You are on page 1of 5

1

Essay no. 68

Zigong asked: Is there one word that can serve as a principle of conduct for life? Confucius
replied, It is the word shu, or reciprocity. Do not do to others what you do not want them to do to
you.
To what extent may this formulation of the Golden Rule, which can also be found in other cultures
throughout history, be considered as a universal moral principle?
Confucius (VI-V century BC), Analects 15.23

The knowledge we have about the world we live in, and the human nature in general
is constantly increasing. People are like a puzzle we need to solve, and sometimes our whole lives
are not enough to find out what someone is really like. Many people act only from self-interest, but
not everyone is the same, as Hobbes thought. Yet, if everyone were thinking only about
himself/herself, how could morality exist? We need moral principles to guide us in our choices, but
they cannot help us in every situation. The Golden Rule tells us that we should behave toward
others in the way we want others to behave toward us. But, should the universal moral principle be
based only on that? In this essay, I will argue that the Golden Rule cannot be considered as a
completely universal moral principle. Then, I will compare the Golden Rule with Kants categorical
imperative, as well as present the principle of utilitarianism. By analyzing all these moral principles,
I will try to determine which one of them can be considered as a universal and whether it can be
applied in every situation or dilemma we encounter.
According to Golden Rule, we should never do to others what we do not want them to
do to us. Whenever we have to make a decision which is connected with other peoples lives, we
need to take into account whether we would like others to do the same thing to us. Consider
Hobbes example of a lost island where no one lives. Two men, when their ship sank, got on that
island by chance. There is not much food and both of them think about killing the other man in
order to survive. Therefore, neither of them can sleep at night, because they fear for their own lives.
Hobbes used this example to show that people only act from self-interest and that we need laws
because otherwise, there would be a war of all against all. He claimed that altruism is impossible,

and that it is the reason we need the laws in order to survive. Although I do not agree that people act
only from self-interest, this example can be used to apply the Golden Rule. As we can realize,
neither of these two men wants to be murdered. Yet, they consider killing the other man in order to
survive. Thus, according to the Rule, one should not kill the other man because one does not want
to be killed either. From this example we can see that we need to take into account what would
happen if someone did the same to us. If one does not want to be murdered, he should not murder
someone else. However, the question is whether the Golden Rule can be applied in every situation
or dilemma we face.
The number of dilemmas we face in our everyday lives is enormous. There are many
situations when we cannot decide what to do, and what is more, nothing can help us decide.
Consider Foots trolley problem. There is something wrong with the trolley and there are five
people in the front of it. They do not have enough time to escape, but one person can save their
lives. He can change the direction of the trolley, but if he does so, then he will kill one worker. If he
does not do anything, then he will let five people die. So, what should he do? And, how can we
apply Golden rule here? None of us wants to be killed and thus, the direction of the trolley should
not be changed. Because, if it were, then one man would be killed and we would not want that the
same thing happens to us. However, if we were in situation that we could be saved, then we would
like that someone did something in order to prevent our deaths. Thus, we should save five people by
changing the direction of the trolley. So what should we do then? We should not murder one man
because we do not want that someone murders us, but we should also save the five people because
we would want to be saved. Since the only way to save people from the train is to kill the one man,
than it is impossible to apply the Golden rule here. We could only stop the trolley in some other
way, but, since we have only two options, that is not possible. From this example we can see that
the extent to which we can apply the Golden Rule is limited and it primarily depends on the type of
situation we find ourselves in.
Kant, on the other hand, says that we should always act so to treat humanity, whether
in our own person, or in the person of any other, always at the same time as an end, never merely as
a means. Also, we need to take into consideration what would happen if everyone acted the same
way? Many people compare this with the Golden rule, but there is a difference between the Golden
Rule and Kants categorical imperative. While the Golden rule tells us only that we should not do to
others what we do not want them to do to us, Kant shows that we also need to take into account the

