Do Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do unto You

The dictum of “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you,” when applied can bring peace and harmony and wipe out irreconcilable differences. An anecdote of two hostile roommates validates this human psychology. Their schedules often conflicted so that when one of them insisted on studying in the room at night with the lights on, the other would be trying to catch a wink of sleep. After weeks of sleepless nights and trips to the library at midnight, one of them decided to turn off the lights and shift to the common lounge – so her roommate could sleep. The next night the other roommate did likewise.
What we just saw was the Golden Rule in action – “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.” Generally, the rule will lead to a solution in any conflict between two sides that believe in social justice and have similar moral ethics. Effectively practicing the Golden Rule is important because it can be used to solve a lot of the world’s conflicts, where both sides claim to be upholders of social principles. In the familiar case of the warring roommates one was obliged to the other as she had turned off the lights for her. The one who took the initiative realized that having the lights off when sleeping was a reasonable demand that she herself had wished to claim.
Why does the rule work so seamlessly? As individuals and nations, we have similar moral ethics and so demand similar rights – right to expression, practise any religion, promote our culture, travel anywhere etc. These rights depend on others’ ability to accommodate them- they will accommodate them as long as their own rights are not infringed and their personal spaces and rights do not overlap and conflict with each other. The Baha’i faith says “…if thine eyes be turned towards justice, choose thou for thy neighbour that which thou choosest for thyself.”
Sometimes conflict is inevitable. This is when we need institutes to dispense justice. What they do or what we strive to do is obtain the maximum possible rights for both sides. If each side was to focus only on its rights, it ultimately becomes a power struggle where the stronger side gets its rights at the expense of the weaker. However the idea of justice demands equal treatment for everyone which is only possible if the stronger side focuses on obtaining maximum rights for the weaker side as well. Although the stronger may have to forfeit more privileges as compared to the weaker, ultimately the balance will tilt towards social and economic equality which is an aim of justice and above and beyond any individual gain. The process of obtaining optimal rights and focussing as much on the other side’s right to rights as one’s own was enunciated by R. Ingersoll when he said, “Give to every other human being every right that you claim for yourself.”
A political peace process strives towards a solution that is acceptable to all sides involved. An example in the contemporary world is the Indo-Pakistan peace process. In the past years there have been decisive wars with significant losses on both sides. Even though India may have been victorious militarily, true victory must satisfy both sides and guarantee a balance of rights. The winning side may become more unyielding to look for maximal rights while the defeated side will be hurt and forced to forfeit more of its rights. This will tip the balance even further to the stronger side and the situation will only worsen. At other times the war may lead to a peace summit where the winning side becomes forgiving and magnanimous in victory while the other side cautiously yields to demands that may be fair even if they are not optimal. This would be a small step towards justice that came at a very great cost to both sides. For example, the Tashkent declaration after the 1965 War led to terms which were mutually acceptable and beneficial. Although they did not bring about complete peace the countries were now on speaking terms. However it is clear that the most efficient solutions came about in peace summits where both countries resolved to focus on the other’s benefit as much or more than its own. Such a resolution comes out of extraordinary conditions and results in extraordinary gestures. When Pakistan recognized that India had as much right to a just retribution as they did, it conceded the country’s involvement in the Mumbai blasts and agreed to take action against the culprits. They behaved towards India just as they wanted India to behave towards them. India then recognized Pakistan’s new efforts towards an optimal solution and reciprocated accordingly. This has clearly soothed the conflict much more than before, that too without war. By invoking the Golden Rule, the countries have established an open and candid relation between them. This is an important and indispensable step towards a common new goal of maximum benefit for both.
So the Golden Rule can be effective for reconciling different kinds of conflict – whether between roommates or between countries! Is there a situation where it can’t work? Indeed, a rare situation when the Golden Rule does not lead to a solution is when the sides, even if they believe in social justice, don’t share a similar idea of moral ethics. For example, if a student offers his best friend assistance during an exam, and is turned down, not because his friend doesn’t need it, but because his friend puts academic integrity before their friendship. Thus the student who offered the help cannot expect reciprocation when he himself is stumped during some exam. Though both want the best for each other, his moral ethics differ those of his friend.
The principle of social justice has been noted in similar words in all religious texts including the New Testament, Talmud, Koran, and the Analects of Confucius, to promote peaceful resolution of issues. Among the earliest appearances in English is Earl Rivers’ translation of a saying of Socrates: “Do to other as thou wouldst they should do to thee, and do to none other but as thou wouldst be done to.” To reiterate, the Golden Rule can be used to reconcile any kind of conflict of interests. And the only prerequisites are similar moral ethics and a conviction that social justice and equality for everyone surpasses any kind of individual gain. Thus it is no surprise that the Rule has been established independently in more than twenty systems of faith, systems whose ultimate purpose is to facilitate every individual and nation to grow equally in love, harmony and mutual respect.

Advertisement