Dr. Harry J. Gensler is a Jesuit priest, a professor of philosophy at Loyola University and author of over a dozen books including “Ethics and the Golden Rule” published in 2013 (Routledge).
Gensler Is one of the few true golden rule scholars, having written his doctoral dissertation on the rule in 1977; one of only two dissertations (in English) that have been written on the rule.
As should be expected in a small circle of scholars interested in the same topic, Gensler is quite familiar with Jeffrey Wattles and his work and the two agree on many aspects of rule scholarship and analysis. While both approach the rule from similar academic philosophical viewpoints and as serious Christians, they do offer importantly different views on some matters.
Both conclude, for example, as discussed here previously (Consistency vs Reciprocity) that the rule cannot be seen as a single-statement system of ethics. Both also, in the end, restate the rule in terms that seem to them to overcome some weaknesses of the typical formulation.
Wattles, as we’ve seen, concludes that the rule is:
“The principle of the practice of the family of God.”
So, it is:
– A principle not a complete system,
– A practice; that is, an active response to and engagement with the principle,
– A practice that is interpersonal; not an internal and solitary discipline, and
– One that is undertaken in the context of a deistic world-view.
Gensler also concludes his book with a restatement. He says:
“Let me sum up this book by paraphrasing Hillel:
Treat others only as you consent to being treated in the same situation.
That is my whole book.
The rest is commentary.”
Gensler, Harry J. Ethics and the Golden Rule (p. 220). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
It is interesting that a Jesuit professor paraphrases Hillel rather than Jesus!
His paraphrase, importantly:
– Consciously suggests that any difference between the versions of Jesus and Hillel can be neutralized by use of the term “treat”, which he intends as encompassing both “ do” and “do not do”,
– Like Wattles, it clearly is intended to influence action,
– Like Wattles, it is clearly intended to guide interpersonal behavior,
– It specifically adds a statement of the consistency principle i.e. the “same situation” provision.
Gensler’s restatement is not couched in deistic or any religious language, which gives it perhaps a broader appeal. Its language is also more concrete and more easily interpreted.
Wattle’s view is, I think, more aspirational. Gensler’s is more practical. Wattles speaks to an audience already presumably like-minded. Gensler’s statement is more universal.
But, while there is much in Gensler’s work that is wonderfully researched, considered and elucidated and to which we’ll need to come back, there is one crucial point that I think Gensler gets wrong. It is what allows him to use the word “treat” and not just to blur but to actually deny the distinction between the golden and silver rules.
Gensler explicitly proposes that there is no logical difference between the Golden Rule in its typical “Do unto others…” formulation and the Silver Rule’s typically-formulated “Do not do unto others…” language.
Gensler first analyzes the propositions that:
1) the Golden Rule is superior to the Silver Rule,
2) the Silver is superior to the Golden, and
3) that the two are complementary.
He then presents a fourth possibility; that the two are actually the same.
This is his analysis:
“10.4 Both are equivalent
The fourth view, which I accept, says that positive and negative GRs are logically equivalent: any action prescribed by one will be prescribed by the other. It’s easy to derive the negative GR from the positive. Take this positive GR:
If you want X to do A to you, then do A to X.
We can replace “do A” with any action description, such as “omit doing B”: If you want X to omit doing B to you, then omit doing B to X. This is equivalent to the negative GR: “If you want X not to do B to you, then don’t do B to X.”
Similarly, let’s start with this negative GR: If you want X not to do A to you, then don’t do A to X. Since “do A” can stand for any action, substitute “omit doing B” for it: If you want X not to omit doing B to you, then don’t omit doing B to X.
Simplifying double negations gives the positive GR:
“If you want X to do B to you, then do B to X.”
So the positive and negative GR are logically equivalent.
Any action can be described either positively or negatively: so being honest can be described as not lying. And then the positive GR with the positive description is equivalent to the negative GR with the negative description: “As you want others to be honest toward you, be honest toward them” is equivalent to “As you want others not to lie to you, do not lie to them.”
Consider “Treat others as you want to be treated.”
I can describe how I treat you by using positive or negative words: I treat you differently if I smile or if I don’t answer your hello. It would be artificial to limit treating or GR just to actions described positively or negatively.
The positive GR also covers the duty not to harm (“ If you want others to refrain from harming you, then refrain from harming them”), as the negative GR also covers the duty to do good (“ If you want others not to refuse to do good to you, then don’t refuse to do good to them”).
Both have identical logical implications.
Confucius, Hillel, and Jesus didn’t propose conflicting GRs; instead, they supported equivalent GRs that were worded differently.”
Gensler, Harry J. Ethics and the Golden Rule (p. 166- 168). Taylor and Francis. Kindle Edition.
We see above how Gensler has arrived at “treat” as a unifying term. The question is: does that really work?
I think it does not.
A technically correct analysis of a logical formula will still not produce a correct result if there is a flaw in the terms of the formula. And I do think there is a flaw in Gensler’s formula.
“Doing” versus “not doing” might be properly expressed in a “1 versus -1” system if the environment were constrained to allow only known or knowable outcomes. But we are talking about action being taken by a human being upon one or more other human beings in the context of a less-than-predictable environment.
It is in some respects the problem that drove Kant to conclude that only intentions can be judged.
1. When we undertake to act we cannot be certain of the results.
2. When we determine how to act toward another based on a self-referential standard, we arrogate another’s right of choice.
(To be fair to Gensler on this point, he presents a system of analysis that he suggests much be a part of any practical application of the Golden Rule. This is a four-part system he terms KITA, which requires Knowledge, Imagination and Testing before Action. If actually and responsibly employed, this is a very important addition to the risk-mitigation of Golden Rule application.)
It is also true to say that when we undertake to avoid action, we cannot be certain of the results, but we can more certain that we have not been the cause of a particular result.
In an earlier post I argued that there is a fundamental difference between “doing” and “not doing” and, while I have read many hundreds of pages of golden rule analysis and scholarship since that time, nothing I have found has changed my mind on that point.
There is much in Gensler’s approach that I find very appealing. I think his suggestion that the term “treat” can be of real help and the KITA process is very interesting and important.
But his argument that there is no difference between Gold and Silver still seems to me to be off the mark.
©Charles R. Lightner