This is just a brief note on terminology.
There are many who term the Golden Rule an ethic of reciprocity. In fact, one of the few books written in English that is devoted to Golden Rule study and analysis is subtitled “The Ethics of Reciprocity in World Religions” (edited by Neusner and Chilton, 2008).
Both Jeffrey Wattles and Harry J. Gensler (whose book I’ll write more on soon) have problems with the idea that reciprocity is appropriately seen as a fundamental element of Golden Rule philosophy.
Gensler writes, for instance:
“In math, x/ y is the reciprocal of y/ x: we switch the letters. So, GR (the Golden Rule), which switches the parties, is often called ‘the principle of reciprocity.’ But ‘reciprocity’ is often applied to other ideas, such as ‘Treat others as they treat you’; so if you help me, I reciprocate by returning the favor (quid pro quo or do ut des in Latin) – and if you hurt me, I reciprocate by taking revenge (lex talionis).
Gensler, Harry J. Ethics and the Golden Rule (p. 182). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
A strictly reciprocal ethic would have to include a revenge or retaliation element i.e. I don’t want to be hurt so I will not hurt you, however, if you hurt me, I will hurt you in return.
It is suggested that the idea of reciprocal altruism is really what the Rule proposes and that the altruism clarification negates the logical requirement of retaliation. But both Wattles and Gensler suggest that the standard actually required by Golden Rule thinking is not reciprocity but, rather, consistency.
Wattles titles one of his chapters: A Principle of Consistency in Moral Decision Making.
Note his use of the term “principle” as opposed to rule or law. Note also the specification of use in moral decision making. Wattles says that “morality transcends any one axiomatic system” (139) and that “The golden rule of rational consistency is thus an essential part of the story, but not the whole story. (140).”
Gensler also finds the traditional statement of the Rule to be aspirational but logically incomplete. He writes:
As a consistency norm, GR isn’t a direct criterion of right and wrong, and isn’t a rival to moral norms like “We ought not to steal.” GR works at a different level. GR is more like “Don’t contradict yourself” or “Don’t accept a premise without accepting what logically follows from it.” GR’s role isn’t to replace other ethical theories but to supplement them – by giving a consistency tool that’s often useful. Most ethical theories recognize the role of consistency and so should be able to accept GR on this basis.
Gensler, Harry J. Ethics and the Golden Rule (p. 22). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
There is much more to say about the Wattles, Gensler and Neusner/Chilton books, but my purpose here is just to mark one point: that it is consistency rather than reciprocity that strikes me as the appropriate standard required by the Golden Rule.
©Charles R. Lightner