If we restrict the question of “doing” or “not doing” to acts in the physical realm, as we’ve suggested, a critical distinction between the two can be drawn.
It is (for practical purposes) always in my power to refrain from purposely acting. No agreement or connection between us is needed for me to act towards you in accordance with the Silver Rule. My forbearance does not need your knowledge, consent or participation.
To follow the Silver Rule precept all that is required is that I know “what is hateful to me” and refrain from doing that to you.
To follow the Golden Rule is a much more complex and risky proposition.
To “do unto” someone “what I would have him do unto me“, requires:
1. That I know what I would have another do to me, and
2. That I have the ability to do that thing to or for the other.
Implicitly, it also requires that I can be reasonably assured that what I intend to do is what will actually occur.
Importantly, I do not need to know what you want. My aim is to do unto you what I would want; so for Golden Rule purposes, your desire is not strictly an issue.
While we can give the benefit of the doubt to persons of good will that their intention in acting towards others is in the spirit of “love thy neighbor” we know that “doing” can have both unintended and unwanted negative consequences.
If I unknowingly give a hungry person food that he is allergic to, the negative consequence is unintended. It is still negative even if my intention was admirable.
But doing, itself, as we’ve said, requires the ability to do. In order for me to do something to you, I have to have the ability to affect you. If I have that ability because you’ve granted me permission, that’s one thing. If I have the ability to affect you because I have the position or power to act upon you, even against your will, that is quite another.
Coercive, brutal, decidedly unloving acts have been carried out in the service of “love thy neighbor” throughout the generations. Slaughter, torture, forced conversion and other atrocities for the “benefit” of the victims are well documented.
When one has the power to impose his will on others, one’s will, when supported by the presumed moral sanction of the Golden Rule, can become a weapon. And when that weapon is in the hands of a zealot, convinced that he is also in possession of absolute truth, it has lethal potential.
As between the Golden and Silver Rules the potential for causing harm, whether intentional or not, is greater when we are doing than when we are refraining from doing.
We cannot be sure that the outcome we desire will actually occur. There will always be some risk of an unintended consequence.
We cannot be sure that what we want will not prove hateful or damaging to the other. There will always be a risk that what I would want for myself is not what you would want for yourself,
It was the Silver Rule that Hippocrates translated to medicine when he wrote : “First do no harm“.