Utilitarianism Vs. The Golden Rule

“The question is, does Utilitarianism and the Golden rule have the same outcome. Why or why not.”

As little children, we were all taught vehemently the golden rule and the possibilities of positive effects on society. Once childish rhetoric, it has been only until recently that our eyes have been opened to the true and vast possibilities of what the golden rule could actually do for our society, as a community, a state, or even a nation. On the other hand, as grown adults and being introduced to other philosophical outcomes, such as utilitarianism, we see an ever growing divide in opinions as we measure out what is practical and what is merely wishful thinking.

Utilitarianism, in a nutshell, would be the greatest good for the greatest amount of people. A great example of this would be the United States government, a type of democracy based off of utilitarian values. However, this still leaves room for minorities, more importantly disgruntled minorities, for what may seem to be the greatest amount of good for the greatest amount of people will almost assuredly place the remaining minorities at a disadvantage. Although this country has made astronomical advances in equality as a nation, there will always be those disadvantaged by the governmental system; it is inherent in utilitarianistic beliefs, as well as democracy. For such a thing as a perfect democracy cannot exist, there will never be a time where everyone is satisfied. Winston Churchill once said, “If it was perfect, it wouldn’t be called a democracy.” Even though harsh it may seem, utilitarianistic views is the most practical of two choices previously mentioned, as the Golden rule is merely an idealistic wish for those helpless hopefuls.

The golden rule states “do unto others as you would have done unto yourself,” would a wonderful way to live life, but is frankly impossible. If it were possible, the world would have already achieved it by now, but there is one thing standing in the way. Us. Such philosophers as Thomas Hobbes and many others have agreed on the idea that man is born evil, constantly striving to fulfill his own needs and willing to disregard others whilst striving for personal gain. While taking this into consideration, and factoring this world’s historical record for destruction as well as the modern day criminal rates, plainly you can see that there is no chance for the Golden rule. To impose this as the only law would be to ask for someone to take advantage of your blind trust, and, dare I say, stupidity, for that is what happens so often these days, trust is so often mistaken for stupidity it is quite a shame. The only way for the golden rule to be used without total destruction ensuing would be to follow the ideals of those such as St. Thomas Aquinas, or John Locke, who both to a degree agree that man is born inherently good, but is shaped by the community he is raised in, which could result in both a good or horrible outcome. A good example of this would be the propagation of poverty, seeing as those who are born into poverty stricken homes with decimated family relations often further this cycle once they come off age, reciprocating only more poverty. Seeing as this is the case and a major part of our reality today, the only way the golden rule could be effective and result in a positive outcome in anyway we would have to take drastic measures and “jumpstart” our society, totally starting anew. This, of course, will not happen anytime soon.

Both completely different things, such as utilitarianism and the beliefs of the golden rule could not possibly sustain the same outcome. The fact of the matter is, utilitarianism is the most practical, and most successful, theory of governmental discipline wherein the standards of the golden rule are so impractical that it results in a form of idealistic rather than practical viewpoint and would have such devastating effect on today’s society that it will be forever the wishful thinking of childish hopefuls, and nothing else.