]>
Ethics, Society and the Golden Rule Simon South ssouth@slowcomputing.org 2000-3-15 2000 2003 Simon South Verbatim copying and distribution of this material is permitted in any medium, provided this notice is preserved. Written for Professor W. R. Abbott as part of an introductory course in Philosophy. Arguably one of the most useful branches of philosophy—in the eyes of critics, at least—is the study of ethical theory, as it deals with issues not only of understanding the concepts of society and social situations but also of what should be done by members of society. To this end, a number of schools of thought have developed, among them—as will be discussed in this essay—utilitarianism, promoted by the philosopher John Mill; and social contract theory, supported by Thomas Hobbes. In writing on their respective theory, each author appeals to a principle colloquially referred to as the Golden Rule: that every person should treat others as he or she would want to be treated him or herself. This essay compares the interpretation of this rule by the two philosophers, and the way in which the rule applies to their own views on ethics and society. In his book Utilitarianism, Mill appeals to the Golden Rule to defend utilitarian principles from what he considers a common, and erroneous, criticism by the theory's detractors: that the happiness named as the ultimate goal of utilitarianism is not the happiness of the individual but the happiness of the collective society of which every individual is part. Consequently, it is the responsibility of each person to act selflessly towards the good of others (i.e., not himself or herself exclusively), a responsibility neatly met by adherence to the Golden Rule. In fact, Mill considers this rule the ideal perfection of utilitarian morality, to which every functional member of society should aspire. Hobbes appeals to the same Golden Rule in a slightly different fashion. In his Leviathan, Hobbes explains the lawless, natural state of man, where in the absence of a governing power contracts between individuals lack any sort of binding power and men have no option but to live in constant fear of each other. Hobbes claims that the only way for people to live in harmony is for them all to submit to a higher, governing power, and to relinquish their right to act as they please. A problem arises, Hobbes acknowledges, in the execution of this plan, for every member of society must be prepared to relinquish this right at once; otherwise no member has any assurance of protection from others, and no progress is made. The solution comes in the form of the Golden Rule: all people must be willing, Hobbes reasons, to at least temporarily put the interests of others on an equal level with their own. If everybody will agree to this rule (which, Hobbes mentions as though to strengthen his argument, appears in the Gospel), a government can be created and order brought to society. Hobbes and Mill have similar interests at heart—both want to codify the actions of an effective society—but they differ somewhat in their interpretation and application of the Golden Rule. Mill does not include the notion of a government in his discussion of the Rule; he states the importance of teaching individuals to adhere to the Rule but does not require that guidance come in any other form for the pursuit or maintenance of happiness. In fact, he seems to suggest that the Golden Rule itself is direction enough for society and that further government might not be necessary. Obviously, Hobbes opposes this idea. In his writing he uses the Golden Rule in a less direct fashion, showing how obedience to it solves the initial problem of individuals submitting by social contract to a governing power but does not stress the importance of the Rule afterwards, presumably because past this point the government itself can be relied upon to enforce safe relationships between individuals. In short, the Golden Rule appears to Hobbes a means to an end, while to Mill it is primarily an end in and of itself. Despite this obvious difference in interpretation, I find it incredibly challenging to evaluate these two points of view individually. Perhaps Mill is overly optimistic of individuals in society, in thinking that people are generally capable of self-government (or can be taught to be so) and that a person's selfishness will not overpower his consideration for the common good. If that is the case, I propose that Hobbe's view is in an equal degree brutish: if he is indeed suggesting that the government be mostly reponsible for moderating relationships between individuals strictly through law enforcement, then his view of society is as cynical as it is mean. To me, the philosophies of Mill and Hobbes complement each other and together form a complete view of a harmonious society. It is important that the Golden Rule be applied on a macrosocietal level, as in Hobbes' society, where individuals suppress their own interest for the direct good of the entire society; and at the interpersonal level, where Mill's utilitarians routinely place others' interests above their own in the understanding that the whole society will benefit as a result. A summation of the strength and weakness of the two interpretations follows quite inevitably: Hobbes appreciates the importance of the Golden Rule in establishing a government, but fails to acknowledge the significance of its application to daily life. Conversely, Mill realizes the importance of the Golden Rule in maintaining safe and useful relationships between members of society, but does not acknowledge the large-scale importance of an equally impartial government in maintaining order. It has sometimes appeared from lectures that Professor Abott would like to present utilitarian and social contract theories as opposite to one another.Professor Abbott, in his handwritten remarks on my essay, responds:
They are often treated that way—and a lot of contract theory people get wrapped up in their rights and fail to see the point of utilitarian matters. Ultimately I agree with you, but it could be a disservice to students to aim at linking them, if the prevailing talk is so devoted to keeping them at arm's length.
 Regardless of whether or not this is the professor's real intent, I believe that the two theories are not only compatible with one another but that together, they describe essential qualities of an organized and functional society. In that light, it is not surprising to me that both authors would appeal to a common principle in support of their arguments. The obvious extension of this commonality is that the Golden Rule is even more basic to the functioning of society than the views of either Mill or Hobbes—an idea I accept as fact. Only by considering in virtually every situation, great or small, the needs of others over the interests of one's self, I would argue, can a society be developed which offers comfort and safety to all.