The Golden Rule

Regular readers of this website will know that I am not a religious person. Far from it. In my heart and my brain I would reckon that I am around 99% atheist. 

This almost wholesale dismissal of the notion that there is some kind of god up there arises not from any great familiarity with what various religions say about the world but from my own direct experience and my understanding of it.

Indeed, I know very little about any religion.

And while, for most of my life, I have been mostly of the view that religious people are just uninformed individuals who have mostly allowed themselves to bask in the comfort of ignorance about certain aspects of the world - something that we all do in one area or another - I am now decidedly of the view that these people were not ignorant at all!

Indeed, neither do I believe any longer that religion has been the root cause of much of the world's problems; in that I now suspect that the historical horrors customarily blamed on religion might well have been much worse in the absence of religion.

I was actually brought up as a Roman Catholic but, by the time I was 20 or so, any belief that I might have had in a god and in all the paraphernalia that attaches to such a thing had evaporated; perhaps leaving just 1% of uncertainty in my mind when it came to the question of whether there was any type of god at all.

Nevertheless, as a Roman Catholic, I had learned the simplified versions of the Ten Commandments as a youngster and, on the whole, even as I grew out of any sense of personal religiosity, they seemed to be commandments that had some considerable merit.

The only real problem for me was that these commandments seemed to have many significant 'ifs' and 'buts' associated with them in real life.

For example, "Thou shalt not kill," seemed like a very good rule for people to follow - especially if there was going to be any hope at all that humans would ever live at peace with each other - but I could certainly imagine situations wherein killing people might, in fact, be more moral than not doing so; especially in war situations where people were defending themselves.

And as for the commandment, "Thou shalt not steal," one only has to think about the taxes that we are forced to pay to governments to see that the meaning of the word 'steal' can be bent far too easily. After all, if governments force you to hand over money to them then the word 'stealing' seems to describe quite appropriately what they are doing.

Another problem for me with these commandments was that, individually taken, they did not seem to have much relevance when it came to most forms of human behaviour; hence the need for many other commandments.

In other words, in the real world, there seemed to arise many situations wherein disobeying one commandment or another seemed the most moral thing to do, and it was also the case that the commandments did not - and could not - address the numerous complexities of real life.

So what was the point of all these 'commandments'?

There were too many loopholes!

Furthermore, whenever I did, perchance, come across various people proselytising and arguing their case for their own religion - or aspects of it - I was never very much impressed.

Basically, they did not seem to address important moral questions any more satisfactorily than did many other people for whom religion was of no significance.

In other words, in my view, one did not need to postulate the existence of any god in order to come up with decent moral values.

But perhaps the most important failing when it came both to religious and to secular views about 'morality' was that, in practice, the issues in real life were always too complicated.

In other words, real life was just too complex, and there were no simple rules that would truly and appropriately address human behaviours in an effective manner.

Nevertheless, one moral imperative did, indeed, seem persistently to stand above all the others; in the sense that if people abided by it as much as possible, and wherever possible, the lives of most humans would be massively improved in very many respects.

This imperative is commonly referred to as the Golden Rule.

And, in essence, the rule is this.

"Do not do unto others that which you would not like them to do unto you."

And it seemed to me that if people always attempted to behave in this manner then a positively enormous amount of good towards most humans would be the result, whereas if people did not do this then, eventually, the outcome would be positively catastrophic.

Furthermore, this very simple 'general' rule could be applied quite appropriately to an enormous range of human behaviour. 

Indeed, this Golden Rule crops up in the texts of many different religions (e.g. see here) and this suggests to me that many other people - right around the world - in hugely different places, times and circumstances -  have also understood just how important is this rule when it comes to creating the type of world in which most of us would want to live.

All in all, therefore, my belief is that this Golden Rule is very, very important indeed.

(And this is why I was especially delighted to see Karen Armstrong make the Golden Rule the central theme in her truly excellent recent video lecture entitled a Charter For Compassion - video - 21 min)

And now, here comes the important bit!

By and large, the aims of those in the men's movement (MM) are consistent with the Golden Rule. But the aims of those in the feminist movement are, mostly, contrary to it.

