Personal Narrative: The Golden Rule

1. The voting game was interesting, and it was an analogy to real life situations. Initially I was confused and really did not understand the game. At first I assumed that if I voted the number 1 I would not receive any money, and if I voted the number 0, I would receive money. I was thinking this was a tricky game, and everyone would vote 0 because if they voted 1 they wouldn’t receive any money. I was wrong. Only fifteen students voted for the number 0: the rest voted for the number 1. I received $30,000 while the people who voted the number 1 received $38,000, $8,000 more! I then understood the game and how I should vote, but then a classmate pleaded his case and hoped everyone would vote 0, so the money we received would increase and we

would all get an equal amount. Then we were asked to vote again with our eyes closed. Everyone voted 0 except one student. That was reality. There will always be a greedy person that will take the chance to make more money if given the opportunity.
2. For the people who voted 0, I believe our intentions were the same. We were trying to work together so we would all receive an equal and high amount of money. For those who voted the number 1, my vote gave them $8,000 more of a profit. They became richer because of my decision and of those who voted 0.
3. Firstly, voting your true intention isn’t just an ethical question, it’s a practical one. Voting ceases to have meaning if a large number of people do not vote for their primary preference, but vote to block other outcomes. As Jonathan Haidt states in an article interview, “the ethics of voting depends on which view of voting you possess. Many people treat voting as a strategic game, a way in which people are trying to realistically pursue either their self-interest or their moral goals.” Those who voted 1 took the opportunity to make more money. It is not unethical, just greedy in my opinion.
4. I believe that members of society have a choice to take actions that impose a cost on others. It all comes down to your personal goals and how you want to achieve them. Will you want to achieve your goals and not consider who you may hurt or affect in the process? I would hope and believe that members of society should take others into consideration before taking action on any decision. If their decision harms others or affects their livelihood, I would hope they would reconsider their actions.
5. I wish that other participants would have voted 0 so we all get an equally large sum of money. I like to believe we all had the same moral intentions of sticking together and receiving an equal outcome, but that was not the case. People who voted the number 1 voted with their self-interest in mind. Trying to decide which other people are voting for, then strategically casting your vote appropriately, makes the error of assuming that your vote is independent of other people’s votes. But other people are going through similar thought processes you are. So other people’s votes are correlated with yours. That’s not to say that by the way you vote you cause them to vote that way, just that starting from the assumption that their votes are mostly fixed while yours is not is a considerable error. Others picked 1 because there is a larger payout. The amount of money we all earn depends on how many people vote 0. Students think it is a risk they are willing to take because there is a larger reward. Even if only one person votes 0, they will still make more of a profit than voting 0 themselves.
6.

I would hope that everyone behaves as we wish others to behave, because it shows you have integrity. Self-interest is not unethical; if you do not behave as we wish others to behave that is your personal choice and based on your ethical values. Many would think of “The Golden Rule”. However, it is easier to tell others to live by this rule than to actually put this rule into action. According to a newsletter written by William Scott Green, called Parsing Reciprocity: Questions for the Golden Rule, “The Golden Rule is easier to endorse than to enact. As a general moral principle or as an abstract statement of ethical value, the Golden Rule makes intuitive sense and enjoys wide acceptance across religions and cultures. But the generality and abstraction that enable its broad appeal make the Golden Rule problematic as a directive for practical action. Indeed, on Gert’s analysis, it is possible that the Golden Rule must be read figuratively or very expansively in order to be used, surely a challenge for any basic moral principle. The Golden Rule can be accepted unambiguously but applied only after considerable reflection and qualification.” After reading this article, it confirms to me that it is easier to tell others to behave as we wish others to behave than to actually do it. People will live by “The Golden Rule” only if they choose to in certain situations. My answer to this question does not conflict with my answer to question

3.
7. Individuals do not have the duty to sacrifice for the sake of others because it could affect them or their life in a negative way. We all have a free will. If you choose to sacrifice for the sake of others, it would be your own choice. However, when the cost outweighs the reward, you should take others into consideration. For example, as mentioned in our textbook, “…people are concerned about the well-being of others and possess a conscience. These psychological mechanisms restrain people from exercising their liberty in a manner that harms others.” It is important to consider how our actions and decisions could affect other people’s lives.