Entry 2111, on 2021-03-08 at 12:06:25 (Rating 3, Politics)
The Golden Rule is usually stated as something like "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." That is the version from the Gospels (at least 2 of them) from the New Testament, but the idea pre-dates that by thousands of years. Much to many people's surprise, there is very little original material in the Bible; almost all of it was borrowed from other sources.
So the classic version of the rule is that we should treat others in the way that we want to be treated ourselves. Of course, that is a very simplistic idea and there are numerous times where it fails, but it is a good basic guide for moral behaviour.
There are two major areas where it fails, in my estimation. First, when the person enjoys pain or humiliation, such as the case of a masochist. He wants to be treated badly so should he follow the rule and treat others badly? And second, even if the person wants to be treated well, and treats others that way, what guarantee is there that others will follow the rule and reciprocate?
There is another, more facetious interpretation of the "golden rule" too. That is that he who has the gold, makes the rules. In other words, the rich are in charge of society. I think it is almost undeniable that there is a significant element of truth in this, but there is a corollary to this which makes the situation much worse. That is that not only do those who have the gold make the rules, but those who make the rules also get the gold. So it is like a positive feedback system.
By the way, no doubt you understand that "gold" here is a metaphor for whatever is valued in the situation under examination; usually money or political power. And "rules" are normally laws, policies, and regulations.
So the law might be better stated as "he who has the gold makes the rules which allows him to get more gold and make more rules, ad infinitum".
There are some significant consequences of this. First, it means that the rules aren't fair or natural; they are an artificial construct created by those with the gold. And they are usually for the gold owner's benefit, although they don't have to be. So anyone who doesn't do well under these rules isn't necessarily deficient themselves, they just can't find a way to make the rules work for them. This is not surprising since the rules are usually designed to benefit those who already have the gold!
Second, the system is self-sustaining and resistant to change from anyone who is not part of it. That positive feedback is difficult to affect from the outside, so fundamental change is practically impossible.
Third, this represents the polar opposite of the intent of the original golden rule. In that people are encouraged to help others and to treat everyone fairly. In the more facetious, modern version people are told that there are two types of people - those who have a lot of wealth and power, and those with little - and little can (and perhaps should) be done to change that.
Things do change, of course. In many countries in the past the people in charge were hereditary monarchs. They had the gold (often literally) and made the rules. That has changed in most cases, but instead of making the system fairer it has just become unfair in a different way. Now the bankers, big business executives, and other people at the top of the corporate system make the rules and get the gold.
At least now we have people who control the system based on some form of merit (at least in most cases, because rich people often get that way through an inheritance which makes them barely better than monarchs), rather than simply being born into the right family, so that might be seen as progress, but the end result is hardly more advantageous to the majority of those without much gold.
Note that I have no problems with someone getting paid well for doing a difficult job, or even with people inheriting wealth. What I do have issues with is those people using the extra influence they get from being rich to make rules which in turn benefit them at the cost of others in less fortuitous positions.
The gap between rich and poor has been steadily increasing over many decades now, and it has got to the point of being utterly ridiculous with the top few percent having more wealth than everyone else (a few years back, in the US, the top 3% owned more than the other 97%, and it is probably worse now).
So I would want to break the positive feedback loop. If we are going to have a system where some can accrue much greater wealth than others we should at least make sure that the system has some degree of fairness so that everyone can participate. I'm not asking for some crazy socialist utopia (or more likely, dystopia), I am asking for the rule making to be disconnected from the wealth. Those who have the gold should not be making the rules!
Comment 1 by Anonymous on 2021-03-09 at 10:36:04:
The golden rule is form the Bible. Do your research!
Comment 2 by OJB on 2021-03-09 at 11:07:49:
Well, there are slightly different versions of it seen in different sources. According to Wikipedia: "The concept of the Rule is codified in the Code of Hammurabi stele and tablets, 1754-1790 BC". But it only occurs in Christianity in the New Testament, which is obviously a lot later.
Comment 3 by Anonymous on 2021-03-09 at 15:47:58:
"Those who have the gold should not be making the rules!"
To me it's more subtle than that - Those who have the gold should not have disproportionate influence/sway over those making the rules.
Comment 4 by OJB on 2021-03-09 at 21:11:10:
Sure. Everyone should have the same degree of influence in making the rules. I didn't mean to imply that the rich should have no input at all, just that they shouldn't be making the rules, unopposed.
You can leave comments about this using this form.
Enter name, email (optional), enter number, comment, click Add. You can leave the name blank if you want to remain anonymous. Enter your email address to receive notifications of replies. Comment should appear immediately (authorisation is inactive).
BLOG PAGE