As such, the more that the MM gains in influence, the better will be the world in which we live, whereas the more that the feminists gain in influence, the worse will it be.

In order to demonstrate this, I am going to pick just one issue to show how it is that the aims of the MM are mostly consistent with the Golden Rule whereas those of the feminists are very often contrary to it.

Rape.

MRAs (Men's Rights Activists) do not believe that they, themselves, would like to be raped, and they also believe that women do not like to be raped.

And so, unsurprisingly, MRAs do not argue that men should rape women.

In other words, MRAs do not argue that men should do things to women that they would not like to be done to themselves.

This is the Golden Rule in action.

Furthermore, MRAs do not actually engage in rape in order to further their agenda.

Thus, MRAs do not break the Golden Rule in order to further their agenda.

But now, let us look at the feminists' take on this issue.

Feminists do not believe that they, themselves, would like to be persecuted or prosecuted for something that they have not done, and they also believe that men would not like to be persecuted or prosecuted for something that they have not done.

And, yet, feminists do argue that men should be persecuted or prosecuted for something that they have not done when it comes to rape.

As a result, thousands of men every year are persecuted or prosecuted for rapes that they have not committed.

This is the Golden Rule being willfully broken.

Furthermore, feminists do actually engage in the persecution or prosecution of men for something that they have not done in order to further their agenda.

Thus, feminists do break the Golden Rule in order to further their agenda.

And because feminists have had such powerful influences on western societies the Golden Rule has been downgraded significantly in western societies - and the result has, indeed, been fairly catastrophic - with much worse to come, would be my guess.

Indeed, as I type this, I hear on the radio that there are some real concerns that the world might soon experience a food shortage and, as a result, there might well soon be global civil unrests of a very serious nature.

Well, even the very possibility of this tells us that re-establishing and enforcing the Golden Rule rather than allowing it to be flagrantly broken  over and over again by western governments (often pandering to the feminists) could easily be one of the most important tasks of all at the moment.

....................

In order to bring home the points above concerning the power of the Golden Rule, let me just elaborate further, but in a more tangible context.

You often find feminist men (particularly in government) arguing that the persecution and prosecution of innocent men in connection with rape is just one of those things that simply has to be done in order to protect women from rape.

But there are only three points that need to be made in order to damn this position quite seriously.

1. Would a man with this view be happy if he (or a loved one) was being persecuted or prosecuted for something that he had not done?

No, of course, he would not be happy. And he would most likely fight tooth and nail to protest very strongly if he found himself in such a situation.

But this means that the policy that he supports (e.g. the persecuting or prosecuting of a man for a rape that he has not done) he only supports because he, himself, is not affected by it. If he or a loved one were affected by such a policy then he would be outraged.

In other words, he is a hypocrite of the highest order, and he is quite prepared to support policies that "do unto others" that which he would positively hate to be done unto himself - or to his loved ones.

He willfully breaks the Golden Rule simply to suit his own aims - something that is, in fact, a defining characteristic of a psychopath.

Needless to say, such a man should never have significant power or influence.

2. If it is acceptable for him to support policies that do unto others that which he would not like to be done unto himself (or his loved ones), then it must also be just as acceptable for MRAs to support policies that treat him (or his loved ones) in the same manner.

In other words, if MRAs take on board his sense of what is right and proper, then he can have no legitimate complaint if MRAs decide to "do unto him" or his loved ones that which he would positively hate to be done unto him or his loved ones.

Thus, it is quite legitimate for MRAs to hurt him and his loved ones in pursuit of their aims.

But would this man really think that it is a good idea for the world to work like this?

Surely not - unless, of course, he is a psychopath.

And now, it gets even worse for this man - because, in fact, he is not 'innocent'.

3. He supports policies that hurt innocent others - provided, of course, that he and his loved ones are not hurt themselves.

Now, as we have seen, this moral stance means that MRAs must also be entitled to hurt him and his loved ones in pursuit of their own aims.

But, of course, he is not 'innocent' at all. After all, he is quite happy to hurt innocent others. And he is quite prepared to break the extremely important Golden Rule in order to do so.

