A Platinum that Tarnishes

              As part of my day job, I have to complete annual training courses.  These are typically on-line sessions that require reading through a series of slides on some topic and then answering questions at the end to pass the course and move on to the next lesson.  I was trying to complete my training recently and get through as many of the courses as possible.  Some topics, such as those related to customer service, are generally common sense principles and the test is easy.  But I got tripped up on one true or false question that seemed to have an obvious answer.  The question was:

 

             "It is important to treat others the way you would like to be treated - T/F?"

 

             That's the "Golden Rule", isn't it?  Obviously that statement is "true".  In fact, from my experience, it might be the most universally agreed-upon principle of human behavior.

 

             Well, the correct answer, according to the training course test I was taking, was "false"!

 

             At first I thought I had discovered a mistake in the test scoring.  But, no, as it turns out, the course creators consider the "Golden Rule" to have passed out of favor to the point that it is now (to state it as a "true" statement):  "You should not treat others the way you would like to be treated."  Instead, it turns out, there is now a "Platinum Rule" which states:

 

             "Treat others the way they would like to be treated."

 

             Who decided this?  I don't remember hearing about this.  On the face of it, it sounds like another nice principle to live by, but I don't remember voting out the Golden Rule.  I feel I'm reasonably well-read (on at least some topics), but I had to do an internet search to learn about the Platinum Rule.  How did I miss this major change in one of the most foundational moral principles of all time?   Remember the popular book a few years back called "Everything I needed to know I learned in Kindergarten?"  Well, suddenly, one of the first things I learned in kindergarten has been declared false!  Frankly, that shatters the very foundations of how to live.

 

             To be fair, the institution I work for is a public institution and it is in a difficult position when it comes to trying to train employees how to treat customers and other employees fairly.  The government isn't really equipped to make moral proclamations and so it struggles when it is put into that position.  Still, it would be interesting to know how the decision was made to dump the Golden Rule in favor of the Platinum Rule.  Was that a decision made by a single individual (the person making up the training)?  Was it a decision made corporately by the company that creates the training modules?  Did the leadership at my institution get together and decide this?  I don't know.

 

             Based on the general context of the training I was taking, I imagine that the thinking behind abandoning the Golden Rule in favor of the Platinum Rule was based on issues like gender identity and religious preferences.  I have no direct knowledge of the thinking behind this change, of course, but one of the points of the training was to respect the wishes of others in areas like gender identity and religious views.  These specific principles I can understand.  But, to be honest, I felt like these specific examples were hidden behind an authoritative-sounding principle (the Platinum Rule).  It seemed (to me) that the creators of the training module must have thought that it sounded better to couch these principles inside of a general rule and give it a nice name, thus giving it an air of authority.  But, in so doing, they overreached.  They should have stuck with the specific issues, such as gender identity and religious liberty, as being the principles that were important in the training. 

 

             The Platinum Rule has problems when it is applied too broadly.  So does the Golden Rule. But one obvious problem with the broad implementation of the Platinum Rule is that we generally don't know how others want to be treated until we talk to them.  It's certainly considerate to try to figure out how someone else wants to be treated.  But I think an appropriate application of the Golden Rule would arrive at the same conclusion.  Most of us recognize there is a certain degree of "individualizing" that is necessary in how we treat others. We recognize that even in our own lives, there are times we want to be treated one way and times we want to be treated a different way.  I'm not even sure I always know how I want to be treated.  So, if we are following the Golden Rule, I think most of us will include a component of the Platinum Rule.

 

             The Platinum Rule assumes there is no absolute right or wrong, and thus it doesn't work in every situation.  Again, the same is true with the Golden Rule (as it is generally applied).  Neither Rule "always works."  There are some weird people out there and I don't want them to treat me the way they want to be treated (i.e. the Golden Rule fails).  Conversely, there are some weird people out there, and I think it would be wrong to treat them the way they want to be treated (i.e. the Platinum Rule fails). 

 

             One struggle we face is that the whole concept of trying to come up with one simple, single, pithy sentence that describes how we should act within a society in every situation is difficult, if not impossible.  The Platinum rule can be useful and the Golden rule can be useful, but neither can just be applied blindly.  For example, people who are depressed often just want to be left alone.  If you try to apply the Platinum Rule and treat them how they want to be treated, that might not be the best thing for them.  Further, if you applied the Golden Rule, you might end up in the same dilemma, because it's entirely possible that when you are depressed, you also just want to be left alone.  So, with either rule, the principle would seem to be that you should respect their wishes.  But to be left alone might be the worst thing for someone who is acutely depressed, especially if they are suicidal.  Maybe, the best thing to do at that moment is continue to dialogue with them, against their wishes.  Or maybe you need to coerce them to get immediate counseling.  Who knows?  The point is, interacting with others in a way that is best for all is complicated and there just isn't one succinct one-liner that can be applied to cover all cases. 

 

             The fact is, neither Gold nor Platinum is sufficient to create a complete moral guidance system for your life.  There are deeper principles that really need to be established first.  If there are some moral absolutes, then those need to be expressed and established.  The individual or entity or institution or deity who decides those moral absolutes must be identified (i.e. the source), as well as the means by which the source will communicate their moral absolutes.  Such principles, by their very nature, will supersede a Golden Rule or a Platinum Rule.  But who has the authority to establish moral absolutes?  That entity needs to be identified and then explicitly cited as the source.  For example, with respect to the training module question I encountered, it would have been very instructive for the training to cite the following: 

 

·        Who decided that the Platinum Rule was right? 

·        Who decided that the Golden Rule was wrong? 

·        What was the principle used to make that decision? 

·        Can we appeal that decision?

 

             We're not going to all agree on these kinds of decisions, but we need to at least acknowledge our sources and our process.  This provides for the possibility of a fruitful discussion (though admittedly that may be unlikely!).  If we disagree on "who" gets to make the decision or on "what" the process is to be used in making moral decisions, then we have to discuss those foundational issues first and come to some agreement - some compromise - some way we can live together.  If we don't discuss the underlying principles, then the conversation will just go on in circles and we won't know why.

 

             So, for me, the issue is not so much about the Platinum Rule or the Golden Rule - those are fine principles that help guide human behavior when held a bit loosely.  For me, the critical issue is that we need to cite our sources when we make a statement regarding a moral imperative.  The reason this is critical is that it then allows for a constructive discussion:  the discussion often has to revolve around what is the basis for authority, specifically what authority can proclaim a moral imperative. Arguing about specific moral principles is futile if each person is basing their argument on a different source of authority.

 

             Ultimately, we have to decide who can proclaim moral authority.  Making such a decision is going to be difficult because we love our freedom and we enjoy our plurality.  There's not going to be an easy answer. We're going to have to figure out how we live together with this kind of incongruity.  It's going to be very uncomfortable.  Can there be a "Great Compromise" in debates of moral authority?  I have my doubts.