The golden rule comes with a choice of toppings – but the toppings are also cursed

The Golden Rule is definitely a good place to start, as it ties one’s outward behavior with self-interest. If religion taught us one thing, it’s that the best motivator for good behavior is usually a carrot no one can disprove and an eternally burning stick (that no one can disprove, again). So, you make it part of the social bargain: everybody agrees to treat each other the way they want to be treated, and in theory they will always be treated the way they want to be treated by others.

So why doesn’t it work? Offhand, I have two reasons: (1) free-rider problems and (2) differences in expectations.

The free-rider problem is easy to see, and, I think, pretty damn hard to solve. Let’s say I’m walking by a bum (an honest-to-goodness, down-on-his-luck type guy, with polio or something) and he asks for change, and I proceed to light a cigarette with a hundred dollar bill and then put it out in his eye (smoking is bad for you, after all). If I end up stricken with late-life, sudden onset polio and homelessness, how is anyone who passes me on the street going to know that I deserve to receive some cigarette burns in my cornea? There’s no karmic credit-checking service, so we’re on the honor system. Needless to say, I don’t trust the honor system.

I think that problem, however, pales in comparison to the second, at least in how many people it affects (I guess I do have some faith in the honor system after all). I do believe there are a lot of people who, for whatever reasons, believe that it’s better not to give the guy a dollar. Or that he doesn’t deserve it. Or something. And I don’t believe it’s spite; I believe these are people who may quite possibly be applying the golden rule. I believe many of them believe that “if I were homeless, I’d be able to get out of it without asking for money, and thus I don’t need to give other people in that situation any money.”

Another flavor of that comes from the fact that there’s no inherent duty to rescue in the rules we have down in the first post. So, let’s say we have a hypothetical person, Dan E. Dan E. goes to college and, without any real forethought as far as the rest of his life, gets a degree in English. He graduates, and “Surprise!” can’t find a job anywhere. He also sleeps with some floozy, knocks her up, and suddenly has no income and multiple mouths to feed. If you ask me, “if you had a kid and no money, would you want people to help out with that,” I’d emphatically say “Yes!” If you asked me, “Would you have put yourself in a situation with no employment prospects and an unplanned child,” I’d say “No!” So, does the golden rule require us to help out given the discrete circumstances at the time, or does it allow us to refuse to bail out people who foolishly get themselves into trouble?

Personally, I think looking back to the causes of the current situation that someone is in is just a way of getting out of the obligation, but to require each person to assist no matter the level of responsibility the “victim” in his own plight would create some seriously perverse incentives. Do we need a “reasonable golden rule,” then?

Full disclosure to the hypothetical readership, I’m unemployed and have the utmost respect for English majors. Also, no kids I know of.

Tags: morality, politics, religion, tencommandments