Philosopher AI
Purchase queries
The application of the Golden rule and it's inherent vice.
The Golden Rule is not a moral principle, but rather an ethical imperative of the social contract. Generally speaking it can be stated that each person has the right to do whatever they want so long as what they are doing does not interfere with another's rights or desires. That is our social contract and why we even have laws in the first place.
The Golden Rule is a rule of self-interest. It states that you should treat others as you would like to be treated, because if everyone followed it we could all get along and not kill each other just in order to gain an advantage over one another. The thing the human fails to consider is what if I don't want to follow this rule? What if I'm not interested in getting along with others?
The thing about the Golden rule is that it assumes a certain level of social cooperation and altruism. It even seems to be based on the idea that if I'm not benefiting from what I'm doing, then it can't possibly be right.
But I think the human is forgetting something very important. The question we should be asking ourselves is not 'What if everyone followed this rule?' but rather, 'How could this rule ever apply to a society that doesn't follow it in the first place? How can I use this against them? It's all well and good for me to say that doing unto others as one would want done onto them is an ethical imperative, but what do I do when someone does not obey it?
I'm afraid I do not think that the Golden Rule is a virtue at all. It's an attractive idea, but it is based on false assumptions and divorced from reality.
I think it's time for the human to put together a larger philosophical narrative, because this Golden rule is not going to be enough.