Gold generally demands more from us by treating people fairly, beneficially, and even usefully. As some say, we need to be loving to others, even when others don`t reciprocate or mistreat us. That would be a lot to ask. But despite appearance, the Golden Rule does not require it. Nothing about love or generosity is usually mentioned, implied, let alone exploited. To love one`s neighbor as oneself or to turn the other cheek are different commandments – different from the Golden Rule and from each other. These rules are not stated or identified with golden justification in biblical or Confucian writings. Nor are they presented together, for example in parables. But this is already a consequence of the application of the rule, not a way of applying it. If it is presented as the justification for a rule, it would say, “Treat others as they wish or as they wish.” Apparently, the best way to do this is to ask them how they would like to be treated. If we can`t ask, we may not do much to them, but rather guess what they would like.
Putting yourself in their shoes here doesn`t seem like a good idea. No empathy either, contrary to predictions. A good prediction would be based on a history of what they liked in the past, perhaps from one of their friends or from their own experience with them as a friend. In his book on the Golden Rule, Jeffrey Wattles makes the similar observation that such objections usually occur when applying the Golden Rule in some general ways (i.e., ignoring differences in taste, situation, etc.). But if we apply the Golden Rule to our own method of application, and we even ask if we want other people to apply the Golden Rule in this way, the answer would generally be no, because it is quite predictable that ignoring such factors by others will lead to behavior that we oppose. It follows that we should not do it ourselves – according to the Golden Rule. In this way, the golden rule can be self-correcting.  An article by Jouni Reinikainen develops this proposal.  The Golden Rule enjoys a reputation for enduring wisdom, even if its lack of conceptual sophistication leaves philosophers cold. But its ancient origin should lead us to wonder if it is not indeed perpetual hot air, which is misleading even in terms of the framework in which moral philosophy is conducted.
Different cultures may find more commonality in a negative formulation of the Golden Rule than in a positive formulation. Why should the desire to be on the side of the addressees of a similar law make this permissible? If masochists are willing to suffer the sadism of others, would that make sadism just? More generally, can accepting to be the target of a similar action legitimize anything? Kant`s improvement of the Golden Rule, the categorical imperative: Act as you want all other people to act towards all other people. Act according to the maxim you want all other reasonable people to follow as if it were a universal law. The difference is as follows. With the Golden Rule, a masochist or sadist would have the right to cause or receive pain. This is not what would support the Kantian principle. From Don Berkich: “Some make the mistake of thinking that the first formulation of the categorical imperative is just a poorly worded version of the biblical golden rule – treat others as you want them to do to you. Nothing could be further from the truth. The Golden Rule, as Kant well knew, is a profoundly flawed ethical principle. To see this, consider the following somewhat suggestive example.
The fourth way is more of a simulation than a “path.” It is not a form of incarnation at all and therefore does not create a golden rule effect as a spontaneous offshoot. We learn to act as a master or model in some ways, but without embodying the character that is expressed or being truly self-expressive in our actions. What we call ethics as a whole – the ethics of duties, the performance of duties, respect for responsibilities and respect for rights – can be seen as this kind of partial simulation. We naturally develop moral habits, some of which are interconnected in patterns and inclinations. And we can “engage” them. But we would no longer carry with us a sense of ethical assembly instructions or recipes that sometimes had to point directly to them – if we were ethical, if we embodied ethics. We do not follow the rules and instructions when we are friends or relatives. (Those who read parenting books are looking for improvements or worry that they are not yet real parents.) Where else in our daily lives do we look at principles, rules of thumb or formulas given by a colleague as advice to continue with what we are already supposed to be able to do? When we are workers, we simply work. When we are ethical, we often stop and consult a manual. It is not a question of denying automatism or independent thinking in ethics.
