It struck me lately how there is a strange similarity between The Golden Rule (TGR) and Eye for an Eye (E4E), and yet they are obviously not identical.
How is the Golden Rule different from Eye for an Eye?
Does following one of them necessarily entail following the other?
At First Glance
Let's take a look at the two rules worded similarly so as to get an initial idea of their relation.
TGR: Treat others how you want to be treated.At first glance each of the rules seems to exhibit a reciprocal structure: whatever I do to/for others I would hope they'd do to/for me, and so if I were to take someone's eye out, I would hope they'd take out mine as well.
E4E: Treat others how they have treated you.
Additionally there is a noticeable semblance to Newton's 3rd Law of Motion:
For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.But does Newton's 3rd Law really apply to human interaction?
The Difference
Whether the law applies or not, it definitely helps to illuminate a major difference between TGR and E4E.
That is: while TGR is concerned with an individual who is originating action, E4E is concerned with someone who is committed to reaction.
In fact, a follower of E4E could be seen as believing that Newton's 3rd Law does apply to human interaction, and that it is their responsibility to enact something akin to willed karma anytime a wrong is done to them.
Following TGR − on the other hand − does not lock you into any reaction whatsoever, as it only concerns action.
Logical Entailment?
Knowing what we now know about TGR, E4E, action, and reaction, can we now answer the question "does following either rule require following the other?"
Let us say that someone is a staunch believer in E4E, that they are absolutely convinced that any wrongdoer deserves to have equal wrong(s) done to them. What − if anything − does this say about their perspective toward TGR?
Imagine asking them "Why Eye for an Eye?" They could respond with "Treat others how you want to be treated." Almost as if E4E could be seen as a sort of TGR enforcement (AKA willed karma). It seems like if one is a follower of E4E and they have − for the most part − a consistent ethics, then they would also follow TGR.
Not all humans are consistent though, and some have double standards for sure, so maybe they never follow TGR but always follow E4E.
On the flipside, it seems that a true follower of TGR would not mind E4E being inflicted upon them. If they did mind, it would only prove that they were not truly following TGR to begin with. However, this does not mean that they will necessarily enact E4E when given the choice.
Apparently, since TGR concerns action and E4E concerns reaction, neither rule necessarily implies the other. But, the rules are not inconsistent with each other either.
Given all of that, it seems that the most reasonable choice is to follow TGR with or without E4E; and never to follow E4E without TGR because that would be hypocritical.