Rules of Conduct

Do not kill, do not steal, do not lie. Treat others as you would like to be treated. Do no harm. Consider the consequences. These are some of the most commonly accepted rules of conduct.

While rules of conduct often have exceptions, they can be very useful guides. In general, you want to follow the rules, and when you don't, you feel a need to justify the exception. The rules listed here are some of the most common, found in many cultures. They also seem to be some of the most useful. We will examine them one by one.

Do not kill, do not steal, do not lie. These commands are the very foundation of society. Starting with killing, how can a society survive if its members are killing each other? It could be that only the strong are selectively killing off the weak, but even in this brutal situation, the strong will need to be careful. Their strength and strategy of life revolves around exploiting the weak. How can the weak be exploited if they are dead? While there are societies where the strong can kill the weak without consequences, this has proven to be a less than effective approach. The weak will eventually get their revenge and a lot of useful effort is expended in killing and planning to kill that could be more usefully expended in improving the society as a whole. Also, most everyone feels sorrow and pain when one of their loved ones dies. Common and natural feelings of human sympathy therefore come into play. Unless we are particularly hardened, if we kill someone we can relate to their pain and to the pain of their family and friends. Also, many people feel gratitude for life and awe at its mystery, so much so, that life itself is sacred in many traditions. People feel it is particularly serious to violate this sacred territory.

Still, there are cases in which people feel justified in killing. For example, if someone has done particular harm to me or my family, I may feel justified in killing them for revenge and to make it clear to others that they cannot attack us with impunity. It is very difficult to be objective in these situations though. While I may feel they were only getting justice, my own interests and my own strong feelings of grief and shame may likely cloud my judgment. Therefore, in most societies this use of deadly force has been reserved for the government, after some attempt at objectively understanding the offense. Of course, governments can also be corrupted and use their monopoly on killing to force their will or to punish dissent. This tendency has been offset by jury trials, strict rules on when capital punishment is allowed and other attempts to safeguard citizens from abuse. Some societies have decided that even the government will not be allowed to kill and have outlawed capital punishment.

This attempt to limit the use of force to resolve disputes has spread to relations between countries as well. The search for global peace on the one hand recognizes that if we kill people in other countries, some of our own people will likely be killed in the process. Also, even if we feel the need to have weapons for self-defense, the use of those weapons means they have to replaced, often at great cost. Also, global business and trade will be damaged. These considerations along with more noble considerations about the oneness of the human family have led to a greater and greater reluctance to resort to violence even between countries.

Still, most people would recognize a right to self-defense, at an individual level and at a national level. Also, there may be times when killing is the only way to stop even worse killing.

Not stealing is also a pillar of social order. Our ability to survive as individuals and families depends on our ability to acquire material things and to plan adequately for the future. We need our crops for the winter as well as our seed corn for next year. If we cannot rely on this, we have to expend considerable effort protecting it, at great personal and social cost. On the other hand, if stealing is fairly rare, we can concentrate on more socially useful activities. So a society that allows stealing is very inefficient and may not survive in the long run. Also, fundamental feelings of fairness come into play. Why should someone do all the work to provide for their family and have it taken away by someone who does not make a similar effort?

This seems fairly clear. Where it becomes hazy is when certain individuals accumulate more and more of the social resources for themselves. They may have done this totally within the rules of their society or they may be building on acts of theft perpetrated by their ancestors or themselves when they were younger.

Take the example of colonizers who succeeded in stealing land from native peoples. From the point of view of their societies, the land may have had no clear title and therefore was open for settling, or they may have paid some nominal sum for the land. So they may feel justified. If the natives could not adequately exploit the land, it was only natural for someone to take control who could make good use of it.

Similarly, suppose my great grandfather made money in illegal activities and then "went legit". Here I am two generations later benefiting. But I did nothing myself. Why should I be blamed?

And suppose I am a new billionaire who was skillful or lucky enough to come up with an idea and execute on it, all in a perfectly legal and above board way. I did not steal from anyone. Why should the government "redistribute my wealth" through taxes. Isn't that just stealing by the government?

But the system may have unjustly favored me, allowing me to succeed where others did not have a chance because of their family situation, education, and cultural patterns built up over generations of injustice. And even at a purely practical level, starving millions will eventually come to where the wealth is. It is only in my self-interest to assure that the poor are helped, even if I do not consider how I got my wealth "stealing".

