Or what about the Platinum Rule: treat others how they want to be treated. Simple.

The rule is taken with a grain of salt, it assumes everyone doesn't want to be hurt in anyway and deserves basic human rights.

I have criticized it's syntax before but realized it's just a matter of conveying a simple message, because lets face it if you want to be hurt and don't want your rights then you're not really human but something a bit distorted and IMO deserve to be cast out of the gene pool.

treat others how they want to be treated. Simple. — darthbarracuda

What about if they lie about it? Women tend to do that a lot. "whats wrong?" -> "nothing"

Or what about the Platinum Rule: treat others how they want to be treated. Simple. — darthbarracuda

What if they want to be treated unfairly well compared with any other?

There isn't any need for revisions to the Golden Rule which, if I remember correctly, was the summation of Jewish law. The various laws applied to various situations, of course. Laws governing the treatment of animals didn't address what to do in cases of adultery, for instance.

No one has had difficulty understanding the Golden Rule for the last 2000 years, though lots of people have had difficulty following it.

What if they want to be treated unfairly well compared with any other? — Babbeus

In that case they have a diagnosable mental illness. Crazy wishes are best suppressed with a little Thorazine.

What if they want to be treated unfairly well compared with any other?
— Babbeus

In that case they have a diagnosable mental illness. Crazy wishes are best suppressed with a little Thorazine. — Bitter Crank

It's not so easy, you would need a neutral and objective judge that can establish without a doubt what is fair and what is not.

Do what I want you to, I'll do what I want to you". — SuperAJ96

You realize that both sides of this are framed in terms of someone acting upon someone else doing what they want, so that it ignores what the other person wants, right? --As stated it sounds rather like an amusingly Machiavellian song lyric.

Maybe you meant to write something like, "Do what I want to me, and I'll do what you want to you."

Still, though, what if people are uncomfortable doing what someone else wants? You'd have to specify that someone isn't obligated to do what someone else wants.

And what if what someone else wants is something most others see as morally wrong? Then you still have the same problem you were trying to avoid--at least as you had stated the problem. For example, maybe what Joe wants is for Bob to kill him by shooting him in the head. Even if Bob is comfortable with that, a lot of other people will still feel that that is morally wrong, so you'd not be creating a scenario wherein no one morally objects to something permissible by your formulation.

It's not so easy, you would need a neutral and objective judge that can establish without a doubt what is fair and what is not. — Babbeus

Baloney. Interpreting the golden rule is well within your operational capability. No one is 100% unbiased and this case does not require a verdict beyond a doubt. The meaning of the golden rule is obvious; you know that; there is nothing significant to debate about it.

There are nuggets that everyone accepts that might be more worthwhile for you to investigate, like "The unexamined life is not worth living." which Socrates is alleged to have said at his trial, according to Plato. Really?

Is ""To thine own self be true." ALWAYS good advice? It comes from WS, spoken by Polonius in Hamlet. Maybe there are times when "thine own self" ought to be taken to be taken in for questioning by the Ethics Department.

Never tell a lie? Obey your superiors? My country right or wrong? There is a long list of moral rules that deserve your attention. Get to it.

"Do what I want you to, I'll do what I want to you". It even rhymes. I believe this describes any preference one may have when it comes to how people treat with and wish to be treated by others. This saying simply means this; regardless how it may seem, at their core, one can only use their own feelings about treatment to determine what treatment they deserve and what other people deserve. The feelings of someone else matters to someone and influences how they behave only if those feelings personally matter to them. 100% percent of the time. I feel that this way of thinking about it can describe all motivations relating to treatment preferences. I also feel that this clears up exactly why the golden rule has the problems it has, because it does not account for this, assuming it's true."

Let me make sure I understand what you wrote. Perhaps by rephrasing your ""Do what I want you to" as I'll behave in the manner I expect you to behave and "I'll do what I want to you" I'll act in a way I would want to be treated.

I will act towards you as if I were acting towards myself, and how I treat you is how I would expect to be treated. And, I guess your question is how could I ever know that the way I act is equivalent to the way you act or the way you want me to act or the way I ought to act?

[aside:
I liked

Maybe you meant to write something like, "Do what I want to me, and I'll do what you want to you."

Very naughty >:) ]

Interpreting the golden rule is well within your operational capability. No one is 100% unbiased and this case does not require a verdict beyond a doubt. The meaning of the golden rule is obvious; you know that; there is nothing significant to debate about it. — Bitter Crank

We were not discussing the golden rule, we were discussing

the Platinum Rule: treat others how they want to be treated.

