In order to
test fairness and consistency two questions are brought into play, “what if
everyone did that and how would you like it if that were done to you?”
(Shafer-Landau 155) The golden rule, you shouldn’t do anything to others that
you would not done to yourself, is brought up in chapter 11 of The
Fundamentals of Ethics, by Russ Shafer-Landau, as a method to explain the
second question offered above.
One of the examples that the author uses to show that the golden rule does in fact not work is the idea of a masochist being able to go around and hit people whenever they want, since they themselves have no problems being hit. In this example it is clear that the golden rule is really not the ideal way of measuring or testing morality because it does not stand up to the outliers in the population. No matter what instance you can think of, there will most likely always be someone there willing to say that they are the opposite and actually enjoy when certain things are done to them that society would typically disagree with. I don’t think that there is ever a way that one could get a completely accurate portrayal of what is moral vs. immoral and therefor I agree with Shafer-Landau when he states that this cannot be the final test upon which you plan examine morality. (Shafer-Landau 157)
One of the examples that the author uses to show that the golden rule does in fact not work is the idea of a masochist being able to go around and hit people whenever they want, since they themselves have no problems being hit. In this example it is clear that the golden rule is really not the ideal way of measuring or testing morality because it does not stand up to the outliers in the population. No matter what instance you can think of, there will most likely always be someone there willing to say that they are the opposite and actually enjoy when certain things are done to them that society would typically disagree with. I don’t think that there is ever a way that one could get a completely accurate portrayal of what is moral vs. immoral and therefor I agree with Shafer-Landau when he states that this cannot be the final test upon which you plan examine morality. (Shafer-Landau 157)
However, I
do personally feel like this “golden” rule is one of the best and most accurate
ways of testing a rule when you need to make a quick decision even though its
not the best overall test. For example,
if you ever need to make a snap decision about whether or not to save someone
who is drowning, obviously you would want someone to save you, therefor you
should jump in the water and save them if you can. I think that this rule can offer good advice
as to what is the right action to take; it will just not always offer a
consistent result. Opposing a
utilitarian point of view that believes you should think through every
consequence possible, this could help to make those quick decisions that you
need when in a dire situation.
I agree with Will that the Golden Rule(s) can be used as a way to test rules when a quick decision must be made. Should it be the final say when making complex moral decisions, no. The gist of the golden rule is to treat others the same way you would like to be treated (Shafer-Landau 156). This rule demands that people are to remain consistent in their actions. However, I find that people will always become inconsistent in their actions at some point. People aren't perfect so it seems impossible for an individual to always treat others the same way he/she would like to be treated. Also, how are soldiers supposed to act towards the enemy during war. Certainly their job is not to always treat the enemy fairly. Are they wrong for doing so? I am curious as to how Kant would addresses this.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Shafer-Landau on this one. He states that the golden rule makes morality rest on a person's desires (156), and this is correct. However, I also think that it ignores one crucial aspect. Let's take Will's example about jumping into a lake to save a life for instance. The golden rule would tell me that, because I would want someone to save me, this means that I am therefore obligated to save the drowning individual. However, what if I do not have the capability of doing this successfully? What if it is certain that I will die as a result of this action because I simply cannot swim? I think that the golden rule, although a noble belief to live by, fails to account for this. If I am the only person around and the only way this individual will live is if I swim out to him, would it be immoral for me not to do so? The golden rule would make it my obligation to jump into the lake to save the person simply because it is something that I would want if I were in that same position. But if I do not have the capabilities and choose not to carry out the action, then I am still doing something immoral.
ReplyDelete