Posted By David on May 25, 2010
We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. - Martin Luther King Jr.
The quote above is taken from a letter King wrote while in jail in Birmingham, Alabama in 1963. Although he was speaking specifically about the civil rights movement and the situation at that time in the U.S. (the sentence immediately preceding the quote is “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”), the very first time I read those words, I was struck by how appropriate they were to the underlying message of “Do unto others.”
I’m not sure if the term “Principle” of Mutuality has been used in reference to the Golden Rule in the past or not. A quick Internet search turns up mostly references to tax shelters and employment contracts. Not exactly philosophy of life stuff.
Nevertheless, mutuality, it seems to me, is the best way to consider our place and role in the world.
“Rules”, Golden or otherwise, suggest limitations, boundaries. Knowing as we now do how interdependent the world truly is, can we really live as if there is a limit to our responsibility to each other and indeed the planet?
I don’t care much for the other collective common name for “do unto others” – the Ethic of Reciprocity – either. To me, reciprocity implies something akin to Newton’s Third Law – for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. It becomes a “you scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours” construct in which we’re only required to give something if we have a reasonable expectation of getting something in return.
A common criticism of the Golden Rule/Ethic of Reciprocity is the implication that, to follow it, we would have to allow criminals to go about their activities unopposed. Isn’t that, after all, what we’d want them to do for us if our situations were reversed?
The gaping hole in this argument should be obvious. Not only must we “do unto” the perpetrators of crime, but the victims as well; who would presumably want us to seek justice. That this is often overlooked or ignored, it seems to me, is because we think of “rules” and “reciprocity” as involving just two parties, ourselves and the other.
Mutuality, on the other hand, recognizes that our actions affect everyone and everything, just as the actions of others affect us. Whether known or unknown; intentional or unintentional; for good or bad – an inescapable network in which we’re all bound. There are no limits and there can be no qualifying expectations.
This Principle, it seems to me, acknowledges the interdependence of all parts of the world, animate and inanimate, living and nonliving. All exist in an environment where choices, regardless of the boundaries we try to set, irrespective of any tit-for-tat conditions we attempt to enforce, move outward from their starting point in ever widening circles of effect.
Approaching mutuality as a principle avoids the temptation to create lists of “dos” and “don’ts”. Such a list of simplistic absolutes is impossible, since the Principle of Mutuality inherently recognizes that the choices we make are affected by the choices those around us have made as well.
Confucius said that the one thing he could not do consistently was to treat others the way he would like to be treated. Once we accept the interconnectedness that underlies all of our relationships, the reason becomes clear. We can never know all of the decisions that others have made that intersect with ours, nor can we always appreciate where the ripples of our own choices will be felt. We see only partially, imperfectly.
That’s okay. The important thing is to choose to see at all.
For more on how mutuality shapes my outlook on life, please click here.
Category: Golden Rule, Mutuality |
No Comments »
Tags: do unto others, Ethic of Reciprocity, ethics, Golden Rule, peace, Principle of Mutuality, universal principle, universality, world peace
