If there is one thing that irritates critical thinkers, it is an over-simplified platitude which attempts to boil down the entire totality of a concept into one simple phrase. Such is the case with the so-called Golden Rule as it relates to interpersonal relationships.
Source, Wikipedia.
While I believe that the Golden Rule is a good introduction to the concepts of reciprocity and compassion, much more nuance is necessary to understand the full spectrum of possible interpersonal interactions.
What if, for example, the way we wish to be treated is actually unhealthy for our own well-being?
The result of following the Golden Rule in this case would be treating others in a way that is unhealthy also. Surely in a case like this we must admit that the blind application of the 'Golden Rule' logic has steered us wrong.
This may bring up other questions like:
Is a healthy action vs. an unhealthy action whatever my conscious mind says it is?
or more accurately: Can my conscious mind make an objective assessment of what is healthy for me socially?
or possibly: Is there such a thing as a truly objective assessment of social health or well-being?
As you can see, there are some big assumptions we would need to make to treat the Golden Rule as a universal maxim for producing right action in our relationships with others. When assessing my own past relationships I noticed that there were times that I made friends for the wrong reasons. Once I noticed this pattern in myself it became impossible not to also see it in everyone around me.
What do I mean when I say "making friends for the wrong reasons"? For many people, including me, that means when we bond with someone who shares one of our character flaws (or 'quirks' as we endearingly refer to them). This bond usually escalates to a close friendship rather quickly once both people find out that the other will not hold them accountable for their own unaddressed character flaw. In my study of the entertainment media industry, I have found that popular movies and music of the current era reinforce this type of behavior.
The most common character flaw that produces this type of negative feedback loop is the desire to be seen as superior to others. This flaw is not unique to people of any one culture, belief, or philosophy. The source of all the conflict is that there are so many different ideas about what makes one person superior to another, but also the fact that we all feel the need to appear superior to others in the first place.
Let's use a fictional example to elaborate on this: Joe states that anyone who advocates for a single-payer healthcare system is an "ignorant dumb-ass". Jane states that anyone who protests the removal of a confederate statue is "Nazi scum". Joe and Jane are not likely to be friends, yet they exhibit the same need to feel superiority.
They are each likely to find groups of friends who validate their version of what makes a person superior, therefore further reducing the overall possibility that Joe and Jane will ever be able to have a rational discussion with each other. Because they both feel that they are objectively superior to people in the opposing group, Joe and Jane each have a built-in justification to ignore the Golden Rule in certain instances. However it is not technically correct to say they are ignorant of the Golden Rule; they simply create a rationale to convince themselves they are following it.
Let's elaborate on our example to show what I mean. Let's say Jane has a habit of speaking to people in a condescending tone when expressing her opinions, but becomes enraged when she senses someone speaking to her in the same way. So Jane is likely to surround herself with 2 types of people:
But let's say for the sake of argument that somebody with a conscience and strong will does confront Jane's mistreatment of others, and they use an appeal to the Golden Rule. They might say something like "How would you like it if someone spoke to you that way?" Unfortunately Jane is prepared for this objection, and she merely laughs and says "I would want someone to set me straight if I said something so stupid!"
You see, Jane's belief that it is her purpose to 'set people straight' is another underlying problem here. In reality, if someone speaks to her that way, she flips out. She does not thank them for 'setting her straight'. She is telling herself that 'the ends justify the means'. In other words, she believes it is OK to treat others with disrespect only when they need to be 'set straight', in her opinion.
Do you see how silly that is once we analyze it? Joe has the same belief, and if you get the two in a room together, WATCH OUT!
This dynamic of 'setting people straight' often appears in the parent-child relationship. Many parents believe it is their biological duty to make sure their children follow what they believe is the 'right' path in life. With some parents that path is very similar to the one they followed and in others it is very different. Either way, EVERY child will independently form their own view of what is 'right' based on their own observations and experiences. My understanding is that children learn by modeling the behavior of their role models and seeing how that works for them. Trying to impose your views on their life will likely end in resentment.
I believe the true path to healing is in letting go of these two beliefs about ourselves:
