people- if you were to ask them- will tell you they routinely do it. People routinely say “Bless you” or “Gesundheit” whenever someone sneezes, routinely hold the door for the next person, and for the most part, routinely wait their turn in line. So why is The Golden Rule so conspicuously absent whenever human conflict arises? If everyone practiced it, you’d rarely see anyone yelling at anyone, no one would say nasty things, and we’d all politely disagree…Yet here we are.
Why does it often appear as though neither party can be particularly bothered with The Golden Rule even during an ordinary disagreement? And why does The Golden Rule always seem to make such a brief cameo (before fleeing the scene entirely ) even on those less-than-frequent occasions when it does manage to occur? And ultimately, why after all these centuries hasn’t it significantly improved and transformed human conflict to any discernible degree? (Okay, yes, it’s true we don’t regularly bludgeon people with a mace over a mutton chop anymore like they do at Medieval Times, but we think our point still stands.)
The following are several reasons why The Golden Rule often fails us, particularly from an accountability perspective;
1) In practice, The Golden Rule is completely unrealistic in that while it accounts for how people should treat others in a vacuum (practice The Golden Rule, then do it again), it doesn’t account for how people should treat others if that other person is not practicing The Golden Rule toward them (practice The Golden Rule, get bludgeoned with a mace over a mutton chop, …practice The Golden Rule??). Apparently, given no additional instruction regarding context, we’re supposed to keep practicing The Golden Rule regardless of how we are treated in return, however rudely, harshly, or even violently. (Which is precisely why similar directives like “love thy enemy” or “turn the other cheek” break down quickly or are dispensed with entirely.) This is because…
2) The one Rule people endorse more highly than The Golden Rule is what we might call The Platinum Rule of Reciprocal Altruism (or accountability) which goes like this; “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, provided they do unto you as you would have done unto you.” We mean ask yourself; just how indefinitely do you extend The Golden Rule to someone if they fail or refuse to do the same for you? We’d all like to think that we always treat others the way we’d like to be treated, but the truth is that we all have an expectation of some degree of reciprocity (saints, martyrs and masochists respectfully excluded). And when that reciprocity is not served like a passed app on a puff pastry, we stop. We don’t just stop, we come to a grinding, screeching halt. This is something The Golden Rule simply doesn’t account for. Let’s be honest with ourselves for once in our silly little lives and state the toweringly obvious; we humans are much more fond of shrewd reciprocity than sheer altruism. And this is actually okay…provided we acknowledge it and make the necessary adjustments.
3) Because it lacks contextual instruction of any kind, The Golden Rule allows for the interpretation that if we just extend it to another person initially, temporarily, provisionally and conditionally, we’ve therefore successfully practiced it. What we might call the “Hey, at least I tried.” version. The unfortunate truth is that The Golden Rule only states to do it (meaning do it, then do it again, then again, and again, and again), not as a “this is a one-time offer and it won’t last long” in a conflict situation.
Maybe we’d see more mutual “Do unto"-ing if people felt they had a personal obligation to extend The Golden Rule longer, even indefinitely, to others, as the rule indicates. At least long enough for both parties to realize the other genuinely means well, for cryin’ out loud?
4) A problem is not actually solved if the solution fails to include the means to achieve that solution. (“Feed the world.” may in fact be the single most ingenious humanitarian solution for world hunger anyone has ever come up with. But you know what’s an even more ingenious solution? Actually feeding them.) The Golden Rule is deceptive in this regard in that the solution and the means to achieve that solution are one and the same; how does one create peace, goodwill and harmony amongst people? By practicing The Golden Rule. And just how does one go about that? By practicing The Golden Rule. It’s true…it’s just true in a vacuum. Like “Coke is it.” (Coke is what, exactly?) (Don’t worry about it.) or “Hello Taco Bell.” (Why would I greet a restaurant?) (I said don’t worry about it.) The deceptiveness lies in the assumption that real-life situational questions like, “Just how does one extend the Golden Rule indefinitely in the face of, say, rudeness, hostility, threats, or impending physical harm?” have been adequately addressed (as with “Love thy neighbor.” and “Turn the other cheek.”), when in fact they have not.
Pardon our casual cynicism, but as a general rule, things that appear simple in theory are rarely so in practice, and a simple solution when implemented does not mean that the implementation will be simple as well. And while we’re at it, if part of what constitutes a successful teaching isn’t just that a lesson is clearly conveyed, but that it’s actually understood and successfully applied, then technically, The Golden Rule represents a failed teaching. (Can we get a “wamp-waaamp”? Or at least a “boy-yoy-yoy-yoy-yoooiiiing” or an “ah-oooo-gah”?)
5) Because The Golden Rule is conveyed in the form of a directive or command (and not as a well-explained moral instruction), it sidesteps altogether why and how it should be followed, which, naturally, would vastly increase the likelihood of it being practiced. “Why should I keep extending The Golden Rule to people who are rude, hostile, or violent to me?” “How do I keep extending it if my personal well-being or safety are being threatened?” However self-evident or obviously beneficial The Golden Rule may be, its likelihood for success suffers significantly in the absence of any accompanying moral instruction, particularly given various likely scenarios, responses, or outcomes which might occur in a typical conflict situation, like non-reciprocation, hostility, threatening behavior, or potential personal physical harm.
