I have made the point previously that the statements known as the Golden Rule and the Silver Rule are not logically identical (in a reciprocal sense). Both Jeffrey Wattles and Harry Gensler make the argument that they are, in fact, identical and that allows them to collapse the two into a single re-statement “Treat others as you would, in similar situations, want to be treated.”
It is logically incorrect to say that “don’t lie” is equivalent to “be truthful”, as Gensler suggests in “Ethics and the Golden Rule” (p122).
Jordan Peterson, in his book “Twelve Rules for Life” includes as one of his Rules “Tell the truth, or at least don’t lie.” As I read that it seemed to me to clearly imply a distinction between the two and I agree.
I thought it useful to list some of the ways in which the two are different. (There are probably more than those listed below, and I’ll certainly come back to this point.)
I can adhere to the requirement “don’t lie” by:
a) telling the truth in a precise and unambiguous way,
b) staying silent while letting it be known that I nevertheless know the truth,
c) staying silent while implying in some way that I do not know the truth,
d) giving an account that includes the truth along with other material that might influence the interpretation of or reaction to the truth, making it known that added material is included,
e) giving an account that includes the truth along with other material that might influence the interpretation of or reaction to the truth, without making it known that added material is included,
f) giving an account that includes part but not all of the truth, with no indication that there is more to be known,
g) giving an account that includes part but not all of the truth, while indicating by some means that there is more to be known,
h) suggesting truthfully that the truth can be obtained from another source but implying that I do not, personally know it, or
i) suggesting truthfully that the truth can be obtained from another source while tacitly acknowledging that I do know it but indicating in some way (whether verbal or not) that I’d rather not be the source of your knowledge.
It might be argued that anything other than option a), above, is lying within the spirit of the statements being compared but, if an argument of logical equivalency is going to be proposed it should be robust enough to withstand logical examination. The argument of equivalency, to my mind, fails on the account outlined above.
©Charles R. Lightner