Rules of the Game, by Carl Sagan
A quick summary of each before answering the poll or contributing to this debate:

The Golden Rule: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you; made popular of course through the Bible by way of the Gospel accounts of Jesus.

The Silver Rule: Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you; perhaps best demonstrated by nonviolent civil disobedience -- refraining from repaying violence with violence, but also refraining from being compliant and obedient.

The Brass/Brazen Rule: Do unto others as they do unto you; "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth."

The Iron Rule: Do unto others as you like, before they do it unto you; "he who has the gold makes the rules."

The Tit-for-Tat Rule: Cooperate with others first, then do unto them as they do unto you; initial friendliness, willingness to forgive, and fearless retaliation.


That should help in answering the poll question of which you feel to be the best. Now, which one do you think is the most common? Which one do you live by?

Carl Sagan felt (and I agree) that the Iron Rule to be very common, "the secret maxim of many, if they can get away with it, and often the unspoken precept of the powerful." He also thought that there were those who mixed their moral codes, altering them according to circumstance to suit their needs, applying the Golden Rule to superiors and the Iron Rule to inferiors (suck up to those above you, and abuse those below).

Personally speaking I think I have long adhered most to the Brazen Rule but since reading this several months ago I have strived to go by the Tit-for-Tat Rule, cooperating before reciprocating or reconciling.

Finally, in addition to the poll question and the two questions posed, feel free to discuss why you feel any morality code is superior to the others listed and expound on how these different codes of morality influence the world around us.

I haven't voted in the poll yet because my behavior does not fit exclusively into any "metal rule." I haven't walked on water yet, or performed supernatural healings, but I try to follow the Golden Rule.

When I worked in a retail store, I would get snappish from time to time with people who were acting like jerks. And while I wasn't particularly abusive to anyone, there was definitely "attitude."

How about a 24kt gold over sterling silver rule?

Okay... since you've brought up the Golden Rule, Paladin, I'll mention for you and others what Sagan observed to be a flaw in the Golden Rule. While it is a good and very noble rule, it takes no account of human differences. Sagan quoted Confucius as responding to the question of repaying evil with kindness with a second question, "Then with what will you repay kindness?" He went on to say:
Something to think about for future posters considering the Golden Rule, who haven't checked the article linked at first.

The gold's rubbing off a little...

What Carl is talking about is idealism vs. pragmatism. I wouldn't turn my cheek, I would step out of the way. If the person tried to strike me again, I would put him/her down in the most non-injurious way possible, but definitely let him or her know that I was not amused and not planning to be victimized.

I don't think the ideal morality should require being a willing victim, nor should it advocate undue brutality.

Hope that clarifies things a little. It is very hard to pigeon hole a lifetime's worth of actions. The Tit for Tat category connotes a pettiness that Mom would not have appreciated, yet it's pretty widespread. I don't mind tit for tat if the behavior is insignificant enough, like a sarcastic comment. But not for bigger things.

I'm thinking of the movie, "Bring it Forward" (I think that's the title--where each person does a significant act of kindness for a stranger and does not expect it back from that person but tells that person to in turn perform an act of kindness for another stranger, and so on.)

I understand, but it sounds to me like you might lean more to the Tit-for-Tat Rule in that case. Compare it to what you have just said for instance:

Edited to add: the movie was "Pay it Forward" starring Haley Joel Osment, Helen Hunt and Kevin Spacey

I don't really think that the golden rule has a fatal flaw. I just think that few of us our strong enough to really walk that course. I checked silver rule. With kids around I tend to be a little more wary and selfish than I could have been with no dependents.

Edited to Add.

I think the real value of positive role models is effective. I also am not sure I would take Gandhi out of the Golden rule and put him into the silver rule. I think he would have the British officials of imperial India treated the same way even if he was one of them. I don't think he was a saint in the perfected human sense of the word, but I think if he were part of the catholic church he would have become canonized.

Seems we were posting or editing almost simultaneously, Paladin

I'm curious what about the Tit-for-Tat Rule you view to be petty and why you don't feel it would be as effective in large scale scenarios as small scale? It seems to me, based on my understanding of the rule, that it essentially begins with the Golden Rule, but then adapts and expands allowing its practitioners to retaliate against mistreatment while tempering such reaction with a willingness to forgive. I consider this rather pragmatic and good hearted, not petty or at all ineffective against bigger issues.

I would very much like to better understand your point of view on it though if you get a chance to explain further.