We were not discussing the golden rule, we were discussing
the Platinum Rule: treat others how they want to be treated. — Babbeus

Interpreting the gold, platinum, paladium, or plutonium rule is well within your operational capability.

"Rules" such as the so-called "platinum rule" are general, over-arching ideals. Specifics have to be worked out between individuals. You might not want to be gang-banged, but perhaps somebody else does. Should you contribute your services for the satisfaction of this person?

You have your own rules which might or might not allow you to do what somebody else wants. The person whose wishes are different than yours can be questioned about specifics, and a negotiated agreement reached.

Samuel Steward, a literature professor in Chicago, desired to be beaten up and raped by hired assailants. He was an intelligent, sophisticated man, of sound mind, and very "specialized tastes". He found men who were willing to accommodate him, and gave him real beatings -- no punches pulled. Had he asked me, I would have rejected his request to be beaten up. On a few occasions I have come across guys who wanted something extreme. No. Wouldn't do it.

"Treat others how they want to be treated" is a less reliable over-arching principle than the golden rule because it doesn't require a person to test an action against one's own (much better known and understood) feelings.

In that case they have a diagnosable mental illness. Crazy wishes are best suppressed with a little Thorazine. — Bitter Crank

Who gets to decide whose wishes are crazy?

Who gets to decide whose wishes are crazy? — darthbarracuda

To be technical about it, admitting physicians get to decide whose wishes are very crazy. Ordinary craziness won't earn one a bed on the ward, but it might get one an Rx for some anti-psychotic pills or tranquilizers. In an unofficial capacity, we all get to decide who is crazy. Most of the people we interact with on a typical day are not mentally ill (excepting people who work with mentally ill patients). Of those who are, there is a range from slightly-to-very mentally ill. People who are fairly to very mentally ill are readily detectible. No one is under any obligation to serve up what a mentally ill person asks for if we think it contrary to their well-being. Why not?

Not, because the details of this alleged "platinum rule" have been worked out by law makers, and harming other people, when they are mentally ill and want us to harm them, has been ruled "unacceptable and illegal.

I'm not sure how someone who engaged in consensual S&M as a top (M=master, top, sadist) would fare in court if an S (S=slave, bottom) accused them of assault. I'm not sure how the S would fare in a psychiatric hospital admissions interview either. Samuel Steward (mentioned above) was hospitalized several times after receiving the requested beating. Which, apparently, Steward considered highly satisfactory. He merited the judgement of "sound mind" but maybe he was a bit unhinged as far as his sexual satisfaction was concerned.

"Treat others how they want to be treated" is a less reliable over-arching principle than the golden rule because it doesn't require a person to test an action against one's own (much better known and understood) feelings. — Bitter Crank

Or what about the Platinum Rule: treat others how they want to be treated. Simple. — darthbarracuda

I feel that morally people don't always feel the need to treat someone the way they want to be treated, especially if people feel that one has done something immoral, and my goal was to create single idea that could simultaneously account for all of these things.

I have criticized it's syntax before but realized it's just a matter of conveying a simple message, because lets face it if you want to be hurt and don't want your rights then you're not really human but something a bit distorted and IMO deserve to be cast out of the gene pool. — intrapersona

I am unaware of any definitive way to classify humans into human humans and non-human humans, and I'd like to avoid subjectivity with this idea as much as possible. Humans are, as far as I understand, the common name for individuals of the species h. sapiens, so that is how I'll use the word here and how I'll assume, for the sake of this discussion, other people mean by it when they reply to my idea. My goal with the saying I made was to describe how all humans behave regarding treatment, not any particular majority of them.

There isn't any need for revisions to the Golden Rule which, if I remember correctly, was the summation of Jewish law. The various laws applied to various situations, of course. Laws governing the treatment of animals didn't address what to do in cases of adultery, for instance.

No one has had difficulty understanding the Golden Rule for the last 2000 years, though lots of people have had difficulty following it. — Bitter Crank

I wasn't quite disputing the golden rule's ability to be understood, it was more about whether it succeeds in being applicable to humans given the reasons the we may behave the way we do.

Is ""To thine own self be true." ALWAYS good advice? It comes from WS, spoken by Polonius in Hamlet. Maybe there are times when "thine own self" ought to be taken to be taken in for questioning by the Ethics Department. — Bitter Crank

Do you believe it is possible to ever be true to someone else?

I have no way of using logic to either agree or disagree with whether one "ought" to be taken in for questioning by the Ethics Department, so I suppose I'll leave it at that.

