On getting the Golden Rule wrong

I often hear the statement 'If people treat me well, I treat them well' or something similar. This tends to be asserted proudly, as if the speaker has discovered an important moral rule, which anyone can follow with beneficial results in their relationships with others. Let's call it the 'Matching Behaviour Rule'.

'If people treat me well, I treat them well'. Isn't this in fact a version of the time-honoured principle known as the Golden Rule: 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you', the idea that you should treat others as you would like them to treat you?

It is not, as we can see from the following scenario. My neighbour is playing loud music and I can't get to sleep. I could ask him to turn the volume down, but I have done this before and he's taken no notice. So I am annoyed. The next morning, still harbouring my resentment, I decide to throw some of my rubbish into his back garden. In justifying my behaviour, I say 'If people treat me well, then I treat them well, but if they mess me around, I'm entitled to do the same to them'.

It's when we consider a case like this that we can see the Matching Behaviour Rule is not the same as the Golden Rule. The Golden Rule tells us to treat others in the same sort of way as we would like them to treat us. I would not like my neighbour to throw his rubbish into my back garden, so I should not throw mine into his. It is irrelevant, by the lights of the Golden Rule, that he has been treating me badly by playing his music too loud. I have to treat him well, since that's how I would like him to treat me.

I am not suggesting that any serious moralist confuses the Matching Behaviour Rule with the Golden Rule. It is uncontroversial that they are very different. What I am saying is that it is easy to confuse the two, especially when you are tempted to follow the former by retaliating for a wrong done to you. You then get to indulge your desire for revenge whilst giving yourself the moral credit of seeming to follow the Golden Rule.

But it is also true, I think, that once the distinction between the two rules has been pointed out to the sort of casual moralist likely to confuse them, the latter may well feel that the Matching Behaviour Rule is superior. For the Golden Rule will seem likely to lead to a situation in which others take advantage of you. They may keep hurting you, while you yourself, as a conscientious follower of the Golden Rule, are always nice to them. You constantly 'turn the other cheek', but this just allows other people to make your life a misery.

But however hard it may be to apply the Golden Rule in cases where others are treating you badly, it is best to try to do so. If not, things can get very unpleasant. After I have dumped my rubbish in my neighbour's back garden, he in turn will be thinking how to respond. He will notice that I have escalated things somewhat in my choice of retaliatory method, since arguably unwanted rubbish is worse than unwanted music – no doubt I was angry at his ignoring my requests to turn the volume down. Angered in turn, he will quite possibly escalate things further. You can easily imagine how the story might go on. Events may well follow a common pattern in which a relatively small disagreement develops into a serious conflict. And of course when the protagonists are nations rather than individuals, the result is often war.

Following the Golden Rule can be the remedy for this. It tells us to resist the temptation to retaliate, thus halting the process of escalation in its tracks. As already noted, it can be seen as too soft, allowing people to get away with whatever they like. Now there are certainly times when we need to rein in others' bad behaviour, but our first recourse should always be to find a way to do this which does not involve violating the Golden Rule. (In the present case, I could try discussing the business of the loud music with my neighbour. It's true he ignored me before, but maybe there was a reason for this and he is actually more amenable than he seems.) Only if no reconciliation seems possible should I take any steps in violation of the Golden Rule and even then, they should be proportionate. (Dumping my rubbish in his garden is not on.) So maybe the Golden Rule is not an absolute one. However, it is vital that we try to adhere to it when we can or else we destroy any chance of good relations with others. The Golden Rule, if followed by everyone whenever possible, holds out the promise of Utopia. The Matching Behaviour Rule, in contrast, is likely to lead to Hell on Earth.