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... — Terrapin Station

Now that being the case, would you not say that the way you ultimately decide that you wish to treat and be treated is entirely based on the interplay between your various personal feelings and beliefs? If the way you personally felt about how much you wanted to acknowledge the feelings of others were any different, it would surely show in the way you treat with others. It is important to you that you acknowledge the feelings of others and that others acknowledge your feelings when dealing with them. Those feelings of importance are still entirely personal at their core, I believe. Though, of course, others may entirely personally feel the same way.

Yeah, I'm not arguing that anything about ethics, preferences, etc. is anything but subjective--I'm the last person who'd argue that, as anyone familiar with my views can attest to, as I'm kind of a broken record about it at times.

We are in agreement on that view. So all in all what would you say? Do you agree, disagree, agree with certain points but not with others, still unsure?

Do you agree, disagree, agree with certain points but not with others, still unsure? — SuperAJ96

I'm not sure what you're asking about there.

As far as the original point I made goes.

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

Perhaps the best interpretation of the golden and platinum rules makes them identical at bottom.

I believe that Polos wants what is good for him and wants to avoid what is harmful and not good for him. I believe that Polos believes that it's harmful and not good for him to be punished for wrongdoing. Therefore, I believe that Polos wants to avoid being punished for wrongdoing.

However, I believe Polos's belief that it's harmful and not good for him to be punished for wrongdoing is false.

Therefore, on the basis of what I believe about Polos and his beliefs, it seems there's a contradiction in his beliefs about how he wants to be treated: For he wants both to be punished (since he wants what is good for him, and I believe it's good for him to be punished) and to avoid punishment (since he believes being punished is harmful and not good for him, and he wants to avoid what is harmful and not good).

You can generate contradictions like this by following either the golden rule or the platinum rule. Neither formula resolves such problems, each formula leaves us with a similar problem of interpretation and application in particular cases like this one.

That's as it should be. To apply either rule adequately, the agent must compare his view of his own beliefs and preferences with his view of the beliefs and preferences of the other sentient beings involved in each particular case. The maxims in question exhort us to make this comparison sincerely and in good faith. They don't give us algorithms by which to achieve a definite solution in each case.

Therefore, on the basis of what I believe about Polos and his beliefs, it seems there's a contradiction in his beliefs about how he wants to be treated: For he wants both to be punished (since he wants what is good for him, and I believe it's good for him to be punished) and to avoid punishment (since he believes being punished is harmful and not good for him, and he wants to avoid what is harmful and not good). — Cabbage Farmer

Well sure, this is exactly why someone like Julio Cabrera or similar "negative" thinkers have brought up the "affirmativity" issue: most ethics are "affirmative" in that they focus on the "how" more than the "can"; i.e. "How do I live ethically (deontology)? How do I (ethically) live happily (consequentialism)? How do I live the good life (virtue ethics)?" instead of asking a more fundamental question: "Can I live ethically, can I (ethically) live happily, can I live the good life?"

Affirmative ethical theories rest upon the rough assumption that life and ethics are compatible and will not ever contradict each other. One of the best examples of this in action are forms of (American) pragmatist ethics, for example John Dewey's belief that what is ethical is what helps us survive. Apparently, survival itself is taken for granted. It's assumed that life as a whole is something to be cultivated and mass-produced. As such affirmative ethical theories are expansionist and imperialistic.

Now, Cabrera inserts into the equation what he calls the "Fundamental Ethical Articulation", or the principle that is basically wholly endorsed by all (legitimate) ethical theories (fuck you Ayn Rand): the non-harm and non-manipulation of others. As such, Cabrera finds that life itself forces the violation of the FEA. To exist is to limit, constrain, and be imperfect; yet at the same time expand, dominate, and attempt to self-perfectionize. To exist as an entity is to fundamentally come into friction with other entities, as all entities themselves are at least in part composed of their relations to other entities, for better or for worse.

If we take the golden rule or the platinum rule into account, then, it's clear that it cannot always be used perfectly. Like you mentioned, what a guilty person wants is different from what other people want/expect/deserve. There is a conflict of interests here (why should we have to compromise in an ethical schema?). But anyway, life has to go on for some reason or another and so we have to make a decision, and this decision has to be formulated based upon a second-order ethics. If we're consequentialists, like I am, we'll try to balance and compare the various goods and bads that would result in a decision; in the case of the golden/platinum rule, we would see how much violating one person's liberty would spare the violations of other people's liberties (to be crude and simplistic).

But further still, we could adopt a two-order utilitarianism, in which everyday decisions and whatnot follow general guidelines like the golden/platinum rule or what have you, and serious ethical theorizing would happen only in rarer scenarios of higher stakes. Thus the golden/platinum rule is not supposed to be universal principles but rather heuristics for everyday ethical living in a situation that is already set-up for moral disqualification.

The mistake you are making right from the start is in thinking that trite platitudes (and narrow maxims and obsolete adages and terrible tenets) are worthy of the status of 'life-guiding philosophy', when they are not (being too weak - because they do not ask or answer the hard questions about themselves, beginning with the Greatest of the Great Questions of Life, that of "Why Bother?" (which, you must admit, must be answered before you even begin to address the lesser Great Questions of Life). What you should be seeking is mankind's first Objective Value (or 'universally-accepted value' or 'ultimate value' or 'core value') - and I say 'first' because one has never been identified (I've given the world three, but who listens to me?). From there, you will have an associated Objective Goal (i.e. to secure the Objective Value), and now having a goal, you will be able to distinguish good from evil (their being goal-driven), and, having that clear ability (for the first time in human history, not being obscured in a haze of subjectivity), you will have a solid foundation for building worthwhile individual lives and relevant civilizations (again, for the first time in human history - with a clue).

Do what you can get away with

Does the GR allow for actions that nobody would ever want done to them but are necessary for some greater good?

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

And the world becomes one, not funny.
But of course, I have my own take on this: 'Do unto others as you would do unto you.' Remark how 'them' are no longer a part of the process. Fine, I know it sounds bad, basically Kant, but in my defence I though it before him as in before he existed, for me. That's the enlightenment spirit, after all.