"Rules" such as the so-called "platinum rule" are general, over-arching ideals. Specifics have to be worked out between individuals. You might not want to be gang-banged, but perhaps somebody else does. Should you contribute your services for the satisfaction of this person? — Bitter Crank

When you said "should" there, what did you mean exactly?

You have your own rules which might or might not allow you to do what somebody else wants. The person whose wishes are different than yours can be questioned about specifics, and a negotiated agreement reached. — Bitter Crank

This is actually an idea similar to what I said in my opener, as far as it relates to your decision in how to treat someone else is an entirely personal one. An agreement can be reached when the parties involved mutually feel that it what they personally want to do. Is that something we are in agreement on?

In an unofficial capacity, we all get to decide who is crazy. Most of the people we interact with on a typical day are not mentally ill (excepting people who work with mentally ill patients). Of those who are, there is a range from slightly-to-very mentally ill. People who are fairly to very mentally ill are readily detectible. No one is under any obligation to serve up what a mentally ill person asks for if we think it contrary to their well-being. Why not? — Bitter Crank

What do you believe it means it be mentally ill? Do you you believe someone can be objectively mentally ill, or is it more of a relative thing?

You realize that both sides of this are framed in terms of someone acting upon someone else doing what they want, so that it ignores what the other person wants, right? --As stated it sounds rather like an amusingly Machiavellian song lyric.

Maybe you meant to write something like, "Do what I want to me, and I'll do what you want to you." — Terrapin Station

Yes I may have a little sloppy with my phrasing there. I really wanted it to rhyme. The alternative you put forward isn't quite what I meant either though. The main idea is that one's own feelings of how they want to be treated and how they want to treat others is an entirely personal thing at its core, although the personal feelings of humans tend to interact with the expressions of feelings of other humans they observe. Both sides of my saying refer to a single subject because it is only the feelings of that one subject that has any real bearing on the decisions they would make regarding to treatment.

Let me make sure I understand what you wrote. Perhaps by rephrasing your ""Do what I want you to" as I'll behave in the manner I expect you to behave and "I'll do what I want to you" I'll act in a way I would want to be treated.

I will act towards you as if I were acting towards myself, and how I treat you is how I would expect to be treated. And, I guess your question is how could I ever know that the way I act is equivalent to the way you act or the way you want me to act or the way I ought to act? — Cavacava

Not quite. It's more the idea that the individual's feelings about both how they want to be treated and how they want to treat with begins and ends within themselves. It doesn't really deal with oughts at all, its more of a way to think about how people may come to decisions when it comes to treatment that in turn may make the golden rule inapplicable to how people actually feel about treatments if true.

I wasn't quite disputing the golden rule's ability to be understood, it was more about whether it succeeds in being applicable to humans given the reasons the we may behave the way we do. — SuperAJ96

I am afraid that "given the reasons the we may behave the way we do" doesn't help much, because our reasons for behaving in any particular way may vary from person to person, time to time, context to context. Sometimes we have to assume that moral agents decide to obey the golden rule (or any other commandment or rule) because they recognize it as a legitimate, even categorical, imperative. It's possible that a moral agent will help somebody change fix a flat tire because they plan on stealing the car as soon as the tire is fixed to use as a get-away car after robbing a bank. There are numerous motives that one could imagine, but it is more sensible to assume that someone feels sympathy for the driver with the flat tire, and wants to help. Sure, it could be that fixing the tire was meant as a mating ritual, but reasoning like that takes us deep into the weeds.

I have no way of using logic to either agree or disagree with whether one "ought" to be taken in for questioning by the Ethics Department, so I suppose I'll leave it at that. — SuperAJ96

Fine by me. An ethicist will be by in 5 minutes to arrest you and drag you into the Ethics Department building for questioning. It will all be very ethical, rest assured.

Do you believe it is possible to ever be true to someone else?

No one can be truer to someone else than they can be "true unto their own self". Our own selves are the only selves we can know really, really well.
— SuperAJ96

When you said "should" there, what did you mean exactly? — SuperAJ96

"should" was inverted (normally write, "you should go" rather than "should you go") to emphasize the question of what you should or ought to do in the situation (of someone wanting to be gang banged).

This is actually an idea similar to what I said in my opener, as far as it relates to your decision in how to treat someone else is an entirely personal one. An agreement can be reached when the parties involved mutually feel that it what they personally want to do. Is that something we are in agreement on? — SuperAJ96

That would seem to be more for the "Platinum Rule" where two people have to get down to brass tacks as far as what one thinks the other one really wants. "Oh, you want me to beat you up first. I see. Well, how beaten up do you want to be? A black eye? broken teeth? A skull fracture? Or just soft tissue bruises? How thorough a gang banging do you want after the beating? Do you need to have an orgasm? And, how much are you paying each of us, again? OK, so we have a deal." POW, THUD, SMACK, etc.

