The Golden Rule versus the Platinum Rule

[Moridin]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding in what the golden rule states

It doesn't state it, but it follows from its usage.

 

[JonF]

not true, consequentialism isn't always egotism

 

[Xori]

I think both rules are bogus.

Golden Rule:
If you treat others as you wish to be treated, you might do something that they don't wish. Not everyone wishes to be treated the same way, and the absolutist thinking that everyone wishes to be treated as you do is arrogant.

Platinum Rule:
Leave everything better. Whose definition of better? What's "better" to you might not be "better" for others. Again, absolutist thinking.


So I propose a new rule:

Antimatter Rule: Do unto others as they would wish done unto them, and leave things the way those who will inherit them would want them.

 

[lawtonfogle]

To Xori:

If you were to treat others how you wanted to be treated, and you wanted to be treated how you wanted to be treated, then would you not treat them how they wanted to be treated given that such treatment does not violate how everyone else wants to be treated, which covers if A wants you to kill B and B doesn't want to be killed.

To the overall conversation:
The Platinum Rule has a single hole in it, and that is that it does not support self preservation. Now given a world where everyone is following it, it should apply fine. But given a world where there are some who do not follow it, the lack of self preservation can lead to self destruction. It is the simple example of the Suckers/Grudgers/Cheaters.