In his 2018 classic, Skin in the Game, Nassim Taleb brilliantly shows how risk management

applies to many aspects of life in the most practical terms. His is wide-ranging discussion
touches on everything from academics to the Vietnam War. Taleb's aim is to show that a
society, or indeed an individual, can or really be free to the extent that it correctly manages
risks and apportions rewards.

Opening this series of essays, Taleb gives an account a what he calls symmetry. He describes
it as “fairness, justice, responsibility and reciprocity” (p.3). Properly symmetrical societal
relationships would mean that we are prepared to take responsibility for the results of our
actions and not look to offload risk onto others, that were brought about by our actions. For
Taleb the people worst at assessing risk are those without skin in the game, who know they
have nothing to lose from their ideas and decisions.

In establishing the nature of symmetry Taleb makes reference to the Golden Rule introduced
by Jesus in the book of Matthew (Matthew 7:10). Taleb states the ‘rule’ as do to others as
you would have them do unto you. He places the Golden Rule alongside other similar moral
sentiments such as the code of Hammurabi, stating that the former is a development or
“sweetening” of the latter. (p.19)

Here Taleb introduces what he calls the Silver Rule, which he concludes as being more robust
than the Golden Rule. The Silver Rule says: “do not treat others the way you would not like
them to treat you”. This seems very much an agreeable and sensible position to take in social
affairs.

The Silver Rule dissuades us from seeking out the best for another person, since we may not
know what is best for them. By its nature the rule curtails positive action and promotes a live-
and-let-live standard in social interactions. This of course is the basis of what are called
negative rights, which limit the actions of one group on another group in order that everyone
might live freely. Think of the freedom of religion which allows people to freely make
associations with whatever religions they wish and without compulsion from external actors.
This is why Taleb sees the rule as a more robust a framework in social relations than the
Golden Rule.

Government bureaucrats are perhaps the best example of Taleb's concern about
interventionism that leads to asymmetries in life. A government bureaucrat may consider
what is best for you and then proceed to create policies which affect you but not the
bureaucrat. Taleb concludes that the Silver Rule establishes symmetry in society, which is the
basis of a truly free democracy.

Some have taken the Silver Rule to be superior to the Golden Rule. I don’t believe that this is
the aim of Taleb’s argument. However, I do think that Taleb’s move to establish the Silver
Rule as the part of the foundation of his view and the subsequent misinterpretations of his
position, stem from a misunderstanding of the Golden Rule.

I argue that there is no need for a Silver Rule and more than this, the Golden Rule is far more
robust than a simplistic reading of the text would suggest.
The Law in context

As with any dialogical text, one must understand any statement within the context of a flow
of thought. The Golden Rule is no less to be understood in the light of the sermon from which
it has been extracted.

In Matthew 5, shortly into his sermon on the mount, Jesus exhorts his listeners to keep the
Law handed down by God to Moses (Exodus 20:2–17 and Deuteronomy 5:6–21). They are
not only to keep the Law but to do it perfectly in order to be righteous. The Law is
uncompromising in its demands on its adherents. We are to be morally perfect just as God is
morally perfect. (Matthew 5:48)

The Law given to Moses is summarised in the 10 commandments listed below.

1.   I am the Lord your God: you shall have no other gods but me.

2.   You shall not make for yourself any idol.

3.   You shall not dishonour the name of the Lord your God.

4.   Remember the Sabbath and keep it holy.

5.   Honour your father and mother.

6.   You shall not commit murder.

7.   You shall not commit adultery.

8.   You shall not steal.

9.  You shall not be a false witness.

10. You shall not covet anything which belongs to your neighbour.

Notice that the first four commandments govern the listener’s relationship with God and the
last six speak about relationships with other people. This two-part structure comes into play
later in the book of Matthew when Jesus discusses the Law.

It should be evident that the last six commands relate directly to Taleb’s Silver Rule and his
concern for a moral interventionism that may result if we were to take a positive approach to
social interactions by acting on what we think best for others. These commandments are all
stated negatively, prohibiting certain behaviours in relation to people. Behaviours which are
explicitly promoted are found in the previous four, which exhort us to love God faithfully.

The Law condensed

To give further context to my argument we need a fuller understanding of Jesus’ view of the
Law and the 10 commandments.
Later in the book of Matthew Jesus summarily dispatches the religious mob looking to catch
him out in a game of verbal minesweeper. Following this exchange, Jesus enters a dialogue
with a religious leader:

"Hearing that Jesus had silenced the Sadducees, the Pharisees got together. One of
them, an expert in the law, tested him with this question: “Teacher, which is the
greatest commandment in the Law?”

Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and
with all your mind.’ This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is
like it: ‘Love your neighbour as yourself.’ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these
two commandments.”

Matthew 22:34-40

In our day of 140-character limits in communication, Jesus’ view of the Law is both pithy
and profound. He summarises the first four commands as a complete love for God and the
last six and as love for other people.

The Golden Rule in context

The final piece of the puzzle in my argument goes back to the Golden Rule as recorded in the
book of Matthew. I will quote the passage and the words immediately following:

“in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the
Law and the Prophets.”

The operative phrase “this sums up the Law and the Prophets” relates to the previously
quoted phrase from Jesus about the Law. The Golden Rule is also a summary of the Law.
Specifically, it is a summary of the last six commandments which relate to behaviours
between people.

The last six commandments, far from promoting positive behaviours, explicitly prohibit
behaviours that would harm others. In light of Jesus’ summary of these negative
commandments as ‘loving your neighbour’, it is reasonable to take the Golden Rule as doing
more than promote a positive approach to social interactions. It also promotes a negative
approach that would limit behaviours harmful to our neighbours.

It is not my intention to go more into the messages in Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, but a
cursory reading of chapters 5 and 6 of Matthew shows how Jesus ramps up the requirements
of the law. Not only are we to ‘do no harm’, we are to be morally perfect. For Jesus it isn’t
acceptable that we don't commit murder, we are not even to be scornful in our speech to
others (Matthew 5:21-26). It is not acceptable that we avoid adultery, we are to avoid even
lustful glances at anyone other than our spouse (Matthew 5:27-30). Jesus shows that moral
rectitude is not simply about our actions towards others, but it fundamentally rests on our
thinking and volition, or the heart in old parlance.
Taken in its proper context, the Golden Rule encapsulates the robustness of the Silver Rule in
restricting our tendencies towards interventionism and pushes us towards a fundamental
change in our orientation towards others in ways that do not restrict their freedom or ours. It
brings balance to the symmetries of life, which hold us accountable for our ideas and
decisions.

The Golden and Silver Rules are not two sides of the same coin or progressive improvements
in an evolutionary line of moral sentiments. They are more akin to positions on an Olympic
podium with the highest platform reserved only for the best athletes - those with skin in the
game.