Ethical issues of the Phrase, "Do Good to Those Who do Good to You, and Harm to Those Who Harm You"

"Do good to those who do good to you, and harm to those who harm you."

This essay will be an exploration of the ethical viability of this statement through the evaluation of several ethical ideas and theories. Primarily, the statement suggests a necessity of the two separate points made within it: To do good to those who do good to you, but in doing so you must harm those who harm you. If you decide to act upon one half of this statement, then it seems not only logical but almost necessary and just to act upon the other half. Although momentarily the statements seem reasonable and sensible, in many respects the ambiguity and simplicity of the statement make it inapplicable to such a vast and varied society.

Hobbes' theory of social contract claims that the justification for any form of political obligation is that men are naturally self-interested and therefore always attempting to further their own needs. However, this is not always possible and hence social contracts are formed between individuals and groups to ensure equal benefits for both parties. The statement above could possibly be a reflection of a social contract, as Hobbes' believed that the human use of words such as `love' and `hate' are merely words which we just use to describe that which we are attracted to and repelled by. Simply, moral terms therefore do not describe some objective state of affairs - but are reflections of personal taste and preference. Hence the statement above, which refers to both `doing good' and `doing bad' are not universal imperatives - but reflections of the specific intentions and desires of the contract and the individuals involved. Furthermore this raises the issue, as to whether one can do good or harm anyone who was done so to ...

... middle of paper ...

...ng surprising here: it is tough making it alone and so there are good reasons why humans will do better if they do co-operate with others. But does this prove that co-operation is just another form of selfishness that we care only about our own interests and we co-operate in order to further those interests? In effect an answer to this depends entirely upon the individual; such an ambiguous statement undoubtedly entails a great difference in answers and interpretation. Although such a statement seems accurate both as a principle and an ideal, it lacks justification to compel one to act in such a way and furthermore lacks consideration of subjective opinions and specific situations. In essence, such a minimal statement cannot operate amongst a complexity of human indifferences, ideals, emotions and individualism and hence is intrinsically flawed in its application.