A month ago, I rediscovered this essay and posted some commentary.
syrenichol requested that I repost it: I'll limit to a few comments on my part, as the essay itself follows.
First: "Do not do unto others what you would not have them do unto you." is often called the "Golden Rule" by those who don't know otherwise. The Golden Rule is "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.", while the former is called the Silver Rule. The only difference lies in the negation: "not do" and "not". It is a subtle difference, but a vast one (think about it).
Sagan names "Do unto others as they do unto you." as the Brazen Rule (and also names a few others).
Second: The Silver Rule is found more commonly throughout human history, globally. While the linked Wikipedia article on
The Ethic Of Reciprocity confounds Golden with Silver (as is usual), it
does provide a historical listing of both Rules (where, it may be noticed, the Silver predominates).
Brazen may be found as well, albeit in halves (Sagan notes that it is the equivalent of combining "An eye for an eye" with "One good turn deserves another" - the former is common in history, while the latter is either rarely evident, or at least not clearly indicated).
Third: What Sagan demonstrates, as many have understood throughout the millenia, is that ethics - the means by which one determines how one should act towards others - is firmly rooted in the exercise of reason. Einstein stated that "Ethical axioms are found and tested not very differently from the axioms of science. Truth is what stands the test of experience."
Sagan relates in the essay that, held to standards of testing and experience, the single most beneficial ethical rule (to
all parties -
Game Theory delves into this very area, and is worthwhile looking into) is a modification of the Brazen Rule, "Cooperate with others first, then do unto them as they do unto you.", which he terms the Tit-for-Tat rule.
Does Tit-for-Tat seem too, oh, "brazen"? It may - indeed should - at first, but when properly understood, it becomes clear that it (As distasteful to the ear and eye it may seem, in light of the various morals and dogmas inculcated by rote) both initiates interactions in a spirit of cooperation and encourages further future cooperation, while allowing, or rather insisting, that one not be taken advantage of. The essay goes into depth on the matter (and it's quite a good read, at that).
It is worth encouraging in ourselves an everyday awareness of the ways in which we treat other people, noting which rules both we and others use, and then further noting the end results: Who benefits? Who is harmed? Do we maximize gains for ourselves
and others, do we minimize losses, or do we actively seek personal gain at the expense of others? There is nothing to be lost, and much to be gained, in taking a sensical, rational, approach to ethics.
And now, at
syrenichol's request, Sagan's essay (Reproduced in full in the spirit of "Fair Use", Something Sagan would likely have encouraged; Source URL:
http://19.org/index.php?carlsagan)
:
The Rules of the GameCarl Sagan, Dr.
( Essay TextCollapse )
