A huge moral straw man

The straw man is:
Golden rule = what ever is good for me should be done to everyone.

The real deal is:
Golden rule = what ever is best for me, is good due to my unique needs, and everyone else has different needs, but, we do to others according to what they need, not what we personally want. Switching places with someone = compassion. And you must realize the person has a different will than you.

The categorical imperative is the golden rule.
A proper application and understanding of it has no contradiction or bad effect.

People don’t see the truth at first, then they project that onto morality to say one of the chief moralities is wrong.

But then the rule is not so helpful. One must be able to judge the other in a very specific way. The other person may not even know exactly what they want, this seems pretty common to people. And it primarily helps as a rule when one is being nice to another person. But when they do something you consider wrong or that you do not like, they will likely not want you to punish them, react negatively or whatever response you are likely to have. Now one can then take a step back and say

how would you want to be treated if you were acting badly to other people.

Then try to translate this into how you think they would want to be treated if they were acting badly to other people. Fine.

The problem is they probably do not think they are acting badly to other people.

The rule is more properly relayed in its negative;
“Don’t do unto others what you wouldn’t want them to do to you.”

The rule is all about an ideal world willed in place of a anti-ideal world. When necessary, the ideal world is enforced.

Error in application means bad is forced and considered good.
However, if we are neutral, the aggressive forces of nature will win out over the passive.
Morality is all about action and activity. Well maybe not all about it. But some.

Canadian liberalists want a world where we can do what ever we want so long as it does not harm others or offend them greatly.
This is like the opposite of an Islamic eutopia. An Islamic eutopia is where everyone does what they have to, by law and commandments, and punish anyone whom deviates away from the laws and customs.
Do what ever you want, vs never do what you want, unless you want to follow the laws which dictate everything.

In general, canadian liberals are more compassionate than muslim fundamentalists, as far as I can see.
I mention the liberals because they all have a highly similar ideal world in mind.

Anthony likes wheat more than rice.
Jenifer loves rice more than wheat.
They get married.
They can’t agree on what to eat each day.
Uh oh, conflicting goods.
This means morality is in the eye of the beholder and not objective.

No.

Most of the time, for someone to at least be partially right, they have to be a professional at something, or must have studied and tested with it.

People which in the modern age dispense and pick up moral ideas and values, these people are not professional philosophers, or people with an inborn skill and masterful wielding of a values-system. No. The first six sentences are meaningless dribble. It is like saying:

One chimp believes that the earth is flat,
the second chimp believes the earth is a triangle,
the third chimp sticks his hand up his ass.
Therefor, there is only a conflicting theories of physics,
which is not valid or objective anymore just because someone disagrees over it.

Dan~s criticism of a simplistic Golden Rule works if you live in a society of strangers that have no idea what to expect from each other. Maybe offering my Mom’s famous Swedish meatballs is generosity, maybe it’s a hideous insult. I just don’t know because hooray for diversity.
One of the best criticisms in turn of living in this kind of ‘society’ we are creating is that, of course, it’s nice to actually know how to treat each other, and to have others know how we want to be treated.

I was trying to explain in the first post, that the golden rule is valid. I tried to reword it like a lawyer. Lawyers have to talk different because people twist their words.

I know. What I’m saying is, the whole ‘take time to learn what’s actually good for the other person’ step is basically reflexive and takes no effort at all if you live in a shared, coherent culture. The more fragmented this becomes, the more work it becomes. The “If it’s good for me, it must be good for you” understanding of the law actually work(ed) just fine through most of our history. But now my next door neighbor may as well be a Martian.

relief

Agree. I think this is how Confucius stated the “Golden Rule”.

Agreed. But even here it is lacking precision.

Well hell, it was a “rule” not a law.

If you you want it precise, state it like this;
"Clarify, Verify, Instill, and Reinforce the Perception of Hopes and Threats unto Anentropic Harmony"

…a bit of a mouthful, but precision tends to require that.

Precision in morality is made on a case by case basis.
Only dead hollow ideologies are existent as codes of laws.
Living morality requires insight and creative thought.
Allot of people want dogmatism since that is all they can handle.

Most people would not want to be punished for their wrongdoings or even be reminded of them or and certainly not be distrusted.
IOW the lack of precision is not just an occasional problem, it is endemic.

For some reason, this reminds me of the all-seeing God-figure. According to that, perfect justice is inevitable. It’s comforting to think that everything will be corrected during the future. Atheists feel differently; they don’t fear ‘God’, or trust ‘God’; it takes away all positive and negative effects of common theism. If you fully believe in a God-figure, you’ll probably feel that you cannot escape from judgement. This can be a good and a bad thing. Excessive guilt, or increased personal responsibility.

Who cares about precision and perfection of things?