Golden

Golden Rule: Treat others as you would want to be treated.

Platinum Rule: Treat others as they wish to be treated.

I've been fascinated by the distinction between these two succinct moral statements for a long time. It seems nicer and logically simpler to follow the platinum rule, but apparently the Judeo-Christian God morally obligates you only to the more modest and ambiguous level of the former. Both statements urge kindness but are utterly distinct in tone.

And I think I have some issues with the platinum rule myself. Is it that it expects too much of its adherents to have to surmise what another person wants? That it almost insists that one be willing to behave in a way that may go beyond one's own beliefs and comfort zones? If a Muslim wished to be greeted with "Praise Allah" and would be deeply hurt otherwise, does the platinum rule oblige a devout Hindu to do so? Maybe so.

Or is it that the platinum rule is actually morally inferior to the golden rule? How can we presume to know what others really want, and why should we give it to them in face of our own contradicting desires? Is that kindness or indulgence? Empathy or paternalism? This is a major distinction that becomes evident to me all the time. Yet I have no ready way to decide a course of action.

The golden rule perhaps makes it easier to stick with your own beliefs, in contrast to the beliefs of others. This can easily go too far, however. If, for example, I think that all Martians are nerdy, and I want to treat them as if they are my social inferiors, it is possible for me to justify my preferred behavior by claiming, in spite of the Martians' insistence that they want to treated as equals, that if I were a Martian I would want to be treated as the inferior nerd that I would actually be according the natural social order. This manages (barely) to fit the golden rule. It allows one to maintain a yang kind of disposition (on the will side of the love and will continuum). Actually, while the platinum rule emphasizes love over will (which I like), the golden rule allows one to choose a place of balance between the two that I generally find preferable. It facilitates politeness rather than obsequious bleeding-heartitude. Maybe the golden rule really is better.

Sudden idea: If you'd like others to treat you according to the platinum rule -- and who wouldn't? -- then following the golden rule implies following the platinum rule. Get it? Tricky logically in that self-referential way, but take a moment to work through it. It's interesting, yes? Very meta. The RECURSIVE VERSION OF THE GOLDEN RULE: Treat others as you would want to be treated (that is, according to the platinum rule). That self-referential aspect may account for the unsolvability of the choice between them. The solution may be to say that you don't want to be treated according to the platinum rule because that would selfishly put the treater in a bad spot. "I don't take kindly to charity."

There are many levels of interpretation for the golden rule. For example:

EMPATHY (YIN) VERSION: treat others as you would want to be treated while imagining yourself in their place, with their desires and needs rather than your own. This comes close to the platinum rule.

POLITENESS (YANG) VERSION: treat others as you would want to be treated while completely being yourself with your own prejudices, desires, needs, agendas.

These are just endpoints of a whole spectrum of interpretations.

Is it going too far to say that the golden rule (yang version) goes with political conservatism or libertarianism and that the platinum rule (or the Yin version) goes with political progressivism, inclusiveness, multi-culturalism, appreciation of diversity? GB Shaw, who is sometimes cited as the first expresser of the platinum rule, certainly saw it as a justification for socialism. In contradiction to that, my own politics are on the left, but I seem to lean toward gold rather than platinum. I think that kind of gets at my frequent discomfort with true-believer liberals. I ought to reflect more on this.

If empathy is the basis of moral behavior, perhaps the real golden rule is "Walk a mile in her shoes."

Another Golden Rule: You may be able to justify "punching up," but you can't justify "punching down."

NEW REVISED GOLDEN RULE: Treat people with as much empathy and kindness as you can muster or afford under the circumstances (without undermining your own most treasured needs). If you can muster none, at least be polite.

I have a large but incomplete theory of morality based on differing manifestations of selfhood, empathy, and identification that is closely related to these thoughts about the golden rule. I've thought about it a lot but haven't really gotten around to putting it down on paper. It would be appropriate to start that essay here, I guess. Elsewhere I've laid out my bubble-and-beacon (music of the spheroids) version of selfhood and tried to expand it so that it applies not only to individual human selves but to all sorts of sub- and super-systematic selves. The id or my inner child or a cell in my spleen might each be a sort of subself of mine and my family or my self-pet dyad or my local football team's fan base may be a superself. Each of these will be a bubble and a beacon on it's own, though one of dubious characteristics -- such as intelligence, internal integrity, stability, permanence, influence, empathy-worthiness.

To me, differences in legitimate moral stances necessarily derive from one's own identification with various superselves of which one is a part. That is, I might believe (at an intellectual level at least) that the suffering of a Sri Lankan is as important as that of my neighbor or my son or myself because I identify (at an intellectual level at least) more strongly with the superself called humanity than with the superself called neighborhood, family, or Joel. Those who identify more strongly with the "American" superself (on the right) or with the superself of all living creatures (on the left) might legitimately disagree with my plan of action -- in the former case, to allow anyone at all to enter the country or, in the latter case, to eat meat. By this analysis, identification is the basis of the empathy which leads to moral choices. I think that simple formulation could be really useful.