As such, therefore, MRAs are even more entitled to hurt him in pursuit of their aims.

.........

It is surely clear that those who encourage people to break the Golden Rule - or who break it themselves - poison very seriously our prospects for creating or maintaining a decent society. And this is particularly true when it is those in powerful positions - such as those in government - who are doing such things.

And yet, for three decades now, feminists and left-wing western governments have broken this Golden Rule with relative impunity - mostly in order to pursue their self-serving aims.

Millions of men in the west have been treated appallingly as a result of this - child custody, child contact, divorce, alimony, etc etc - and all men have been demonised horribly in one way or another even though the vast majority of them have done nothing to deserve such demonisation.

And the result is what we have today - a great deal of disharmony, unhappiness, crime, poverty, dishonesty, greed and corruption - corruption at the highest levels.

Indeed, it must surely be evident to most people that if their societies accept the view that it is perfectly acceptable for people to break the Golden Rule whenever they feel like doing so then there is absolutely no hope for a decent future.

None!

In summary: Those who break the Golden Rule in order to pursue their own self-serving aims are, clearly, a real danger to us all. Furthermore, they are hypocrites, and they have no moral leg to stand upon should we decide to hurt them. Indeed, we are far more entitled to hurt them than they are entitled to hurt innocent others; because, in fact, they are not innocent.

END NOTE:

It is usually argued by feminists that it is perfectly legitimate to break the Golden Rule in order to reduce the likelihood that others will break it. And so, for example, they argue that the thoroughly unjust manner in which innocent men are treated following a mere accusation of rape will reduce the likelihood that men will rape - rapists being people who break the Golden Rule.

The problem with this argument, however, is that it entitles us all to break the Golden Rule for similar reasons.

And so, for example, it could be argued that all women who accuse men of rape (even if these men are guilty) should be treated horribly simply in order to discourage other women from making false accusations; i.e. to discourage them from breaking the Golden Rule.

To do this would be completely consistent with feminist policies - the only difference being that innocent women would be treated badly rather than innocent men.

END NOTE 2:

Of course, the importance of the Golden Rule lies not in its 'perfection' - because it is not perfect by any means. Its importance lies in the following ...

1. It is relatively simple to articulate and to understand.

2. It addresses an enormous range of human behaviours.

3. It is a very good rule that will lead to huge benefits for everybody if people can be encouraged successfully to follow it.

This is not to say that the Golden Rule should never be broken. For example, we lock up murderers even though they - like the rest of us - would prefer not to be locked up. But we lock them up precisely because they have broken the Golden Rule in a very serious manner.

What we should not be doing, however, is treating people as if they have broken the Golden Rule when we have no valid evidence to suggest that they have done so - because to do so is to break the Golden Rule.

Unfortunately, however, when it comes to matters of 'abuse', this is exactly what is happening to millions of men (and, increasingly, to women) around the western world thanks to the various machinations of the feminists and those working in the abuse industry.

And, in my view, as mentioned above, it is much more legitimate, morally speaking, to hurt these people than it is legitimate for them to hurt those whom they are hurting; because these people are no longer 'innocent'. They have willfully and flagrantly broken the Golden Rule on a massive scale.

Finally, let me just clarify the important difference between MRAs and feminists when it comes to the Golden Rule.

MRAs do not advocate that men should be entitled to hurt innocent women.

Feminists and their associated victim groups, however, do advocate that women (and the authorities) should be entitled to hurt innocent men, and they also both support and promote governmental policies that do exactly this.

(In the case of rape, a particularly egregious example of this in the UK is that innocent men who are falsely accused of rape can have their names publicised all over the place while their lying accusers are protected by laws which give them anonymity.)

Now, given that the Golden Rule seems to be a very important rule when it comes to maintaining a decent society - something which seems to have been recognised by many different peoples for over 2000 years - it seems to me that MRAs have much reason and every right to attack very viciously indeed those who persistently break the Golden Rule; particularly those who do so on a massive scale. And, in connection with this, certain politicians, feminists and various victim groups come continually to mind.