The Pew Research Center recently surveyed people in 25 countries, asking them to rate the morals and ethics of their fellow citizens. The results were striking: the United States was the only country in which a majority (53%) rated their compatriots’ morals and ethics as somewhat bad or very bad. In contrast, 92% of Canadians rated those of their fellow citizens as somewhat good or very good.

Compassion should be the common ground where all sides can meet. But calling for compassion or for people to follow the Golden Rule is frequently misunderstood in two ways: (1) that we must allow others to do whatever they want, much like assuming that because I once wanted to stick a fork in an electrical socket as a child, I should let my own children do the same; and (2) that if you personally wouldn’t do something, then others shouldn’t do it either, like a waiter refusing to serve broccoli simply because they don’t like it. As Golden Rule scholar Harry Gensler explains, the principle is about consistency: treat others only in ways you would consent to being treated if you were in their position. To remain consistent, we must either change how we treat others or change what we are willing to accept in return.

The current crisis with Iran offers a useful example of how to apply the Golden Rule consistently. Imagine, for a moment, that NATO countries concluded President Trump was a danger, believing he was attacking other nations, damaging the global economy, and bypassing the checks and balances meant to limit presidential power. Based on that belief (whether accurate or not), they decide to bomb the United States in an effort to kill President Trump and other top Republican leaders, hoping this would enable Democrats to seize control of the government. Many Americans, Democrats and Republicans alike, would be outraged – and rightly so. By the same logic, we should not support taking similar actions against another country. This does not mean that the other country is blameless or that we must ignore the danger their leaders represent. Rather, it means we should respond in ways we would want other nations to use if they believed we posed a threat to them.

That example is extreme, but what about our everyday interactions? How do we apply the Golden Rule consistently in daily life? According to Gensler, the process involves four steps. First, we must gain knowledge – about other people, cultures, beliefs, policies, and especially how our actions affect them. The source of this knowledge matters; it must come from accurate and trustworthy sources. As a college professor, I see part of my role as providing that kind of information, not just job-specific skills. Diverse student bodies and General Education courses expose students to new perspectives and ideas. (Gensler’s first step inspired me to begin writing newspaper columns; once I made compassion a central focus of my life, I wanted to help the broader public (not just my students) gain knowledge.)

Second, we must use our imagination. With these new understandings, we try to imagine what it is like to be in someone else’s position. Third, we test for consistency. After imagining ourselves in another’s situation, would we want to be treated the way we are treating them? If not, we have two options: change how we treat others or change what we are willing to accept in return. Finally, we must act consistently. For instance, if we choose not to help others, we should be prepared for others not to help us, and vice versa.

Readers should note that none of these steps requires us to judge whether someone is “deserving” of our help. If we are speeding and lose control of our car, we expect someone to stop and assist us. We certainly wouldn’t expect others to drive past saying, “Well, they did that to themselves – I’m not helping them.” Ignoring people in need should not be the American way, nor should it be the Christian way.

Ultimately, living out the Golden Rule requires a willingness to see our fellow citizens not as adversaries but as people trying to navigate the world with their own fears, hopes, and experiences. When we ground our judgements in genuine knowledge, stretch our imagination toward understanding, and test our actions for true consistency, we create space for compassion to reshape our interactions. Compassion does not demand agreement, nor does it require abandoning our convictions – it simply asks us to treat others with the same fairness, humility, and respect we would want for ourselves. If more of us embraced this practice, we could begin chipping away at the polarization that divides us and move closer to a society where trust and goodwill replace suspicion and resentment.

Dr. Raymond E. Barranco is professor of sociology at Mississippi State University. He earned his Ph.D. in Sociology from Louisiana State University, and his work has been published in multiple criminology and sociology journals. Dr. Barranco invites readers to send feedback and sociology-related questions you’d like him to address in this space to [email protected].

READER FAVORITES

• 

  Our View: Betting scandal throws sports integrity for a loss

  By Dispatch Editorial Board • 1 day ago