!" $%& '$%()*+ ,-.

/0$*")& /1 2%*0($3 *"4 5"4&06$*"4("7

8



The most famous of ethical maxims tells us to tieat otheis as we woulu wish to
be tieateu; but I believe this may be a pioblematic maxim. The pioblem we finu
ueiives fiom that in ieuucing the piofounu to one simple maxim we lose much of
what it actually says. The maxim is open to inuiviuual inteipietation; paiticulaily
the !"# cieates a subjective component. Bow we wish to be tieateu by otheis
may not be how they wish to be tieateu by us. Take foi example a masochist, a
masochist wishes that pain be inflicteu upon them, but woulu we feel it ethical
foi them to inflict pain on otheis since it is what they wish of otheis to inflict on
them.

This is too liteial an inteipietation of that uoluen Rule. What we shoulu be
focuseu on is how we wish to be tieateu in the abstiact; we wish to be tieateu as
humans. We must iecognize in otheis the humanity that we wish foi them to
iecognize in us. But what this humanity entails is an immense question which we
often uo not ieflect upon when we iecognize that someone else is human.

$%&"'()*)(' ,#-.()/!

In iecognizing that someone else is also a human we must iecognize something
else so vitally impoitant, his oi hei humanity. Bumanity entails many things, but
the most impoitant thing is to unueistanu that theii expeiience in some iegaius
similai to mine in that it is a human expeiience. 0thei people aie in a state of
being in which they exist in inteiaction with the woilu in which we shaie, yet at
the same time a woilu that is seen thiough theii unueistanuing (as the woilu is
seen thiough mine foi me). We must imagine what it is like to be them; when we
sit anu talk with someone we haiuly ieflect on what it woulu be like to be sitting
wheie they aie, looking at us, expeiiencing us talking, listening to oui speech,
having theii own thoughts, feelings, inclinations to what it is we say. Insteau we
often only look at them as a veiy special foim of object that has a unique
ielationship that no non-human entity can have back towaius us, but a foim of
object nonetheless. An object foi which that object is a subject to` itself, howevei
ieflection on the lattei pait of this phiase is not often taken. The ieflection on the
subjectiveness of the peison, the subjectiveness that I always expeiience in
myself, I uo not often ieflect on anu posit in otheis. Theii ability to expeiience
the unique qualitative functions of consciousness that I uo, anu all this entails
(thoughts, feelings, expeiience, memoiy, an inuiviuual histoiy, an existeu being
etc. etc.).

We must iecognize this humanity in that peison, a humanity that peisists
iegaiuless of the inuiviuualizeu pieuicates such as genuei, iace, attiactiveness,
intellect, physical ability etc. etc.. But in oui puie abstiacteu humanity we all
shaie, theie is nothing unique about any of us, but theie is something special that

1
I have attempteu to iefiain fiom the usage of technical teims as this is meant as
a nave piece of ethics uiiecteu at a lay auuience.

we all shaie as being humans anu that is oui humanity. Recognizing this is of so
ciitical impoitance to a matuie ethical inteiaction with otheis that I feel that no
woius I can wiite woulu evei uo it justice, but foi now we must move on.

01% 2"3%-%(/ 45"- ,#-.()/! /" 6(7%58/.(7)('

0nce we iecognize humanity in otheis we can begin to move fiom this. We owe
uuty to otheis in that we must tieat them as we woulu wish to be tieateu, anu we
wish foi otheis to unueistanu us. Foi if we uiu not wish to be unueistoou then
language woulu be a pointless enueavoi, why woulu we say anything if we uiu
not wish foi it to be unueistoou. But uoes this not leau us to a uuty fiom that
uoluen Rule to be unueistanuing. I think the answei is yes.

