[Colorado-Talk] The Golden Rule, the Platinum Rule, and the Right to Speak for Ourselves

[Curtis Chong]

Greetings everyone:
 
In the June edition of the Braille Monitor, there is a very thoughtful and
on-point article written by Gary Wunder which directly addresses a
philosophical point that we often make in the National Federation of the
Blind. I think this article serves as an excellent item for discussion at
our local chapter meetings.
 
The Golden Rule, the Platinum Rule, and the Right to Speak for Ourselves
<https://nfb.org/images/nfb/publications/bm/bm26/bm2607/bm260711.htm> 
 
The Golden Rule, the Platinum Rule, and the Right to Speak for Ourselves
by Gary Wunder
The Golden Rule is one of the most beautiful moral teachings ever given to
humanity: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It is simple,
memorable, and powerful. It calls us away from selfishness and toward
sympathy. It asks us to imagine ourselves in the place of another person and
then act with the kindness, fairness, and mercy we would want if the
situation were reversed.
There is a reason the rule is called golden. It shines. It reminds us that
other people are not obstacles, tools, cases, problems, or projects. They
are people. They have feelings. They have hopes. They have fears. They can
be hurt. They can be encouraged. They can be respected or dismissed. The
Golden Rule asks us to begin with this basic truth: I should not treat
another person in a way that I would regard as cruel, degrading, dishonest,
or dismissive if it were done to me.
For this reason, nothing in this article should be read as an attack on the
Golden Rule. The world would be far better if more of us lived by it. Public
life would be kinder. Families would be stronger. Workplaces would be more
decent. Schools and other public institutions would be more humane. The
Golden Rule has restrained many a cruel impulse and inspired many an act of
generosity. It deserves our respect.
But there is another rule, sometimes called the Platinum Rule: do unto
others as they would have you do unto them. Its purpose is not to replace
the Golden Rule but to carry it further. The Golden Rule charges me to look
within myself and ask, "How would I want to be treated?" The Platinum Rule
charges me to look beyond myself and ask, "How does this person want to be
treated?" It requires not only sympathy but curiosity. It requires not only
kindness but humility. It requires not only a good heart but a willingness
to listen.
This distinction matters deeply in the lives of blind people. A sighted
person who lives by the Golden Rule may sincerely want to help. That person
may say, "If I were blind, I would want someone to take my arm, lead me
across the street, order for me in the restaurant, tell me where to sit,
explain what I cannot do, and protect me from embarrassment." These impulses
may come from kindness. They may be rooted in a desire to prevent danger or
discomfort. But they may also be rooted in misunderstanding. The sighted
person is imagining blindness from the outside. They are asking, "What would
frighten me if I suddenly could not see?" That is not the same as asking,
"What does this blind person know, want, need, and prefer?"
This is where the Platinum Rule becomes especially valuable. It says: do not
merely imagine yourself as blind and then act from that imagined fear. Get
to know blind people. Ask us. Listen to us. Learn from our experience.
Understand that blindness is not a costume sighted people can put on for an
hour and then understand. Real curiosity demands fuller answers than a
temporary simulation can provide.
Blindness is not best understood by closing one's eyes and trying to cross a
room. It is understood by listening to people who live with blindness every
day. It is understood by learning from blind people who work, raise
families, travel, read, cook, teach, lead, worship, vote, love, argue,
build, and contribute. It is understood by recognizing that we are not
symbols of tragedy, courage, helplessness, or inspiration. We are human
beings.
There is a familiar saying about walking a mile in another person's shoes.
It is meant to encourage empathy, and in that sense it is useful. But we
should be honest about its limits. We can never fully walk a mile in another
person's shoes. At best we can listen, observe, learn, and be changed by
what the other person tells us. Otherwise, taking another's shoes only
leaves them without shoes and with a mile of distance between us.
Blind people do not need the public to pretend to be blind for a day and
then announce what blindness means. We need people to listen to those who
live with blindness every day. We need people to understand that the meaning
of blindness is not best defined by fear, pity, or cinematic imagination. It
is best understood through the lived experience of blind people themselves.
This is why the philosophy of the National Federation of the Blind matters.
We are not an organization speaking for the blind from the outside. We are
the blind speaking for ourselves. When we say that we are the voice of the
nation's blind, we do not mean that every blind person thinks exactly alike.
No group of human beings does. We mean that blind people must be central in
defining what we need, what we want, and what kind of future we intend to
build.
This principle does not reject help from sighted people. Far from it. Blind
people want and need allies, friends, teachers, employers, family members,
public officials, readers, drivers, technology developers, and neighbors. We