My feeling is that there is no god-decreed or correct way to choose the superselves with whom to identify. As a beacon, of course, I want to promote the sort of identification that aligns with my own, but I seem to have a scruple against telling others that they are wrong about their own way. [I have no such scruple it seems about calling Trump voters ignorant assholes. Go figure.] I suppose I might ask them to try to think about their "identity," in this sense, or even suggest that they might reconsider whether some group deserves their empathy, but ultimately, I doubt that this will make any difference.

Part of the point here is that the primary distinction isn't between selflessness and selfishness; we're all selfish by this bubble-and-beacon analysis, but differ in where we draw fundamental lines of selfhood. In this context, conventional selflessness might be interpreted as identification with our more inclusive superselves. The classic "Are people naturally selfish or naturally altruistic?" debate has it wrong. If you think you are a somewhat selfless sort, ask yourself if you wouldn't do something to advantage your own child at the unavoidable expense of disadvantaging someone else's child. By my lights, that's a form of selfishness. It may be hard for me, for example, to morally justify feelings of blind patriotism or loyalty to friends who transgress my own moral code, but I experience feelings like that nonetheless. These feelings are also selfish in the sense I've expressed here. We can't help identifying at a visceral level with odd superselves we'd prefer not to identify with. We may be able to transcend those feelings by focusing on our "preferred preferences." That pithy phrase deserves its own essay.

Virtuous behavior doesn't require total selflessness -- at some point we all "dare to eat the peach" -- but a certain level of selflessness is required to avoid breaking one's own unwritten law. Hmm, where exactly is that level?

Okay. Let's hook this up with the golden rule vs. the platinum rule. The platinum rule goes with the "illusion" of true selflessness, and the spectrum of interpretations of the golden rule are more consistent with varying levels of identification and empathy. It generally encourages us to err on the side of empathy and kindness while allowing us to draw our own lines. That is, it seems to say to me "Broaden your identification" which is a lot like "Love thy neighbor as thyself." Pretty good advice in any event.

Is there a moral obligation to try to rid oneself of self-serving rationalizations (as opposed to a desire to serve the self)? For me, yes. It's clear I cannot say what the moral obligations of others are. But I can and will use my beacon to further that point of view.

If legitimate moral reasoning boils down to empathy and identification...

I want to consider the concept of governance in the context of these moral musings. In a lawless society lacking any governance, where would all the power reside? Reasoning simply (and simplistically), I'd have to say that power would probably tend to accrue to the strong -- where strength includes physical and mental strength, but maybe also charm, charisma, or persuasive strength. That's virtually a tautology, to the extent that strength and power are almost synonymous. Among the group of strong and powerful people, to whom would the most power accrue? To the those that want power the most. To the greediest among them. And among this group of greedy, strong people, to whom would the most power accrue? To the most ruthless -- those who would go to any lengths. Thus, in a vacuum of governance, power would reside predominently among the strong, greedy, and ruthless. Gee. In fact, this group would likely take on the role of de facto governance, mafia style. I am supposing that this state of affairs wouldn't suit most people at all.

I would propose that one of the two or three primary reasons to inject governance into this (fake and pre-existent) state of anarchy would be to counteract this power group. That is, a just government (democratic or otherwise) has the role of taking some power away from this group and redistributing it to weak and/or communitarian and/or kind people. In practice, it might be difficult to identify these people, so poverty and low social status might be used as proxies for those other characteristics, and money for the most part is what would get redistributed. Also set-asides and hiring quotas. Echoing Rawls, the most just social policy gives the most advantage to the least advantaged. Conservatives like to deny that in a free society like our own that anyone can be disadvantaged -- we are all at liberty to make of ourselves what our talents allow. They begin to label any affirmation of the above idea as "class warfare" or "identity politics." Ugh! Is it worth stating the obvious fact that people in the power group are more apt to hold and express this opinion? Shouldn't that fact alone help persuade one of its self-serving nature and of its illegitimacy? Works for me.

How do the ramifications of my declaration here shed light on the golden-platinum dichotomy? I think they do. There may be legitimate differences between individual moral behavior and the moral behavior of a government or a society. The just society isn't necessarily totally egalitarian (as might be ultimately implied by the platinum rule), but is only always leaning in that direction -- like the golden rule on a large scale.

In June 2022 I saw a quote from Elon Musk saying that he used to support Democrats because they were the "kindness party." Elon and I don't see eye to eye on much, but my support of progressives continues for this same reason alone -- relative kindness. But mean people suck, and the meaner they get the harder it is for any party to be kind to all -- including the enemy.

