Throughout the world, the Golden Rule has become one of the highlights of Jesus' teachings, but is it really so fair and just as we have been led to believe? I will not dispute that the intentions of the doctrine are good, as it is merely attempting to get people to consider how they might be mistreating others, but as we all know, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. That said, let us examine the passage closely, to see if we can detect any of that sagely wisdom in Jesus, which Christians so often rave about.

I. Historical Context

Before Christianity even existed, many other religions established their own version of the Golden Rule. The earliest one we seem to know of comes out of the Vedic traditions in Hinduism around 3000 BC:

Next is Judaism, and the following saying is actually found in the Talmud (circa 1300 BC), not the Hebrew bible:

After Judaism comes the Zoroastrian version around 600 BC:

Then the Golden Rule can be found passed down through Buddhism, Confucianism, Jainism, Taoism, and even given by Socrates before it is at last attributed to Jesus Christ sometime around 30 AD [1]. Jesus cannot therefore be held accountable for inventing the Golden Rule, but his utterance of it in Matthew is quite different from the other versions I've just cited. In most traditions, the Golden Rule is in the negative form, instructing us not to do that which we would not want done to us. However, Jesus rephrases it into the positive form, telling us to do to others whatever we would want done to us, and this seemingly insignificant difference is where the problem lies.

II. Do or Do Not

You might think that Jesus, being omniscient God incarnate, would know that there are and have been many people in the world with masochistic personalities, who desire to be afflicted with pain. How should they regard the Golden Rule? If they themselves want to be flogged by others, then they are permitted to flog others too. Now it could be argued that perhaps Christ himself was a bit of a masochist, especially if you consider Mel Gibson's film to be accurate, but if such is the case, then I think it would cast doubt on the idea that God truly has our best intentions in mind.

Jesus' rendition has quite the tone of arrogance to it as well. Whatever you think is right and just for people to do to you is also permissible for you to do to all other people. It's a twisted way to think you know what's best for a person, based on what you think is best for you. A Christian fundamentalist might think he'd need to repent and resist his desires if he were a homosexual. Should he then conclude that it's his moral responsibility to go out and convert homosexuals? The problem with Jesus' interpretation of the Golden Rule is that it is missing a qualifier which would bring other worldviews into consideration. But this is just the way religion tends to operate - "my worldview is the only correct one, so what do the others matter?"

On the other hand, the negative form of the rule has it's flaws too. Suppose you have a friend in the hospital who is at death's door and in great pain. They ask you to pull the plug so that their suffering may end. If you imagine yourself in the same situation and conclude that you would not want your friend to pull the plug on you, then your decision will be to let your friend live. Once again, in this scenario the Golden Rule does not take the other person's wishes into account. Still, the negative form seems a good deal more reasonable, simply for the fact that it forbids us from selfish actions more than it condones them, and the conceivable consequences of the positive form do appear more harmful overall.

III. Philosophy and the Golden Rule

The 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant drew a distinction between two different propositions, called the "hypothetical imperative" and the "categorical imperative". Hypothetical imperatives are "if-then" statements, or conditional propositions that say, for example, "if you want to get to A, then you have to do B". Categorical imperatives do not have conditions though, your only option is to do B. Kant's view is that if there is such a thing as a categorical imperative, it must be the Golden Rule [2]. But is this really the case?

As I've already mentioned above, the Golden Rule seems to appeal to self-interests above all else, evidenced by its consistent failure to consider the worldviews or desires of other persons. Thus application of the Golden Rule depends on the condition of whether or not something is benefitial to the individual. It's self-motivated in whatever way you phrase it. If you decide not to slap someone because you yourself would not want to be slapped, you have still made your decision based on how you would want to be treated, and not how the other person would prefer you treat them. Even if you happen to act in accordance with that person's preference, your decision remains self-motivated.

What does this mean? It means that the Golden Rule is a hypothetical imperative, and a conditional rule, not one that should be applied universally. Now that we've determined that there are conditions for the Golden Rule, and that its application would be morally impermissible in many conceivable scenarios, I propose that we throw it out altogether. Why? Because, all things considered, its conditions are actually suitable in themselves for a proper theory of reciprocal altruism - which is what the Golden Rule is intended (but ultimately fails) to be.

IV. Tit-for-Tat vs. The Golden Rule

Tit-for-tat is a strategy in game theory that holds the following four conditions:

1. Unless provoked, the agent will always cooperate
2. If provoked, the agent will retaliate
3. The agent is quick to forgive
4. The agent must have a good chance of competing against the opponent more than once.

This strategy is superior to the Golden Rule in a variety of ways. It covers all options, unlike the positive form of the Golden Rule, which does not address what we do not want done to us, and the negative form, which does not address what we do want done to us. Tit-for-tat simply says, repay kindness with kindness, and if you get burned once, be forgiving - but if you are burned again, retaliate. An individual who always burns someone OR who always forgives will not do well for long, so the idea is for all parties involved to hold each other accountable for their actions. This is similar to the idea of a social contract in the philosophy of Contractarianism.

With Tit-for-tat and Contractarianism, the best course of action/behavior is derived from the maximization of joint interest, or simply put: cooperation. Because of this, the other person's worldview and desires are taken into account. If the opponent shows that it wants to cooperate, the agent will cooperate as well, for as long as the cooperation is mutual. This is unlike the Golden Rule, which would always have the agent do or not do whatever it desires for itself, and so even if it always wants cooperation, it stands to lose a lot by not holding its opponent accountable.

Like I said in the opening of this article, I do not question that the intentions of the Golden Rule are respectable and good. It is easy to understand that it aims to be a method for teaching reciprocal altruism, but it falls quite a distance from its goal. Once again, upon closer inspection, another "pearl of wisdom" from Jesus turns out to be less than sage advice, and is also unoriginal. So then perhaps it is more accurate to call this another demonstration of the shortcomings of religion in general, and not just simply blame Christianity. In any case, I shall say, look not to religion for practical systems of ethics.

1. Anonymous. Famous Quotes of Wisdom: History of The Golden Rule. Diamondhelpers.com. Last retrieved June 2, 2009.
2. Kant, I. (1785) Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, p.30.