Return to Ethics in Wellism

Ethical Reciprocity

The Golden Rule Across Cultures

The Golden Rule

The principle commonly known as the Golden Rule is one of the most universal ethical guidelines, appearing in some form in nearly every major culture and religion.

It has two forms:

  • Prohibitive: Do not do to others what you do not want to be done to you.
  • Directive: Treat others as you would like others to treat you.

See here for various sources containing some form of this rule.

Some Questions about the Golden Rule

Since Wellism’s central concept is wellbeing, let’s analyze the Golden Rule from that perspective, and ask a few questions:

  • What is the reasoning behind the Golden Rule?
  • Is the Golden Rule beneficial for wellbeing?
  • Is the Golden Rule a consequence of the goal of enhancing wellbeing?
  • Does it always apply, or are there exceptions?
  • Should we treat people as we would like to be treated even when they mistreat us?
  • If the Golden Rule appears in almost all cultures and traditions, how come so many people behave in ways that contradict it?

The Reasoning Behind the Golden Rule

The Golden Rule is rooted in several interwoven ethical, psychological, and practical considerations:

  • Fairness: At its core, the Golden Rule is about Fairness: treating others on a par with yourself, applying the same standards to their interests as you do to your own.
  • Empathy: The Golden Rule also draws on our natural capacity for empathy: the ability to imagine ourselves in the other person’s shoes and to be considerate of their feelings and wellbeing. We know from our own experience how painful suffering can be, and so with empathy, we do not want to inflict suffering on others.
  • Moral Consistency: The Golden Rule asks us to apply the same standards to ourselves as we do to others, promoting ethical consistency and reducing hypocrisy.
  • Reciprocity: There is a practical, even self-interested reason to the Golden Rule, namely treating others in ways that would benefit yourself. Obviously, you don’t want to be mistreated by anyone ever. Nobody does. But if you mistreat others, you shouldn’t be surprised if they mistreat you in retaliation. In other words: “What goes around comes around” or “Karma is a bitch”. On the positive side, if you treat others kindly, you increase the likelihood that they will treat you kindly in return (although this is not guaranteed).
  • Social Harmony: Societies function best when people cooperate and trust one another. By encouraging us to treat others well, the Golden Rule helps build mutual respect and reduces conflict, making communities safer and more supportive for everyone.

Why Don’t People Follow the Golden Rule?

It is very obvious that in our world there are numerous examples where people don’t follow the Golden Rule. You can see examples in the list of crimes and unethical behaviors on this website, where people do to others what they definitely don’t want to be done to them. For example, no one wants to be tortured, raped, bullied, threated, robbed, etc. Yet many people to these things to others.

But if the Golden Rule makes so much sense, why do so many people behave the opposite way? There are a few reasons:

  • Ignorance: Some people may not be aware of the Golden Rule, as they did not have the good fortune of being raise in a culture that teaches it. Or they may not have been tought how to apply it in practice.
  • Conflict with other instincts and desires: Human beings have instincts such as fear, anger, greed, or the drive for power, which can override ethical considerations in the heat of the moment.
  • Conflict with other principles: In some justified cases, the Golden Rule may need to be overridden by other ethical principles—such as justice, self-defense, or protecting the vulnerable. In other cases, people may hold or follow unethical beliefs that directly contradict the Golden Rule. For example, some may justify harming others based on prejudice, group loyalty, or a belief in their own superiority.
  • Personality Disorders: Some people have harmful personality traits that make them more likely to mistreat others. For example, narcissistic, psychopathy, sadism, and more – see here.

See also: Why do people violate the personal sovereignty of others?

A special mention should be made for religious zealots who kill others or want to violently impose their will on others, despite the fact that some version of the Golden Rule appears in their religious texts – see here for examples. This is simply because their religious texts also contain other parts that are in complete contradiction to the Golden Rule, and the zealots focus on those parts only. Or maybe they follow a restricted version of the Golden Rule, where the rule is applied only to people of the same group, when the Golden Rule is phrased using “neighbor” or “brother” or “kin” rather than any other person.

Some religions fair better than others in this regards. In some peaceful religions, a central concept is empathy and understanding for the suffering of others, and developing ourselves to treat others with kindness. Whereas in other religions, a central concept is that everyone should submit to a strict and punitive religious rule, and the religion encourages to pursue this goal through violence and deceit, to spread the religion by the sword.

What If Others Mistreat Us?

A main question about the Golden Rule is: Should we follow it regarding people who mistreat us or mistreat others?

In some views, we should not mistreat others even if they mistreat us. There are sayings like these:

  • “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.” (A paraphrse of some sayings by Mahatma Gandhi)
  • “Nothing in the Golden Rule says that others will treat us as we have treated them. It only says that we must treat others in a way that we would want to be treated.” (Rosaa Parks: source)
  • “But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also.” – Jesus, Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5:39) (Matthew 5:39)

DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

Also: when handling psychopaths, there are different rules because they are incapable of fair reciprocity. A classic example is the capitulation of Chamberlain to Nazi demands (and before that, the lack of decisive action against Germany when the threat was still small) as if “just this demand and then we’ll be satisfied.” Same regarding negotiations with terrorists whose core fundamental beliefs are the complete and utter annihilation of the group that they are terrorizing – this core belief is not going to change. It’s of course ok to talk with them to achieve some balance of power and deterrance, but do not be misled to believe that they value life as you do. In a conflict with such psychopaths, ask yourself: What would happen if you laid down your defenses – they will annihilate you. And what would happen if they laid down their defenses – there will be peace – of course IF you indeed follow the principles of wellbeing.