If I see you being harassed in public by a group of thugs, and you are getting the worst of it, the Golden Rule asks me "If you were in that situation, what would you want somebody to do for you?) I would want effective help as quickly as possible. I don't have to speculate long about what you might want. If you are bleeding, I will bind up your wounds, even though you were trying to commit suicide. That's what I would want. "Next time, attempt suicide in private, please."

What do you believe it means it be mentally ill? Do you you believe someone can be objectively mentally ill, or is it more of a relative thing? — SuperAJ96

Yes, somebody can be objectively mentally ill. There are diagnostic criteria to separate out the actually insane from the merely confused and unhappy. Unhappy, depressed, angry, confused people don't have visual hallucinations, as a rule. They don't generally have auditory hallucinations, either They don't scream inarticulately for hours. Their blood pressure, heart rate, and so on doesn't fluctuate wildly. They do not experience terror. (I'm describing someone having a manic attack.) Merely unhappy people haven't been awake for 72 hours. Give a small dose of Thorazine to an unhappy person and they will fall asleep right away for several hours. Give a small dose of Thorazine to someone in mania and it won't have any effect at all. A very large dose of Thorazine and chloral hydrate might not have much effect. In which case, it's into the seclusion room, aka, a padded cell, until a drug combination can be found to take the edge of mania.

If someone is able, they can take the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory which will indicate whether the person has one of a dozen diagnosable mental illnesses, like OCD, bi-polar disease, deep depression, schizophrenia, and so on.

I suspect that the estimate of how many people are technically mentally ill is exaggerated. Too many people who are merely unhappy, dissatisfied, disappointed, fucked over, lonely, sad, harassed, and so forth are diagnosed as ill. They're not crazy, they just need a new life.

The main idea is that one's own feelings of how they want to be treated and how they want to treat others is an entirely personal thing at its core, — SuperAJ96

Right, so given that, how would we avoid a formulation at all resembling the "golden rule" where it wouldn't be consistent with people behaving in ways that some folks would morally object to? (SInce that condition is, by your admission, what you're trying to avoid.)

I am afraid that "given the reasons the we may behave the way we do" doesn't help much, because our reasons for behaving in any particular way may vary from person to person, time to time, context to context. Sometimes we have to assume that moral agents decide to obey the golden rule (or any other commandment or rule) because they recognize it as a legitimate, even categorical, imperative. — Bitter Crank

"Given the reasons we may behave the way we do" could be rephrased "Given the way we behave if the idea I put forward is correct" as far as what I meant there. I am not sure there was any misunderstanding, but just to be sure. The point you put forward doesn't exactly dispute my point though. "Our reasons for behaving in any particular way may vary from person to person, time to time, context to context." True, but ultimately those decisions made by any person, at any time, or at any place is based entirely on their personal feelings at the time of making it is the main point of the idea I put forward.

Fine by me. An ethicist will be by in 5 minutes to arrest you and drag you into the Ethics Department building for questioning. It will all be very ethical, rest assured. — Bitter Crank

Lol, fair enough.

"should" was inverted (normally write, "you should go" rather than "should you go") to emphasize the question of what you should or ought to do in the situation (of someone wanting to be gang banged). — Bitter Crank

Do you consider yourself a moral realist or otherwise? It would give insight into what exactly you believe a should or an ought is.

Yes, somebody can be objectively mentally ill. There are diagnostic criteria to separate out the actually insane from the merely confused and unhappy. Unhappy, depressed, angry, confused people don't have visual hallucinations, as a rule. They don't generally have auditory hallucinations, either They don't scream inarticulately for hours... — Bitter Crank

Hmm... I feel that you didn't directly explain how the idea of mental illness is or is not a relative thing, but I think I understand what you're getting at. You're saying that mental illness refers to abnormal mental states that causes some kind of issue?

Right, so given that, how would we avoid a formulation at all resembling the "golden rule" where it wouldn't be consistent with people behaving in ways that some folks would morally object to? (SInce that condition is, by your admission, what you're trying to avoid.) — Terrapin Station

Um, so is what you're asking is if there is a formulation that doesn't resemble the golden rule that is consistent with people behaving in ways that some people morally object to? If that is what you're asking then does that formulation have to be in the form of a rule? Because if not, that's what the "Do what I want you to" thing was supposed to be.