need people who care enough to stand with us. We need people who will use
their influence when it can help open doors. We need people who will read a
document; describe a picture; offer transportation; support sound public
policy; and make room for us in schools, workplaces, churches, and civic
life.
But help must not become control. Assistance must not become ownership.
Friendship must not become management. The Golden Rule may move a sighted
person to offer help. The Platinum Rule teaches that the help should be
shaped by what the blind person says is helpful.
There is a difference between saying, "May I help you?" and seizing
someone's arm. There is a difference between saying, "Would you like me to
read the menu?" and ordering for someone without asking. There is a
difference between saying, "The empty chair is two steps to your left," and
pushing someone into it. There is a difference between making information
accessible and deciding that a blind person need not have the information at
all. The first approach respects the person. The second approach treats the
person as an object of custodial care, or worse, of neglect justified as
realism.
This distinction matters beyond social courtesy. It affects education,
employment, transportation, technology, rehabilitation, and public policy.
If sighted people decide what blind people need without listening to blind
people, even good intentions can produce bad systems. Schools may protect a
blind child from ordinary responsibilities and call it compassion. Potential
employers may assume that blindness means inability, call it realism, and
spare the blind person not only from failure, as they intend, but also from
success, which they consider impossible. Public agencies may provide
services that keep blind people dependent and call it care. Technology
companies may build inaccessible products and call blind people a small
market. In each case, people may believe they are being reasonable. Some may
even believe they are being kind. But kindness that refuses to listen is
still a barrier.
Federation philosophy challenges this. We know that blindness is not the
characteristic that defines our future. We know that low expectations create
obstacles between blind people and our dreams. This is not a denial that
blindness has practical consequences. Blindness changes how we read, travel,
gather information, and perform many tasks. But it does not reduce us to
helplessness. With proper training, opportunity, accessible tools, and
public attitudes that make room for our competence, we who are blind can
live full and meaningful lives.
This is why the Platinum Rule is not merely a matter of politeness. It is a
matter of justice. If you assume that I need what you would need if you
suddenly lost your sight, you may offer me pity when I need opportunity. You
may offer protection when I need training. You may offer charity when I need
a job. You may offer a handout when I need a chance to give. You may offer
sympathy when I need respect.
Blind people do not want to be cast permanently as receivers. We want to be
givers. We want to serve on boards, raise children, pay taxes, teach
classes, run businesses, lead organizations, comfort friends, solve
problems, and contribute to our communities. Sometimes we need assistance,
as everyone does. But needing assistance in some circumstances is not the
same as being needy as an identity. Every human being is dependent in some
way. The question is whether dependence is treated as a mutual part of human
life or as a reason to lower expectations.
The Golden Rule can help sighted people begin the journey. "If I were
treated with contempt, I would be hurt, so I should not treat blind people
with contempt. If I would want access to information, I should support
access for blind people. If I would want the chance to work, I should not
deny that chance to someone else." This is a worthy beginning.
The Platinum Rule asks for the next step: "Let me learn what blind people
themselves say about blindness. Let me listen when they say that pity is not
respect. Let me believe them when they say that low expectations hurt more
than the absence of eyesight. Let me understand that help is best when it is
requested, negotiated, and respectful. Let me recognize that blind people
are not all alike and that one blind person may want assistance that another
does not. Let me ask rather than assume."
This approach also requires blind people to speak. We cannot demand that
others listen if we are unwilling to explain. We must say what we need in
public policy and in personal interaction. We must teach the public when the
public misunderstands us. We must elect leaders, build our organization,
write articles, testify before legislatures, mentor one another, and speak
directly in the situations of daily life. The right to speak for ourselves
carries with it the responsibility to speak clearly, honestly, and with
enough patience to change minds. We must not make the public a victim of our
preconceived notions of who they are but practice the Platinum Rule with as
much vigor as we wish to benefit from it.
Of course, the public must be willing to receive what we say. Listening is
more than hearing words. A person can hear a blind person say, "I can do
this," and still think, "That is brave, but not realistic." A person can
hear us say, "We want opportunity," and still think, "Of course they say
that, but they are very limited." A person can hear us say, "Blindness is
not the tragedy you imagine," and still hold tightly to the assumption that