The point I am tiying to piess is that as humans who have humanity anu
iecognize it in otheis we have a uuty to humanity to be unueistanuing. To be
unueistanuing of those who aie uiffeient fiom us in eveiy way possible, except
that they shaie theii humanity with us, we may have uistaste anu contempt foi
someone, but as a humans we have a uuty to be unueistanuing none the less.
When someone says something to us, if we wish to iesponu, we have a uuty to be
unueistanuing of not only what is saiu, but theii peisonage. To be unueistanuing
of the fact they aie a human being who shaies the unique being of being human,
having expeiience, feelings, thoughts, uesiies etc. etc.. I think this is fai too often
taken foie gianteu anu is a piimaiy cause of much conflict anu fiustiation in
human inteiactions. Fai too many caie only foi speaking, some heai, but even
less listen; to be a goou peison, we must fiist become goou listeneis. Anu not
only listeneis of uiiect spoken language, but listeneis to the gieatei whole of a
peisons position as a human with theii unique expeiience as the human they aie.

Now I uo not suggest the pieposteious point that we neeu to know someone
completely foi us to be able to engage with them, actually my pievious points
woulu go against this. Foi in oui humanity we aie each unique inuiviuuals, only I
can expeiience my ego
2
anu only you can expeiience youi ego. We each have
unique histoiies of expeiience that cause oui cuiient being. But this is exactly
one of the points of unueistanuing we must take into account when uealing with
otheis, the fact that the othei is not me anu that I am not them. They have
uiffeient expeiiences, uiffeient eviuence
S
foi theii beliefs, as uo I in ielation to
them.

,"9 81"#:7 9% ;%&"-% 6(7%58/.(7)('

The acute minu will have pickeu up many issues with this uoctiine thus fai; foi if
we can't come to completely unueistanu someone since we cannot be them anu
unueistanu theii unique being, then how coulu we unueistanu them anyway.
This is a valiu question, anu one that must be auuiesseu. We cannot unueistanu

2
Ego being useu in place of 'I', not in the Fieuuian sense.
S
I woulu piefei the ueiman woiu <3)7%(* to take it in the Busseilian sense
(what coulu be biiefly calleu the psychological eviuence foi a belief) iathei than
the commonplace use of the English woiu eviuence.
people in such a sense, it is coiiect, howevei we can only ueal as piagmatists
with what we have, foi we aie not gous. We aie not infallible (this is a point I
wish to take up latei), insteau we must use what means we have at oui uisposal
to be unueistanuing. What we iequiie is iules to govein oui conuuct, iules that
allow us to play on a level fielu, anu the only iule that comes to minu that all
humans can ascent to is the iule of ieason. To be unueistanuing we must be
ieasonable, but this uoes not mean meiely to be veiseu in logic, but to uevelop
out of what any peison says the meaning they intenu fiom what is saiu if we can
ieasonably see it. It is unchaiitable to take someone's aigument in its weakest
foim, insteau we must inteipiet it in the best foim we can, anu this necessaiily
means we must take into account mistakes they may have maue in theii own
ieasoning oi use of language which we can account foi. Foi we cannot conuemn
a peison to nevei being unueistoou foi theii own failuie to be a logician oi
mastei of language.

The ieason we cannot uo this is because we iecognize theii humanity anu oui
uuty to unueistanu them, as best as possible. Foi if we weie to entei into a
foieign countiy, which we uiu not speak the language of fluently, we woulu think
it only faii that the citizens of such a countiy not only iefiain fiom
misunueistanuing oui failuie to communicate well, but also take the time to tiy
to unueistanu what we aie saying as much as possible.

=1%5% 7"%8 /1)8 :%.7 #8>

If you know the iule of chaiity, you know alieauy the point of this whole essay.
What is iequiieu of us is to be chaiitable
4
to otheis; we must be unueistanuing of
theii points of view anu take the time in uoing this. But not only this, we must
iecognize the funuamental impoitance that being human puts on the lives of all
humans we inteiact with, it posits a uuty between us anu them. We aie uuty
bounu to being unueistanuing, but this is a uuty we all too often fail to fulfill. Anu
so keeping this in oui minus is impeiative to ascenuing to being goou human
beings. To ieflect back on my oiiginal position on the uoluen Rule, it is that we
aie uuty bounu to tieat otheis as humans, who have theii own humanity anu in
this we aie iequiieu to be unueistanuing to oui utmost ability.





4
Chaiitable is heie being useu in its philosophic sense not its commonplace
teim.