consequences of everyone acting the same way. Consider the following example. A person needs
money and the only way to get it, is to borrow the money from someone else. However, the
problem is that the person will not be able to return the money. Hence, if he borrows the money
although he knows that we will not be able to repay it, he uses the person he will borrow the money
from, only as a means. So, what would happen if everyone acted the same way? If everyone made a
false promise to get what he/she needs, then the promise would lose all the meaning and value it
has. People would no longer trust anyone who makes a promise to them, although the person might
be telling the truth. What is more, we would use the people we make the false promise to only as a
means to achieve the desirable goal. If we compare this with the Golden Rule, we can see that it
only tells us not to make the false promise to others unless we want them to treat us in the same
way. It only shows us how we should treat others. But, it does not tell us when an act can be
considered moral, because as Kant shows, morality is not just about what one does, but why one
does it, as well. If Good Samaritan decided to help the man lying by the side of the road only
because it would get him into Heaven, then it is no moral action at all. He is only using the injured
man as a means to an end. But, if he helped him because it was his moral duty, then it is a moral
action. Decision to act in a certain way has to be based on reason which tells someone what his duty
is. Therefore, the reasons one behaves in a certain way also ought to be taken into consideration
when deciding whether an action is moral or not. Many people may act according to the Golden
Rule, but the reasons why they behave so are also relevant. Thus, I think that the Golden Rule
cannot be completely considered as a universal moral principle
Since the Golden Rule cannot be considered completely as a moral principle, how
should we act then? In order to find the principle that can be accepted as a universal, I will also
explain the utilitarians principle as well as problems concerning not only them, but Kant as well.
Although Kant shows when an action can be considered moral, there are few problems with his
point of view, as well. He claims that moral duty is moral duty whatever the consequences and
whatever the circumstances. Moreover, if a murderer knocks at the door and asks us for a friend,
who is hiding in our house, we should not lie to him. If we lied, we would use the murderer only as
a means. Also, it may happen that the person we were hiding went out from the house in the
meantime. Thus, if we lied, then we would be responsible for the death of that person. But, would
not we also be responsible if we told the truth and the murderer got into the house and killed our
friend? Kant pays too much attention on the reasons one acts in a certain way. Also, his humanity
formula does not include infants and people who have lost their rationality, due to dementia, for

instance. So, does that mean we should use them as a means? I think that when we find ourselves in
situations when we cannot decide what to do, we should not only consider the reasons why we
should act in that way but the consequences of that action, as well. Thus, according to which moral
principle should we act? Utilitarians think that one should always act to promote the greatest
amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. However, they are preoccupied with the
consequences, so that they do not care whether we use someone as a means to an end. Think about
the trolley problem again, but this time it is possible to prevent the deaths of the five people in other
way. The trolley goes really fast and one needs something heavy to stop it. There is a man on the
bridge and if we push him, the trolley will stop and five people will survive. Would it be justifiable
to push the man over the bridge in order to save the lives of five people? While the Golden rule
cannot help us decide what to do, Kant says that we should never use others only as a means.
Therefore, if we pushed the man over the bridge, we would be using him only as a means to prevent
deaths of those five people. Utilitarians, on the other hand, claim that we should push the man over
the bridge because we would save those people. Thus, the end result would be better than the one
achieved by not pushing the man. Thus, what should we do? Which moral principle should we
apply? Regardless of the decision we make, we risk either using someone as a means, or letting five
people die.
The moral rules cannot always guide us in making the right decision. Sometimes we
cannot avoid using someone as a means, and at some other time we are forced to choose between
killing and letting die. Sartre tells us about a student who has to decide whether he will join Free
French Forces or stay and take care of his mother. He knew if he joined the Forces, his mother
would be vulnerable without him, and yet he could not let the others do the fighting for him. He
asked Sartre what to do, but instead of an answer, Sartre told him that he should decide himself. If
the student stayed with his mother, then he would treat her as an end, but he would risk treating
people who were fighting as a means. On the other hand, if he joined the Free French Forces he
would treat them as an end, but would risk treating his mother as a means. From this we can see that
no matter what he chooses, he risks treating someone as a means to an end. Therefore, we face the
anguish which comes with freedom. As Sartre points out, everyone is responsible for everything
he/she does and there is no way to escape the responsibility which comes with being human.
However, we are forced to make a certain decision when we find ourselves in a moral dilemma like
this. Hence, although something is impossible to avoid using someone as a means, we should then

consider the reasons why we should act in a certain way as well as consequences our act may
produce.
I have argued that there are situations when Golden rule can be applied. It shows us
that we should not do to others what we do not want to be done to us. By using Foots trolley
problem, I have also shown that the Golden rule cannot be always applied, since it is impossible to
save people from the trolley without risking to act in contradiction with the Rule. Furthermore, the
Rule tells us only that we should treat other people in the way we ourselves want to be treated, but
morality should not be based only on that. Trying to find the appropriate moral principle which
could be universal, I have explained Kants point of view as well as utilitarians principle. However,
while Kant pays to much attention on the reasons one acts in the certain way, utilitarians are too
preoccupied with the consequences that they do not care whether they treat someone only as a
means. What is more, it is sometimes impossible to act according to a specific moral principle since
dilemma we find ourselves in, may seem insolvable. The situation we find in demands that we
decide for ourselves and choose the most appropriate option. But, that decision should not be based
on ethical subjectivism since people differently approach the difference between what is morally
right and wrong. Since the extent to which the Golden rule can be applied is limited, I think that the
moral principle should be based not only the reasons we should act in a certain way, but on the
consequences as well. Also, it is important, when it is possible, not to use other people only as a
means to an end.

You might also like