It feels good to believe about ourselves that we practice the Golden Rule for purely altruistic reasons. But if that were true, practicing The Golden Rule would be its own reward and we wouldn’t need to be instructed to do it…Ohh, the irony. In reality, what do we all typically do at some point when it’s not reciprocated? We stop. (And just as a side-note, we had our team of lawyers go over The Golden Rule with a fine-toothed comb; nowhere in the text does it say it’s permissible to stop extending it if it isn’t reciprocated. All The Golden Rule states is that you and I must do it. So clearly something is breaking down with regard to successfully practicing it.)
6) The brevity, lack of practical instruction, and lack of a consequence (should it not be practiced) of The Golden Rule opens it up to a high degree of misinterpretation because quite often the way we would have someone “do unto us” is not in our or their best interests, highest good, nor is it sufficiently respectful, considerate, productive or healthy. This lack of much-needed articulation allows us to justify behaviors toward another that in certain contexts are enabling or avoidant when personally convenient, and inappropriately invasive or even harmful toward another while being personally advantageous.
Some will conveniently interpret “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” to mean, “Treat others in the manner that you prefer to be treated…when you don’t want to be confronted.” (Are accountability avoidant? Then you might give someone else a pass when it comes to similar behavior. Are you a private person who doesn’t like people butting into your affairs? Then you’ll leave someone else alone even if they’re clearly in need of help. Are you someone who doesn’t want advice unless you ask for it? Then you won’t tell someone the essential advice you know they need. Do you prefer to do things by yourself and not get help? Then you might neglect to assist someone in need. Do you resent someone else telling you what to do? Then you won’t notify someone they desperately need help.)
Maybe you’re a heavy social drinker who resents others commenting on it. Then you’re almost certain to leave alone someone who’s showing signs of alcohol dependency. Having an affair? Then you’re definitely not likely to confront a friend regarding their infidelity. When looked at from this perspective, there are a vast array of situations where “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.”, is literally the worst thing you could do!
Others might interpret The Golden Rule to mean, “Treat others the way you don’t mind being treated, even if they regard it as a violation of them.” (Do you like people to just “give it to you straight”? Then you’re liable to be blunt and insensitive toward another. Are you one who doesn’t shy away from confrontation? Then you’re liable to step on someone else’s boundaries.)
7) The Golden Rule never addresses the obvious question it inadvertently poses; “Why not simply treat people the way they want to be treated?” I mean, if the goal is indeed thoughtful, considerate, respectful behavior toward another person, why doesn’t The Golden Rule endorse the likeliest way of successfully achieving that; simply treating the other individual in the manner they’d prefer? Ask yourself; would you rather be treated the way someone else would like to be treated, or would you like to be treated the way you’d like to be treated? The latter, of course! (Not to be too “meta,” or anything, but consider all the times someone has ever told you or will tell you they don’t appreciate how you’re treating them. Is your solution really going to be to treat them…the way you’d like to be treated, not the way they would?? How could conflict ever be resolved in this manner?Much, if not virtually all, of what constitutes conflict between two individuals is one or both parties feeling like they’re not being treated by the other in the manner they deserve to be treated, so continuing to do so won’t solve a thing.
There are real, tangible, practical, limits to the “Do unto others ” mentality which are obvious. For example; if someone were shopping for a gift for you, would you prefer that they buy you something they’d like to receive? Or something you’d like? Obviously, the latter. Do you hate celebrating your birthday? Well, you’re in luck, because the person throwing your 40th bash (with strippers) luuuuuvs them. All joking aside, we can’t ever truly attend to all of someone else’s wants and needs if we focus exclusively on the preferences of the self.
8) However effective The Golden Rule may at times be when practiced, its phrasing reinforces the same pre-occupation with the self that it seeks to remedy and overcome. By positing that what is best for another person is what we think is best for us undermines the very other-focused empathy, respect, and consideration it strives to impart.
Why it isn’t phrased, “Do unto others as they would have you do unto them.” is a curiosity.
It’s just a tad ironic that while The Golden Rule attempts to help us transcend our self-serving nature by utilizing our self-serving nature, our self-serving nature utilizes The Golden Rule to reinforce our self-serving nature. (Ahh, humans.)
The long and the short of it is that genuine mutual accountability requires specificity and mutual endorsement. In order for The Golden Rule, mutual accountability, and reciprocal altruism to genuinely and reliably work, both parties must agree about the specific aspects of the accountability they’re both hoping to achieve. But in order to do that, both parties must behave accountably until such terms are established, so as to maintain the solidarity required to reach an agreement.
And while this might not be feasible or even possible amongst strangers, with partners it’s definitely possible if an accountability-based relationship is the primary goal of that partnership.
Explicit Contracts are the way to make this happen.
It’s the only way to get genuine accountability to occur long enough and in such a way that harmony is preserved (or restored) and a mutually satisfying solution can be reached!