Um, so is what you're asking is if there is a formulation that doesn't resemble the golden rule that is consistent with people behaving in ways that some people morally object to? If that is what you're asking then does that formulation have to be in the form of a rule? Because if not, that's what the "Do what I want you to" thing was supposed to be. — SuperAJ96

Right, but folks, including me, brought up problems with your formulation per your stated goals. So unless you have objections to those objections, it needs modification, no?

Right, but folks, including me, brought up problems with your formulation per your stated goals. So unless you have objections to those objections, it needs modification, no? — Terrapin Station

I thought we were still in the process of discussion those objections. For example, to your

And what if what someone else wants is something most others see as morally wrong? Then you still have the same problem you were trying to avoid--at least as you had stated the problem. For example, maybe what Joe wants is for Bob to kill him by shooting him in the head. Even if Bob is comfortable with that, a lot of other people will still feel that that is morally wrong, so you'd not be creating a scenario wherein no one morally objects to something permissible by your formulation. — Terrapin Station

I'd say that doesn't exactly dispute my idea, actually there seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding that I suppose I should have addressed directly earlier. My saying does not really make any direct predictions as to how any person's specific moral feelings in relation to any action may be, only that, whatever feelings they do have is necessarily personal, and I feel that the golden rule does not properly account for exactly how personal one's feelings is when it comes it beliefs about treatment.

I'd say that doesn't exactly dispute my idea, actually there seems to be a bit of a misunderstanding that I suppose I should have addressed directly earlier. My saying does not really make any direct predictions as to how any person's specific moral feelings in relation to any action may be, only that, whatever feelings they do have is necessarily personal, and I feel that the golden rule does not properly account for exactly how personal one's feelings is when it comes it beliefs about treatment. — SuperAJ96

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" seems like it's about personal feelings. What else is "as you would have" if not personal?

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" seems like it's about personal feelings. What else is "as you would have" if not personal? — Terrapin Station

It is personal yes, but it is not enough. Whether or not someone realistically does something to someone else that they would have done to themselves is too personal for the golden rule to describe how it usually goes. For example, a fight generally involves doing something to someone else that you wouldn't want to be done to you, but the reason the fight started could have been an action by the other party that in no way violated the golden rule, in which the fighter would be the only violater of the golden rule. Depending on what exactly the initial action was though, the people around may feel that the fighter was justified, based on their personal feelings. At the end of the day, as people tend to be concerned, as far as I can tell, its not about how you want to be treated or how you want to treat me, you treat me how I want to be treated, I'll treat you how I feel you should be treated, and also I suppose I should add you treat with others how I feel you should treat them. It's all personal, assuming I'm correct about that.

Whether or not someone realistically does something to someone else that they would have done to themselves is too personal for the golden rule to describe how it usually goes. — SuperAJ96

The golden rule is prescriptive, not descriptive.

you treat me how I want to be treated, I'll treat you how I feel you should be treated,

Where would how I want to be treated come into the picture? I'm supposed to treat you how you want to be treated, and then you get to treat me how YOU feel I should be treated. It's like I get no say.

Where would how I want to be treated come into the picture? I'm supposed to treat you how you want to be treated, and then you get to treat me how YOU feel I should be treated. It's like I get no say. — Terrapin Station

Well you would feel the same way if I'm correct. If what I'm saying true, it almost seems like humans wouldn't be able to stand being around each other, yet we're social. I believe that is because we tend to be quite similar, we are all almost genetically identical after all, being the same species, so the way we personally feel about such things would tend to line up. Not to mention, developmentally much of our personal feelings are shaped by environment and the people around us, personal experiences and so on. The idea is not meant to be open and shut in and of itself, it is more of a ground floor that can then be logically built upon, if its true.

I often have different (interpersonal) behavioral preferences than others (and not just that, I often have different preferences in all sorts of things), and in my experience, a lot of people have unique (interpersonal) behavior preferences. Not everyone wants to be treated the same way. Not everyone wants to treat others the same way. If I were just going by how I want people to treat me and how I feel I should treat others, I'd often be frustrated (by people not treating me how I want to be treated) and others would often be uncomfortable (by me treating them how I feel they should be treated). I have to realize that not everyone is the same and I have to take others' feelings into consideration when I'm interacting with them. And that's more in line with the golden rule--I'd like others to take my feelings into consideration when they're interacting with me, and sometimes if they do not, I'm going to get pretty irritated. I treat them (via considering their preferences, including being able to pick up on behavioral cues for that) how I'd like them to treat me.