The Golden Rule!

The golden rule is that there are no golden rules. - George Bernard Shaw

I have spoken of the "Golden Rule" before. It is also known as the "Ethic of Recipocity". Simply put it means that you should treat a person in the same manner you would like to be treated yourself. This concept stems from the biblical passage where Jesus says "love others as you would love yourself".
Matthew 7:12 "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you"
Luke 6:31 "Just as you want others to do for you, do the same for them"
This however is far from just a Christian concept. In fact just about every major religion has a similar sentiment (eg Hinduism, Buddism, Islam etc), and it is echoed by humanitarian atheists also. So essentially it would be fair to say that it is almost a universally believed idea.

Why then would George Bernard Shaw then make a statement that is so clearly in contrast to this idea? I suspect there are a number of reasons.

Firstly, as an author it is beneficial for him to make outlandish statements in order to get publicity. Who would want to report on a boring and often repeated cliche. It is simply not "good news" worth reporting. However statements in opposition to the established beliefs is different and exciting, and worth reporting on. It is a quote worth repeating because it is so oppositional.

Secondly, the statement is a little confusing because it asserts a concept in order to defeat the selfsame concept. It is a loose and nasty method of appearing to sound profound. It is the literary equivalent of a publicity stunt. The fact that there is little or no logic or veracity to the statement simply adds to its appeal in the modern mind. In a way this is somewhat like the Indian mindset that does not require the separation of mutually exclusive concepts in a statement. One can say that black is a dark colour, but at the same time a light colour, and somehow that is supposed to make it deep and profound regardless of its contradictory nature.

In this case, Shaw's quote is a self refuting statement. It is similar to saying "I always lie". If it is true that I always lie, then I am telling the truth. However if i always lie then I must be lying in which case i don't always lie and the statement is false. In Shaw's case he asserts the golden rule, and then redefines it as there being no golden rules, in which case the first part of the statement cannot have meaning. If the first part is nonsense, then the second part must follow as nonsense in which case saying that there are no golden rules cannot hold true. So using logic, it is plain that what Shaw said is not only nonsense, and self refuting, but it actually supports the concept that the Golden Rule does hold true and should be kept.

I have heard it said that the golden rule is not sufficient. Rather than doing to other what you would like, some say that you should do to others as they want done, not as you want done, as they may have different tastes to you. I suppose the difference is whether or not you believe in the universality of mankind or not. I think that although this sounds good on the surface, it treads on dangerous territory because it essentially it promote relativism. And who is to say that whether or not what a person wants is actually good or not. Without a framework of belief to surround it (such as Christianity that states we should be kind, generous etc.) then any weirdo might prefer to be treated in many weird ways. Sadomasochists would definitely want to be treated differently to me, and it sounds like the modified golden rule suits this fine, but this ignores the fact that it is detrimental to the giver of such treatment if it is offensive and repulsive to them.

I think the best way to approach the golden rule is follow it in its purest scriptural form surrounded by the framework of good living outline in God's word. Anything additional or diverging from this ultimately leads to acceptance of nonsense.