Another exception is when, in the course of justified self-defense, especially in war against a psychopathic regime, there is no other way to stop them than to use deadly force that may also harm innocent people. This is tragic, but it might be even more tragic to not stop the psychopathic regime and thus perpetuate the harm to their subjucated population as well as to you. But the blame and responsibility is on the psychopathic regime, as long as you do what you can (and it doesn’t have to be perfect) to avoid harming innocent people.

  • Fairness, resipcrocity
  • Self-defense
  • “Whoever becomes compassionate to the cruel will eventually become cruel to the compassionate” so you must put healthy boundaries
  • Emotional resilience
  • Nevertheless, proportionality
  • Compassionate communication
  • On the one hand, it seems that the measures taken should be proportional to the mistreatment. On the other hand, possibly sometimes that would lead to a larger damage to the wellbeing of the innocent, because the perpetrator is a fanatic that may understand only disproportional measures, and sometimes even that would not suffice and nothing short of a total annihilation of the perpetrator is required for the best wellbeing of the innocent.

DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT

But what if others want differnet things

  1. you would like to be treated X, but they don’t not want to be treated X. answer: meta-level e.g. consideration
  2. masochist? exclude pathologies
  3. when there are conflicting wishes

Approximation

It’s a good approximation, but more precisely:

  • don’t mistreat others, don’t be a jerk
  • justified self-defense
  • proportionality

justified harm for the purpose of self-defence and protection of wellbeing is NOT considered mistreatment

Love thy neighbour

This is a lofty aim, a spiritual aim to see all as one, and harm to one is harm to all, and injustice somewhere is injustice everywhere.

But before rising to the level of sainthood, it’s enough to say: be kind to others, be considerate of others, don’t be egotistical. AND it’s for your own benefit in terms of getting good treatment by others, and also feeling better, because it feels much better to be in kind interactions than in painful conflicts.

Justice

TBD

  • the example from wikipedia of the judge

Inability to Follow the Golden Rule

  • when you have limited resources, you cannot help everyone, so you can’t technically treat someone as you would want people to help you if you were in that dire situation.

Wellbeing?

  • Wellbeing: From the perspective of Wellism, the Golden Rule supports overall wellbeing. When people act with consideration and kindness, it enhances not only the recipient’s wellbeing but also the giver’s sense of integrity and connection.

More

Reciprocity (social and political philosophy) Reciprocity (social psychology)

Text by GPT

While the Golden Rule is a powerful starting point, Wellism offers a more nuanced approach to ethical reciprocity, recognizing the complexity of real-life interactions and the importance of personal sovereignty and emotional resilience.

1.

Be Kind, But Not a Doormat

Wellism encourages us to treat others with kindness and respect—essentially, “don’t be a jerk.” However, this does not mean we must tolerate mistreatment or continue to engage with those who do not reciprocate respect. You are not obligated to be nice to someone who consistently treats you poorly.

2.

Maintain Respect, Even When Challenged

Even when others are unkind, Wellism suggests that we can still choose to remain respectful and kind, for several reasons:

  • Leave the Place Better: Like the principle of “leave the place better than you found it,” our actions can uplift the environment, regardless of others’ behavior.
  • Avoid Automatic Retaliation: Retaliating with “an eye for an eye” often leads to escalation and mutual harm. As Gandhi said, “An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.”
  • Practice Compassionate Communication: Often, when someone is unkind, it is a sign of their own emotional distress. By practicing Compassionate Communication, we can try to understand their feelings and unmet needs, and respond with empathy rather than anger.
  • Emotional Resilience: We do not need to be saints, but learning to give empathy to ourselves and manage our own painful emotions helps us remain tranquil and resilient, even in the face of mistreatment. See Emotional Resilience.

3.

Boundaries and Self-Defense

Wellism fully supports the right to set boundaries and defend oneself, especially from physical violence or ongoing emotional abuse. However, it is extremely rare that retaliating with hurtful words or actions actually benefits our own wellbeing. Instead, assertive self-protection and disengagement are often healthier responses. See Personal Sovereignty.

4.

Reciprocity, Not Vengeance

Ethical reciprocity is not about keeping score or seeking revenge. It is about mutual respect, understanding, and the willingness to disengage from harmful dynamics while maintaining your own integrity.

5.

Related Concepts

In summary:
Ethical reciprocity, as understood in Wellism, means treating others with kindness and respect, but not at the expense of your own wellbeing or boundaries. It is about striving for mutual understanding, practicing compassion (for others and yourself), and choosing responses that foster wellbeing for all involved.