Greater than the Golden Rule

Most every religious, spiritual, and ethical tradition expresses an admonition that is often called the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” It is an elegant way to describe one's moral behavior towards others. Whether secular or religious, Western or Eastern, this concept of treating those you encounter in a way that you'd prefer to be treated makes logical and ethical sense. If we all would follow this rule, our society would be far more peaceful and kind.

But too often we do not observe this tenet. Our society is replete with behaviors that follow something more like, “Do to others, before they get a chance to do it to you.” “Strike first and ask questions later.” “Make them fear you, so they'll be less likely to threaten you.” This last thought is often expressed in street language by those who seek the respect of their peers, when they really mean they want others to feel apprehensive about them, or even intimidated. So, while the Golden Rule gets paid a lot of lip service, it often is not adhered to.

Despite its sage advice, there are a couple of valid criticisms of the Golden Rule. One that I've heard expressed is that it assumes that what you do to/for others is what they really want. However, it's based more on what you want, implying that your desire is universal. For example, I may want to be the center of attention and would prefer to have others place me in the limelight. But it could backfire if I focus that public recognition on a shy person. What is good for me may not at all be good for another person.

This criticism is quite similar to another one: that the Golden Rule can be a little too egotistic. The thrust behind this second critique suggests that we tend to be self-centered. The implication is that we must strive to overcome our self-interest, in order to make the world a better place. We must work against our inherent nature—which can be dishonest, if not corrupt—in order to improve society. But is this necessarily true?

There is an alternative view to either of these ideas, as put forth by the ancient Chinese philosopher Mengzi (or Mencius, as he became known in the West). His approach is that, at our core, we are good. This natural tendency towards goodness of ours gets exhibited in two ways: (1) we naturally feel love and compassion for those closest to us, and (2) our gut reaction, when we see innocent people suffering, is to help them.

Thus Mencius tells us that we are inherently not self-centered, thus our task is not to overcome an egocentric nature, but to extend our natural compassion we have for those nearby, to those at a distance. It's a very different way of opening our heart. He makes the crucial point that those people at a distance are really similar to close-by loved ones, so why not feel as much care for them?

A valuable byproduct of Mengzi's philosophy is that if we learn to extend kindness outwards across the world, we can also learn to do it for ourselves. It goes both ways. Some of us can be hard on ourselves. We could often use a little self-compassion.