Tit for Tat literally means "this for that." It is an unfortunate title, that's all, for what appears to be a pragmatic approach. Sort of a "He hit me, Mom, so I hit him back" followed by Mom's "That's no excuse! He's your little brother. You're older, you're supposed to be an example!." Personal experience.

The willingness to forgive and to be kind certainly are not petty. It's just the title that brings up memories....

In a society which is inherently competitive, the "Tit for Tat" rule is probably about the best you can hope for. In a "kinder, gentler" society I think that the Silver Rule is the best. I like to think I tend to be Silver, if a bit tarnished.

Allow me to propose The Platinum Rule: Do unto others what they would have you do unto them. Saints only need apply.

if you can, avoid stepping on ants.

when in a grocery store, keep your eye open for the very elderly and handicapped, as they need help sometimes.

some people at Laundromats may be illiterate or unable to read english for some reason, try to help them.

if someone smelling of booze asks for change, make sure to give them a dollar.

if a teacher does not like your political views, make sure to slash his/her tires

I voted Silver Rule...mostly because I think it's nearly impossible to truly live up to the Golden Rule. It's easier and more practical to AVOID doing things you don't want done to you than it is to ACTIVELY DO things you would want done to you, KWIM?

I do try to model my actions based upon how I'd either want or not want to be treated. I'm not for the Brass/Brazen rule because I don't think it really "solves" anything (JMHO). The example of smacking a sibling after you've been smacked that someone offered is the perfect example. The smacking will just continue until somone "wins" but what does it solve? I was the big sister and unlike my friends, I didn't beat up my little sister or torment her because "I could". My sister often "used me" because she knew I would always be nice no matter what....but in the end, I feel I'm the better person. Now that she's older, she knows that she was wrong to make me take the blame for things she did (everything was blamed on me as the "example" - if I'd have set a better example, she wouldn't have done X...typically, whatever X was is something I never did myself, so I certainly didn't see the logic there?!?!).

Getting off track a little...

Tit for Tat isn't bad, but "retaliation" just doesn't fly by me...guess that's just my non-violent nature rearing its head though

Interesting topic!

And what does any of that have to do with the topic?

I've studied too much game theory to have much faith in anything but "tit for tat" or a very close relative. Three attributes that any successful strategy must have are that it must reward good behavior, it must punish bad behavior, and it must favor symbiosis over predation at least slightly. Tit for tat, unlike most of the others, has all three of those characteristics.

oh sorry, i thought this was an open debate not just the ones posed, i went with silver, it seems the best to me, sorry again for going off topic.

I voted tit-for-tat. I do my best to co-exist peacefully, and cooperation is a good way to accomplish that. If someone is not willing to cooperate with me, and their actions effect me negatively, I will certainly try to alleviate the problem. My response, of course, would depend upon the severity of the initial problem. I am very patient, but I have no desire to be walked on.

I finally voted "Silver" (with "Tit for Tat" as my secondary consideration).

The Golden Rule seems to be the one to strive for (in a perfect world)...

I wish I could say that I always live by it. In many aspects of my life
I measure up a tiny bit, in others I fall wearily short.....

Society, as a whole seems to fall into the Brass/Brazen
category........(at least in my neck of the woods).

Springing from the Four Noble Truths



I try and follow the eightfold path


I'm sure that fits in with those somehow. Gold and silver, a bit.

I went with Silver over Tit-for-Tat for the same reason kmsouthern gave: it includes retaliation. Tit-for-Tat is a combination of Golden, Silver and Brazen, and bronze is not my taste. Retaliation never accomplishes anything when it is carried out by an agent who holds a stake in the situation. Negative reinforcement is important, but it only works when it is applied by a third party.

Example: A girl pushes her little brother down. Obviously, he doesn't like to be pushed down, so he protects his own interest of not being pushed and retaliates by hitting her. She retaliates back, and the whole thing becomes a hair-pulling, knee-scraping mess. The kids don't stop fighting when one has punished the other sufficiently because the situation will never be equilibrated in the eyes of either child (each holds his or her interest higher than the other's). So it continues until it is stopped or one is hurt so badly that he or she can't continue fighting (which is not beneficial for either child). The situation is not resolved until an adult, with no preferential stake in either child's interest separates and punishes them both.

This is why nonretaliation is important. Personally, if someone attacked me, I would do as Paladin Elspeth suggested and subdue them without injuring them to the best of my ability.

