The Golden Rule is a universally recognized guideline for proper ethical behavior. Many support it because it has a feel-good factor, and this rule is viewed as ‘good’. Unfortunately, this ethic of reciprocity may not always work. It seems to be merely a goodwill gesture, and is not necessarily a practical belief to enforce. There are different ways that people seem to practice the Golden Rule. There is the high end of the rule, in which we are taught to be kind to our enemies. While this action might be truly selfless, this aspect has often been the catalyst of historical atrocities. Indoctrinated masses, failing to revolt against corrupt and ruthless rulers, have easily been led into war and oppression. In A History of Sin, Oliver Thompson says, “At its higher level it becomes more generous and less mercenary, recognizing the superior quality of idea as formulated for instance by Lao Tzu in ancient China: 'For good return good: for evil return good’”. (Thompson, 1993) This impractical ethic has only ever been truly realized by asocial groups who tend to break away from the rest of the world. Rather than creating a working ethic that increases the overall goodness of the world, they abandon the world to the more cruel leaders who they fail to oppose. (Crabtree, 2001) On the lower end of the Golden Rule, it is stated that you should do to others as they do to you. This more common form of the ethic of reciprocity is as impractical as the first. As an example, soldiers at war are going to have a different view of what may or may not be acceptable. Fighting for their own survival, they are willing to attack others and defend themselves. Taken literally, the ethic of reciprocity states that it is acceptable for the soldiers to attack others, simply because it is something they are expecting to happen to them. Consider those who expect others to