____

I've been thinking about writing an essay called There Ought to Be a Law about the polities in which we draw the line between moral resposibilities on the one hand and legal responsibilities on the other. Just because we think some behavior is wrong doesn't mean we should advocate for making it against the law though there is a tendency for public sentiment to run that way. That is, you don't have to advocate abortions or even advocate abortions rights to accept the idea that legal abortions are available. You can say that you will never get an abortion, and you can try to convince everyone you know to likewise refrain, and yet still accept that many, many people believe otherwise equally strongly. By the same token, you may feel strongly that everyone should get their covid vaccinations and yet stop short of demanding that they be required by law. Why do I almost never see a sign in a store window saying "Masks not required but strongly preferred?" It seems to me that much of the intractable disagreement between the right and the left here in the US stems from disagreements about where those lines (morality vs law) should be drawn -- both sides often demand laws to prevent behaviors they are against and in so doing deny the legitimacy of the opposing point of view. It seems to me as well that the public discourse I'm aware of avoids this particular perspective -- or at least fails to put it in a central location. Guns, the death penalty, so many issues are like this. Particularly the ones that never go away. Further, it seems that Golden vs. Platinum can shed a fair amount of light here. I have imagined various subheadings for this essay, like:

Freedom To (do whatever I want) vs. Freedom From (the predations of assholes who do whatever they want)

Statistical Reasoning in the Realm of Moral Decisions

I want to look at the issue of Covid masking regulation vs. guidance in 2022 as an illustrative example. I hope I can do it justice. Hah!

____________________________________

Robert Nozick's "The Examined Life" brings up a fascinating bit that I think fits well with a discussion of the Golden Rule. If God is perfect and thus perfectly good then why is there suffering in the world? One answer is that some good things conflict with each other. For example, the meting out of justice is good, and being merciful is good, but, in an interesting way, these to things can work against each other. Justice is the condition where everyone has gotten exactly what they deserve, and mercy is the condition where some people might be punished less then their due out of kindness. Equality under the law and simple human kindness don't always go together.

I'm not much into the idea of God or even the idea of getting what you deserve, but I do see that total kindness to others (platinum) conflicts with the kindness to all including oneself (golden). The dimension that argues for kindness is the inequality of circumstances in the Rawlsian sense. The most disadvantaged (especially to the extent that this disadvantage is not of their own doing) don't just deserve fairness but maybe a little extra kindness. The most advantaged (especially to the extent to which they haven't "earned" their advantages) may deserve evenhanded treatment but certainly no extra considerations.

___________________

I was just watching a Malcolm Gladwell talk in which he points out four problems with our idea of meritocracy and gatekeepers. My summaries aren't his and are mixed with Kahnemannisms.

1) Experts at NIH are very poor at deciding what study should be funded (based on prescores vs. eventual citations). This makes a certain amount of sense, since expertise is intution in the realm of received knowledge, while research success involves intuition about knowledge that doesn't yet exist. Statistically unrelated are they. How do we decide who or what is in the most promising group so that they can be fostered? Do we not foster everyone instead only because it would be too expensive? I guess. But is it too expensive? Maybe minimally fund every pilot study and then start the application process over again.

2) The surgeons with the highest success rates aren't so successful out of their familiar surroundings (team members etc.) Teamwork is an important feature of excellence but isn't part of the meritocratic process. How is teamness to be incorporated into a meritocracy?

3) Timed LSATs don't do a good job of sorting the most promising future lawyers into prestigious programs. Skill at jumping to reasonable conclusions in an instant isn't ultimately a very important skill in the meritocracy. It may be important for a smoke jumper or a soldier in a fire fight to make good snap decisions but not for a neurosurgeon or a physicist or a state senator. By placing too high a priority on confidence and quickness, we handicap our expert class. We end up with the world we have.

4) Junior league hockey is filled with kids who were born in January and February. Wow and duh. Likewise, Harvard is filled with students who were always older within their grade level. Those reaching puberty early often have a leg up in sports as well. It's hard to remove arbitrary injustices from creeping into large scale sorting procedures -- even when it's clear they exist. Even harder to remove non-arbitrary injustices like racism, I suppose.

The above facts make one question the very existence of a meritocracy -- the self-justifying merit part. And even if there is such a thing, is it desirable, and do we need to foster it? Some kind of sorting may indeed be necessary, but in a just society (even one committed to maximal intellectual progress) we may be better off with something close to random assignment. At the least, sorting should happen later in life after passions and abilities and creativity begin to emerge and rapid physical and mental development have settled down.

This all goes nicely with the insights of Moneyball. Use actual success rather than perceived potential as the best indicator. After removing impediments to opportunity, let's see who starts to succeed before we worry about fostering.

Of course, removing impediments to opportunity (such as poverty, ignorance, prejudice) is the hardest and most important part. If we succeeded there, the need for further fostering is probably unnecessary. Relax society's anti-jump muscles rathering than providing free jumping classes to promising jumper elites.