Early Uses of the GR
By
Rick Garlikov yesterday pointed out that the Golden rule has been subject to misuse. I am grateful to him for pointing this out. Now that I think of it, I know of no philosopher who used the Golden Rule as the sole pillar of his or her philosophy, moral or otherwise; but on the other hand, I can think of none who never put it to use in some form or another.
So, we conceded Rick's point and compared the Golden Rule to useful, practical tools like lamps and hammers. Just as hammers come in many shapes and sizes, from a little tack hammer to a huge sledgehammer, so the Golden Rule is part of an entire family of implements known as reciprocity or payback, ranging from brute revenge to the almost impossibly sublime rule of love, which calls for loving one's enemies and turning the other cheek. I promised today to look into the tool sheds of past philosophers to see if they kept the GR near to hand, and perhaps even to observe them in action and thereby gain an insight into how the GR can be used for good, rather than evil. I will restrict myself to philosophers this time, and only note in passing that the GR has also been found in the tool sheds of virtually all known prophets and spiritual teachers.
Thales, the first pre-Socratic, used the so-called Silver Rule, the Golden Rule phrased negatively, when he said that good is, "Refraining from doing what we blame in others." (quoted in Diogenes Laertius, vol I, page 39) This puts forward the GR as a shield for a moral agent from accusations of hypocrisy, applying a double standard, one to others and another for oneself.
The Silver Rule forces me to pay attention to what I find reprehensible in others and refrain from doing it myself. To follow this simple reminder is to raise oneself a little bit above the moral level of the crowd. If I succeed, and always do refrain from doing what I blame others for committing, I am surely on the way to moral self-improvement. Perhaps eventually I will become distinguished enough to be able to teach morality to others and thus improve the ethical climate.
The following citation is essentially the same thing, except perhaps a little more emphatic,
"Do not do to others what angers you if done to you by others."
I have seen this attributed to both Socrates and Isocrates (436-338 BC), so the jury will have to stay out for the time being until I find a more reliable source. Whoever said it, it seems to me that this is how our modern legal system works. A gets angry at B for committing act C. If B sues A for doing C, we all pay close attention, not out of lurid curiosity but because we presume that the trial will change how the law will treat anybody else who commits act C.
A more reliable source for how Socrates used the GR for teaching is Xenophon's Memories of Socrates. In the third chapter of Book Two of the Memorabilia Socrates makes his characteristic contribution to our understanding of the GR. He points out that it is an essential aspect of friendship, of being a good friend to those we know already, as well as in making new friends. As we shall see, this was taken up by Aristotle in the Nichomachean Ethics, and by many others. (The best-known modern advocate of the "friend making method" that Socrates lays out here is Dale Carnegie, especially in "How to Make Friends and Influence People.")
Two brothers, Chaerophon and Chaerecrates, had fallen out with one another, and Socrates challenged the younger to reconcile with the elder. He offers the usual excuses and Socrates systematically demolishes them one by one. He explains exactly how to go about it, basically to actively apply the Golden Rule until the elder brother is forced to relent in his antipathy. Socrates unapologetically compares this to a strategy in war.
Chaer. I am afraid, Socrates, that I have no wisdom or cunning to make Chaerephon bear himself towards me as he should.
Soc. Yet there is no need to apply any recondite or novel machinery. Only bait your hook in the way best known to yourself, and you will capture him; whereupon he will become your devoted friend.
Chaer. If you are aware that I know some love-charm, Socrates, of which I am the happy but unconscious possessor, pray make haste and enlighten me.
Soc. Answer me then. Suppose you wanted to get some acquaintance to invite you to dinner when he next keeps holy day, what steps would you take?
Chaer. No doubt I should set him a good example by inviting him myself on a like occasion.
Soc. And if you wanted to induce some friend to look after your affairs during your absence abroad, how would you achieve your purpose?
Chaer. No doubt I should present a precedent in undertaking to look after his in like circumstances.
Soc. And if you wished to get some foreign friend to take you under his roof while visiting his country, what would you do?
Chaer. No doubt I should begin by offering him the shelter of my own roof when he came to Athens, in order to enlist his zeal in furthering the objects of my visit; it is plain I should first show my readiness to do as much for him in a like case.
Soc. Why, it seems you are an adept after all in all the philters known to man, only you chose to conceal your knowledge all the while; or is it that you shrink from taking the first step because of the scandal you will cause by kindly advances to your brother? And yet it is commonly held to redound to a man's praise to have outstripped an enemy in mischief or a friend in kindness. Now if it seemed to me that Chaerephon were better fitted to lead the way towards this friendship, I should have tried to persuade him to take the first step in winning your affection, but now I am persuaded the first move belongs to you, and to you the final victory."
Again, Socrates is the first known thinker to pay such close attention to relationships. Friendship is worth thought and effort, it deserves the best we have to offer. In another place he is absolutely explicit: anyone who does not put the GR to active use is unworthy of the effort of spending time with because he has no idea of what friendship is, and how it involves reciprocal favors.
Cri. But how are we to test these qualities, Socrates, before acquaintance?
Soc. How do we test the merits of a sculptor? -- not by inferences drawn from the talk of the artist merely. No, we look to what he has already achieved. These former statues of his were nobly executed, and we trust he will do equally well with the rest.
Cri. You mean that if we find a man whose kindness to older friends is established, we may take it as proved that he will treat his newer friends as amiably?
Soc. Why, certainly, if I see a man who has shown skill in the handling of horses previously, I argue that he will handle others no less skillfully again.
Cri. Good! and when we have discovered a man whose friendship is worth having, how ought we to make him our friend?
Soc. First we ought to ascertain the will of Heaven whether it be advisable to make him our friend.
Cri. Well! and how are we to effect the capture of this friend of our choice, whom the gods approve? will you tell me that?
Socrates holds that in a sane, decent society anyone who proves himself a good and loyal friend will become a very valuable commodity. It did, for a while, in
Soc. Well! and what of the man whose strength lies in monetary transactions? His one craving is to amass money; and for that reason he is an adept at driving a hard bargain -- glad enough to take in, but loath to pay out.
Cri. In my opinion he will prove even a worse fellow than the last.
Soc. Well! and what of that other whose passion for money-making is so absorbing that he has no leisure for anything else, save how he may add to his gains?
Cri. Hold aloof from him, say I, since there is no good to be got out of him or his society.
Soc. Well! what of the quarrelsome and factious (partisan) whose main object is to saddle his friends with a host of enemies?
Cri. For God's sake let us avoid him also.
Soc. But now we will imagine a man exempt indeed from all the above defects -- a man who has no objection to receive kindnesses, but it never enters into his head to do a kindness in return.
Cri. There will be no good in him either. But, Socrates, what kind of man shall we endeavour to make our friend? what is he like?
Soc. I should say he must be just the converse of the above: he has control over the pleasures of the body, he is kindly disposed, (a man of his word) upright (and easy to deal with) in all his dealings, very zealous is he not to be outdone in kindness by his benefactors, if only his friends may derive some profit from his acquaintance.
Tomorrow we will go on to those later philosophers influenced by Socrates' demonstration of the Golden Rule in action, to Plato, Aristotle, and all the rest.
No comments:
Post a Comment