Friday, April 2, 2010

The Golden Rule

The Ten Commandments offer us a code of conduct by which we may live our lives, but it is the ‘Golden Rule’, ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’ that I have always taken to heart. As a mother one finds oneself saying quite often over the years statements such as, “Well, how would you like it if you didn’t receive a call thanking you for the gift you gave her?” and so on. It just always seemed to me that whatever our faith it was a maxim by which to live life.

In the past few days, I have been doing some reading about the Golden Rule and discovered that in all times and in virtually all religions there has been and still is one form of the Golden Rule or another. Forever, it has been written down that we should treat others in a manner than we would want to be treated.

Yet, there are critics of the Golden Rule because they take it further than an ethical or a moral stand. When put it into practice, the Golden Rule can fail. It is said that economically we cannot always live by this notion, for we are competitors and the rule of survival insists that we do not always treat others as we would wish to be treated. And, of course, in war, the theory falls down, although most nations have, at least in theory, honoured the code that prisoners of war are not tortured.

As it applies on these pages about domination and submission, the Golden Rule can be troubling. It was in fact George Bernard Shaw who once said that "The golden rule is that there are no golden rules". Shaw said, "Do not do unto others as you would expect they should do unto you because their tastes may not be the same." Hence, a masochist and a sadist would not want to be treated in the same way since their tastes are not aligned.

Of course, as practitioners and observers of the power exchange dynamic we know that this is a bit trite. In fact, we do all want to be treated in much the same way; dominant or submissive. We all want the other to be honest, to be caring and/or loving, to trust and to be trustworthy. Yes, one leads and the other follows but that does not mean that the same ethical standards do not apply to both persons.

A lovely woman wrote to me a while ago of her hurt when her mentor suddenly disappeared from her life. He had been kind and good and helped her a great deal and suddenly he was gone. She thought I might understand how she felt. And, I did. I did understand. We all have certain expectations, I think, and one of those expectations is that people say their ‘goodbyes’, if they must. We find our host at the end of the evening to offer our thanks for a lovely party. We say goodbye to a parent or child before we leave the house, even if there has been a quarrel. We say goodnight to our spouse, regardless of what has gone on that day. We do these things because it is the right thing to do and we know that, deep in our souls, if no other place.

I knew he should have said goodbye to her and she knew that I knew that he should have said goodbye to her. Still, the merciful side of me felt obliged to suggest that perhaps he could not say goodbye. Perhaps he felt a sense of guilt or some other negative emotion that did not allow him to do what he knew, no doubt, he should do. Or, perhaps he just didn't think how he would have felt if she had done that to him. I try hard to find the good in people, to recognize their limitations and to work with that, to the extent possible. None of us is perfect and there is most surely a place for forgiveness; to give forgiveness and to ask for it.

Whatever our religion or our upbringing or the country or community in which we were raised, there is a sense of decency that applies to us all. We really do know the right thing to do. We just slip in our standards. We get sloppy.

At this time of the year, many of us will be reflecting on our faith and considering ways in which we may be a better person; cleansing our souls, perhaps. I hold to the long held notion that if we treat others as we would like to be treated; if civility and manners and a code of conduct were uppermost in our minds, we would all be the benefactors of a better world. I am proud to be in a power exchange dynamic that holds both participants to the highest standards.

6 comments:

  1. Perhaps this rule needs an addendum: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you if you were them." Like any rule, there are implications. I would not want my subs to treat me like a sub because it was what I would do to them. I'd like them to have a little more imagination.

    Rich

    ReplyDelete
  2. Rich: Here I am trying to be philosophical and I get a kinky comment. Figures!! LOL

    Point taken.

    ReplyDelete
  3. There is, as you outline, the Golden Rule, or do as you would be done by. There is also the Platinum Rule which is to treat others as they wish to be treated. Now days the thinking is that the Golden Rule helps to enable us to form relationships, the Platinum Rule aids us in maintaining them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Dear Anon: I had not heard of the Platinum Rule, so thank you for that. (I can be gullible. You're not talking about a credit card here, are you??!!) To treat others as they wish to be treated does certainly take into account we kinky folk. If we are being treated as we wish to be treated, there's the answer for the vanilla folk who don't approve of us, right there.

    And, a comment sent by email deserves mention here too. The woman that I wrote about in this post wrote to me, "I like the wiccan version of do unto others as well. Their saying is what you do comes back to you in three fold, good and bad. It's something I always try to keep in mind if I'm feeling angry and also makes me feel encouraged to be happy and in my inner child place."

    It is true, is it not? When we spread good cheer, it creates happiness back for us. A rather lovely sentiment for this holiday period!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Both the Golden Rule and the Platinum Rule have been around for a long long time, just not necessarily with those titles. The Golden Rule has in part become so much better known due to Victorian and religious promotion. Various philosophers have preferred one or the other, but they have both existed pretty much along side one another. It could be seen as a credit card in some ways as judicious use of it will undoubtedly bring you credit.

    It is quite simple really, when we are getting to know people we do not know enough about them to treat them as they want to be treated, hence we apply the Golden Rule. This enables us to build a relationship to the point where we do know then well enough to apply the Platinum rule, and of course treating them in the way they wish maintains the relationship.

    Life is a spiral, either upwards or downwards and the direction is usually at our discretion.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I like the Golden Rule, and the wiccan/karmic thing (the version of that I like is the modern American cliché, "What goes around comes around").

    The rule "to treat others as they wish to be treated" I find problematic, as is begs the question: how do you decide how the other person wishes to be treated? (and "find out" is just a euphemism for "decide"). In "vanilla" relationships where often little is made explicit this is obviously non-trivial, but even in relationship formats like D/s, where explicit contracts are exchanged, the problem doesn't go away (it's swept into the problem of interpretation of rules). The only ethical way of answering the question begged is to fall back on the Golden Rule.

    I think the reason the golden rule and the karmic idea are so strong is that they assume, or ask us to look for, a common humanity and community. This other rule rather imposes otherness and distance.

    ReplyDelete