The ethical standards of a society should be such that satisfy the needs of the majority, if not the entire society. At the same time they should be just, and what is just, is also defined by the majority. Therefore if the majority accepts the rule that „one should do to others as one would have them do to oneself“ it would be a suitable basis for the ethical standards of a society. The next question to occur is „is it a suitable rule to be accepted by the majority?“.
There are two possible answers to this question: „yes, it is suitable“ and „no, it is not suitable“. Each of them has its own advantages and disadvantages. The positive answer, that „one should do to others as one would have them do to oneself“, is supported by deontological ethics - the ethics not interested in the consequences of a particular act, but in the intrinsic good contained in it, no matter what the consequences are. The negative answer, that this rule is not a good one, is supported by teleological ethics, which believe that the end justifies the means and the determining factor is the consequence not the act in itself.
Two famous upholders of deontological ethics are Immanuel Kant - who develops the theory, and Socrates - who defends it in practice with the price of his own life. Kant starts his search for morality from the question „what is it, that is good in itself, no matter what the situation is and what the consequences are?“ Denying all the virtues as a possible answer since they can be used with a negative purpose (e.g. intelligence used for committing a crime), Kant reaches the conclusion that „It is impossible to conceive anything at all in the world, or even out of it, which can be taken as good without qualification, except a good will“. A good will, according to Kant, is a will whose only motive is to act for the sake of duty. So a human being should do what is right just because it is right and not because of any probable consequences. What is right can be tested by the method of universalization: if a particular act can be made a universal law, and there are no contradictions either in the law of nature or in the will, then this particular act is a morally good act. In this way Kant concludes the main principle of ethics: „I ought never to act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law“, which is similar to the rule cited in this essay’s title. According to this concept the valued good is found inside the acts. If a particular person is happy only when he does the right thing with a good will (and I am sure that such people do exist) then this argument is especially suitable for him/her and should be accepted. Such a person was Socrates who, being offered the chance to escape from prison, save his life and raise his children happily, refused to brake the law because he believed that it was not right in itself to disobey the rules, and the consequence - whether he stayed alive or he died - did not matter.
Completely different value systems are possessed by people adhering to teleological ethics. According to them happiness is found not in the act itself, but in the overall evaluation of its consequences. Representatives of teleological morality are the utilitarianists - Bentham, Mill. Their doctrine states that „an action is right if it produces the greatest good for the greatest number“. A particular action that is right according to the deontological theory would not be right in the teleological context because people are not the same - „The more intelligent a person is, the more originality he finds in others. For the mediocre person everybody is the same“(Blaise Pascal, „Thoughts", 7) . The particular act would be perceived differently by different people. To some it will bring happiness therefore it will be right; to others it will be the opposite: for example granting a bag with money to a poor father with many children would make him happy, but a rich nobleman would be offended if it was given to him for no reason. The difference between the reactions of the affected might be just qualitative: if two men are thrown from a ship, one of whom cannot swim, and the other can swim, in this situation the act of throwing is the same, the reaction of pain is the same, but in the first case the negativity is fatal and in the second - it is just a bad day. If a person is interested in consequences the contrast in the perceptions of a single act by miscellaneous people is enormous. For the constructing of ethical codes there should be taken into account the variability of people and their situations and such rules as „one should do to others as one would have them do to oneself“ are inapplicable, since they ignore the diversity of human temperaments and characters. The deontological way of thinking and acting is closed and treats people not as individuals, but as objects which are there to have acts exercised on them. If we treat all people in the same way we will be treating them unjustly since some people deserve our love and respect, while others do not, and their equalising would be discouraging for their will to be better. Since the scrutinised concept is deontological it is equally unjust. It contains the presupposition that all people have ambitions and inclinations identical to one’s own, which is false, or neglects this fact for the sake of the act, which is anti-humanistic. Therefore I believe that the notion „one should do to others as one would have them do to oneself“ is not a suitable rule to be accepted by the majority, nor a suitable basis for the ethical standards of a society.
