My understanding of ethic

This is the rhetorical question, rule which I follow,

‘If you do it onto others, why can’t others do it onto you’.

I will challenge this.

You ask: “If you do it onto others, why can’t others do it onto you.”

First of all, the correct terminology and use of punctuations would change this ‘question,’ as you call it, into: “Why can’t others do unto you what you do unto them?”

I am not here to debate that you “can’t” do this, but I will debate against its result. Your sense of free will allows you to put this into action, but also to ignore the consequences of it brings about. Quite frankly, by desiring others do unto you what you do to them, you are desiring that they give up whatever previous ethical beliefs they had set upon to live their life by. Anotherwords, you’re asking them to ignore how they go about treating other people and instead, treat you as you treat them.

Your rhetorical question is based on the pretense that people will willingly do what you want, hence, treating you like you treat them. What if they don’t want to? What if you walk by and say ‘hi’ to someone and instead of they choosing to say ‘hi’ back, they beat the hell out of you? That was their choice. Of course, they “can” choose to say ‘hi’ back, but in this case, they probably didn’t like you.

Mainly what you are considering has already been discussed as “The Platinum Rule,” which Dunamis wonderfully commented on in this thread:
ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/vi … tinum+rule

Also, it seems like what you’re asking is: “Why can’t people follow The Golden Rule?” A likely answer to this is that The Golden Rule sets up an endless cycle that I explained in the given thread. It’s obvious people don’t want to do something if it makes them feel uncomfortable, and in this case, it may go against their wishes on how they desire to treat people.

Platinum Rule: “Do unto others as they would do unto themselves.”

but why ought I “Do unto others as they would do unto themselves.” this rule basically says I ought to sucumb to other’s will. if others want me to do this, I must do it.

‘they would do unto themselves’ means other’s will

becomes

do onto others according to their will

meaning

being another’s servant

why ought I be the servant of a tyrant. the purpose of this rules is to solve the problem of not personal sadisism as missed in the golden rule.

My rules is completely and utterly different and superior in every respect. it calls others into questioning their action. your intepretation missed the mark.

e.g

if you hit me, why can’t I hit you
if you are rude to me, why can’t be rude to you

this rules removes the excuse bad people have of complaining. if you have been bad to others, why can’t others be bad to you. it removes excuse, any excuse you may have when others become nasty to you. it is a rule designed not to command, but a rule designed to promote self-intraspection of who we are.

the reason we ought to be nice to others is because if we don’t, others have not a reason to be nice to us.

I am a patriot. when I see others been nasty to me, I have not a single reason to hold back except for my faith in the church. I could easily lash out like what I did to a member of ILP.

my rule if understood would drastically increase our self-awarenss and reduce arseholism in our contemporary morally bankrupted society.

PoR, I know you didn’t read all of the Platinum thread, if you did, you would have a better understanding of the rule. In this case, you missed the point entirely, so it’s fair to say I already won the debate.

Don’t take this the wrong way, I’m simply giving you the respect you give me and everyone else.