RECIPROCITY, Alex Koonthanam

The term reciprocity is derived from the Latin word, reciprocus, meaning alternating. Taking a closer look, reciprocus, is made up of the prefix re- , back, and pro, forward.  These meanings imply a back and forth movement.  The term, reciproque, similarly means "the natural return, the like, and the reciprocal". Reciprocity is a state or a relationship in which there is mutual action, influence, giving and taking, correspondence between two parties.

To reciprocate is to return good in proportion to the good one has received or to retaliate proportionately for harms. The central philosophical issues surrounding reciprocity are whether reciprocity is a fundamental moral principle or a subsidiary one. How we are to measure fittingness and proportionality and whether the norm of reciprocity requires that we reciprocate for all the good we receive or only for the one's we invite.

The Hegel Dictionary defines reciprocity in relation to causality. Hegel's main argument is that cause and effect are inseparable. More specifically, "causality being the relation of action and reaction, or, more explicitly, of reciprocity, in which two or more substances interact in such a way that the states of the one are both the cause and effect of the states of the other"    This frame of thought can get a little confusing but by examining Kantian philosophy it can be explained further more.  Kant defines reciprocity in terms of mutual action and reaction.  Furthermore, he states that, "substances perceived to co-exist in space stand in thorough going community or mutual interaction or are in thorough going reciprocity".

Gratitude, in its ordinary sense, is as much about having warm and benevolent feelings toward one's benefactors as it is about having obligations to them. Reciprocity, in its ordinary dictionary sense, is broader than that, and broader than all discussions that begin with a sense of mutuality and mutual benevolence. Reciprocity pointedly covers arm's-length dealings between egoistic or mutually disinterested people.

Moreover, norms of gratitude do not speak very directly about what feelings and obligations are appropriate toward wrongdoers, or the malicious. Reciprocity, by contrast, speaks directly to both sides of the equation – requiring responses in kind: positive for positive, negative for negative. In this, it also differs from the golden rule, which is compatible with forgiveness and "turning the other cheek" but has notorious difficulties as a basis for corrective justice, punishment, and dealing with people who have unusual motivational structures.

Finally, the idea of enforcing, or carrying out a duty of gratitude, as well as calibrating the extent one's gratitude, seems inconsistent with the warm and benevolent feelings of "being grateful." There is a similar inconsistency in the idea of enforcing a duty to love. Reciprocity, by contrast, because it does not necessarily involve having special feelings of love or benevolence, fits more comfortably into discussions of duties and obligations. Further, its requirement of an in-kind response invites us to calibrate both the quality and the quantity of the response. The norm of reciprocity thus requires that we make fitting and proportional responses to both the benefits and harms we receive – whether they come from people who have been benevolent or malicious. Working out the conceptual details of this idea presents interesting questions of its own.