I have heard some atheists say that the Golden Rule doesn’t apply to
economics. OK, so what is the point then? Treat others as you would wish to
be treated, unless it involves money or property? What’s left? Saying “good
morning” to each other? If the Golden Rule doesn’t apply to the most
important thing in peoples’ lives, the thing that determines whether they live
or die from access to food, water, shelter, and medical care, then it’s a
pretty pathetic guide for any ethical code.
For Nietzsche, what is good is that which heightens an individual’s feeling of
power, the ascension of the Ubermensch to their desired objectives, the “will
to power.” All that proceeds from weakness constitutes that which is bad.
Obviously, my interpretation of good and your interpretation of good are not
the same, although there could be instances where they were coequal.
Would helping the parched girl help us? Would it increase our power? Should
we do it because everyone else is treating us equally? Oh wait, they are not.
The Golden Rule doesn’t seem to include the poor, the sick, the
malnourished, the homeless, those in need, or virtually everyone else who
needs help. We use it so sparingly that it is the rare exception, and certainly
not a rule of human social behavior. So we watch our little girl, with cracked
lips, protruding tongue, face flushed with agony, implore us for water, and
we walk on by because there is no advantage to us in helping her, and there
is no overarching social compunction, no real Golden Rule, to do so.
Third Argument: we should help her out of feelings of pity and
mercy, which are natural human emotions.
Since when is this the case? If it’s natural, then why is it so little evidenced
in our collective history? Did the Mongols evidence this as they swept
through the Asian continent? Were the Assyrians blessed with this attribute?
Millions of people watch YouTube videos of people hurting each other, of
having painful accidents, and this is considered to be humorous. Just watch
an old “Three Stooges” movie if you doubt the efficacy of pain and
P a g e | 85