Keep in mind this argument does not include preventative violence. There's a gray area if ever I saw one, but in certain clear cut situations there is no question that violence is necessary to prevent more violence. For example, if someone came running after my friend with a broken bottle, I wouldn't hesitate to take him down, set my knee to his throat and slap a wrist lock on him hard enough to make him drop the bottle. Still, scaled reactions are appropriate (I wouldn't take the bottle and cut him with it, that would fall under the Brazen or maybe Iron rule)

I voted Tit-for-Tat (an unfortunate title?) for the same reasons Platypus gave, which I can't improve upon.

I'm shooting for the silver rule these days, as my philosophical evolution continues. I have been learning a lot about non-violent civil disobedience with the activism I've been involved in the past 2 years.

In my past I was more of a tit-for-tat.

The golden rule I'm saving for my next lifetime -- I'm not sure I'll evolve that much further in this one . . .

While I fail to live up to it at times, as we all do, I try to live by the golden rule.
The "human differences" argument is taking a far too literal interpretation, we treat others as they wish to be treated in the hope that they will treat us as we wish to be treated.
Certainly, not everyone follows this rule. I prefer to look at it like this: respect is a social lubricant, it makes all of our everyday interactions run more smoothly. Certainly some people get by quite well without treating others well, but if everyone were to be like that society couldn't function.
There is also the matter of conscience, of course. Most of us like to think of ourselves as nice people, therefore we treat others well.

There is no flaw in the Golden Rule. The flaw lies within human nature and it's natural inability to live up to such a demand. Any and every non-christian can in no way appreciate the passage without accepting christ in their lives and essentially obtaining the holy spirit. In order to understand why non-christians find the passage flawed, you must go back to the gospel:

1 Corinthians 2:14
"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."


Therefore, I can agree completely that Carl Sagan finds the golden rule flawed. He can't look within himself and see that it's his flaw not to be able to live up to the Golden Rule.

I am also appalled that such a small passage from the gospel can be taken out of context and used as a general rule of thumb. It shouldn't be called the Golden Rule at all. It's the word of God that christians (people who have accepted Christ in their lives) work to live by through their attempt at santification with Christ.

I, personally, fail often to live by Matthew 7:12, but it doesn't mean I give up. All of the other rules are flawed and the rewards obtains through the passage Matthew 7:12 are far greater than the self-ambitious rewards gained through the others.

The golden rule is universally recognized as the best rule of thumb in personal ethics in most world religions. I find that ubiquitious princilple to be so much more compelling then the more pragmatic philosophies of our day.

The Golden Rule

There is a gap between what we aspire to and what we are able to accomplish.
What matters is that we keep trying to achieve the higher good.

*Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis. Humanists find that science is the best method for determining this knowledge as well as for solving problems and developing beneficial technologies. We also recognize the value of new departures in thought, the arts, and inner experience—each subject to analysis by critical intelligence.

*Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change. Humanists recognize nature as self-existing. We accept our life as all and enough, distinguishing things as they are from things as we might wish or imagine them to be. We welcome the challenges of the future, and are drawn to and undaunted by the yet to be known.

*Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience. Humanists ground values in human welfare shaped by human circumstances, interests, and concerns and extended to the global ecosystem and beyond. We are committed to treating each person as having inherent worth and dignity, and to making informed choices in a context of freedom consonant with responsibility.

*Life’s fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

*Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

*Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature’s resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.
(From: The Humanist Manifesto III, 2003)

-Personally, I have always believed these precepts to a certain degree. These are items that although are not extensive, reflect many of the ideals that I personally believe in. As for the "rules" by Sagan, I respect the silver rule the best. That is perhaps the one that I utilize the most with my employer.

I would start and end with George Bernard Shaw. To start: "The Golden Rule is that there are no golden rules." By which I presume he means that any singular philosophical rule is bound to be challenged by one's experience - and cannot apply in all cases.

I would personally lean toward the "classic" (though hardly exclusively Christian) Golden Rule - over most of the other metals listed here (and certainly over the Tit-for-Tat Rule). Why? Because if everyone adhered to it, there would be no need for any of the other rules Sagan describes.

Or would there? This is what brings me back to Shaw again...

