The golden rule is not treat others how they treated you — nor is it do something to get something back. Wrong connotation of reciprocity. The golden rule acknowledges unique selfhood even if the acknowledgment is not mutual.
It’s treat all selves the way they/you would want to be treated if everyone was also treating everyone the way everyone would want to be treated, all things considered.
And when you are judging whether or not they are doing that, the other edge is, you will be likewise judged. In other words: no double standards.
This is true to form as Anselm/Descartes would have it. But it’s critical doubt reuses out of the debated firm of pre firmance, and that critique has caused all subsequent tests on the contrary, necessating the above doublly test, mentioned in the other venue, namely : “are you testing me?”
No this title of back and forth is a pseudo strawman? While being correctly circular.
This type of circularity is prevy to the indiscernible rise, that Leibnitz configured with prefigured calculus, and again needs literal simulation to reassert faith in.
The conditional is like one that does appear to violate a principal, how they would like to be treated as , is a synthetic puzzle, assembled from an interjection, that is a revised method of viewing a projection, a fallacy, naturalistically driven, of man’s lack of the pointillistic assemblage he should have had his spirit so painted.
Hate to start sounding like Ec, and I really see no problem with it, except it critically reflects the problem with how synthetic is synthesis?
Is it a logical modus operant? Or one essentially one where the logic dissolves into epiphenominal pointillism?
So, the color of such unity (dis)resolves into an either or black or white moralistic argument that ethical theory would or could view with prejudicial point of view.?
An alternative to the golden rule is the platinum rule, which we adopted in nursing and states that you should treat others how they want to be treated.
Good is defined as a self recognizing the other as another self, and so negating double standards.
Each self aligning all imaginations with the good will solve all the problems you have with imagination.
Once in alignment with the good, there is no limit to the imagination. Against such things there is no law (made for errant persons, not persons for law).
The Good (self=other) is the only unmade law. Any law out of alignment with it is no law at all.
How can there be another self if self=other? Wouldn’t it all just be one self? One’s self? … very simply noted … obvious … contradiction
I replied:
God is the omnitemporal/transtemporal union of three selves. The only true panentheism.
The rest of us are three (in his image), but there is an imbalance that breaks the unity, which can only be balanced/restored by willfully resuming the original position (formal/final cause). One Being (in three persons), many beings (in Being’s image). That’s not something we do, it’s just an invitation we accept.
There are no natural born citizens of the kingdom. Only invited citizens who accept. God is not a dictator, but he doesn’t need your vote.
In a different thread, I said this in different words:
Two ways to upset the balance of consent respect/recognition and treat or be treated like some special/other kind of special/other:
above and beyond everybody else’s specialness/otherness
below and beneath everybody else’s specialness/otherness