Now to not lying. This is also a pillar of society. Societies are built on mutual trust. If we cannot rely on people to uphold their agreements and be good to their word, we again have to expend great efforts to protect ourselves in case they don't. Society as a whole already spends considerable time and money enforcing contracts and agreements. This needs to be kept to a minimum. Also, our justice system depends on truthful testimony. If it becomes generally believed that testimony in court is usually questionable, the whole notion of giving over the monopoly on force to the government breaks down. Each person then needs to become their own enforcer, or to hire it done. There are cases when even in fairly ordered societies we need to stand up to protect our interests, but we do not usually need to resort to force to do that. There are mechanisms within society to allow for that. A society that cannot rely on a basic standard of truthfulness is in serious trouble.

This also applies in personal relationships. If we cannot trust our friends and family, it can make all of lives miserable. Take the example of marriage. Implicit in the marriage vow is the mutual commitment that the two parties will reserve sexual expression for each other. This has clear survival advantages in terms of disease. It also makes it clear who is responsible for raising children. But many complications come into play. Risk of disease can be reduced with safe sex practices. Risk of unwanted babies can be reduced with birth control. So the harm of sexual adventures or "seeking comfort elsewhere when you can't find it at home" can be reduced in terms of pure survival issues. But sex is also tied to romantic love and to the idea of a life long partnership. If we cannot trust our partner in this, what about in other things? Do they really love me if they would betray me in this? It is possible to imagine other arrangements for sex, child rearing, life partnerships, and romance, but the institution of marriage has been very powerful, possibly because it combines all these aspects. It is a foundation of most societies, and it is built on mutual trust.

Still, there are times when lying seems justified. We would all feel justified in lying to prevent a killing, for example. If a killer asks where a potential victim is, we would feel justified in saying that we don't know where they are, even if we do. In war spies feel very justified in lying to the enemy. Even many of the social niceties involve lying or at least not telling the complete truth. There are many examples of how brutal honesty can undermine friendships and basic social harmony. But we must be very careful that a line is not crossed where lying becomes so prevalent that the basic ties of trust on which society depends begin to break down.

Now to the golden rule. Treat others as you would like to be treated. There are forms of this rule in many societies. It implies many other basic rules, such as not killing, stealing, or lying, since we do not want to be killed, stolen from, or lied to. But it goes further to include a basic concept of reciprocity and fairness. It is also more positive. Instead of just listing what we should not do, it tells us what we should do. Not only do we need to avoid doing bad things to others, we also should do good to them as well. It also is more sweeping and general. If I do not like people backbiting about me, I should not backbite about them. If I would like to be treated with courtesy and respect, I should treat others with courtesy and respect. These are not laws, but they do improve the overall functioning of society and make it more pleasant for everyone.

But what if people do not treat me the way I want to be treated? According to the golden rule, I should still treat them as I would like to be treated. I do not turn nasty and seek revenge. I still treat them well. There is the danger here that people who do not follow this rule can take advantage of those who do. On the other hand, how can we improve the moral tone of our society if no one takes the first step? Someone needs to start the process. Also, if I stole from someone, would I want them to not prosecute? No, I would expect to be prosecuted. So the rule does not necessarily mean that I must let myself be trod on. At some point, I need to stand up and resist the abuse.

The next rule, do no harm, is also very general. It is harmful to kill, steal, and lie. It is also harmful to treat someone cruelly or to exploit the environment so that other species or future generations will suffer. We can also talk of not harming ourselves, so this could also cover bad personal habits like smoking and excessive drinking. This rule has an opposite function as well. It can be used to loosen traditional moral constraints. If something has been condemned for generations, we can ask what harm it does. If it is basically harmless, why not allow it? For example, dancing and playing cards have been considered bad by some in past generations. These restrictions loosened up as time went on and people saw that these practices where basically harmless and could be very enjoyable.

More recently, similar arguments have been made for opening up acceptance of different sexual orientations. Why should we condemn same sex sexual practices if there does not appear to be any harm in them? So gradually sexual orientation has lost some its moral dimension. It is just one of the many differences that people have. If it does no harm, why condemn it?

Related to this rule is the final one on our list: consider the consequences. In a sense this can be used as the general justification for all of the other rules. The other rules are good rules because if they were followed the consequences would be a greater chance of meeting our most basic desires. This rule also has a cautionary element. It suggests prudence and thinking thinks through before embarking on a course of action. This can be very useful in personal habits. I can hopefully weigh immediate gratification against future results. Finally, this rule opens up ethical considerations to empirical study because what consequences certain actions might have is an empirical question. Whether those consequence are desirable or not, however, is still a question for what we really want most out of life.