Brahmanism
This is the sum of duty: do naught unto others which would cause you pain if done to you.
Mahabharata 5,1517

Buddhism
Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.
Udana-Varga 5,18

Christianity
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law of the prophets.
Matthew 7:12

Confucianism
Surely it is the maxim of loving-kindness: Do not unto others that you would not have them do unto you.
Analects 15,23

Islam
No one of you is a believer until he desires for his brother that which he desires for himself.
Sunnah

Judaism
What is hateful to you, do not to your fellowmen. That is the entire Law; all the rest is commentary.
Talmud Shabbat 31a

Taoism
Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain and your neighbor's loss as your own loss.
T'ai Shang Kan Ying P'ien

Zoroastrianism
That nature alone is good which refrains from doing unto another whatsoever is not good for itself.
Dadistan-i-dinik 94-5


but...

George Bernard Shaw
Do not do unto others as you would that they should do unto you. Their tastes may not be the same.
Maxims for Revolutionists

Really marvelous post Wertz,

I really liked it.

I however am Christian but I reserve the right to strategize freely. I chose "Tit for Tat" but only because it was the one I always try to resort to first without prior knowledge of whom I am dealing with, or I geuss sometimes even with that prior knowledge.

I only leave an opening in my strategy for change under the circumstances that someone's reputation preceeds them and I am forced to take additional or preemptive measures to maintain my safety or security or dignity for that matter.

I live by the Golden Rule.
And the other teaching of Jesus Christ: Love.

This is an interesting topic... I voted for the Golden Rule, but only after a some debate between the gold and silver... Finally I resolved that the gold and silver rule are really one and the same - so long as I recognize that inaction is often the best (most moral?) action in a given situation. As for the many other possibilities listed which involve retribution, I find this entirely unnecessary. Now, when I debate some political issues, people may wonder how I could support laws and courts and the existence of prisons - but its obvious to me. The laws set up a system of rules a given society has agreed to adhere to. When a member fails in his/her individual agreement to the society, they will be tried (also according to our laws) and if found guilty of failure to adhere to the rules - they will be sent to prison (or pay a fine, etc) as prescribed in the laws. THese are not retribution, but predefined consequences of breaking the individual's contract with society. (I of course find some flaws with our system - like death penalty, but I am rapidly straying from the topic, so will stop here unless someone wants to know more )

Anyway, I strive to follow the Golden rule - and actually hope others will call me on it when I do not. I am glad Quarkhead posted the nice summary of the four noble truths and the eightfold path. I have tried to integrate these principles into the practice of my christian faith (obviously, this gets me into trouble when I meet certain other christians in my daily life). Especially the principles of right view and right intention as very fundamental - accepting that reality (and people) is not perhaps as I would want it - but I have to stop trying to impose my expectations on reality - then I can truly see the real world and try to work from what is there and not what I wish (or think) is there. Its something I wish other Christians learned - perhaps there would not be so much backlash... so a "christian" does not walk into the room, assume everyone there is a heathen in need of saving by them because as a christian they are "morally superior" or whatever - instead, the christian walks into the room and sees fellow human beings, equally as perfect and equally as flawed as any christian. Anyway, this is probably a little of course once again But I do like to wander down paths.

The biggest problem with the Golden Rule as espoused by some christian moralists (*note, I am not accusing anyone who has posted here, and in fact have not seen any evidence of this on this thread at all) - but many christian moralists silently add to the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would have them do unto you or you will be punished for your evil nature by God - ie sent to hell, given a terrible bout of explosive diarrhea, etc. This type of morality would be essentially flawed because it depends on the heavy yoke of fear to hold the human populace into check. And, with any heavy burden, human's yearn and indeed actively search to find a way to cast this off. So, we have a group of people struggling against their own code of morality - because we all fail at some point to live up to our own expectations and we recognize this (something I've seen in several posts). So, we don't want to be punished for doing wrong and will actively seek to find ways to make the rule invalid in a specific instance, or look to get around it entirely - thus, Someone who is able may not give money to a beggar that smells like alcohol by saying "If I were a homeless drunk, I would not expect anyone to give me money" or they may pass by the toy donation bins many times with the thought "I would never accept toys from charity, instead I would work three jobs". Thus, the person is struggling against their own morality code and actively avoiding following their own beliefs because their is a fear of possible future failure and thus punishment in someway. But if they are able to rationalize the Golden Rule into irrelevance, they are able to sleep at night and not live in fear that their "evil nature" will cause them grief.

