Chrysopathy

Why the Golden Rule is necessarily suboptimal

The Golden Rule is the principle of treating others as one would want to be treated by them. It is sometimes called an ethics of reciprocity, meaning that you should reciprocate to others how you would like them to treat you. Various expressions of this rule can be found in the tenets of most religions and creeds through the ages.

The maxim appears in three forms, directive, negative, and responsive:

• Directive form: Treat others as you would like others to treat you

• Prohibitive form: Do not treat others in ways that you would not like to be treated

• Responsive: What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself

Jesus Christ himself endorsed the Golden Rule in his commandment: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

This is not, however, the ideal way to treat others. One thing that must always be remembered is that Jesus was always focused on the very lowest common denominator. He did not come to save an elite, or the best of humanity, he made a point of underlining that his Truth and his Way were for everyone, however lowly, however sinful, however flawed.

Therefore, his directive had to be something of which everyone is capable. And everyone is capable of knowing how they would like to be treated. Just as most people are not capable of knowing how others would like to be treated. The Golden Rule is therefore a moral heuristic, not a moral exemplary. It’s the low bar that anyone can, and should, clear.

I was asked by a reader here to explain the difference between empathy, sympathy, and the emotional projection that is involved in the Golden Rule. I’ve attempted to go one better and further clarify the distinctions by taking the liberty of coining a neologism that is based on the Golden Rule, utilizing the Greek term for gold, which is χρυσός, or chrysos.

Note that these are not definitions that cover the entire meaning of the terms and set the limits on their applications, they are just explanatory examples meant to help you understand the differences between the concepts.

• Empathy: I know how you feel in your situation.

• Chrysopathy: I know how I would feel in your situation.

• Sympathy: I feel bad about your situation.

• Apathy: I have no feelings about your situation.

• Antipathy: I feel pleased about your situation.

While I believe that less than 10 percent of the human race is genuinely empathetic, that does not mean that those who are limited to sympathy and chrysopathy cannot improve their ability to relate to others. Just as Game permits the synthetic Alpha to mimic the abilities of the natural Alpha, it should be possible for the observant chrysopath to a) recognize when someone else’s perspective differs than their own, b) observe how their perspective is different, and c) approximate how the individual feels in their situation given their observably different perspective.

One won’t always get it right, of course, but the mere recognition of the different perspective and the attempt to understand and approximate it will usually provide better results than simply projecting one’s own perspective onto the other individual’s situation.

The Golden Rule only works insofar as our perspectives and objectives are similar to those of the other individual.

And, given the way in which we’re informed by so many women that their lack of empathy leads frequently to a state of annoyance, applying this pseudo-empathetic process of recognize-observe-approximate should usually prove to be a mutually beneficial form of enlightened self-interest.

But never forget that just as sympathy often leads to selfish actions that directly harm others, empathy is a very sharp and two-edged sword that can be used to inflict emotional harm as easily as it can be used to further someone else’s interests. Being empathetic should never be equated with being good, because the best predators are those that truly understand their prey.