The Golden Rule and Tit for Tat
We all know “the Golden Rule” that the Lord Jesus taught, Luke 6:31:
And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise.
The Old Testament judge Samson articulated the opposite principle, which we might call “the Leaden Rule.” His rule plays an important role in modern game theory, and illustrates an important difference between biblical and modern thought.
Samson’s rule appears in Judges 15:11, where he justifies slaying the Philistines by noting,
As they did unto me, so have I done unto them.
He isn’t alone in promoting this principle. Just a few verses earlier (15:10), the Philistines came looking for him, proclaiming,
To bind Samson are we come up, to do to him as he hath done to us.
The Lord says, “Do to others as you would have them do to you.” Samson and the Philistines say, “Do to others as they have already done to you.” By every standard of biblical values, the Lord is right, and Samson is wrong.
Many social scientists today would disagree.
The Leaden Rule has a counterpart in modern game theory, in a simple game called the Prisoners’ Dilemma. You can read all the details here. The basic idea is that two people face the decision either to cooperate with one another or to betray each other, and the payoffs are set so that it’s in each person’s interest to betray. Though very simplistic, it has been extensively studied in an effort to understand how cooperation can arise in a competitive society.
If two people play the game repeatedly with each other, it turns out that the best rule to play is the Leaden Rule, or as it’s called in game theory, “Tit for Tat.” This rule says that if you move first, you cooperate, and after that you do whatever the other person did on the previous rule. “As he did unto me, so I will do unto him.” The rule punishes betrayal, and encourages cooperation, so that over the long run it leads to the emergence of widespread cooperative behavior. By contrast, anyone who plays the Golden Rule will quickly be exploited and destroyed, encouraging the spread of predatory behavior.
Did Samson and the Philistines have it right all along? Given the vulnerability of the Golden Rule, why would anyone ever follow it?
The answer goes to the heart of the difference between modern and biblical thought.
The success of the Leaden Rule over alternatives in game-theoretic experiments is based on the fundamental assumption that the world is a closed system. The only incentives and penalties are those that society establishes from within. In such a system, with no referee, the Golden Rule is suicide.
The Bible rejects this closed-world assumption. It teaches us that there is a sovereign lawgiver, who rewards the innocent and punishes the guilty. The Lord insists (Deut 32:35),
To me belongeth vengeance, and recompence.
The Scriptures are full of examples of people who have proved the principle of Gal 6:7-8,
7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. 8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Certainly, there are individual exceptions in peoples’ experiences in this life (and I’ll say more about those in a subsequent post). But ultimately, the Lord will enforce his standards (John 5:28-29):
the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, 29 And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.
In addition, and for the purposes of sociological insight perhaps more important, God judges nations on the basis of their response to his law. The parade example is Israel, which flourished when God’s standards were followed, and suffered national disaster when they were neglected.
We follow the Golden Rule, not because it leads other people to treat us well, but because we fear the One who gave the Rule in the first place. And we do not fear predatory behavior on the part of others, because we trust the rule-giver to defend us (Ps 56:11):
In God have I put my trust: I will not be afraid what man can do unto me.
This principle is a reflection of the most important truth in the Bible: God is the creator, and we are his creatures. He stands outside of our world, yet remains actively, causally involved in it. Only when we grasp this fundamental truth will we understand why the Golden Rule, contrary to modern game theory is a better idea than Tit for Tat. And we’ll understand a good deal more, as well.
February, 23rd 2010 at 1:11 pm
Cool….another “econ”-ish blog post! 😉 You don’t seem to have very high comment-traffic, so I’m not sure how widely you expect or encourage them, but I’ll throw my two cents into the mix since I’ve been reading a lot about game theory and Nash equilibrium lately….hopefully you don’t mind me chiming in.
I certainly agree that any worldview invoking external absolutes must look beyond temporal/worldly utilitarian considerations. My threshold starting question is typically whether I’m dealing with 1) a categorical “absolute” (in which case I’m prohibited from even considering things like degree, consequences, trade-offs, etc.), vs. 2) a non-absolute general “principle” (in which case I am permitted such inquiries…and indeed compelled to consider them in cases of tension/contradiction with any other Christian values).
