The Golden Rule scholars and commentators have, for the most part, attempted to cure the problems of defining and practicing the Rule by changing its wording.
Some acknowledge that changes are required because the Rule, by itself, lacks some critical elements required of an actual practice. Some acknowledge that the Rule, by itself, or taken alone, creates some logical and philosophical inconsistencies.
The Golden Rule, though, however it might be stated, cannot stand on its own except as a statement of aspiration. If one wants to live the Rule – or any rule, for that matter – a more fully articulated structure of behavior is required.
A system is needed.
A system that includes elements not only of aspiration but of implementation, measurement and correction.
I’ve come to believe that the first element of such a system can be captured within the notion of The Ethic of Restraint, as I’ve written in prior posts.
The next element in the system will address issues involved in consciously taking action that affects others. This will be the analog of the “do unto others” statement.
But to complete a system requires a further element.
The Ethic of Restraint will deal with the “do no harm” issues: the so-called Silver Rule.
The Ethic of Respect will deal with the “do unto others” issues. As we’ll see this will have two parts: one that expresses the idea of consistency and a second that goes further, to the idea of compliance. These will capture roughly the ideas of the so-called Golden and Platinum Rules.
But a third element is critically required, which I am provisionally calling The Ethic of Reflection.
It is the activity of Reflection that provides the key to a behavioral system that is both flexible and self-correcting. In many ways, it is the search for simplicity that causes the failure of other approaches. So many philosophers, scholars, religious persons, etc. have sought to capture too much in a single, overarching statement. That attempt has created flawed, partial or unrealistic propositions.
To move beyond the theoretical and aspirational, real people need real assessment and correction structures that ask in an honest and systematic way:
“Was my behavior consistent with my stated principles?”
“Was the effect on others of my behavior toward them as I had intended?”
“Was the effect of my behavior towards others harmful to them, beneficial to them, neutral?”
If my behavior was either inconsistent with my stated principles or harmful to others or otherwise ineffective, I should attempt to understand why and, if my behavior was lacking I should determine how to correct any damage done and avoid doing similar damage in the future.
It is only through a continuous reflection on the actual results of my actions that I can learn, correct, adjust and amend.
Great persons through the ages have understood this. Socrates, Pythagoras, Ignatius Loyola, the masters of the Japanese Naikan system, Benjamin Franklin, the founders of the 12th Step Programs, and others, have all created systems of disciplined and periodic self-assessment and correction.
All of these, I am sure, would agree with the AA adage “we seek progress not perfection” in the implementation of these practices.
Without an effective feedback mechanism powering the self-correction activity required by the complications of human interaction, we cannot craft a workable system to make the journey from aspiration to reality.
So, The Ethic of Reflection will be the third element of our system. Much more on this later.
©Charles R. Lightner