My KSM post prompted some discussion of the Golden Rule in the comments. I have never found the Golden Rule (in the traditional "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" formulation) all that useful. As pointed out in the comments if your natural inclination is unduly selfish then following the Golden Rule will be unduly generous to others (and vice versa). But I think what most people actually mean by the Golden Rule is something like "when interacting with another give their interests equal weight with yours". This will produce more sensible results but may adversely affect third parties. Also it still depends on your possibly weird preferences. So my preferred version is "do unto others as the community as a whole would want you to".
This has the advantage of providing a reasonably objective decision procedure. It is open to the objection that it will perform poorly when the community as a whole is (for example) a collection of bloodthirsty maniacs. Some might prefer "do unto others what is in the interest of the community as a whole". But this assumes the actor's moral judgement is superior to that of the community as a whole which is impossible as a general rule and will tend to encourage the actor to rationalize his selfish preferences.
In any case I don't see much comfort for KSM in such community based rules. Even granting that KSM is a member of the community which I am unwilling to do.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Blood thirsty maniacs don't respond well to reason, which puts those who practice the golden rule type ideology at a disadvantage when dealing with them. What do we do then?
ReplyDeleteIn the last sentence of the blog the community is revealed to have a second role: Its members not only define a standard but also are the only ones who enjoy its benefits. As explicitly noted in the blog's linked Wikipedia article, the Golden Rule is violated when someone grants privileges to members of his own community (i.e., in-group) that he denies to others (such as KSM). So the blog's so-called "preferred version" of the Rule actually is contrary to it.
ReplyDeleteMy understanding is that the Golden Rule is a guide only for arriving at personal ethical standards. It admonishes us to be empathetic and fair. The Rule is violated if and only if one expects more for himself than he is prepared to grant to others. In choosing what one wants others to do one may consider what the community has to say, but ultimately the choice is one's alone. Arriving at a community standard by compromising differing personal standards (all perhaps derived from the Golden Rule) is a more complicated issue.
In response to Mary's question, after we determine in a reasonable and unbiased way that someone is indeed a bloodthirsty maniac, we take some action (e.g., incarceration, execution) to prevent his indulging his bloodthirsty proclivities. This applies even if I am that someone (which admittedly is easy for me to say, since I expect never to carry out bloodthirsty maniacal acts).
If the Golden Rule only applies to personal decisions I don't see the applicability here since what to do with KSM is a collective problem.
ReplyDeleteAs I see it, each of us is making a personal decision about what he thinks is the preferred thing to do with KSM. My decision conforms to the Golden Rule; some others do not. So I do not understand in what sense it may reasonably be said that the Golden Rule is inapplicable.
ReplyDeleteWe have the luxury now of debating whether the Golden Rule applies. Our own ancestors, likely settled things by who had the biggest club. The strongest clan survived, as did their descendents; meaning us.
ReplyDeleteTo nitpick a little I am not expressing a personal opinion on what KSM's fate should be, just on who should determine it. And if I were a prisoner in a strange land with strange laws I think I would just as soon have my fate determined by the leader of that country (who might be inclined to mercy) than by a legal process which I would likely not understand and would have no reason to trust.
ReplyDeleteThe topic that I understood to be under discussion here is how our government should decide KSM's fate. Each of us is making his or her own personal decision on this issue. (Now that I think about it, this is perhaps a bit confusing, since we are deciding what decision process we think the government should use.) The Golden Rule specifies that one should decide that the same governmental decision process applies to everyone, including KSM and oneself. I opt for a process that conforms to the Bill of Rights, which is what I want for myself.
ReplyDeleteWhat might happen in a strange land with strange laws does not apply here.