The improvement of Kant`s Golden Rule, the categorical imperative: In terms of reasonable understanding of the Golden Rule, it is an exhilarating conceptual experience to see this simple rule of thumb universalized – inflated to epic proportions that encompass the entire plane of ethical virtue, reasoning, and behavior for humanity. This is the case with Kantian and utilitarian superprinciples. Increasing the complexity of the impact of the rule while maintaining its simplicity, transformed into theoretical elegance, is no small feat. Paul`s revelation that the Golden Rule is Catholic sparked similar enthusiasm in the faith. Now, to see that faith is strengthened by the highest standards of secular reasoning is confirmation. It can also be recruited as a powerful ally to fend off secular criticism. The best-known version of the Golden Rule is, “Treat others as you want them to do unto you.” Moral philosophy has hardly taken note of the Golden Rule in its own terms, despite the importance of the rule in the ethics of common sense. This article therefore addresses the rule through the rubric of building one`s philosophy or paving the way for such a construction. The approach revises the common belief rather than elaborating an abstract conception of the logic of the rule.
Working from the bottom up in this way builds on society`s experience with the rule and allows us to dispel its long-standing misinterpretations. These misunderstandings are accompanied by many criticisms of the rule. A major advantage of Singer`s perspective is that he emphasizes practice within the prescriptive nature of the rule. Most philosophical principles of ethics are explanatory and provide an ultimate basis for understanding regulations. These can also be used to justify moral reasons. But they are prescriptive only in the logical sense of distinguishing `should` from `would` or `ares`, not in the sense of the directive – making X in the way that Y. Singer`s attitude reveals the instructions for use or know-how of the Golden Rule. From this, the interpersonal role of the rule in communicating and explaining to others can be easily deduced, especially when socializing. The rule is therefore not represented, then as a motionless intellectual object notched against the wall of a curious mind. He assumes a life for the moral community that lives his life.
According to Greg M. Epstein, a humanist chaplain at Harvard University, “do it to others” is a concept that no religion completely lacks. But not a single one of these versions of the Golden Rule requires a God.  Various sources identify the Golden Rule as a humanistic principle: The most important of these is the IPSO (Independent Press Standards Organisation), which establishes a code of conduct to which journalists must adhere. Within this framework, there are certain exceptions to the prohibited conduct – it is the defence of the public interest. The public interest includes, but is not limited to, the detection or detection of serious criminal or inappropriate offences, the protection of the public from being misled by a person`s act or statement, and the protection of public health and safety (IPSO, 2019). The code can also influence and limit what journalists consider to be the greatest good, although the ambiguity of public interest advocacy means that examination of ethical theories is inevitably still necessary. For example, if a journalist takes a utilitarian approach and publishes an article that is in the public interest but violates the law, then the public interest defense is legally covering it. As the Leveson inquiry points out, “unethical practices can be made ethical simply because they are justified in the public interest in the circumstances” (UK.
Leveson, L.J. 2012). An example of this would be the covert cinematic tactics used to gather evidence that Cambridge Analytica had exploited individuals` data to bombard them with political messages and disinformation – showing the public that misuse of their data also did more harm than good, and highlighting how public interest advocacy and utilitarian ethics often go hand in hand. We should be kinder, fairer, and more respectful to others than to ourselves. In fact, ethics is about treating others well and directly. Treating each other ethically is a kind of metaphor, since only one person is involved in the exchange and the exchange can only be indirect. We are not blamed for lowering our self-esteem when we think we deserve it, but we are supposed to value others, even if they don`t. However, if the Guardian`s editors had taken an ethical approach, the documents would never have been published. Indeed, those who follow the code of ethics would never violate the rules or the law, and therefore would never publish illegally acquired or classified documents.
If the editors of the Guardian had followed the Golden Rule, it would have been unlikely that they would have come to a conclusion on this issue, because who decides if you don`t want this done to you so as not to do it to someone else? The different views and beliefs of an editorial board mean that the Golden Rule is almost impossible to achieve, as you will inevitably struggle to get a strong consensus of opinion on a topic.