Do unto others

I just popped over to visit The Agonist, one of the first blogs that I ever read with any dedication. The news stories on the front page seem to be covered well enough in the other blogs that I have been visiting, so I'm feeling no guilt at having outgrown the site. However, there is one item on the front page that caught my eye: an open thread to include folk's favorite adage or aphorism. I could not resist taking a look. There's a nice long posting of the wit and wisdom of Robert Heinlein, for one thing. And another is this long post contrasting statements about self-reliance/selfishness versus the Golden Rule theme.

The key statement in the post is:

And that is what you're really up against: many American leaders actually hold in esteem a belief system that explicitly refutes the collective moral reasoning of every documented human belief system except for white supremacy and Satanism.

The "adages" on self-reliance come from white supremacist writings, Satanist documents, and, that favorite of my youth, Ayn Rand. The statements can be summarized in the notion that the individual is responsible for himself and no other, having a duty only to himself.

In contrast, the poster (one Escher Sketch) provides a really long list of statements related to the "Ethic of Reciprocity," which we mostly know as the Golden Rule, from a really long list of religious belief systems (and a few philosophers). The list is so long that the ethic of reciprocity--do unto others as you would have them do unto you--almost seems like a cultural universal.

A couple of excerpts:

Ancient Egyptian:

"Do for one who may do for you, that you may cause him thus to do." The Tale of the Eloquent Peasant, 109 - 110 Translated by R.B. Parkinson. The original dates to 1970 to 1640 BCE and may be the earliest version ever written. 9

. . .

Socrates: "Do not do to others that which would anger you if others did it to you." (Greece; 5th century BCE)

The post provides a lot of evidence and sees little need to expound on the evidence, since the thoughtful reader can draw some immediate conclusions regarding the irony to be found in the philosophical underpinnings of a considerable amount of political action these days. Pedant that I am, I must hammer the point home--and point you back to the Agonist for the evidence.

And the point is this: Self-reliance is a good thing as long as there is a level playing field. If there is equal opportunity for everyone, and if everyone plays by the same rules without cheating, then it's fair to say that the individual should do his/her best to compete and succeed on that playing field. However, in order to have that level playing field along with equal opportunity and a consensus about the rules, there has to be an ethic of reciprocity first. There has to be respect for the other players on the field and a willingness to play fairly with them. Without that, we start looking as some really tacky rape and pillage that has nothing to do with the values that some folks say they live by but really don't.

[/end rant on hypocrisy]