What do we get wrong about the Golden Rule? - Headspace (2024)

FAQs

What do we get wrong about the Golden Rule? - Headspace? ›

"It also helps you distinguish between the similarities and differences between your and other people's situations." She says "doing unto others as you would have them do unto you" assumes that people's experiences are alike—but that is simply not true.

The “golden rule” is usually expressed as “treat others as you yourself would wish to be treated”. Its flaw is that it rests upon an assumption that everybody has the same desires as to how they would like to be treated … and they don't.

According to Kant, what is the main problem with the golden rule? It makes morality depend solely on the consequences of one's actions. It fails to give us any guidance whatsoever. It allows lying, which is never permissible.

The problem is, the Golden Rule has a massive flaw. It assumes that everyone around you, is just like you. That other people want and need the same things that you want and need, and that you should automatically be able to figure them out based on your own experience. But individuals do not work like that.

This can result in a more equitable outcome, especially when the literal interpretation would lead to unfair or discriminatory results. Potential for judicial subjectivity: One of the disadvantages of the golden rule is that it introduces an element of judicial subjectivity into the interpretation process.

The Golden Rule in its prohibitive (negative) form was a common principle in ancient Greek philosophy. Examples of the general concept include: "Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." – Thales ( c. 624 – c.

The Golden Rule fails in practice because we really can never tell instinctively or otherwise how someone wants to be treated, or why they do what they do; what their motivation for action happens to be. Attribution errors are the cause of most negative conflicts in life, miscommunication, and other missteps in life.

Where the Golden Rule fails is that it does not take into account the differences between people. It assumes that all people want to be treated the same way. In some cases this true (i.e. people want to be treated with kindness and respect), but here are a few examples when this is not true.

The golden-rule problem is not that we're failing to notice others' personhood, but what others desire or prefer. We could indeed be faulted for ignoring others as persons, treating them like potted plants in the room, but that would only result if they craved our notice, attention, or participation.

By modern philosophical standards, the golden rule is not commonly viewed as an adequate basis of moral theory. The problem with the rule “treat others as you would like to be treated” is that it does not, and cannot, distinguish between the 'good' and the 'bad' ways in which one might like to be treated.

What is better than the Golden Rule? ›

Instead of imposing a single framework, the Platinum Rule adapts to the needs of each individual, creating a more nuanced, respectful, and effective interaction. Enter the "Platinum Rule"—treat others how they wish to be treated. Here are three compelling reasons why this principle trumps its golden predecessor.

Abstract. The Golden Rule guides people to choose for others what they would choose for themselves. The Golden Rule is often described as 'putting yourself in someone else's shoes', or 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you'(Baumrin 2004).

As such, the golden rule is a good barometer of what we think decent treatment is." Still, it's important to recognize when to draw the line: try not to fall into a trap of co-dependence where you keep making sacrifices but don't get anything back.

One, it fails to explain how to deal with non-reciprocation. Two, it fails to make clear that my obligations are obligations regardless of how I would wish to be treated by others. Three, it lacks any special value in explaining the right occasions for benevolence. And, four, it has no power to motivate benevolence.

And hot on its heels, another common criticism of the Golden Rule is that it does not say in what specific ways any given person should act, nor does it explain why some action is morally correct or incorrect.

The golden rule does have a flaw in it. It would be silly to think that in this world, we are truly aware of each others intentions. Therefore, it would also be silly to assume that everyone wishes to be treated in a delighful manner.

Golden rule argument is an argument made by a lawyer during a jury trial to ask the jurors to put themselves in the place of the victim or the injured person and deliver the verdict that they would wish to receive if they were in that person's position.

It is a reversal, or the opposite, of the Golden rule. It says, “Don't do unto others what you would not want done unto you.” Sometimes it's what we don't do that are just as important, if not even more so, than the do's.