Reply #12: The kid's statement

[markses]

Is not a restatement of the so-called Golden Rule, but rather draws a consequence of its violation. The so-called Golden Rule is not concerned with consequences, and is in fact opposed to thinking through the consequences of its violation (the consequence of punishment can be considered a violation of the Golden Rule, although it can also be considered otherwise, a Socrates argues to both Plotus and Callicles, for example, in the Gorgias).

In any case, one does not adhere to the Golden Rule because of the consequences of its violation, but rather because of the moral value of the rule itself. In other words, you refrain from hitting others NOT BECAUSE they will hit you back, but because it is wrong, pure and simple. In that sense, the kid is using a pragmatic criterion for behavior rather than an ethical criterion (Kant demonstrates the difference clearly in his Groundwork for a Metaphysics of Morals). To slyly quantify and calculate the possible punishment or consequences for an unethical act, and to determine your actions on that basis is precisely the unethical mode of behavior. "If you fuck wit peeps (and peeps does not mean "people," but "friends" or "allies" - it is always "my peeps"), they fuck wit choo" demonstrates a pragmatic view of behavior, with the consequences always looming, rather than an ethical view of behavior, which disregards consequences tout court.

Even in Kant's categorical imperative (will every action such that you will it to be universal) disregards consequences, so the examples people give of it - what happens if everybody cuts the line? - are incorrect, strictly speaking.