Consider the following scenario (from The Pig That Wants to be Eaten):
Constance has always tried to observe the golden rule of morality: do as you would be done by. Or as Kant states, “Act only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.”
However, currently she is tempted to do something that would go against this principle. She is considering running away with you best friend’s husband, and taking their entire family fortune with them. Obviously, this is not doing as she would be done by.
However, things are more complicated than that. For example, when we lock up a criminal, we are not saying that we too should be locked up. We are saying that we should be locked up if we were in the dame circumstance as the criminal (i.e. we committed the same crime, for example).
Therefore, Constance is asking herself if she can will that it should become a universal law that people in her circumstance should run off with their best friend’s husband and fortune? In this regard, the answer seems to be yes. She’s not saying adultery and asset-stripping are normally good, only that they are in her specific circumstances. Therefore, it seems that it’s morally fine for her to run away with a clear conscience.
The golden rule of Confucius is used in various forms in practically all the major ethical systems. It seems to offer a simple moral rule of thumb to follow.
This problem that Constance’s situation highlights goes to the heart of what the principle actually means. There are two interpretations: the principle is either ridiculous or empty.
If it means that we should never do to anyone else what we would not have done to ourselves, no matter the circumstances, then we’d never do anything unpleasant such as punish or restrain. We wouldn’t want to be locked so we should not lock up murderers.
Hence, Constance is right to see that circumstances have to come into it. However, every circumstance is slightly different, and every case is in some sense unique. Therefore, anything we did could be justified on the grounds that we would agree to be treated in the same way in exactly the same circumstance. However, then the universal aspect of the golden rule vanishes and the rule becomes empty.
Therefore, perhaps we need to take the middle path and include some idea of relevant similarity. We should do as we would be done by in any situation which, though not exactly the same, is similar in the morally relevant ways. For example, even though all unlawful killings are different, they are all relevantly similar in respect to key moral issues.
Something like this approach is necessary for the golden rule to work, but now we have something that is far from simple. Identifying relevant similarities is not an easy task. Human affairs are extremely complex and if we fail to attend to the particulars of each case, we risk failing to do justice.
With respect to Constance, her justification looks self-serving. However, what if Constance’s best friend actually turned out to be a lying cheat who has already siphoned off thousands of dollars from her family’s bank account? What if she were making her husband’s life hell? Doesn’t this seem to redeem Constance’s decision and make it not selfish?
This situation reflects a challenge for anyone trying to observe moral principles: how to balance the need to follow general principles with the equally important need to be sensitive to the particulars of each situation.