My admittedly-cursory survey of Christian thought on this matter turns up two broad clusters of interpretations for this (as well as for related teachings like “turning the other cheek,” etc.):
1) that it’s an absolute, and one to be interpreted in superficial isolation (which incidentally would seem to lead to abject pacifism, notably a distinct minority view among sincere believers since Constantine-ish),
2) that it should be construed narrowly enough to be reconcilable with other biblically-based views on what God condones/requires in certain contexts, and/or that its language is insufficiently definitive to constitute a true absolute.
But lately, I’m wondering if Nash’s famed contribution the prisoner’s dilemma may have some analogous application to the Golden Rule; he posited that each party should ascertain what’s in his own interest by considering what the *other* party will do (to the extent knowable). But conversely, what if “how we would want to be treated” is inextricably linked to how we “treat others” in the first place? (For example, I may WANT someone to expel me from a church IF I become a persistently unrepentant sinner, or, I may WANT someone to use “just force” against me IF I were to act in unjust aggression; after all, Collingwood noted that pacifism is functionally an incitement to violence, and provoking sin is arguably sin…).
So, maybe it can be an “absolute” without much tension, if applied sufficiently thoroughly. Just a thought…
Best,
Ken
February, 24th 2010 at 7:04 am
Hi, Ken! I’m always glad to have comments and discussion. Characteristically, you raise some very thought-provoking issues. They deserve detailed discussion. But in the spirit of not missing the forest for the trees, I do think it’s important to highlight a few basic points:
A. The Golden Rule has a counterpart in Judges that is both very similar and very different. It is similar in its social context (what scholars would call _sitz im leben_): it’s a rule that defines the relation between my actions toward others and their actions toward me. Yet it’s different in both its temporal orientation (it looks toward the future rather than toward the past), and its polarity (it specifies charity rather than revenge).
B. Each principle is presented by a character with a very clear moral position. Samson, though holding the office of judge by divine appointment, is a travesty. He systematically violates every one of the conditions of the Nazarite vow that sets him apart as God’s servant. The author of Judges presents him as a moral and spiritual failure. The Lord Jesus is the sinless Son of God, our redeemer and our example. One might even say that Samson is an anti-type of the Lord, so directly opposite to his character that you can anticipate how one would behave by reversing the conduct of the other.
C. This contrast between the speakers conveys a value judgment on their respective rules. I wonder whether the Lord Jesus may not have had Samson’s rule in mind when he formulated his. Certainly he was thinking of the principle behind Samson’s rule when he uttered Matt 5:43-45:
43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45 That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
The contrast between Samson and the Lord Jesus, and the Lord’s explicit teaching in Matthew 5, lead us to recognize the moral bankruptcy of Samson’s rule. This is a literary conclusion about the two statements themselves in their shared biblical context, quite independent of any speculations on what I might or should really want others to do to me.
D. Clearly, Samson’s rule is isomorphic with Tit for Tat.
E. Combining C and D leads us to recognize the moral bankruptcy of Tit for Tat, and of the hopes for an atheistic explanation of the evolution of “morality” that humanistic society has built on it.
Thanks again for weighing in to the discussion!
February, 24th 2010 at 1:39 pm
Thanks, Van! Your additional analysis certainly helps to texturize the principle, especially with the context of the other relevant teaching.
I’m not sure to what extent I believe God might have ever utilized evolution (I often get disparaged from my left for maintaining He could have not, yet condemned from my right for not knowing whether He actually did), but I absolutely agree with your ultimate conclusion that any biological (e.g., mutual-survival instincts) or sociological (e.g., social contract theory) explanations of morality seem to lead to “Tit for Tat” which is indeed contrary to the Christian worldview (at least when done with *selfish* motives, as opposed to perhaps genuine concerns of promoting “just incentives”). Unfortunately, establishing that doesn’t necessarily resolve for me how best to interpret or apply the Golden Rule – except of course by providing a prominent counterexample.
[Interestingly (albeit slightly tangential), a 19th century French military strategist documented a pervasive phenomenon whereby most (75-80%) soldiers instinctively shoot-to-miss their enemies in war, presumably owing to some ingrained aversion to harming another; on the other hand, in WWI trench warfare, it was found that when people were near their enemies only transiently, all were quick to fire, but when the juxtaposition became more permanent, all realized it was in their mutual interest to refrain (i.e., “kill or be killed” became “live and let live”). Economists still use this to illustrate the difference between the short-term/one-time vs. long-term/multiple-iteration versions of the prisoner’s dilemma.]