This is why I feel taking the simpler look at the Golden Rule is needed. At every decision, I want to do to my fellow human being as I would want done to myself. Personally, I don't want my Hindu roommate to start preaching to me from the Vedas or forcing me to constantly defend my faith to her - so I don't preach to her or force her to always defend her faith. We have of course discussed our respective faiths through the years of our friendship, but neither of us go into these conversations with the intent of converting the other. I recognize, there will be many many times I fail in following the golden rule (just yesterday, someone on the street asked to borrow a quarter and I lied and said I did not have one, because I was alone, at night, and knew to get to a quarter would involve stopping and pulling out my wallet - so I let a fear for safety overcome my desire to help those less fortunatey). But, because I fail, does this make me inherently evil? no - and it does not mean I will be punished in some way - and this is why I am able to continually strive to follow the Golden Rule in all actions (right effort).

I don't know if this has all been off topic, but I wast trying to point out that the Golden Rule is a good moral code, but only when it is taken simply at face value, and people do not tag many silent riders that can turn it from a moral code to a psychological burden that we will struggle against. Morality only works when we don't want to work against it. It also only works when we recognize there is no reward for following the code - like those who are the best at their jobs are usually the people who just want to work to their best ability, and don't expect a outside praise or monetary gain from it. It is of course nice if we get something back occasionally (like that warm feeling after the salvation army santa says thanks for that fifty cents you dropped in the tin) but we can't expect it.

Okay, thats enough for now

I wonder if this isnt exactly what the golden rule means when turned upside down. Think about it for a minute. You know that doing certain things is wrong and you certainly dont want those things done to you but doesn't this mean that you want the wrong in you to be confronted, just as much as the wrong in others? What I'm wondering is this, why wouldn't 'retribution' and 'predefined consequences' be a natural expression of the golden rule?

I am used to thinking of the moral philosophy of the golden rule to be one of personal choices prior to some good or bad thing that I do. This statement has me wondering if the silver, bronze, iron...etc, are not just consequences of the golden rule being as rare as the precious metal from which it takes its name. Its just a passing thought but I have come back to this post a couple of times puzzled over the same lingering thought. Maybe it comes back to the element of scarcity in human morality, sometimes the richer, stronger, more precious virtues are more highly prized because they are so hard to find. Not just in humanity at large, but within ourselves.

Yes - I do think that it is the golden rule that leads me to want people to call me on it when I have done something wrong. Laws and the legal system play into this... but the difference b/n retribution and predefined consequences is the intent. I probably should have said revenge instead of retribution. I think of retribution as a consequence decided on after the injury has occurred - and something decided on by someone with a stake in the outcome. So, someone kills my sister... I then track the person down and kill them and take their car. I don't see it as murder or stealing, b/c in my mind it is revenge - and also would not come close to paying what I see as the killers debt to me. This type of code would obviously lead to a vicious cycle of vengeance and cause more damage to those surviving.

Predefined consquences are the laws set forth by the society, governed by a designated system - it takes the pressure of determining the consequences of wrong doing away from those injured by the crime. If my sister is killed, my initial thought - despite my faith and all previous claims - might be to kill the person who did it. But, it would thankfully not be up to me. In the US, this person is given a trial to determine guilt - and when found guilty beyond reasonable doubt, a jury of 12 people not connected to me or my sister or the murderer will decide his fate - all within certain boundaries set forth by the law (they could not just let the killer go and in some states they could not choose to kill him). Obviously, as I said, there are flaws in our legal system - I think the death penalty is a big flaw, but there are many other less controversial problems. So this is all an ideal world type scenario. And the main point is the person committing the murder would know in advance that as a citizen of this country he has certain obligations (don't kill) and if he breaks this contract, he will face specific punishments.

In a way, this is an outgrowth of the golden rule - but it is really from necessity to maintain an orderly society - and falls into the contract b/n the government and its citizens. Its nice when the laws correlate to my personal code of morality - ie, it is against the law to murder, it is against the law to steal... but I am also aware that due to differences in everyone's code of morality, the laws will not always correlate - it, it is not illegal for some states to kill people, it is not illegal for people to lie to me (about certain things), it is not illegal for someone to not work very hard and yet get paid the same as me. So it is part of my job as a citizen to watch the government and make my voice heard when laws go against my code of morality (I may not always be agreed with by the majority though - but that is the price of "democracy").

I like the brazen rule.

Even more explicitly- Do unto others- then split.

If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons? - Ancient Chinese Proverb

Morality is a false pretext drummed up by people who wish to control the populous. I don't really believe in anything as being a moral decision. Quite simply, I'm one of the more amoral people you will know. I suppose that comes from being jaded. However, if I said which of these rules to follow, I would go with the Golden Rule, as everything you need to learn about life you learned in Kindergarten.

I just remember that if we all live with the mentality of "an eye for an eye" then we'll all be blind.