As far as the original point I made goes.

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?

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.

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.

"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.

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've experienced long periods of depression — Bitter Crank

Oh. Well would you look at that, that's something we have in common, though I'm not sure if we had similar experiences severity-wise, and it looks like the exact symptoms we have may be a little different.

I'm not sure I buy this 'evolutionary psychology' theory. — Bitter Crank

I agree. I can't see how having this increases my chances to pass on my genes in any way. Do you know of any research papers on this topic?

An interesting view. I myself have clinical depression, not the very severe kind, but enough that I lived as basically a shut-in up from 2013 to last year. Now it is even less severe but I am still fairly limited motivation-wise and how much I can effectively handle doing regularly. I do not personally consider my condition to be a negative one, of course can be quite unpleasant, but I appreciate the different perspectives it was able to show me as it relates to emotion and cognition. If I could choose to start my life over again without it, I wouldn't. I do realize though that I may not feel the same way about it had it been more severe.

As it relates to suicide, my views on it are this. There is no real need to live. If one feels that they no longer want to live, I cannot see why they should not commit suicide. This is the conclusion I have come to after a mixture of attempting to understand the nature of physical existence and spending much time on the border of being suicidal myself. I recognize that the reason I believe this is probably directly related to my depression, my emotions aren't as... robust as they used to be, but I feel that it is probably not invalid regardless. I am not sure if the question of accepting depression is more of a "should you" as it is one of "can you". After feeling it myself the idea that it some people may not be able to come to terms with it is not surprising at all. I think it depends on the feelings and beliefs of the individual that experiences depression that really decide that.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.