The Golden Rule Isolates and Fails

© by Gary Wood
November 28, 2007

Ask anyone what the ‘Golden Rule’ is and you will hear many a similar answer. Very simply stated it is treating others the way you would like others to treat you. Often referred to as the ethic of reciprocity it is taught, in one form or another, by many different faiths and ideologies. Although some members of the Christian faith believe it was first introduced in the times of Jesus the ethic actually existed long before yet was embraced within the teachings as it has been embraced by so very many.

Study the teachings for Buddhism and one hears expressions like, “Putting oneself in the place of another, one should not kill nor cause another to kill.” The Baha’i Faith has expressions such as, "Ascribe not to any soul that which thou wouldst not have ascribed to thee, and say not that which thou doest not." Throughout the Old and New Testament there are sentiments similar to, "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." In the Analects Confucius taught, “Never impose on others what you would not choose for yourself.” Islamic teachings are filled with the idea as evidenced in, "Hurt no one so that no one may hurt you." Turning to Jainism teachings we again find the golden rule concept in reading, “Just as pain is not agreeable to you, it is so with others. Knowing this principle of equality treat other with respect and compassion.” The underlying principle of Jewish law can be found in the teaching, “That which is hateful to you, do not do to your fellow. That is the whole Torah; the rest is the explanation; go and learn.”

With so many claiming the golden rule is truly a sound way to treat others and is a good way to be treated why does it isolate and fail? In the Republican debates most of the candidates support a form of the preemptive interventionist policy currently embraced by the Bush Administration and used by many administrations in the past. In the debate last night Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) defended the current policy and claimed the policy supported by Rep. Ron Paul (R-TX) was the type of policy that “We allowed -- we allowed Hitler to come to power with that kind of attitude of isolationism and appeasement.” Paul’s policy is one of non-intervention as embraced by the likes of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. According to Paul he is not an isolationist, “I want to trade with people, talk with people, travel. But I don't want to send troops overseas using force to tell them how to live. We would object to it here and they're going to object to us over there.” In other words, do unto others as we would have others do unto us or the Golden Rule.

I’ve heard this type of interaction throughout the campaign this year as the Iraq war is one of the key issues being hotly contested. Most candidates in both parties want to continue some level of presence in Iraq. I hear commentators and political leaders across the country discuss the need to win, secure, and maintain a military presence in Iraq for the foreseeable future. Many also make the comment (as they do on many topics), “...except Paul.” If you were to review a transcript from last night’s post-debate coverage on CNN you would have heard those two words more than a dozen times.

Yet, everything I study and read about the idea of non-intervention as a primary foreign policy to follow indicates it is foundational and consistently inline with the teachings of the ethic of reciprocity. Within foreign affairs how we treat countries is indicative to how we want to be treated, isn’t it? Using a policy of preemptive intervention sends the clear message we, the government and citizens of the United States, treat other nations this way and therefore it is fair for other nations to treat us this way. According to McCain we create Hitler type leaders if we use non-intervention instead. If the policy is to trade, talk, and travel to each other’s country while respecting the sovereignty and right to defend one’s own borders McCain and others say it isolates the U.S. and it fails. A foreign policy based on the teachings of the Golden Rule, that is, to treat others as we would have them treat us is wrong according to most of the candidates who want to take over as POTUS.

If the Golden Rule isolates and fails between countries it also is a failed philosophy among individuals. It cannot be an ethic of reciprocity on the one level and not on the other. The Golden Rule must either be rewritten or it must be retired as a failed teaching among most philosophies and theologies if we are to accept a preemptive intervention policy. Perhaps the other interpretation of the Golden Rule is more accurate among the current political leaders in the United States. You know the other Golden Rule, “He who has the gold rules.”