blindness must be a life of sadness, dependence, and diminished humanity.
That kind of listening is not listening with both the head and the heart.
The head is needed to understand the argument. The heart is needed to accept
its legitimacy. The head may follow the logic that training, opportunity,
and access make a difference. The heart must be willing to let go of pity as
the central response to blindness. The head may understand that blind people
can use canes, Braille, screen readers, guide dogs, Structured Discovery
training, and other tools. The heart must be willing to believe that a blind
life can be a full life.
This is where attitudes matter. In the Federation we have long understood
that the real problem of blindness is not the physical absence of sight but
the misunderstandings and low expectations that surround it. We believe
blind people have value, and we act to enhance that value and bring sighted
people to recognize it. That work requires both blind and sighted people to
change. Blind people must reject the limitations imposed by fear and low
expectations. Sighted people must reject the assumption that they already
know what blindness means.
The Platinum Rule is useful because it reminds us that love must learn.
Respect must listen. Generosity must be guided by the person receiving it.
The question is not only, "Would I want someone to help me?" The question is
also, "What kind of help does this person want? What kind of help preserves
dignity? What kind of help opens doors rather than closing them? What kind
of help allows this person to become more free?"
A blind person standing at a street corner may want assistance crossing.
They may not. A blind student may need a book in an accessible format, not a
reduced assignment. A blind employee may need accessible software, not a
reassignment to fewer duties or less responsibility. A blind traveler may
need accurate directions, not someone grabbing his suitcase. A blind voter
may need a private and independent way to mark a ballot, not someone else
deciding that marking their ballot for them is good enough. A blind child
may need Braille, cane travel, high expectations, and chores at home, not
sentimental protection from ordinary life.
The same principle applies to organized advocacy. When blind people speak
collectively through the National Federation of the Blind, we are not being
ungrateful for the help of sighted people. We are exercising the basic human
right to define our own needs. Public officials, educators, employers, and
service providers should welcome this. They should want policy shaped by
those who live with its consequences. They should want programs tested
against real experience. They should want blind people at the table: not as
decoration, not as testimony after the decision has already been made, but
as a dominant force in deciding what the decision should be.
Good intentions are a wonderful starting point. They are not the
destination. A person may intend kindness and still block a doorway. A
teacher may intend protection and still deny a child literacy. An employer
may intend fairness and still never interview a qualified blind applicant. A
public official may intend efficiency and still create a process blind
people cannot use. Intention matters, but results matter too. The Golden
Rule may purify our intentions. The Platinum Rule is more likely to improve
our results.
So let us keep the Golden Rule. Let us honor it. Let us teach it to our
children. Let us practice its call to decency, sympathy, and fairness. But
let us also understand that the Golden Rule reaches its fullest expression
when it leads us to the Platinum Rule. If I truly want to treat others as I
would want to be treated, then I should want others to learn who I am before
deciding what I need. I should want them to ask, listen, and respect my
answer. I should want them to see me as a person, not as a category.
That is what we ask. See us as human beings. Listen to us as people with
knowledge. Help when help is wanted. Step back when independence is called
for. Join us when justice requires collective action. Do not make blindness
smaller than it is by pretending it has no consequences, but do not make it
larger than it is by turning it into the defining fact of our existence.
The Golden Rule says, "I will remember that you are like me." The Platinum
Rule says, "I will also remember that you are not me." Both truths matter.
We share a common humanity, and we live that humanity in different
circumstances. The best relationships honor both.
For blind people, this means that the public must move beyond pity to
partnership, beyond assumption to understanding, beyond charity to
opportunity, and beyond speaking for us to listening when we speak for
ourselves. That is not a rejection of the Golden Rule. It is its flowering.
It is the Golden Rule made more careful, more humble, and more effective.
And if we can live there-where kindness listens, where help respects, where
blind people define our own needs, and where sighted people join us as
partners rather than managers-we will have moved closer to the world both
rules are trying to build: a world in which every person is treated not as
we imagine them to be, but as they truly are.
 
  _____  

 
Kind regards,
 
Curtis Chong
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20260628/91a2cd59/attachment-0001.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 172137 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://nfbnet.org/pipermail/colorado-talk_nfbnet.org/attachments/20260628/91a2cd59/attachment-0001.png>